Jump to content

PCP63

Members
  • Content count

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

279 Neutral

About PCP63

  • Rank
    Practice Squad Player
  1. I'll reiterate again why I cannot stand the WCO. The first reason is probably the best. The terminology is just way too overcomplicated for NO reason. The same call, "FB 372 Banana Split X Comeback Z Dig Roger" could instead just be "Ghost Tosser" (yes, I understand Ghost Tosser is a completely different play). The first makes players have to think about their assignment, and they're just waiting to hear what their specific assignment is. The latter makes them much more flexible to line up anywhere without changing anything, and it makes it so that they visualize CONCEPTS, not just whatever their route happens to be on that play. It also makes it much easier to make adjustments, as a simple tag here and there can replace what 6 words in a WCO system would be. The second reason is that other systems, namely Coryell, are simply based upon more sound principles. Namely, that the intermediate passing game, along with a strong power running game, is more effective than dink n' dunk football. It's based more upon triangle reads, and less upon the short passing game void of intermediate threats in the WCO. In the WCO, many of the plays are simply random routes thrown together. No plays that really attack certain coverages with tenacity, no option routes for the receivers, too many check-downs, etc. I believe that the better offense would be something like an Air Coryell system with Erhardt-Perkins terminology (think Ghost Tosser, an actual play in Charlie Weis' '03-'04 Pats playbook). It would combine effective tactics and philosophies found in the Coryell-style system, but keep the very simple and effective terminology of EP. This is doubly the case when we have Hack a QB, a QB that thrived under the exact same system. EDIT: And I should add, one aspect of the WCO that I find to be FANTASTIC is the timing of routes and the WRs' steps. With my own personal coaching, I subscribe to a system called "R4" that predicates the entire passing games based upon timing the QB's steps during a drop back to the WRs' steps of their routes.
  2. I hate when analysts use verticals as an example of a vertical stretch. It horizontally stretches C1/3, not vertically. A vertical stretch would be levels.
  3. I mean, we have young players, but these guys are still 20+. If my HS kids can understand conceptual plays, NFL guys can.
  4. This is why Erhardt-Perkins' way of calling plays is far more superior. These days, you can get just as much specificity with just a couple of words. Needless complication with that WCO sh*t. Players remember concepts fairly well. Instead of saying "X Blast 2, Megaman Johnny Ray 6, Y Split Z Banana 4", just say, "Ghost Tosser".
  5. Players knew the risks when they signed up. It's a dangerous game, and sometimes people get hurt. Hell, because of football, I'll probably barely be able to walk by the time I hit forty. Would do it all over again.
  6. Just can't wait to bump my Hack thread and call out all of the people that were anointing him a bust before he ever stepped on the field.
  7. Ridiculous list. Hindsight is 20/20. "Passing up on player 'x'"...when every other team passed on them as well.
  8. Meh, I think the struggles on 3rd and long are overstated. There's nothing normal NFL teams do on 3rd that any other offense can't do. Also, completely agree with second paragraph.
  9. The big thing with offenses like the flexbone is that people say that bigger and faster NFL players will ruin it. Not taking into consideration that those offenses are run successfully by physically INFERIOR teams, and also that, at the NFL level, the offensive players will be faster and bigger as well. Then people mention the whole QB getting hurt thing. Honestly, you don't need a stud at QB in a flexbone offense with the right coaching and scheme. I mean, the only real solution teams have found to stop great option schemes if to just hit the QB hard and hope to hurt him. First off, option Abs are taught better than most QBs to absorb hits better. But also, hitting the QB hard every play leaves wide-open cutback lanes that lead to easy TDs. One thing I love is when coaches try to scrape exchange. May work a couple of times, but when you show your hand, and the QB audibles to a wham, you leave a wide-open hole down the middle. You can also have a second player tracking the LB (look up "Coach Vint" in Google), and you can also have the OT block anything that crosses his face for guys that try to wrong-arm the wham. Just a game of who has the chalk last, but plenty of ways option teams could counter NFL defenses.
  10. I just wish one team (hopefully the Jets) can find success by bucking the trendy new QB-centric offense. I want to see a team really go off the wall and run some flexbone. Not even joking. I'd pay good money for a 5-year experiment with a coach like Paul Johnson at the helm.
  11. And I thought I was special just for telling teammates when it was a run or pass, lol. Nevermind the actual play itself.
  12. I had to defend the honor of veterans, lol...
  13. Wow, who would have thought that the kid was good all along, just needed some reps? Oh wait. I have an entire like 100 page thread where people are hating on me for supporting Hack. Hope they eat their words.
  14. Would be stupid to suggest someone who doesn't isn't a real fan. I follow them religiously, but have never been to a game before. I live far away, and don't have the money or time off work to go see games.
  15. Source of those quotes? Got it. "Anonymous".
×