Is Raye actually installing the Gibbs one-back?

[Buddha]

Two reports over the past couple of days have caught my attention-- that Raye will employ 2 TE sets from time to time and that Marty projects Donnell Bennett to be used in short yardage situations as a single back. The one thing I haven't seen is mention of any two-back sets being used, either split or I-formation, as integral parts of this offense.

To me, this sounds like the early variation of Gibbs's one-back offense. I'm talking about the Riggo days where two TEs were used heavily with one (Didier, now Alexander?) moved around as an H-back. Lead blockers were used only in short yardage situations, active line play was crucial, and motion and misdirection was a part of every game plan.

Can anyone shed some light on this, especially those of you that have been to camp?

[Monkey]

A one back offensive set is a base formation in most versions of the WCO (rememember, the WCO was also the base used by Coryell at San Diego).

The one back is especially effective for us because we can force our opponents defense into a base defense and then over-power them with a power or trap (Davis or Bennett). If they press, they either give up the flats and the TE routes or the long ball.

------------------

There are two kinds of opinions, mine and the wrong one!

[NavyDave]

Rasby has impressed Coach Marty and Raye with his pass catching ability.

One back offense, Eerie coincidence huh?

------------------

Take a sip of the Marty Kool Aid and Believe

[Monkey]

An option if Davis goes down or is otherwise out of the game: two TEs or bring say Gardner in as the HB and have him motion to wing or slot while line up Bennett straight behind the QB.

------------------

There are two kinds of opinions, mine and the wrong one!

[joe]

This is not Gibbs' offense. Gibbs' offense was taken from Coryell's but that has no relation to the "West Coast Offense" that was developed by Bill Walsh. Turner's offense was actually much closer to Gibbs' than what is currently going to be used by the Redskins.

The use of two tight ends is a variation that Walsh did not employ, probably because he did not have two superior tight ends. But Buffalo is using the WCO this year and it has been written that they will utilize two tight ends. The Bottom line is always to get your most talented guys on the field. That is what they are trying to do.

Sorry Monkey, you're wrong on this one, but I won't insist that you change that little blurb at the bottom of all your posts

[GURU]

Well, the offense that Don Coryell employed came from the West Coast (San Diego), but it is not the offensive system we commonly refer to as the West Coast Offense. It often employed a one-back set, but it was not the base offense. Joe Gibbs was really the first to commit to it full-time.

In Gibbs case, it was the best way to employ the personnel he had at the time. There weren't any real fullback-types on the roster (other than Riggo himself), while Don Warren and Clint Didier both deserved to be on the field. The H-back is a lot like a fullback, anyway, just closer to the line of scrimmage.

Sometimes I think we get too caught up in offensive schemes. The best coaches always adapt the scheme to the personnel, rather than the other way around. The West Coast offensive is supposed to be dink-and-dunk, but if you watched the Chiefs last year, they threw aggressively downfield because they had a QB with a strong arm, speedy wide receivers on the outside, and a tight end who could really stretch the field and create all kinds of mismatches.

There's a lot of talk about how this year's offense will feature a lot of short passes. But the basic idea of the passing scheme is to deliver the ball into the receiver's hands quickly while he is on the run. This minimizes the pass rush and allows the receivers to make plays after the catch. But the opportunity to go up top is always there, and there is always an outlet receiver available.

I would imagine that if any 2-tight end formations are used, you will first see them in short yardage situations, like second-and-three or third-and-two. This way, if defenses commit to heavily to the run, a tight end can slip through and maybe make a big play. But if the combination of Rasby and Alexander proves to be a better run blocking combo than Bennett and Alexander, you may see it more often. I don't know, though. I don't think Marty or Raye has any history of running predominantly one-back offensive sets.

Frankly, I'd love to see Stephen Davis in a one-back set. I think he was born for that offense. Davis, while not as strong as Riggo was, is more explosive and better at cutbacks. Can you imagine Davis lined up a couple yards deeper? With the extra time to read the blocks and gain momentum, he could be devistating.

[redman]

This is interesting because while the WCO is traditionally a two-back set (best exemplified by the Craig-Rathman combo in SF) I can't recall Marty ever using that as his base offense. Name me a fullback who started in the base offense and whose primary job was to block and catch passes - I can't think of one. Marty has traditionally liked big backs like Byner, Mack, Okoye, Anders, Bennett, etc. who don't need lead blocking so much. I wouldn't be surprised to see some type of hybrid one-back/WCO under Raye, kind of like what Billick runs in Baltimore.

------------------

"Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[GURU]

Well,

Byner and Mack played at the same time in the backfield. They both ran for over 1000 yards one season. Okoye and Barry Word shared the backfield, as well. Anders first earned his playing time at fullback before getting a shot at tailback.

It's true that Marty has always liked the power running game and utilized one-back sets, but it was never his base offense. He started using the West Coast offense as his base set in the early '80s, when Joe Montana came on board in K.C., I believe. By then, Marcus Allen was the featured back, and his skills and style were more suited to a Joe Walsh-style offense.

The role of fullback as primarily blocker and pass catcher is a fairly recent development. Up until the mid to late '80s or so, fullbacks were expected to run the ball often. John Riggins was a fullback when he ran for over 1000 yards the first time with the Jets. What about Larry Czonka? He was a multiple 1000-yard rusher at fullback.

I think we're getting too obsessed with offensive schemes, especially the WCO. It doesn't really exist in the form that Joe Walsh created it, anymore. Every offensive coordinator has added his own wrinkles and terminology many times over. Plus, I'm not exactly sure how relevant it is to the running game, at all, since Walsh developed the scheme practically in lieu of a running game.

I think, anymore, when you talk about the WCO, I think you are talking about a passing offense that emphasizes short drops by the QB and quick passes to receivers that control the clock and keep the chains moving. That doesn't preclude a power running game to set up the downfield pass. In Marty's case, the main objective is ball control.

In any case, it doesn't really matter if there are two tight ends, or a tight end and a fullback. The objective is still the same.

One consideration, however. With the advent of zone blitzes, it might be advantageous to have two backs in the backfield. A fullback lined up behind the QB has an advantage by being able to pick up pass rushers from either side of the line, whereas an H-back is more than likely going to be on one side or the other, elimanating his usefulness in picking up a weakside blitz.

[Monkey]

Joe,

I'm not sure what point you were to which you were refering. As far as Coryell using the WCO as his base (maybe I should have said frame, but that seems even more to me), that opionion would have to be taken up with the HOF, not me.

GURU,

Yes, I don't remember Walsh using two TE formations but Ron Jenkins uses them and I know Walsh has talked about it in coaching schools.

Getting your best people on the field in a way that best uses their talents is the most important thing you can do. I think your right, I'd love to see Stephen Davis in a one-back set.

------------------

There are two kinds of opinions, mine and the wrong one!

[indyskinsfan]

Monkey that was an excellent short synopsis of diagnosing a Gibbs stategy.

Thanks

<FONT COLOR="Yellow">HTTR!!!</FONT c>

[redman]

Guru-

I'm aware of all the other former Marty RB's, but my impression always was that they were simply rotated in and out of the one-back linup (mostly of course, with some exceptions) as part of his running back by committee approach to ball carrying. Did Mack indeed line up with Byner, or just trade off as the primary ball carrier? Ditto for Word and Okoye. I may be wrong but I just don't remember two-back sets in Cleveland or KC under Marty before, as you said, Montana arrived in KC in the early 90's.

------------------

"Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor

[joe]

Monkey,

I generally refrain from doing this, but sometimes it is the easiest way to educate. If I might quote you.

"A one back offensive set is a base formation in most versions of the WCO (rememember, the WCO was also the base used by Coryell at San Diego)."

This is an untrue statement. The WCO, as that term is generally used, was developed by Bill Walsh for the 49ers. It was developed long after Coryell developed the offense first used by the St. Louis Cardinals, which he imported to San Diego when he became the coach there. This was the base for Gibbs' offense which was also utilized by Norv Turner. It is not the basic system that is going to be utilized by Jimmy Raye for our beloved Redskins. The two systems, which are utilized by most of the teams in the NFL these days, are actually not very similar.

[Monkey]

Joe,

RE: A one back offensive set is a base formation in most versions of the WCO (rememember, the WCO was also the base used by Coryell at San Diego).

Like I said, your aurgument then is with the NFL. I was just wondering why you said I was wrong, I only parroted what the NFL said.

I didn't understand why they said this but it was something about the patterns run by the recievers. Bill Walsh developed the basic system for Bungles to deal with the cover-2 and cover-4 defenses then left the Bungles when he was not promoted to be OC for San Diego and work with a young Dan Fouts. When SD brought in Coryell, he went to Stanford and perfected what we usually refer to as the WCO. Of course, like any good offensive system, it is still a work-in-process.

Thanks for getting me to reconfirm my research

By the way, I thought up some better tag lines but this was the most original. I hope no one takes it seriously. I like ND's tag-line the best!

------------------

There are two kinds of opinions, mine and the wrong one!

[ by Monkey on August 06, 2001.]