Will CBJ Offense work in the SEC?

#78
#78
orange parmejohn said:
good post WV. as far as this thread, most of it is over my head but i sure find it fascinating to read. we need a chalkboard on here.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. I'd love some good x and o talk on here. Footballs really a simple game, it wasn't developed by rocket scientist, but the lingo can get confusing at times.

The best place to start learning is smart football or brophy
 
#80
#80
bam15 said:
You run it?--plain'

Mumme basically stole Norm Chow's offense. He got it from Doug Scovil in the NFL. Leach added bigger splits. It's evolved a ton from those days though. Leach doesn't do the same stuff that Franklin and Holgorsen do.

Coryell and Walsh are two of the same. Both came from Sid Gillman and Paul Brown. Only major difference was Coryell had numbered routes and Walsh had numbered protections with worded concepts. Much of the same concepts honestly. 585/989 = cat/dancer etc. Anything otherwise was aesthetics and theoretical usage of the concepts. Those two aren't really worth discussing in the modern game though. It has changed too much. Coryell is ancient history and really isn't applicable. Zampese was the closest purist.

If anything, probably closer to what Jon Jenkins was doing in the 90s. He was ahead of the curve.
Click to expand...

Walsh and Coryell took Gilman's offense in two totally different directions. Walsh had the QB exclusively under center, used two backs (split), a tight end and utilized the short passing game. Coryell used a much more vertical passing game.
 
#81
#81
thebjd said:
Walsh and Coryell took Gilman's offense in two totally different directions. Walsh had the QB exclusively under center, used two backs (split), a tight end and utilized the short passing game. Coryell used a much more vertical passing game.
Click to expand...

You still see that Walsh influence today in Mumme's offense. We've been more west coast as of recent, but my understanding is that jones prefers more vertical stems like air coryell, with some run n shoot elements.

As a db coach I hate to see that stuff, because it's hard to route read.
 
#82
#82
Vol8188 said:
You still see that Walsh influence today in Mumme's offense. We've been more west coast as of recent, but my understanding is that jones prefers more vertical stems like air coryell, with some run n shoot elements.

As a db coach I hate to see that stuff, because it's hard to route read.
Click to expand...

Bajakian is all about trying to trick cornerbacks, and cause mismatches. His favorite mismatch this year was putting a 260 pound Travis Kelce on cornerbacks, and he loved to use him as a slot reciever. Look at the Mike McCarthy offense in the last 4-6 years. You see a lot of the same packages, and its relevant because Bajakian was a quality control guy for the bears, so he's seen it often.
 
#83
#83
Vol8188 said:
I had the pleasure of meeting Mumme at Davidson this year. And I've been to Ecu each yr since Ruffin took over. The biggest difference I've scene is Mumme will run more mesh and cross, while the Leach disciple riley, runs more 4 vert and stick.

And my passing game is very west coast/air raid. We run drive, mesh, 4verts/switch, stick, and cross.

Mainly using cross as a play pass. And switch has been big for me against cover 1. Beyond that my best pass play is x/z jailbreak.
Click to expand...

Mumme might be the only person who runs mesh of the air raiders. Most of the rest have scrapped it. Too much practice time. Any crossing route or rub will kill man-free or 0.
 
#84
#84
thebjd said:
Walsh and Coryell took Gilman's offense in two totally different directions. Walsh had the QB exclusively under center, used two backs (split), a tight end and utilized the short passing game. Coryell used a much more vertical passing game.
Click to expand...

I think this is a misconception. The passing game themselves weren't drastically different. They shared all of the same concepts. The verbiage and terminology was entirely different as was the organizational structure and conveyance. We really didn't see major differences until Martz, Zampese, Shanahan and latter west coast guys. When you start talking vertical game you could diverge that within vertical or horizontal stretches and both of their passing games were mostly based upon horizontal stretches. The usage of the length of the stem and routes varied in percentage of use and this is I believe what you are implying. Any substantial difference from those two were philosophical. They both were aimed at getting a stretch across the field. Rarely we saw a vertical stretch unless it was from a compressed formation. Were they different? Yeah. In a large way? No. Neither strayed too far conceptually. Personnel was by and large 21 for both--as was it for everyone back then.

When I refer vertical and horizontal stretch--vertical is a high-low concept--horizontal is a diagonal across-the-board concept.
 
Last edited:
#85
#85
bam15 said:
I think this is a misconception. The passing game themselves weren't drastically different. They shared all of the same concepts. The verbiage and terminology was entirely different as was the organizational structure and conveyance. We really didn't see major differences until Martz, Zampese, Shanahan and latter west coast guys. When you start talking vertical game you could diverge that within vertical or horizontal stretches and both of their passing games were mostly based upon horizontal stretches. The usage of the length of the stem and routes varied in percentage of use and this is I believe what you are implying. Any substantial difference from those two were philosophical. They both were aimed at getting a stretch across the field. Rarely we saw a vertical stretch unless it was from a compressed formation. Were they different? Yeah. In a large way? No. Neither strayed too far conceptually. Personnel was by and large 21 for both--as was it for everyone back then.

When I refer vertical and horizontal stretch--vertical is a high-low concept--horizontal is a diagonal across-the-board concept.
Click to expand...

I hate the any scheme uses a passing tree! It's too much information.

It's far easier to name concepts and then tag for variety. You don't need limitless options anyway.
 
#86
#86
bam15 said:
I think this is a misconception. The passing game themselves weren't drastically different. They shared all of the same concepts. The verbiage and terminology was entirely different as was the organizational structure and conveyance. We really didn't see major differences until Martz, Zampese, Shanahan and latter west coast guys. When you start talking vertical game you could diverge that within vertical or horizontal stretches and both of their passing games were mostly based upon horizontal stretches. The usage of the length of the stem and routes varied in percentage of use and this is I believe what you are implying. Any substantial difference from those two were philosophical. They both were aimed at getting a stretch across the field. Rarely we saw a vertical stretch unless it was from a compressed formation. Were they different? Yeah. In a large way? No. Neither strayed too far conceptually. Personnel was by and large 21 for both--as was it for everyone back then.

When I refer vertical and horizontal stretch--vertical is a high-low concept--horizontal is a diagonal across-the-board concept.
Click to expand...

They are different philosophically as well. Large 0-line and power running vs smaller more agile linemen blocking in Walsh's offense. Single back and three-wide vs split back and two WR. Max protection with 5-7 step drops vs the 3-5 step drops in Walsh's offense.

Bill Belichick said the following regarding Coryell vs Walsh
Q: Do you ever look back and study the tape of what Paul Brown did and use that in your offense at all?

BB: Well, again, basically what Paul [Brown] did was he ran the west coast offense. What's called today the west coast offense, that was really Paul's offense. As that has spread through the league. There are a lot of different versions of it, from [Mike] Holmgren, who is probably the purist. His offense is probably most like what San Francisco ran back in the ‘80s with Bill Walsh. Then you have Andy [Reid] and Jon Gruden, all the different offshoots that come out of that, [Mike] McCarthy, basically the whole NFC North, right? Green Bay. So, there's a lot of offshoots of that and they have their own individual adaptations of it. For example, I-Formation was a very minimal part of that offense as Bill Walsh ran it, not as Paul Brown ran it. Paul ran a lot of "I" when he had [Paul] Robinson and Ickey [Woods] and those guys. He ran a lot of that I-Formation. So each coach has modified it a little bit.

Q: Is what [Don] Coryell ran considered the west coast offense?

BB: No. I think there are elements of it, yeah, but it was a much more downfield passing game and less replacing runs with those drive routes, the underneath crossing patterns, the wide routes by the backs, a lot of slants, the plays that come with a high frequency in the west coast offense. A lot of those are really replacements for runs. The Coryell passing attack is much more of a downfield passing game.

Q: When you went up against that, how did you try to stop it?

BB: The Coryell teams? Well Don's offense when he was out at San Diego, that was one of the most explosive offenses I had seen, and still have. They had Kellen Winslow, Chuck Muncie and then the receivers were [Wes] Chandler, [John] Jefferson and [Charlie] Joiner. And they had Dan Fouts and they also had a real good offensive line, too. They were good. Then Joe Gibbs really took the Coryell offense, which was mainly a one-back offense -as opposed to the west coast offense, which had some one back but it was really more of a two-back offense than a one-back offense-and Gibbs took the Coryell system and, obviously, when he went to Washington, had great success with it. Then that spread to Dan Henning and Joe Bugel and guys like that who went on to be head coaches and took that offense with them. I think that the Joe Gibbs offense is much closer related to the Coryell offense than the west coast offense is.
Click to expand...
 
#87
#87
thebjd said:
They are different philosophically as well. Large 0-line and power running vs smaller more agile linemen blocking in Walsh's offense. Single back and three-wide vs split back and two WR. Max protection with 5-7 step drops vs the 3-5 step drops in Walsh's offense.

Bill Belichick said the following regarding Coryell vs Walsh
Click to expand...

Coryell hated Fout's beard
 
#89
#89
thebjd said:
They are different philosophically as well. Large 0-line and power running vs smaller more agile linemen blocking in Walsh's offense. Single back and three-wide vs split back and two WR. Max protection with 5-7 step drops vs the 3-5 step drops in Walsh's offense.

Bill Belichick said the following regarding Coryell vs Walsh
Click to expand...

Which was what I stated. Doesn't change how the majority of their passing games were horizontal stretches. Walsh was primarily a sweep guy when he first got into the league (Hence the far/weak/split sets) but he evolved. What Coryell called 989-383-585-999 H Balloon-787-424-939 H Flat and others were all directly correlated with what Walsh ran. Dancer/Omaha/All Verts(Aggie)/Circus et cetera. All that we are seeing here as aforementioned is verbiage differences and philosophical divides. Also--much of the max/base protect for Walsh which is what he called 24/25 and later 324/325 for quicks was also max protect. Any time you have mirrored routes for Walsh it was 7 or 8 man protect. Same premise was there. We really didn't see a true one-back commitment until Marchibroda.
 
#90
#90
bam15 said:
Which was what I stated. Doesn't change how the majority of their passing games were horizontal stretches. Walsh was primarily a sweep guy when he first got into the league (Hence the far/weak/split sets) but he evolved. What Coryell called 989-383-585-999 H Balloon-787-424-939 H Flat and others were all directly correlated with what Walsh ran. Dancer/Omaha/All Verts(Aggie)/Circus et cetera. All that we are seeing here as aforementioned is verbiage differences and philosophical divides. Also--much of the max/base protect for Walsh which is what he called 24/25 and later 324/325 for quicks was also max protect. Any time you have mirrored routes for Walsh it was 7 or 8 man protect. Same premise was there. We really didn't see a true one-back commitment until Marchibroda.
Click to expand...

Coryell went to the single back almost exclusively and so did Joe Gibbs. Muncie and Riggins didn't have lead blockers. Washington used more three wide than the two tight end. I am not a coach so you are losing me with the verbiage. I feel sort of like Billy Madison taking the Spanish lesson. I loved Bill Walsh and the 49ers offense and have read a lot about it over the years.
 
#91
#91
People said Urbie Meyers' system wouldn't work in the sec. I guess they were right, he only won two stinking national championships. I'm more interested in seeing the defense.
 
#94
#94
Terminology is only relevant to what the offensive coordinator wants to use. You can call a play, xyz slant pooper scooper if you really wanted to. I couldn't care less about what the plays are called, as long as the gameplan is going the way it should, and the offense is winning the field position battle.
 
#95
#95
Burger said:
Terminology is only relevant to what the offensive coordinator wants to use. You can call a play, xyz slant pooper scooper if you really wanted to. I couldn't care less about what the plays are called, as long as the gameplan is going the way it should, and the offense is winning the field position battle.
Click to expand...

I will say that I think players have an easier time picking up passing concepts than they passing trees. Especially for teams that want to play fast
 
#97
#97
Cincy defense did not look too good against Duke last night in the Belk Bowl !!!! I did not think the o looked good for Cincy either. Just my own feelings. Sure, I know Cincy won and that is all that counts. Obviously, we need a running quarterback to run the O real well.
 
#99
#99
ReelfootVol said:
Cincy defense did not look too good against Duke last night in the Belk Bowl !!!! I did not think the o looked good for Cincy either. Just my own feelings. Sure, I know Cincy won and that is all that counts. Obviously, we need a running quarterback to run the O real well.
Click to expand...

Maybe some of that was because of the fact that Cincy only had 4 coaches left and were having to use graduate assistants and people that worked in their football offices to signal in plays. Almost their whole coaching staff was gone.
 
Last edited:
#100
#100
Vol4life25 said:
I have been watching alot of Cinci game film, and CBJ offense looks wierd......as in its a mix of spread and Pro, with no huddle.(90% of the time)

I have never seen this offense in the SEC.

It is like The Spread and Pro hooked up and had a baby.


Will it work? Only time will tell I guess
Click to expand...

always comes down to players executing. if they execute, it will work
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top