Belichick Discusses WCO & Coryell/Gibbs Offense

[Om]

And we're gonna force our tall, big arm QB to play a dink & dunk style. Makes you go huh?!?!

Lots of talk about JC not being able to play in a WCO-based offense under Jim Zorn. Since you happen to be the one who raised the issue in this particuarly thread, let me ask you:

QB Matt Hasselbeck - 6’4”, 225 lb.

http://www.nfl.com/players/profile?id=00-0007091

QB Jason Campbell – 6’5”, 233 lb.

http://www.nfl.com/players/profile?id=00-0007091

So if Hasselbeck had been one inch taller and sucked down a half-dozen more Guiness Stout’s, he couldn’t have run the offense he’s running now?

Point being ... are height and arm strength necessarily the death knell for a QB in a given kind of offense? Particularly one known for its flexibility?

[APBT]

Well what about the others under the "Coryell" Tree? How about Mike Martz, John Fox, Al Saunders, Norv Turner?

He answered question any coach better know.

[ZoEd]

whats whacked is that we are throwing our Washington Redskins Joe Gibbs heritage in the trash for some watered down San Fransico Bill Walsh offense..ok..I guess what Vinnie wants Vinnie gets. This is Vinnie's team now. UGH.

What's whacked is I don't think we had the personnel to run a Joe Gibbs type offense nor do I think it will work too well in todays NFL.

Joe may have been a disciple of Coryell but his game was far from being a downfield passing game. Joe Gibbs philosophy was:

1. Run the ball between the tackles w a big back to wear down the opposing defense. This also eats up the clock and keeps the opposing teams offense on the bench.

2. After getting 2-3 yds a carry throw short to intermediate passes to get the first down but don't take unecessary risks going downfield. Again, control the clock, keeping the ball and not allowing the other teams offense on the field.

3. Max protect the QB. Joe Gibbs didn't and never would have had the offensive line he had in his glory years. He had to keep in RB's, TE's and even an extra lineman to protect his QB. Kind of hard to Air (Coryell) it out when you have 8 or 9 guys in the box giving your QB two to three viable targets. Makes it pretty easy for opposing defenses to figure out where and who the ball is going to when everyone is blocking except three WR's, one of which rarely gets the ball so now there's two targets to cover.

4. Run the ball some more, even when it doesn't work. Then try running again, and again and again.

What I'm hoping to see from Zorn is an offense that's explosive. One that finds ways to get the ball into it's playmakers hands. Portis was never built to pound the ball up the middle down after down. He's so dangerous when he gets into open space. So get his ass into open space. Find ways to get him the freaking ball that allows him to use his speed and athleticism to make big plays. When Joe brought him in the first thing he did was force the poor **** to lower his shoulder pads and hit the hole. Nevermind if the hole is open or not, there's your hole now hit it. This was and never should have been Portis' style of running and I hope Zorn allows Portis to once again play his style of running.

Also hope to see more play action, more agressiveness with the ball downfield. Make the defense get out of the box and respect a downfield passing attack. You have to keep going downfield even when its not successful to make the defenses respect you. If not, they'll stack the box and shut down your running game. We saw a little mroe of that this season but still not nearly enough if you ask me. This season is going to be interesting to say the least.

[Jahbird]

That adds some very interesting insight into the reason that Belichick is so successful. The man even knows who runs what variation of which offense and from whom it came. Unreal.

I hate the guy but bellicick is widely regarded as the football nerd. His knowledge of the game is encyclopedic. Think of the ultimate Trekkie or Computer Geek that knows every tibit, all the crap everyone else never bothered to know or forgot when it became irrelevant, just he likes football instead of the lord of the rings

[ZoEd]

To be fair we really weren't running a pure Joe Gibbs offense his last few years here....mainly b/c it doesn't really work in the modern NFL w/o some adaptation.

Al Saunders was an offshoot of that tree with a more modern spin on it-but I don't think Al ever really got full control-or even enough control of the game planning. And that's why I was more upset to see him go than Gibbs.

I know, I know, Gibbs is awesome-but he was too old for the game's x's and o's at this point. I mean it took him how many years to grasp clock management?

Anyway, the point is....if you're going to start over-it doesn't reallly hurt over the long haul to use an offense that will get the ball to your WR's.

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I totally agree and have mad love for Joe Gibbs. However, talking negatively about him may get you lynched. Wait a minute, can I say lynched? Without a bruising RB, which are few and far between in todays NFL, and a stellar offensive line Joe Gibbs style of offense will not work in todays NFL. It will have some success but not to the level needed to "score at will". We seemed to always be willing to except 3pts once we got into the red zone. Once we got there we turned into a totally different offense. When most top tier teams get inside the 20 its almost a shock when they have to settle for a field goal. We rarely took shots into the endzone. We ran and ran some more not wanting to take any chances on not getting that field goal. We've got to be more agressive when we get chances to score.

[Om]

What's whacked is I don't think we had the personnel to run a Joe Gibbs type offense nor do I think it will work too well in todays NFL.

Joe may have been a disciple of Coryell but his game was far from being a downfield passing game. Joe Gibbs philosophy was:

1. Run the ball between the tackles w a big back to wear down the opposing defense. This also eats up the clock and keeps the opposing teams offense on the bench.

2. After getting 2-3 yds a carry throw short to intermediate passes to get the first down but don't take unecessary risks going downfield. Again, control the clock, keeping the ball and not allowing the other teams offense on the field.

3. Max protect the QB. Joe Gibbs didn't and never would have had the offensive line he had in his glory years. He had to keep in RB's, TE's and even an extra lineman to protect his QB. Kind of hard to Air (Coryell) it out when you have 8 or 9 guys in the box giving your QB two to three viable targets. Makes it pretty easy for opposing defenses to figure out where and who the ball is going to when everyone is blocking except three WR's, one of which rarely gets the ball so now there's two targets to cover.

4. Run the ball some more, even when it doesn't work. Then try running again, and again and again.........

One thing I'd quibble about in your assessment of a "Joe Gibbs Offense" is you left out the play-action game. In fact you seemed to generally dismissed the idea that Gibbs featured a downfield game at all.

Yes, Joe liked to pound the ball, and yes, he was a master at converting 3rd downs in order to grind it out and wear down defenses, but he was also a cold-blooded assassin in terms of setting up the deep ball.

Just for illustration, here's the '91 Redskins offensive regular-season production:

Passing: 261 of 447, 3692 yards, 30 TD, 11 INT, 8.1 yds/att.

Rushing: 540 rushes, 2049 yards, 21 TD, 3.8 yds.att.

Of note:

The 8.1 yards per attempt passing was best in the league by almost a yard. San Fran finished second at 7.3.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1991/

Hard to argue that the downfield passing game wasn't a -- if not THE -- key component of his best offensive team.

[zallera]

whats whacked is that we are throwing our Washington Redskins Joe Gibbs heritage in the trash for some watered down San Fransico Bill Walsh offense..ok..I guess what Vinnie wants Vinnie gets. This is Vinnie's team now. UGH.

I have to say that I kind of feel the same way you do.

[PCS]

One of the hallmarks of Joe's first go with the Redskins, was his ability to change. His offense was constantly evolving. He picked from offenses around the league and incorporated them into his offense. Though at it's core it was a pound the ball offense, The Smurfs and The Posse didn't get that recognition and all those yards because they blocked all the time. The 91 team is good example of both of these. For instance, Buffalo was famous for running that no huddle of theirs. Well, guess who employed that offense and made it work just as well, if not better at times? It's a bit of a mistake to try and pin down Joe's offense to a certain style, because the man did like to pick a choose from stuff around the league and put it in his offense.

The often quoted Dick Vermeil was asked about Joe's offense when Joe first came back. Dick was quick to point out that it was alive and well in the modern NFL and being used in one way or the other around the league. You saw it in Al Saunder's offense for instance. Teams are still using big linemen and big time running backs to grind things out. Oh it's a pass happy league these days, but you look around and you see big offensive linemen and big time running backs grinding it out and using the run effectively to win.

[SkinsFTW]

WTF is up with that article?

Paul Brown coached Ickey Woods?

The Chargers did win that 41-38 game against the Dolphins. That is one of the first games I remember watching. WTF?

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sdg/1981_games.htm

[33]

I'd be willing to bet there is not one head coach in the league today that could NOT give you the same basic level of insight into the Paul Brown / Don Coryell history.

My intention with the thread, besides promoting discussion on the two offensive philosophies, was not to say the man knows more history than others. Rather the idea was, ask him something about football that doesn't include "Who is injured," "How did Tom practice," and you might not be able to get a word in edgewise. He clearly enjoys talking about the history of the game.

As to the whole train of thought comment. :rubeyes:

To those that are interested, the Pats are considered to use the Erhardt-Perkins offensive system.

[redman]

Wow that interview really impressed me with Bill Bellichek. Man, that guy is smarter then I gave him credit.

Thanks for those links guys. I never realized there was a connection between Gibbs and Turner Via Coryell before

I'm not disputing that Belichick is smart, but that interview was nothing more than a history lesson that most coaches in this league would be able to recite. In order to know and understand the schemes sufficiently to coach at the NFL level, you need to know the history of their development.

[ZoEd]

One thing I'd quibble about in your assessment of a "Joe Gibbs Offense" is you left out the play-action game. In fact you seemed to generally dismissed the idea that Gibbs featured a downfield game at all.

Yes, Joe liked to pound the ball, and yes, he was a master at converting 3rd downs in order to grind it out and wear down defenses, but he was also a cold-blooded assassin in terms of setting up the deep ball.

Just for illustration, here's the '91 Redskins offensive regular-season production:

Passing: 261 of 447, 3692 yards, 30 TD, 11 INT, 8.1 yds/att.

Rushing: 540 rushes, 2049 yards, 21 TD, 3.8 yds.att.

Of note:

The 8.1 yards per attempt passing was best in the league by almost a yard. San Fran finished second at 7.3.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/1991/

Hard to argue that the downfield passing game wasn't a -- if not THE -- key component of his best offensive team.

I'm focusing more on this time around as opposed to his first tenure as coach. Joe Gibbs I was as ruthless as they came. I can remember him putting the nail in the coffin regularly. I just don't think he had the personnel or the confidence in the offense to do that in Gibbs II. Comparing Gibbs I to Gibbs II is like comparing apples to oranges IMO. OM, how many times did you scream at the tv the last four seasons when we kept running the ball for no yards.

You're right though, in the context of philosophy a Gibbs offense utilizes the hell out of play action setting up downfield strikes. We just didn't have the players to do this regularly. When your lose starting linemen every year it makes it difficult.

In todays football you need a coach that can mold and adapt offenses and defenses to correlate with the talent you have on the field. Gregg rammed his schemes down the players throats even when we didn't have the players to pull it off. We didn't have the type of running back or line to run between the tackles and gain big yards. We needed to find ways to adapt and maximize our productivity with the players we had.

I honestly think Portis will have a 1500+ yard season again this year and put up gaudy numbers if Zorn finds ways to get him into space. Look what he did being slammed between the tackles last four years. I'm actually kind of excited about hopefully having a more open, spread out offense.

For the record, Joe Gibbs and his football philosophy will be felt in the NFL for a long time. He was a great coach and I believe no one could have held this team together the way he did this past season. I'm not dogging the man, however he was a little pig headed at times. You have to take risks in todays NFL and he wasn't willing to do that and it showed. Defenses knew that and it showed.

[33]

For the record, Joe Gibbs and his football philosophy will be felt in the NFL for a long time.

All you need to do is see multiple men in motion, or an H-Back to know that Gibbs was a massive innovator.

Not a ton of teams use a similar offense to his in Washington (talk about his time in San Diego and we're looking at something different), but the amount of teams that incorporate parts of his system is probably around 32.

And, in that case we're talking about things he personally brought to the league.

[SkinsFTW]

So by this you mean you don't think other NFL head coaches could give you the same insight into the two passing systems? Or are you just being argumentative for the hell of it?

I really don't understand how any coach like Belichick, who has been in the league for 25+ years, COULDNT know all that and a lot more.

He's coached against all of those guys, every year a coach goes from here to there, and he has to game plan against them so you know that he knows.

It's like you or me at our jobs. Of course we know a lot of things that people seem surprised about even though it is our job to know them.

Hell, most of what he said a lot of fans here knew too. But I didn't hear them mention that Norv Turner is actually in the Coryell/Gibbs line of coaches since he was in LA with Zampese in the 80's before he went to Dallas.

BTW, the Coryell offense didn't come from the Paul Brown offense either. Belichick answered that one wrong. It came from the Gillman 60's Chargers offense, which is also what Davis/Madden, Noll, Knox, and Vermeil followed. Hmm.

[Om]

My intention with the thread, besides promoting discussion on the two offensive philosophies, was not to say the man knows more history than others. Rather the idea was, ask him something about football that doesn't include "Who is injured," "How did Tom practice," and you might not be able to get a word in edgewise. He clearly enjoys talking about the history of the game.

As to the whole train of thought comment. :rubeyes:

To those that are interested, the Pats are considered to use the Erhardt-Perkins offensive system.

Just for the record ... I didn't direct my comments at you my friend. They were directed at the inevitable "damn that Bill guy is smart" crowd that gathers in any thread that invokes him.

I'm focusing more on this time around as opposed to his first tenure as coach. Joe Gibbs I was as ruthless as they came.

Thought that might be the case ... but by then I'd already written my reply. Should have added a disclaimer probably.

I can remember him putting the nail in the coffin regularly. I just don't think he had the personnel or the confidence in the offense to do that in Gibbs II. Comparing Gibbs I to Gibbs II is like comparing apples to oranges IMO. OM, how many times did you scream at the tv the last four seasons when we kept running the ball for no yards....

Only when it didn't work.

As to the rest ... even the most passionate "Gibbs guys" like me recognize that Gibbs was a different creature the second time around. That said, I'm not so sure the older incarnation wouldn't have succeeded -- not at the level he did the first time, no, but at least in contending seriously for a title or two -- had circumstances not been what they were. My feeling is that for all practical purposes, Gibbs II "ended" prior to the 2006 season when his grandson was diagnosed with leukemia. I honestly don't think he was ever the same after that.

But that's another story for different day.

[dadirtbags]

here is the coaching tree...kind of neat to check out... bummed that coryell/gibbs tree was not included or recognized

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coaching_Trees.GIF

[fnkdctr(007)]

That adds some very interesting insight into the reason that Belichick is so successful. The man even knows who runs what variation of which offense and from whom it came. Unreal.

No offense but who doesn't.

Once again

Who doesn't

Oh yeah

I guess

U

[33]

here is the coaching tree...kind of neat to check out... bummed that coryell/gibbs tree was not included or recognized

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coaching_Trees.GIF

Pretty interesting.

I don't think they should have put Jauron in the Parcells' tree. He was an assistant under Holmgren. McCarthy was as well, but they put him under Hackett.

Gets strange when they start putting defensive minded guys under offensive trees. (I know McCarthy isn't a defensive coach, but I was saying in general;))

Also, stranger when you have a Sean Payton who coached under both Fassel and Parcells.

I guess this is less of a system tree, and more of a "which coaches coached under which previous coaches."

Very interesting, though. Thanks for the link. I learned some things.

[diesel22]

So by this you mean you don't think other NFL head coaches could give you the same insight into the two passing systems? Or are you just being argumentative for the hell of it?

Just feel that - while BB's genius may well be exaggerated at times - neither he personally (nor the Pats as a whole) are treated with the respect they deserve in here. I guess my frustrations are not directly tied to this thread, so it was most likely not the place to vent. I'm sure there are many head coaches out there that may have boned up on their history regarding "Air Coryell" vs the WCO. Now, having said that, I am still willing to bet that the vast majority of them are not in BB's zip code when it comes to being an elite coach.

[Om]

Just feel that - while BB's genius may well be exaggerated at times - neither he personally (nor the Pats as a whole) are treated with the respect they deserve in here. I guess my frustrations are not directly tied to this thread, so it was most likely not the place to vent. I'm sure there are many head coaches out there that may have boned up on their history regarding "Air Coryell" vs the WCO. Now, having said that, I am still willing to bet that the vast majority of them are not in BB's zip code when it comes to being an elite coach.

Fair enough, thanks for the considered reply.

I'm not sure I agree with your take that Billy and the Pats don't get "the credit they deserve" around here, however. While that's far too subjective a thing to quantify, my sense over the numerous times I've engaged in that debate is that the majority of people here think he's quite simply the best in the biz today, and maybe on the short list all-time.

Personally, my take has always been that I'll withhold annointing him in those terms until he shows me he can have anywhere near the kind of success he's had since one of the best QB's ever to play the game fell out of his sky, without that kind of guy. I've posted a graphic several times that show his pre-Brady (both in CLE and NE) record and post-Brady records, and the difference is too stark for me to ignore.

Many have chose to interpret that to mean I think Belichick is not a good coach. That is wrong, as I've said over and over. As of today, I think he's a GREAT defensive mind, who has grown into a pretty damn good head coach while having the benefit of a Tom Brady to lean on.

Uh oh. Did we just go there again?

[ibarramedia]

Thanks. Definitely goes to show that if you ask Belichick about actual football he could probably talk your ear off.

One thing he doesn't mention, and I haven't heard mentioned on here much is the change in terminology from one system to the next. I think that's a big part of what slows offenses down when making a transition. I don't know if Zorn will actually change the terminology, but if we go to a west coast terminology (much longer than Coryell version) we could be looking at a long adaption process.

Coryell basically uses numbers for routes. 0-9. You can find an example here.

I'm having trouble finding examples of the actual play names of the two to compare. But the Coryell system that we employed under both Gibbs and Saunders was a numbered base system, and each receivers routes were based on a number. So if we had a three wide set you could say their routes as easy as 123 (literally :laugh:). But the WCO terminology is completely in verbiage, as in words and sometimes multiple words. I know Gruden's style is extremely cumbersome.

Also, as Belichick and others say, Holmgren runs his offense very close to the original Paul Brown/Walsh offensive style. Don't know if Zorn feels a closeness to that offense or not, though.

Throughout offseason workouts and minicamps, Saunders taught the core scheme while experimenting and evaluating new plays. Soon, the 700-page playbook emerged, to rave reviews.

"In the spring, we saw a different offense than before," Brunell said. "It was more explosive. We got the ball down the field. We were more efficient. It's exciting."

Saunders plans to use the whole book, depending on defenses and how much his own players evolve. Through the first two weeks of camp, he hadn't called the same play two days in a row.

"We'll go into a game with 250 to 300," he said. "It's what separates us from a lot of offenses."

Asked by a visitor how it's possible to keep that many plays simple enough for players to process quickly and execute under pressure, Saunders pulls the cap off a felt-tip marker and reaches for a notebook.

"This is about as basic as you can get," he says, smiling, "not giving anything away."

In an instant, the page is loaded with circles, lines and what could pass for a Russian code. Some are mere dashes that slant left, representing offensive linemen. Others, representing receivers, are drawn with sharp angles and dart down and out, down and in. A couple of sweeping strokes are running backs floating into the flat.

Queen Right Jet Right 940 F Corner Swing

"We've just told all 11 players everything they need to know," he says proudly.

Queen Right and Jet Right set the formation and tell the line how to slant its blocks. The 940 is only slightly more complicated. The Redskins label their receivers X, Y, and Z, depending on where they line up. The X receiver listens for the first number, the Y receiver for the second, the Z receiver for the third. Even-numbered routes break in; odd-numbered routes break out; the higher the number, the deeper the pattern. F Swing tells the fullback to run a short corner.

"We don't even have to mention 'H,' " Saunders says, meaning the halfback. "He knows he's always last."

Suddenly, he's drawing again; same play, different words.

Brown Right 2 Jet Flanker Drive

"Bill Walsh's West Coast version," he explains, hoping the visitor will recognize the difference. He doesn't.

"He's told the flanker what to do, but no one else; they have to memorize their routes," Saunders explained. "We tell everybody what to do on every play, yet our verbiage is short and simple."

That simplicity enables Saunders to change formations on every down if he desires. He'll switch from two backs to two tight ends to three receivers to four receivers, hoping to create mismatches. It makes halftime adjustments easier, too. Basic formations stay the same, but overbearing defenses can be compromised just by changing a route number.

Where it gets tricky is that there are virtually no audibles: The quarterback and receivers must read the defense quickly and make pre-assigned adjustments.

At their best, Saunders' offenses never take what the defense gives; they take what they want.

"Sid Gillman and Don Coryell set the standard for aggressive offensive coaches," Saunders said. "They were my mentors. I was like a sponge soaking up information. Don was so creative, so open to new things. When it came to offense, he was a visionary."

He had to be. As coach at San Diego State from 1961-72, Coryell had the thankless task of competing for players with a slew of high-profile programs in California and neighboring states. One of his first tactical decisions was to heavily recruit junior-college players. That's how he came across Gibbs, a tight end from Cerritos College.

But JUCOs often entered school late; some showed up unannounced. They were eligible to play, but there was little time to teach them.

"Coryell figured if a guy could count from 1 to 9, and he knew 9 was a real deep route, and 8s were posts, 4s broke in... he could tell that guy what to do," Saunders said. "They might not run the right distances, but he could get him out there and work on that later in practice. So he'd tell guys, 'Just remember one number, and we'll be fine.' "

It worked so well that in 12 seasons at San Diego State, Coryell went undefeated three times. When he got to the Chargers, the old Aztec offense got a new, glitzier name: "Air Coryell."

Saunders' message today is much the same as Coryell delivered 45 years ago. He wants to play fast-break football, the kind he fell in love with as a kid in California. You'll love it, too, he'll tell you, if you just trust in him.

"We want to set the standard for excellence in the NFL," Saunders said. "We talk to the players about it all the time. If we're running on all cylinders and playing as we can, this system will allow us to set that standard. I'm convinced of that."

[ibarramedia]

New England Patriots Strategy

Erhardt - Perkins Offensive System

The New England Patriots run a modified Ron Erhardt - Ray Perkins offensive system installed by Charlie Weis under Bill Belichick. Both Ron Erhardt and Ray Perkins served as offensive assistant coaches under the defensive minded Chuck Fairbanks while he was head coach of the Patriots in the 1970s. This system is noted for its multiple formation and personnel grouping variations on a core number of base plays. Under this system, each formation and each play are separately numbered. Additional word descriptions further modify each play (see below for examples).

As a function of their current available personnel, the Patriots often run this system from a base two tight end set formation, utilizing two tight ends, two wide receivers and one running back.

Running Game

The Erhardt - Perkins system has at times had a reputation (whether or not earned) of being a traditional smash mouth offense that maximizes a team's time of possession and does not as frequently call upon its running backs to serve as receivers. This may have been especially true during the years Bill Parcells ran this system as the head coach of the New York Giants.

An example of a running play under this system is Zero, Ride Thirty-six. Zero sets the formation. Thirty indicates who will be the ball carrier running with the ball. Six indicates which hole between the offensive linemen the ball carrier will attempt to run through (see Offensive Nomenclature). The Patriots currently generally run man blocking, not zone blocking schemes in their running game.

Passing Game

This offense often uses "the run to set up the pass" via play-action passing, faking the run in order to throw deep downfield when the defense is least expecting it. Despite its reputation, this system is not always a run first offense. Erhardt commonly ran the system in his later years spread wide open with multiple receivers (earning the moniker "Air Erhardt"), as NFL rules evolved to benefit the passing game. As a result of this influence, the Patriots will frequently run this offense with five potential receivers and an empty backfield should a favorable matchup present itself.

Charlie Weis states in his autobiography "No Excuses" that the first play that he called in Super Bowl XXXVI was: Zero Flood Slot Hat, Seventy-eight Shout Tosser. Zero is the base formation. Flood Slot Hat further modifies this formation to a set with one back in motion, two tight ends and two wide receivers (which is to say five potential receivers in total). Seventy-eight is the base play number, a three step drop play. Shout tells the three potential receivers on one side of the quarterback what routes they should run, while Tosser tells the other two potential receivers their patterns. During the actual game, Tom Brady threw the ball to Troy Brown for a twenty-one yard gain, seventeen of it after the catch.

Other Teams Running Similar Offensive Systems

Bill Parcells ran the Erhardt - Perkins offensive system during his pro coaching years, which is where Charlie Weis originally learned it. Many teams coached by members of the Parcells - Belichick coaching tree currently use this system, such as the New York Giants under Tom Coughlin and Notre Dame under Charlie Weis. The Pittsburgh Steelers also continued to run this system during the Bill Cowher years, from when Ron Erhardt was their offensive coordinator, and it is believed that Ken Whisenhunt will bring this system to the Arizona Cardinals as their new head coach. Moreover, it is believed that Georgia Tech runs this system under Chan Gailey.

Comparison to Other Offensive Systems (West Coast and Air Coryell Offenses)

There are only approximately five or six major offensive systems run in the NFL today.

The structure of the Erhardt - Perkins system is very different from the Bill Walsh west coast offense. Formations under the west coast offense are commonly named after colors (i.e., Black 59 Razor). The west coast offense commonly utilizes short slanting passes and running backs as receivers. It prefers to have mobile quarterbacks (since its running backs may not be available to block) and large receivers who are able to gain additional yards after the catch. This is one of the reasons that there is some doubt as to whether Deion Branch (a 5 foot 9 receiver) will be as successful in Seattle as he was in New England.

The structure of the Erhardt - Perkins system is also very different from the Ernie Zampese - Don Coryell "Air Coryell" timed system. Route patterns of the receivers are numbered instead of named in the Air Coryell system (thereby making memorization easier.) For example, a Air Coryell play such as 924 F stop swing indicates that the primary wide receiver (X) should run a 9 pattern (a go), the tight end (Y) should run a 2 pattern (a slant), the secondary wide receiver (Z) should run a 4 pattern (a deep in) and the F-back should go out for a swing pass (see Offensive Nomenclature). Timing and precision are extremely important under the Air Coryell system, as the routes are intended to run like successive clockwork in order to be successful.

[33]

Thanks for the posts ibarramedia. I remember that Saunders article. What was that from? You got a link?

[ibarramedia]

Thanks for the posts ibarramedia. I remember that Saunders article. What was that from? You got a link?

Unfortunately no. I copy and pasted it into a word file some time ago.

[ibarramedia]

Someone from Oakland wrote this a few years ago.

The Basics of the Coryell Offense

Raiders head coach Norv Turner runs an offensive system known as the Coryell offense, which Don Coryell devised and brought to the NFL as head coach of the San Diego Chargers in the late 1970s. Simply put, the Coryell offense is the antithesis of the West Coast offense ("WCO"). In recent years, the explosive offenses of the Rams and the Chiefs have brought the Coryell offense back into the spotlight of the NFL. This article discusses:

1. How the Coryell offense differs from the West Coast offense
   
2. A brief history of the Coryell offense
   
3. What are the personnel requirements for the Coryell offense
   
4. What are the advantages of the Coryell offense
   

How the Coryell offense differs from the West Coast offense

The WCO has the following characteristics:

• It is a "ball-control" offense, predicated on the ability of the QB to achieve a high completion percentage
  
• The receivers often run precise short-to-intermediate routes and a lot of crossing routes and slants. The receivers are expected to pick up yards after the catch
  
• The QB takes more 3- and 5-step drops as opposed to 7-step drops
  
• When the QB and WRs are on the same page, it can be difficult to disrupt the rhythm of the offense
  
• It relies heavily on the receiving skills of backs coming out of the backfield
  

The Coryell offense has the following characteristics:

• It is a "stretch-the-field vertically" offense, predicated on the complementary effects of throwing deep and running the football
  
• The receivers often run intermediate-to-long routes
  
• The QB takes more 5- and 7-step drops
  
• It emphasizes maximum pass protection, to protect the QB until the receivers get open downfield
  
• It is committed to the power running game. The running game opens up opportunities for big downfield completions, and vice versa. Mike Martz, in an interview with Dr. Z of CNN/SI said:
  That's another thing that's critical to the system. Power running. You've got to be able to run the ball when you go to a three-wide receiver set, and you've got to run with power. By that I mean behind zone blocking, which is a big departure from the San Francisco system. Theirs was man-blocking, with a lot of cut-blocks and misdirection. Ours is straight power. Not many people realize this, but if we hadn't have gotten Marshall we were prepared to go with another excellent zone-blocking runner, Robert Holcombe. It takes a certain type, a guy who can run with power, who's good at picking his way through. Stephen Davis is doing that in Washington now, and that's a big reason why their offense is so good...The good thing about zone-block running is that you can keep pounding away. You don't have the negative yardage plays.

  
  

A brief history of the Coryell offense

The Coryell offense didn't start with Coryell. Sid Gillman was the innovator of the vertical game back in the 1960s. Many members of Gillman's staff, including Al Davis and Dick Vermiel have been adherents to the vertical game ever since. Coryell adapted Gillman's ideas into the system that now bears his name.

There are several notable implementers of the Coryell offense in the league today: Joe Gibbs in WAS, Mike Martz in STL, Norv Turner in OAK, and Dick Vermeil in KC. Many of these coaches are connected in the coaching tree, starting with Gillman or Coryell. Gibbs served on Coryell's staff in SD and brought the system to Washington. Turner served on Ernie Zampese's staff on the LA Rams and brought the system to Dallas. Martz served on Turner's staff in Washington.

What are the personnel requirements for the Coryell offense

The personnel requirements are significantly different between the Coryell O and WCO. In the Coryell O:

• QBs must be able to throw deep with accuracy. They are typically pocket passers with big arms. Examples of solid Coryell QBs are the Cowboys' HOFer Troy Aikman (6-4 220) and former Ram Kurt Warner (6-2 200)
  
• WRs must be able to stretch the field. The name of the game is speed and separation. By contrast, the WCO favors physical possession receivers, such as Jerry Rice. Examples of solid Coryell WRs are the Rams' Torry Holt (6-0 195) and the Raiders' Randy Moss (6-4 205)
  
• RBs carry a heavy load and tend to have good power. Norv Turner in particular has preferred to feed the ball to a feature back (Emmitt Smith in DAL, Terry Allen in WAS, Stephen Davis in WAS, LaDainian Tomlinson in SD, Ricky Williams in MIA). So the Raiders went out in FA and signed former Jet LaMont Jordan (5-10 230) to a big 5 year / $27.5 MM deal to be that workhorse RB. Examples of solid Coryell RBs are former Redskin John Riggins (6-2 230), former Cowboy Emmitt Smith (5-9 215), and the Chiefs' Priest Holmes (5-9 213)
  
• TEs tend to be strong blockers; they are relied upon heavily in pass protection and in paving the way for RBs in the ground game. In general, the WCO favors TEs with receiving over blocking skills (e.g. the Jets' Doug Jolley) whereas the Coryell O favors the reverse, although obviously a TE who can do both can fit into any system. This explains, in part, why 2004 rookie 7th rounder Courtney Anderson (6-6 270), with his size and ability to run-block, was able to leap-frog former 2nd rounders Doug Jolley (6-4 250) and Teyo Johnson on the Raiders depth chart
  
• OL tend to be big and physical compared to their WCO counterparts. Some WCO teams have gotten by with smaller OL (e.g. the Niners in the 1990s and the Broncos of recent years), because the linemen are able to block at angles and only need to maintain pass protection for a short period of time. Coryell OL are road graders in the running game, but they must also pass protect on drawn-out deep passing plays. Examples of solid Coryell OLs are the Cowboys' massive (at the time) championship OL in the 1990s and the Chiefs' OL in recent years
  

Arguably the best Coryell offense ever was the Rams' "Greatest Show on Turf" team in 1999. They had an awesome set of wideouts (Bruce, Holt, Hakim, and Proehl), a strong OL, and Faulk and Warner in their prime.

The Raiders have assembled the ingredients to run the Coryell system effectively: a strong-armed accurate deep thrower in Collins; 4 excellent deep threats with Moss, Porter, Curry, and Gabriel at WR; an explosive power back in Jordan; a power-blocking TE in Anderson; and a big, talented offensive line.

What are the advantages of the Coryell offense

Run correctly, it is simply an explosive offense, capable of big plays at any time. It puts opposing defenses in a bind: does the defense defend the deep ball, thereby weakening its run support, or does it defend the run, thereby leaving itself vulnerable to big plays downfield?

There are some folks, including Al Davis, who feel that defenses have caught up with the WCO, esp with systems such as the Dungy Cover 2 defense. In Dungy's system, the WRs are bumped from their timing routes by press coverage by the CBs, the LBs are fast and have strong coverage ability, and the DL is quick and disruptive. These elements all counter strengths of the WCO.