July 19, 2007
CNNSI’s Mandel: WCO Too Complicated For College
Name one coach that has successfully implemented a West Coast Offense in college football?? Waiting … waiting. Exactly. Not one. In defense of his report on the worst coaches in college football in which he placed Karl Dorrell as #5 worst, Sports Illustrated’s Stewart Mandel railed against what he believes to be major flaw for 3 coaches listed in his report: The WCO.
Here is what Mandel had to say:
Furthermore, it’s asking a lot of college quarterbacks to run a full-fledged, NFL-style version of the West Coast offense. It’s just too complicated. At other programs that have attempted it, the typical QB has taken three years to fully grasp it. (UCLA’s Drew Olson being a perfect example.) Callahan has been fortunate thus far to be able to land a juco transfer (Zac Taylor) who’d already been in the system and now a fifth-year senior transfer in Sam Keller. It won’t always be that way. When the inevitable day comes that he needs to start a freshman or sophomore, it’s going to be 2004-05 all over again.
Finally — and this doesn’t apply just to Callahan but to nearly all the NFL-bred coaches in the collegiate ranks today — you do not win championships in college anymore by playing not to lose (as they often do in the pros). It’s a huge pet peeve of mine and a common theme among the worst coaches nominees (see Dorrell, Karl; Gailey, Chan). The strange thing is, Callahan has shown he’s more than willing to break out the flea flickers and other trick plays, but in last year’s USC and Oklahoma games, and when the game was on the line against Auburn, he retreated to all-out, run-it-into-the-line-three-straight-times-and-play-defense mode. I can’t emphasize this enough. I hate that.
So why are there die-hards like Dorrell trying pull sinking ships against the current when there are better options? Some would say that Dorrell is sticking to his WCO so that he can look more attractive for his long-sought-after NFL job. We hope that’s not true and that Dorrell simply mistakenly believes the WCO can work. But there is no evidence that it does over time. With Callahan’s former OC now at the helm of our offense it will not be surprising if we stall during many games. One thing to remember, Dorrell doesn’t have an All-America and best kicker in the country to bail him out (HT to Achilles at BruinsNation).
8 Comments on CNNSI’s Mandel: WCO Too Complicated For College
July 19, 2007
Bob Cherry @ 6:07 pm:
No college coaches that successfully implemented the ‘west coast offense”? Most Pac-10 schools have used a version of the WCO, many successfully. Lavelle Edwards used it at BYU. That’s one reason why Steve Young fit at SF. Norm Chow, recent offensive coordinator at USC, uses a version of the WCO that he learned at BYU under Edwards. Walsh and Don Coryell were college coaches when they first implemented what became the WCO. Dorrell may be a bad coach, but not because of the WCO.
DumpDorrell @ 6:50 pm:
Cherry … first, we said that the WCO doesn’t work over time. There are definitely seasons in which WCOs have been successful, almost always with a 3rd year QB and similarly experienced WRs and RBs. There was an article somewhere where Sarkisian, under Chow, explained how they had to ditch the majority of the WCO playbook because they didn’t have receivers or RBs that understood and could play it. If we find the article we will post it here. So, to say Chow ran the WCO is a misnomer.
Similarly, many Pac-10 teams are said to run the WCO, but as with Chow they really aren’t true WCOs, where WRs and RBs and QBs have to READ defenses at the line of scrimmage and make options calls - options on routes from the line of scrimmage. QBs have to remember the option calls for every receiver and RB. It’s too complex and only 3rd year starters get it. Wonder why UCLA’s receivers maxed in the mid 30 or so receptions a year while USC and CAL receivers, and other spread offenses, maxed out in the 70s?? Or how the TD/INT ratios are horrible under Dorrell? It wasn’t just the asinine receiver rotations (05 had the same issues), it was the blown routes of the primary and secondary receivers, and RBs. And we are not even talking about the sector blocking patterns that the OL has to remember.
Bob Cherry @ 7:02 pm:
Another example of the successful WCO in college is Auburn. Al Borges (remember him?) installed it for Tommy Tuberville. The vast improvement in the Rutgers Scarlet Knights was based on the installation of a WCO with two back sets and timed passing routes.
DumpDorrell @ 7:08 pm:
You are talking about characteristics of a WCO offense that spread and other offensive systems started using, characteristics that easily could be adapted. Timed routes, short passes and two back sets are not what defines WCOs. Its the options and sector blocking that defines them, makes them unique from other systems, and makes them difficult in a college football setting. Its why no successful offenses employ the WCO today. College players don’t have the time to learn how to READ defenses and change their assignments on the fly at the line of scrimmage, especially when they did nothing of the sort in high school.
Bob Cherry @ 7:35 pm:
First, given the recruiting standards of SC, I am not surprised that they couldn’t master the WCO. The fact remains that Chow used the WCO when he had the personnel (like at BYU) and he was successful . So were Don Coryelld, Al Borges and a host of others. Second, you are comparing apples to oranges. Of course, the spread results in higher averages because it is a vertical attack. The hallmark of the WCO is ball control based on a shorter passing game that spreads the field sideline to sideline. As to quarterbacks having complicated reads at the line, many offensive systems require this not just the WCO.
To paraphrase a famous bicyclist: “It’s not about the system.” It is about the coach and his ability to implement a system, recruit for it, and motivate players.
DumpDorrell @ 10:06 pm:
You’re not getting it. Fact is college players do not have the time that pros do to master the WCO system, it simply is more complex. But that doesn’t mean the coach isn’t important. Our site is all about that. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
July 29, 2007
colonybruin @ 11:10 am:
there coaches who ‘need’ w.c.o. ___ because they are trying to trick the other team ___ the reason is because the coach has little faith in his coaching abilities ___ therefore he has to resort to a complicated off. ___ which also makes it very difficult for both team ___ this is not about feeling sorry for k-d , because of your excuse-making ___ k-d picked that off. ___ k - d has never been a head coach , and has no idea on how to be one __ he has no idea how the coach the w.c.o. , and no idea on how to pick someone who does ___ a real coaches coach by out - executing the other coach _ something k-d will never do because he is in way over head head ___ k-d will always be a lousy coach because his psycological make-up is fundamentally anti-social __ his people-skills stink !!!!!!!!!!!!!! __ thus any kids he coaches will always play dysfunctional ___ just look at this guy when he talks __ a bit dead ? ___
colonybruin @ 11:11 am:
Sorry for that post , I was in a hurry