Ignorant question 2: What kind of West Coast do we run?

[NewsBruin]

Okay, I'm asking another question to show how distanced I am from my favorite pro team: What kind of West Coast (passing?) offense will we run?

The "WCO" tag gets used by a lot of folks for whatever they want. I thought that Green Bay had always run some version of it, although with variations (like during the Rhodes season, where Sherm Lewis added more vertical routes at Brett's request). It's one of those things that I can't tell by the name alone.

What do we know about M2's passing offense? Quick throws, short distances, TE/WR/RB emphasis? How many receivers do we have per play in our base? Do we have multiple reads or one key receiver per play? Is the receiver expected to make most of his yards before or after the catch? Before or after contact?Does M2 script a certain number of opening plays to see how the defense reacts?

I think with Brett, we'd do best with putting in some deep plays, even if we don't connect, just to lengthen the opponents' coverage. A pure WCO (at least, as I think it's supposed to be) may not cover all our talents.

[woodbuck27]

Okay, I'm asking another question to show how distanced I am from my favorite pro team: What kind of West Coast (passing?) offense will we run?

The "WCO" tag gets used by a lot of folks for whatever they want. I thought that Green Bay had always run some version of it, although with variations (like during the Rhodes season, where Sherm Lewis added more vertical routes at Brett's request). It's one of those things that I can't tell by the name alone.

What do we know about M2's passing offense? Quick throws, short distances, TE/WR/RB emphasis? How many receivers do we have per play in our base? Do we have multiple reads or one key receiver per play? Is the receiver expected to make most of his yards before or after the catch? Before or after contact?Does M2 script a certain number of opening plays to see how the defense reacts?

I think with Brett, we'd do best with putting in some deep plays, even if we don't connect, just to lengthen the opponents' coverage. A pure WCO (at least, as I think it's supposed to be) may not cover all our talents.

If we tell you. We would have to track you down and well. . . you know. jk

[NewsBruin]

Oh, c'mon. I live in Alabama. If you tell me, the only folks who might know are the Saints and the Falcons, and really, that's not much of a risk right there.

[woodbuck27]

Oh, c'mon. I live in Alabama. If you tell me, the only folks who might know are the Saints and the Falcons, and really, that's not much of a risk right there.

Do you ever wear purple?

Ever meet a Dude named Rastak?

Is your favourite Movie - " The Vikings " ?

[NewsBruin]

No, and I haven't plundered in seven months.

[HarveyWallbangers]

What do we know about M2's passing offense? Quick throws, short distances, TE/WR/RB emphasis? How many receivers do we have per play in our base? Do we have multiple reads or one key receiver per play? Is the receiver expected to make most of his yards before or after the catch? Before or after contact?Does M2 script a certain number of opening plays to see how the defense reacts?

That is the plan--to get back to a more traditional WCO. Slants, curls, throws to RB and FB. Shorter routes. Base offense will be two wides. Every play has a first read. A plurality of the plays the first option will be Driver, from there Favre will have checkdowns. The WCO is an option read scheme. There won't be a set pattern on many plays. The QB and WR will have to read the defenses accordingly and the WR will have options on his route--based on how he is being played, whether there is a blitz, etc. Because of this, it's a hard scheme for a rookie wideout to do well.


I think with Brett, we'd do best with putting in some deep plays, even if we don't connect, just to lengthen the opponents' coverage. A pure WCO (at least, as I think it's supposed to be) may not cover all our talents.

Agreed, but not too much. In the mid-90s, there weren't necessarily deep routes called, or plays where the deep receiver was the primary option, but Brett could buy time in the pocket and makes throws on the move. On those plays he often threw down the field. It was a tremendous weapon to add to the safe nature of the scheme.

[Deputy Nutz]

Harvey you did well.

Wide recievers have options with their routes, but there is a lot of communication between the QB and the reciever before the ball is snapped. This helps them get on the same page. Call the audible if you will, apparently something that Mike Sherman and Tom Rossely failed to believe in. We all know where it got them. Yes I know, a West Coast Offense without any audibles, dumbasses.

Now will McCarthy runt he same schemes as Holmgren or Bill Walsh? Probably not, he was not a student of the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense, he learned from some other guy. As you can see I forgot that guy's name.

McCarthy is going to rely on short to mid level passes, but more importantly he seems more dedicated to the run than that of the Holmgren offense.

[woodbuck27]

Harvey you did well.

Wide recievers have options with their routes, but there is a lot of communication between the QB and the reciever before the ball is snapped. This helps them get on the same page. Call the audible if you will, apparently something that Mike Sherman and Tom Rossely failed to believe in. We all know where it got them. Yes I know, a West Coast Offense without any audibles, dumbasses.

Now will McCarthy runt he same schemes as Holmgren or Bill Walsh? Probably not, he was not a student of the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense, he learned from some other guy. As you can see I forgot that guy's name.

McCarthy is going to rely on short to mid level passes, but more importantly he seems more dedicated to the run than that of the Holmgren offense.

Why are we hearing that the passing game will go more verticle?

I feel this is a contradiction of the style of WCO that Harvey so simply described.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Now will McCarthy runt he same schemes as Holmgren or Bill Walsh? Probably not, he was not a student of the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense, he learned from some other guy. As you can see I forgot that guy's name.

Didn't he learn from Paul Hackett?

[HarveyWallbangers]

Why are we hearing that the passing game will go more verticle?

The people that are saying it don't know what they are talking about. I bet it some national writer.

[Bretsky]

Harvey you did well.

Wide recievers have options with their routes, but there is a lot of communication between the QB and the reciever before the ball is snapped. This helps them get on the same page. Call the audible if you will, apparently something that Mike Sherman and Tom Rossely failed to believe in. We all know where it got them. Yes I know, a West Coast Offense without any audibles, dumbasses.

Now will McCarthy runt he same schemes as Holmgren or Bill Walsh? Probably not, he was not a student of the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense, he learned from some other guy. As you can see I forgot that guy's name.

McCarthy is going to rely on short to mid level passes, but more importantly he seems more dedicated to the run than that of the Holmgren offense.

Why are we hearing that the passing game will go more verticle?

I feel this is a contradiction of the style of WCO that Harvey so simply described.

If you review the quotes from the coaches it sounds like they are going to the quick slants/short high % passes rather than as many deep balls as in the Sherman era.

IMO this is good for Favre; I also hope they let him audible as in the Holmy days. I think it keeps the QB mentally sharper when he is expected to audible here and there. It baffled me why a veteran like Favre was encouraged not to audible under the Rossley era.

[LEWCWA]

Favre's main weekness is the longball. He has about as much touch on the deep (bomb) as my hairy knuckled aunt that just love cheeks!

[swede]

It baffled me why a veteran like Favre was encouraged not to audible under the Rossley era.


I was just started to get a little depressed thinking that it would be miraculous for this offense not to struggle while learning a new offense...

...and then Bretsky lifted my spirits by reminding me that Rossley is no longer here!

How sweet that sounds: "former offensive coordinator Tom Rossley".

That's like cutting fifteen feet of weeds off your outboard motor.

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

Favre's main weekness is the longball. He has about as much touch on the deep (bomb) as my hairy knuckled aunt that just love cheeks!


ARE YOU KIDDING! Favre has one of the nicest deep balls in the game, were have you been the last 15 years?

[Harlan Huckleby]

ARE YOU KIDDING! Favre has one of the nicest deep balls in the game, were have you been the last 15 years?

I don't have an opinion on this, but the scuttlebutt in the press is that Favre has lost accuracy on his long passes later in his career.

[Noodle]

HH is right -- Favre's deep ball is not one to be feared, except by the Pack. Nowadays, it tends to get him in trouble.

But why do people keep saying that Shermy or Rossley muzzled the audible? I've read that in a couple of threads, but I've never read that in any article or interview. The couple pieces I remember reading indicated that Favre just wasn't in to doing it.

There's lots to crack on Shermy/Rossley about, but taking the audible away from Favre isn't one of them. Like he'd listen to them anyway.

[woodbuck27]

It baffled me why a veteran like Favre was encouraged not to audible under the Rossley era.


I was just started to get a little depressed thinking that it would be miraculous for this offense not to struggle while learning a new offense...

...and then Bretsky lifted my spirits by reminding me that Rossley is no longer here!

How sweet that sounds: "former offensive coordinator Tom Rossley".

That's like cutting fifteen feet of weeds off your outboard motor.

Ahhhhh Swede ! That cool-aid is beginning to look refreshing. :mrgreen:

GO Packers !!

[woodbuck27]

HH is right -- Favre's deep ball is not one to be feared, except by the Pack. Nowadays, it tends to get him in trouble.

But why do people keep saying that Shermy or Rossley muzzled the audible? I've read that in a couple of threads, but I've never read that in any article or interview. The couple pieces I remember reading indicated that Favre just wasn't in to doing it.

There's lots to crack on Shermy/Rossley about, but taking the audible away from Favre isn't one of them. Like he'd listen to them anyway.

Tell it like it is ! :mrgreen: X 100

[Deputy Nutz]

Now will McCarthy runt he same schemes as Holmgren or Bill Walsh? Probably not, he was not a student of the Bill Walsh West Coast Offense, he learned from some other guy. As you can see I forgot that guy's name.

Didn't he learn from Paul Hackett?

I thought it was Buddy Hackett? You right it was Paul, the brother of Buddy

[Deputy Nutz]

HH is right -- Favre's deep ball is not one to be feared, except by the Pack. Nowadays, it tends to get him in trouble.

But why do people keep saying that Shermy or Rossley muzzled the audible? I've read that in a couple of threads, but I've never read that in any article or interview. The couple pieces I remember reading indicated that Favre just wasn't in to doing it.

There's lots to crack on Shermy/Rossley about, but taking the audible away from Favre isn't one of them. Like he'd listen to them anyway.

They absolutely took it away from Favre, there were a couple of big articles on it about two years ago, and at first Favre expressed that he was not happy about it, and said that some of his biggest plays in his career came of audibles. Then Favre was probably asked to toe the company line, and he basically said that not alot of teams used audibles anymore, instead you took the loss and moved on. That was bullshit when you would see Payton audibling almost every play,

[PaCkFan_n_MD]

HH is right -- Favre's deep ball is not one to be feared, except by the Pack. Nowadays, it tends to get him in trouble.

But why do people keep saying that Shermy or Rossley muzzled the audible? I've read that in a couple of threads, but I've never read that in any article or interview. The couple pieces I remember reading indicated that Favre just wasn't in to doing it.

There's lots to crack on Shermy/Rossley about, but taking the audible away from Favre isn't one of them. Like he'd listen to them anyway.


"HH is right -- Favre's deep ball is not one to be feared, except by the Pack"

Have you forgot 2003 and 2004 already. Half of bretts passes thoses years were long balls and they were definitely on target. Man after one bad year when all your recievers go down how people can trun on you.

[NewsBruin]

From what I've seen, Brett's velocity is still there. A lot of QB's without such arm strength have to loft the ball to give it distance. That's not Brett's problem.

I think accuracy is more of an issue with him, but if you can scheme a play where a receiver breaks free or there's not a deep zone, then Brett's pretty good. He can still throw a bomb low and fast enough that a DB can't make a come-back play on it.

But when we're in a situation where running or short passes aren't an option, then it's easier for a corner or saftety to play centerfielder on Brett's throws.

[Deputy Nutz]

HH is right -- Favre's deep ball is not one to be feared, except by the Pack. Nowadays, it tends to get him in trouble.

But why do people keep saying that Shermy or Rossley muzzled the audible? I've read that in a couple of threads, but I've never read that in any article or interview. The couple pieces I remember reading indicated that Favre just wasn't in to doing it.

There's lots to crack on Shermy/Rossley about, but taking the audible away from Favre isn't one of them. Like he'd listen to them anyway.


"HH is right -- Favre's deep ball is not one to be feared, except by the Pack"

Have you forgot 2003 and 2004 already. Half of bretts passes thoses years were long balls and they were definitely on target. Man after one bad year when all your recievers go down how people can trun on you.

Favre has been more known for the tough throws, like the deep out, or throwing the ball with so much mustard on it that it is able to split two defenders and implant itself between the waiting arms of a wide reciever, or his ablitity to throw a laser thirty yards down field on a straight line, no air on it whatsoever.

With that, Favre has never really had a dominant deep threat outside of Walker. Walker was able to go up and get alot of his passes, and make ok throws look tremendous. For Some reason, in 2003 and 2004 the Packer wide recievers made tremendous adjustments, and great plays on a lot of the deep balls thrown by Favre. Even Robby Ferguson made some great plays, like the two he had in the Eagles playoff game in 2003.

[woodbuck27]

From what I've seen, Brett's velocity is still there. A lot of QB's without such arm strength have to loft the ball to give it distance. That's not Brett's problem.

I think accuracy is more of an issue with him, but if you can scheme a play where a receiver breaks free or there's not a deep zone, then Brett's pretty good. He can still throw a bomb low and fast enough that a DB can't make a come-back play on it.

But when we're in a situation where running or short passes aren't an option, then it's easier for a corner or saftety to play centerfielder on Brett's throws.

I believe that common sense has to dictate here, and that means the offence must be designed to work to all OUR strengths.

Sense and Sensability.

Harvey did a solid job ,in informing us of the way he envisions the Pack attack - on offence or a more traditional version of the WCO that I trust we once saw.

Where did the screen pass go, and the the QB dropback - short pass to the RB out of the backfield, just beyond the line of scrimmage - that often caught LBers napping? Re-call the way Ahman took that one to the house.

He went Alllll theeee Wayyyyy !!

Where did the quick slant go and the short sideline comeback play? Our WR's must learn to always as a first priority protect the ball. That's first!

We can't score with it - if we havn't got it .

We need to see a 'keep it simple stupid' case - of decent ball control and proper clock management. Basically grind it out and wait for the opportunities to come knockin', and then seize the moment more often than not.

We have enough talent on OUR defence that we need that unit to get turnovers and score some points as well, by digging in and playing solidly and hard in your face football.

RAH! RAH! RAWWWWWW !

Tony is teaching me this stuff !!!!!!!
Its certainly going to be interesting and I hope less predictable than we saw with the Sherman/Rossley version that was in my view - just rally stale.

[Noodle]

I agree with the assessment Nutz made about the Favre deep throws. I remember guys making great catches more than I remember on-the-money deep balls. But I'd gladly trade that deep-throw stuff for a steady diet of classic WCO short and middle range passes, with health yards after catch.

Back on the audible thing -- BS! The only place I've read that Sherm/Rossely had "taken" away the audible is in fan chat forums, where people are making excuses for poor ol Brett.

In interviews, Favre has said he dosen't like to do it a lot because personnel packages are play specific. And at the end of the day, do you really think Favre would stop audibiling just because a coach told him to?

[K-town]

Back on the audible thing -- BS! The only place I've read that Sherm/Rossely had "taken" away the audible is in fan chat forums, where people are making excuses for poor ol Brett.

In interviews, Favre has said he dosen't like to do it a lot because personnel packages are play specific. And at the end of the day, do you really think Favre would stop audibiling just because a coach told him to?

I certainly hope that the personnel packages of the Sheman years (i.e., U-71) ARE a thing of the past, so that flexibility in playcalling and audibling are once again are part of the offense.

[K-town]

One more thing - whatever happened to the wrap-around draw? Especially back in '92, it was consistently part of Holmgren's gameplan. Brett would drop back and hand the ball forward to the back (either Harry Sydbey or Vince Workman), who would then run the draw.
I really liked that play, and since I haven't seen it in years, maybe what's old is new, and it could be successful again.
Better than that damn goal-line shovel pass. :mad:

[Deputy Nutz]

I agree with the assessment Nutz made about the Favre deep throws. I remember guys making great catches more than I remember on-the-money deep balls. But I'd gladly trade that deep-throw stuff for a steady diet of classic WCO short and middle range passes, with health yards after catch.

Back on the audible thing -- BS! The only place I've read that Sherm/Rossely had "taken" away the audible is in fan chat forums, where people are making excuses for poor ol Brett.

In interviews, Favre has said he dosen't like to do it a lot because personnel packages are play specific. And at the end of the day, do you really think Favre would stop audibiling just because a coach told him to?

There were at least one or two articles in the 2004 season about this topic. Like I said, at first Favre was a little pissy about it, then in another article he stated that Sherman and Rossely liked to use different personel packages on almost every play like you stated above. Very soon somebody like Patler will come in here and drop an article or two about this, I on the other hand am too lazy to prove my source.

[MJZiggy]

I can corroborate if that helps any...

[Bossman641]

I agree with the assessment Nutz made about the Favre deep throws. I remember guys making great catches more than I remember on-the-money deep balls. But I'd gladly trade that deep-throw stuff for a steady diet of classic WCO short and middle range passes, with health yards after catch.

Back on the audible thing -- BS! The only place I've read that Sherm/Rossely had "taken" away the audible is in fan chat forums, where people are making excuses for poor ol Brett.

In interviews, Favre has said he dosen't like to do it a lot because personnel packages are play specific. And at the end of the day, do you really think Favre would stop audibiling just because a coach told him to?

There were at least one or two articles in the 2004 season about this topic. Like I said, at first Favre was a little pissy about it, then in another article he stated that Sherman and Rossely liked to use different personel packages on almost every play like you stated above. Very soon somebody like Patler will come in here and drop an article or two about this, I on the other hand am too lazy to prove my source.

I remember a few articles last season that discussed how little Favre audibled. They came around midseason when everybody started dropping like flies and all the unknowns were forced to play.

Perhaps it was Brett simply spouting the company line, but he said that with so many different personnel packages and all the new faces in the huddle it was very difficult to make audibles and they were only done once or twice a game. That's just off the top of my head though.