USC's WCO verses NU's WCO

[NamelessHusker]

Actually, Ive provided proof from a player that played in a WCO system and a much more simplified system. That player is a winner who knows the difference. I can believe him, or a coach who is of questionable character when in comes to honesty

What Carson originally ran and what he ran under Norm Chow is the same basic philosophy, except it was a very watered down version of it (your own words confirmed it was a simplified version). I remember watching the KSU/USC matchup and they only ran formations out of the 2 backs set and VERY RARELY used a I back set. Why did they do this? They wanted to get the passing game established. USC's passing game was the worst in the country. It ranked 94th in the nation in total offense in 2001 under him. (link). The result? A 6-6 season and a passing efficiency ranked 56th in the nation

Insert Norm Chow: comes in and simplifies the plays and waters down the terminology and looks what happens in 2002 efficiency rating-5th in the nation and (total offense-8th in the nation). Dramatic improvement wouldn't you say?

So you see, it has nothing to do with Carson thinking it was 2 different offenses and more to do with Norm Chow simplifying it for the team to better understand it. Once the terminology was understood, the began expanding it to what it was originally at and began incorporating a 2 back set which is one of the MAIN fundamentals of a WCO which like yourself said "Walsh ran effectively" and i quote

As I recall, Walsh used a two-back set primarily with the 49ers (Craig, Tyler, Cribbs, Rathman) and didnt use the I formation nearly as much. But, those are also seasoned professionals.

So if USC isn't running a WCO, then why are they using a 2back set like Walsh did?

Why did USC do it that way? Simple. It was like Nebraska. They were becoming more and more a rushing team then a passing team and that clogged up the running lanes. You put 2 backs in, it forces your opponent to stack the LOS and opens up the backfield. Something Nebraska did last year but because of the lack of talent, were not able to run a 2 back set effictively. Now that you have depth at the RB spot, look for more 2 back sets next year. You can quote me on it.

 

[Roy CO HSKR]

There is a reason that the coaches that BC hired have stayed. Watson took a position demotion just to be on BC's staff. He has tremendous respect throughout the football fraternity. He has class, (albeit some emotion if jobed), ability to recruit both players and coaches, an elite specialist of offensive line play and offensive schemes and an excellent game day coach. In years to come more and more naysayers will either fall back into the woodwork or will be mature and step forward stating that they misjudged him.

For anyone who doesn't buy the above, pick up the phone and call any NFL coach of Div 1 coach and get their opinion. Then report back to this thread. If you are not willing to do that, then your personal vendetta is just that- hollow!

 

[DJR313]

Actually, Ive provided proof from a player that played in a WCO system and a much more simplified system. That player is a winner who knows the difference. I can believe him, or a coach who is of questionable character when in comes to honesty

What Carson originally ran and what he ran under Norm Chow is the same basic philosophy, except it was a very watered down version of it (your own words confirmed it was a simplified version). I remember watching the KSU/USC matchup and they only ran formations out of the 2 backs set and VERY RARELY used a I back set. Why did they do this? They wanted to get the passing game established. USC's passing game was the worst in the country. It ranked 94th in the nation in total offense in 2001 under him. (link). The result? A 6-6 season and a passing efficiency ranked 56th in the nation

Insert Norm Chow: comes in and simplifies the plays and waters down the terminology and looks what happens in 2002 efficiency rating-5th in the nation and (total offense-8th in the nation). Dramatic improvement wouldn't you say?

So you see, it has nothing to do with Carson thinking it was 2 different offenses and more to do with Norm Chow simplifying it for the team to better understand it. Once the terminology was understood, the began expanding it to what it was originally at and began incorporating a 2 back set which is one of the MAIN fundamentals of a WCO which like yourself said "Walsh ran effectively" and i quote

As I recall, Walsh used a two-back set primarily with the 49ers (Craig, Tyler, Cribbs, Rathman) and didnt use the I formation nearly as much. But, those are also seasoned professionals.

So if USC isn't running a WCO, then why are they using a 2back set like Walsh did?

Why did USC do it that way? Simple. It was like Nebraska. They were becoming more and more a rushing team then a passing team and that clogged up the running lanes. You put 2 backs in, it forces your opponent to stack the LOS and opens up the backfield. Something Nebraska did last year but because of the lack of talent, were not able to run a 2 back set effictively. Now that you have depth at the RB spot, look for more 2 back sets next year. You can quote me on it.

You are correct in what you say about Chow watering everything down for Palmer. However, Chow became Offensive coordinator in 2001. http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/sports...how_norm00.html

The point that Chow made everything simpler for Palmer as eluded to in that obscure article is moot because it took Carson Palmer about 16 games to finally get Chow's watered down system. Is Palmer a little thickheaded? I don't know, but what he said in that article of June of 2001 didn't reflect in his play that fall, that I do know.

 

[StuckinChicago]

When the top three threads on the board went completely off topic because of YOUR POSTS, you are trolling, period. This thread was about the twoback set and whether we would use it next year, not whether or not Callahan could coach...

 

[NamelessHusker]

Actually, Ive provided proof from a player that played in a WCO system and a much more simplified system. That player is a winner who knows the difference. I can believe him, or a coach who is of questionable character when in comes to honesty

What Carson originally ran and what he ran under Norm Chow is the same basic philosophy, except it was a very watered down version of it (your own words confirmed it was a simplified version). I remember watching the KSU/USC matchup and they only ran formations out of the 2 backs set and VERY RARELY used a I back set. Why did they do this? They wanted to get the passing game established. USC's passing game was the worst in the country. It ranked 94th in the nation in total offense in 2001 under him. (link). The result? A 6-6 season and a passing efficiency ranked 56th in the nation

Insert Norm Chow: comes in and simplifies the plays and waters down the terminology and looks what happens in 2002 efficiency rating-5th in the nation and (total offense-8th in the nation). Dramatic improvement wouldn't you say?

So you see, it has nothing to do with Carson thinking it was 2 different offenses and more to do with Norm Chow simplifying it for the team to better understand it. Once the terminology was understood, the began expanding it to what it was originally at and began incorporating a 2 back set which is one of the MAIN fundamentals of a WCO which like yourself said "Walsh ran effectively" and i quote

As I recall, Walsh used a two-back set primarily with the 49ers (Craig, Tyler, Cribbs, Rathman) and didnt use the I formation nearly as much. But, those are also seasoned professionals.

So if USC isn't running a WCO, then why are they using a 2back set like Walsh did?

Why did USC do it that way? Simple. It was like Nebraska. They were becoming more and more a rushing team then a passing team and that clogged up the running lanes. You put 2 backs in, it forces your opponent to stack the LOS and opens up the backfield. Something Nebraska did last year but because of the lack of talent, were not able to run a 2 back set effictively. Now that you have depth at the RB spot, look for more 2 back sets next year. You can quote me on it.

You are correct in what you say about Chow watering everything down for Palmer. However, Chow became Offensive coordinator in 2001. http://usctrojans.collegesports.com/sports...how_norm00.html

The point that Chow made everything simpler for Palmer as eluded to in that obscure article is moot because it took Carson Palmer about 16 games to finally get Chow's watered down system. Is Palmer a little thickheaded? I don't know, but what he said in that article of June of 2001 didn't reflect in his play that fall, that I do know.

That was what i was implying. When Norn chow was hired and tried his offense in 2001, Carson Palmer struggled so bad with it that USC went from having a ranking of 28th in total offense in 2000, to 94th all of a sudden in 2001. Norm Chow simplifies it waters it down and Carson sky rockets up the passing efficiency rating and USC is 8th in total offense in 2002

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

Once again people stay the course. Every topic shouldn't turn into the same arguement. It is not only ONE person either. Let's go people. :thumbs

Peace and Hair Grease.

 

[formerfan]

Once the terminology was understood, the began expanding it to what it was originally at and began incorporating a 2 back set which is one of the MAIN fundamentals of a WCO which like yourself said "Walsh ran effectively" and i quote

As I recall, Walsh used a two-back set primarily with the 49ers (Craig, Tyler, Cribbs, Rathman) and didnt use the I formation nearly as much. But, those are also seasoned professionals.

So if USC isn't running a WCO, then why are they using a 2back set like Walsh did?

So are you saying that ANY team running a 2 back set is automatically running a WCO-style offense?? :blink:

 

[formerfan]

When the top three threads on the board went completely off topic because of YOUR POSTS, you are trolling, period. This thread was about the twoback set and whether we would use it next year, not whether or not Callahan could coach...

Whatever. When people quit making the rediculous statement that NU = USC - a few players, that everything else is the same, then I will quit with the Palmer article. :thumbs Cool.

 

[NamelessHusker]

Once the terminology was understood, the began expanding it to what it was originally at and began incorporating a 2 back set which is one of the MAIN fundamentals of a WCO which like yourself said "Walsh ran effectively"  and i quote

As I recall, Walsh used a two-back set primarily with the 49ers (Craig, Tyler, Cribbs, Rathman) and didnt use the I formation nearly as much. But, those are also seasoned professionals.

So if USC isn't running a WCO, then why are they using a 2back set like Walsh did?

So are you saying that ANY team running a 2 back set is automatically running a WCO-style offense?? :blink:

Care to provide an example of a team that runs a 2 back set on a consistant basis like USC or Auburn that isn't?

 

[hack]

baby jesus cries when you nitpick offensive sets.

i'm just saying.

 

[formerfan]

Care to provide an example of a team that runs a 2 back set on a consistant basis like USC or Auburn that isn't?

USC for one. Link:

http://eaglesfootball.com/college/palmer/qa2.php

Call them what you want, but apparently NUs and USCs offenses are totally different then, because USC uses primarily a 2 back set, and NU primarily the I-set.

Thanks for clearing that up and proving my point :thumbs

What Carson originally ran and what he ran under Norm Chow is the same basic philosophy, except it was a very watered down version of it (your own words confirmed it was a simplified version).

I never said that under Chow that USC runs a simplified version of the WCO, I said he installed a system that was much easier to install and run in college football then the WCO. But since you dont want to read the article (or believe it since it proves that you are incorrect) here it is for you, with the difference outlined (emphasis included):

TSN: Compare your new offense to the one you ran last year.CP: They're completely different. The West Coast offense is an NFL-style offense. It's very complex and takes a while to learn. Coach Chow's offense is very different. It's very basic. He pretty much taught it to me in two weeks. The West Coast offense takes three years to learn. We've already put in everything we have in Coach Chow's offense. In this new offense, there's no seven-step drops. Everything is about getting rid of the ball quick. If you hitch twice, you're wrong in this offense. In the West Coast offense, you're taking a lot of five-step drops and hitching a couple times and trying to find the third guy. This offense, all you're doing is dropping back and getting rid of the ball as fast as you can.

TSN: Sounds like you prefer the new offense.

CP: It's better for this team. The West Coast offense is tough to run in college football. To do it, you've got to have every guy at every position. You've got to have the tight end that can run down the field, receivers for this down and for this pattern and a certain type of running back. This offense is suited to what you have. If you have a good receiver, you're going to run this play. If you have a back that can't do this, you're not going to run this play.

 

[DJR313]

TSN: Compare your new offense to the one you ran last year.CP: They're completely different. The West Coast offense is an NFL-style offense. It's very complex and takes a while to learn. Coach Chow's offense is very different. It's very basic. He pretty much taught it to me in two weeks. The West Coast offense takes three years to learn. We've already put in everything we have in Coach Chow's offense. In this new offense, there's no seven-step drops. Everything is about getting rid of the ball quick. If you hitch twice, you're wrong in this offense. In the West Coast offense, you're taking a lot of five-step drops and hitching a couple times and trying to find the third guy. This offense, all you're doing is dropping back and getting rid of the ball as fast as you can.

TSN: Sounds like you prefer the new offense.

CP: It's better for this team. The West Coast offense is tough to run in college football. To do it, you've got to have every guy at every position. You've got to have the tight end that can run down the field, receivers for this down and for this pattern and a certain type of running back. This offense is suited to what you have. If you have a good receiver, you're going to run this play. If you have a back that can't do this, you're not going to run this play.

The point that Chow made everything simpler for Palmer as eluded to in that article is moot because it took Carson Palmer about 16 games to finally get Chow's watered down system. If it was so much simpler than before, why would a 4th year Junior regress for a season in the system before moving forward? Is Palmer a little thickheaded? I don't know, but what he said in that article of June of 2001 didn't reflect in his play that fall. That I do know.

 

[DaveH]

When the top three threads on the board went completely off topic because of YOUR POSTS, you are trolling, period. This thread was about the twoback set and whether we would use it next year, not whether or not Callahan could coach...

Whatever. When people quit making the rediculous statement that NU = USC - a few players, that everything else is the same, then I will quit with the Palmer article. :thumbs Cool.

I have never said that. All I am saying is they run an offense that is VERY similar to NU's. That's it.

 

[Silent Commit]

baby jesus cries when you nitpick offensive sets.

Geez Hack, you say the funniest things in your posts!!

 

[pigsonthewing]

When the top three threads on the board went completely off topic because of YOUR POSTS, you are trolling, period. This thread was about the twoback set and whether we would use it next year, not whether or not Callahan could coach...

Whatever. When people quit making the rediculous statement that NU = USC - a few players, that everything else is the same, then I will quit with the Palmer article. :thumbs Cool.

I have never said that. All I am saying is they run an offense that is VERY similar to NU's. That's it.

just because they are not running the exact same plays doesnt mean the offenses are not similar. both schools use a lot of timing routes and all that jibajaba.