Questions about the WCO, our strategy and your thoughts

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by EXoffender

I wish Zorn kept Al Saunders. We'd be a lot further along...

That wasn't going to happen. Saunders was goner no matter what. When they hired Zorn as the offensive coordinator first, the front office made a conscious decision to overhaul the offense.

I wonder if they had any thoughts that it would take "two years" for Campbell to fully comprehend it?

Come to think of it, maybe this was all a test to discover how 'football smart' Campbell is. Perhaps Cerrato wanted to find out how versatile Jason was, how adaptable he would be -- and if he doesn't pass the test, he's gone ???

Remember, Jason Campbell wasn't Cerrato's pick...

[Skinny Tee]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

That wasn't going to happen. Saunders was goner no matter what. When they hired Zorn as the offensive coordinator first, the front office made a conscious decision to overhaul the offense.

Remember, Jason Campbell wasn't Cerrato's pick...

I don't see why they try to bring in a WCO guy in Zorn and talk about overhauling the offense but tell you that they are using Gibbs running game???

That sounds really dumb because Gibbs offense was run heavy and the WCO is pass heavy. You pick one or the other but you can't have both. The thought of that is paradox. Why would leave the running game from the last regime?

We should just focus on one cohesive style and go with it. From our scheme to our personnel, we are WAY too a la carte and it shows on the field.

[rypper11]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

I don't see why they try to bring in a WCO guy in Zorn and talk about overhauling the offense but tell you that they are using Gibbs running game???

That sounds really dumb because Gibbs offense was run heavy and the WCO is pass heavy. You pick one or the other but you can't have both. The thought of that is paradox. Why would leave the running game from the last regime?

We should just focus on one cohesive style and go with it. From our scheme to our personnel, we are WAY too a la carte and it shows on the field.

You're confusing schemes and tendencies with plays and playbook. The running plays and terminology is the same as last year and they are run out of the same formations that Zorn integrated his passing plays and terminology into.
For example, an off tackle right out of a strong split I run is named the same thing this year as last. The name of the personnel group changed but not the line calls or the name of the play. Now, Zorn might never call that play (or any off tackle run) ever but that is the name of the play in the playbook.
There are plays that Bill Walsh designed thirty years ago run by the Eagles, Skins, Packers, Seahawks and Bucs. But each team names it different and sometimes the name of one play in Tampa is very similar to one run in Philly but they are completely different plays.
The focus of the offense is drastically different and the scheme is too. But the running plays kept the same verbage.

[EXoffender]

Originally Posted by Skinny Tee

...We should just focus on one cohesive style and go with it. From our scheme to our personnel, we are WAY too a la carte and it shows on the field.

Exactly. We needed a head coach with a knack for developing a QB but not at the expense of setting back the offense. Just look at the Colts. Dungy came in and left the offense alone.