[Goose]

I or others may have posted this before, but the thing that makes the WCO so complicated is the terminology.  Reading defenses and making good throws is much less the issue for a QB than knowing the play calls and how to call plays is.  You particularly need to know the terminology to change the play at the LOS when you know have called a play that isn't going to work based on the pre-snap read.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about how Belichick simplified the Patriots' offense by streamlining how plays are called.  It can be done.

Interesting thought. In looking into this, I naturally checked into Wikipedia. You might want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_calling_system. They seem to express a contrary view about the Patriot's system. I would be interested in the article you refer to, if you can remember it.

From what I can see, and what I have heard, the nomenclature in the West Coast system is more complex than in some other systems, at least partially because it is more specific. However, learning that doesn't appear to me to challenge a Stanford student much. It would be no worse than one quarter of a foreign language. Some work, but doable. I actually think it is the reading defenses and knowing what to do in response part that is more an issue. Calling the play call coming from the sideline is easy. You just look it up on the wristband. Processing what it means requires more thought, but there should be no surprises. What Shaw has on the sheet you have seen before and expect. Now, if he sends in a play (via a player, not a signal) that is not on the sheet, that could be more of a challenge.
Also, I believe, but don't know for absolute certain, that the "grammar"  used in audibles is different than the nomenclature used in calling the plays. On some teams, I know this is true. I am not sure about Stanford though. Can anyone enlighten me?

[Goose]

I or others may have posted this before, but the thing that makes the WCO so complicated is the terminology.  Reading defenses and making good throws is much less the issue for a QB than knowing the play calls and how to call plays is.  You particularly need to know the terminology to change the play at the LOS when you know have called a play that isn't going to work based on the pre-snap read.

I remember reading an article a few years ago about how Belichick simplified the Patriots' offense by streamlining how plays are called.  It can be done.

Interesting thought. In looking into this, I naturally checked into Wikipedia. You might want to look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Play_calling_system. They seem to express a contrary view about the Patriot's system. I would be interested in the article you refer to, if you can remember it.

From what I can see, and what I have heard, the nomenclature in the West Coast system is more complex than in some other systems, at least partially because it is more specific. However, learning that doesn't appear to me to challenge a Stanford student much. It would be no worse than one quarter of a foreign language. Some work, but doable. I actually think it is the reading defenses and knowing what to do in response part that is more an issue. Calling the play call coming from the sideline is easy. You just look it up on the wristband. Processing what it means requires more thought, but there should be no surprises. What Shaw has on the sheet you have seen before and expect. Now, if he sends in a play (via a player, not a signal) that is not on the sheet, that could be more of a challenge.
Also, I believe, but don't know for absolute certain, that the "grammar"  used in audibles is different than the nomenclature used in calling the plays. On some teams, I know this is true. I am not sure about Stanford though. Can anyone enlighten me?