West Coast Offense

[THE PISTONS]

I think the real thing this team needs is some West Coast offense components. They can't run the ball...but have 2 Rb's that are quick and can catch. Boyd and Lafell are good possession receivers.

Also, the line is bad so we need to get the ball out quick.

Green is the only real deep threat we have now. (We don't know what Ross will be until he plays.)

The TE's are decent receivers on shorter passes. Run a lot of quick slants for the receivers to catch and get rac yards.

I'd be turning our offense into a WC offense that took deep shots to AJ Green every now and then. It seems to be a perfect fit!

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-05-2017, 01:37 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: I think the real thing this team needs is some West Coast offense components. They can't run the ball...but have 2 Rb's that are quick and can catch. Boyd and Lafell are good possession receivers.

Also, the line is bad so we need to get the ball out quick.

Green is the only real deep threat we have now. (We don't know what Ross will be until he plays.)

The TE's are decent receivers on shorter passes. Run a lot of quick slants for the receivers to catch and get rac yards.

I'd be turning our offense into a WC offense that took deep shots to AJ Green every now and then. It seems to be a perfect fit!

I'll just copy and paste this here:

Quote:Interesting analysis, and I'd agree with you.  We also have a QB that fits that scheme well.  Jay Gruden came in here with an Ohio River Offense scheme (not gonna call it West Coast....lol), and tabbed 14 as the guy he wanted running it.  I'd love to see it.....with a dose of no huddle sprinkled in here and there. 

[McC]

Isn't running the ball an integral part of the WCO?

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-05-2017, 01:53 PM)McC Wrote: Isn't running the ball an integral part of the WCO?

Pick and choose where you run, but the short passing game to RBs is considered an extension of the run game.  Remember Roger Craig's receiving stats?

[McC]

(10-05-2017, 01:58 PM)Wyche Wrote: Pick and choose where you run, but the short passing game to RBs is considered an extension of the run game.  Remember Roger Craig's receiving stats?

I do.  But I seem to remember he ran for a lot of yards too.  But then again, they had a helluva line to run behind.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-05-2017, 02:02 PM)McC Wrote: I do.  But I seem to remember he ran for a lot of yards too.  But then again, they had a helluva line to run behind.

True that! (and an All Pro FB)

[*bfine32*]

(10-05-2017, 02:02 PM)McC Wrote: I do.  But I seem to remember he ran for a lot of yards too.  But then again, they had a helluva line to run behind.

Craig actually only surpassed 1000 rushing yards 3 times in his career. 1100 yards only once.

[*Wyche'sWarrior*]

(10-05-2017, 02:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Craig actually only surpassed 1000 rushing yards 3 times in his career. 1100 yards only once.

Good catch, that's what I thought too bfine, but I didn't look it up.  I seem to remember quite a few seasons with around 700 yds on the ground, and about that much catching the ball out of the backfield.

[THE PISTONS]

(10-05-2017, 01:53 PM)McC Wrote: Isn't running the ball an integral part of the WCO?

Actually the WC offense does short, high percentage passes to running backs to supplement the run.

Any offense you have you'll occasionally run the ball though at least some...but the running game is not the focal point of a WC offense.

[McC]

(10-05-2017, 02:22 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Craig actually only surpassed 1000 rushing yards 3 times in his career. 1100 yards only once.

He did score 56 TD's on the ground, average over 4 ypc and ran 14 times a game.  And 3 thousand yard seasons ain't chopped liver.  Especially when you consider who they had to throw the ball to.

[*SHRacerX*]

(10-05-2017, 02:52 PM)THE PISTONS Wrote: Actually the WC offense does short, high percentage passes to running backs to supplement the run.

Any offense you have you'll occasionally run the ball though at least some...but the running game is not the focal point of a WC offense.

The focal point is YAC.  Hitting guys in motion to create yards after the catch.  Reduces risk, sustains drives, etc.

If there is one single element that the Bengals are missing from an Ohio River Offense (ORO), it is the fact that they don't spread the ball around enough.  They started to with involving Kroft more in the scheme, but a great ORO would have the FB getting a pass play here and there.  The RBs are among the biggest weapons in the passing game, and all the WRs are targeted to keep the defense from keying on any one person.

It was nice to see Kroft utilized, as before that game our TEs were basically blockers that weren't very good blockers and didn't draw much attention from the WRs or RBs.

I think Gio needs to get 5 receptions a game, and it would be far easier if he was on the field WITH Mixon to either go in motion from the back field, line up in the slot or outside, or also be a target for screens.  I know a lot of attention would be paid to both Gio and Mixon and you can't defend both of them easily.  

I was getting hammered (not the way you want) on my Cody Core thread for wanting him on the field over Lafell, but that is also a part of the WCO is to have a vertical threat to drop the safeties deep which helps everything underneath.  

[*bengalfan74*]

(10-06-2017, 08:32 AM)SHRacerX Wrote: The focal point is YAC.  Hitting guys in motion to create yards after the catch.  Reduces risk, sustains drives, etc.

If there is one single element that the Bengals are missing from an Ohio River Offense (ORO), it is the fact that they don't spread the ball around enough.  They started to with involving Kroft more in the scheme, but a great ORO would have the FB getting a pass play here and there.  The RBs are among the biggest weapons in the passing game, and all the WRs are targeted to keep the defense from keying on any one person.

It was nice to see Kroft utilized, as before that game our TEs were basically blockers that weren't very good blockers and didn't draw much attention from the WRs or RBs.

I think Gio needs to get 5 receptions a game, and it would be far easier if he was on the field WITH Mixon to either go in motion from the back field, line up in the slot or outside, or also be a target for screens.  I know a lot of attention would be paid to both Gio and Mixon and you can't defend both of them easily.  

I was getting hammered (not the way you want) on my Cody Core thread for wanting him on the field over Lafell, but that is also a part of the WCO is to have a vertical threat to drop the safeties deep which helps everything underneath.  

Like you say a large part of the ORO is passing to the FB/RB's. Why not put Gio and Mixon on the field at the same time ? Why does it have to be Hewitt/Hill, Gio, or Mixon. 

Gio/Mixon on the field together are much more of a dynamic duo than Hewitt/Hill. Much harder for D's to cover. The true FB days are gone and I'm not so sure having Hewitt on the field really matters with this O-line ? Where Gio and Mixon combo is much tougher to account for.

[*ochocincos*]

(10-06-2017, 03:15 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Like you say a large part of the ORO is passing to the FB/RB's. Why not put Gio and Mixon on the field at the same time ? Why does it have to be Hewitt/Hill, Gio, or Mixon. 

Gio/Mixon on the field together are much more of a dynamic duo than Hewitt/Hill. Much harder for D's to cover. The true FB days are gone and I'm not so sure having Hewitt on the field really matters with this O-line ? Where Gio and Mixon combo is much tougher to account for.

I can imagine a WCO/ORO with the following weapons that the Bengals have being pretty lethal:
Green
Ross
Mixon
Bernard
Eifert

[TheUberHuber]

(10-06-2017, 03:15 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Like you say a large part of the ORO is passing to the FB/RB's. Why not put Gio and Mixon on the field at the same time ? Why does it have to be Hewitt/Hill, Gio, or Mixon. 

Gio/Mixon on the field together are much more of a dynamic duo than Hewitt/Hill. Much harder for D's to cover. The true FB days are gone and I'm not so sure having Hewitt on the field really matters with this O-line ? Where Gio and Mixon combo is much tougher to account for.

Yeah no kidding. I actually thought that was the plan when they drafted them back to back tbh. I can't remember a game where they actually used them both at the same time. 

I am no offensive guru but wouldnt having gio and mixon lined up in the backfield in a shotgun formation where you send them to the flats open up a 1 on 1 matchup over the middle for the te or slot guy? I have been amazed that we have not seen this...

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

Definately agree with this Pistons. WCO with Gio at RB and Mixon at WR/FB would work wonders for this Offense
and as Wyche said short passes to the RB's is pretty much an extension of the running game. This would take a lot
of pressure off of the O-line and Dalton.

Hewitt is banged up and we run a Zone Blocking Scheme which doesn't tailor to power running anyways.

[*SHRacerX*]

(10-06-2017, 03:15 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: Like you say a large part of the ORO is passing to the FB/RB's. Why not put Gio and Mixon on the field at the same time ? Why does it have to be Hewitt/Hill, Gio, or Mixon. 

Gio/Mixon on the field together are much more of a dynamic duo than Hewitt/Hill. Much harder for D's to cover. The true FB days are gone and I'm not so sure having Hewitt on the field really matters with this O-line ? Where Gio and Mixon combo is much tougher to account for.

I have been saying this for a while...send them in opposite directions out of the backfield and a TE down the seam...defenses have to pick their poison.

I also think Hewitt should get more targets in the screen and short passing game.  Make a defense account for every player on the field.