Five Principles of the West Coast Offense

[SWFLSkins]

Gone are days of choosing party schools or colleges with the higher female to male ratios!

Seems to be working for the Gators, number 1 party school and a great F to M ratio, oh an okay football team, hmm. Now what about those grades?

Good job Dawg. I think another thought on that is that players are constantly coming and going without the team totally changing momentum, our question right now is can we get it to work in the NFCE the way Philly has, which is also a hybrid WCO. Not that it got them any Lombardi's but it has worked at times. They don't have the wideouts IMO.

Also, I root for the the Georgia Bulldogs and hated to have to open with the F'ing statement.

[Oldskool]

About our running game...

according to Al Saunders in a presser last year, we can now be classified a zone-blocking team. I think he meant that the majority of our running plays used that style. However, I think we are still going to see vertical blocking in power situations.

My understanding is that the quick hitting, one-cut and go backs fit the scheme. It worked for Portis in Denver, but Ladell's style is made for it also.

IMO, the Gibbs power running game should be kept for short yardage and red zone situations, but we lack a good power running back. Sellers is a blocking back. He should stick to that.

Alex Gibbs was the O-line coordinator in Denver when Portis has his success there. He used a zone blocking scheme almost exclusively there to take advantage of the small, agile O-lineman as well as Portis' initial burst of speed.

This is the system that Joe Bugel emulated the last few years in order to have Portis be more effective. WCO and Zone blocking go perfect together. With the LB's and the SS having to often play back to protect against the short pass, the lineman can quickly block a section of the D-line, open a hole for the RB and have him cut once and go downfield.

[Oldfan]

Alex Gibbs was the O-line coordinator in Denver when Portis has his success there. He used a zone blocking scheme almost exclusively there to take advantage of the small, agile O-lineman as well as Portis' initial burst of speed.

This is the system that Joe Bugel emulated the last few years in order to have Portis be more effective. WCO and Zone blocking go perfect together. With the LB's and the SS having to often play back to protect against the short pass, the lineman can quickly block a section of the D-line, open a hole for the RB and have him cut once and go downfield.

Given Bugel's history, I'm betting that it wasn't his idea to use that sissy zone-blocking.

With their smaller linemen, Denver has a history of red zone problems. I suspect that Jim Zorn will use two or even three TEs in power situations.

[CapitalDefense]

5 hmmmm..

1. Snap

2. Block

3. Run

4. Throw

5. Catch

[Oldskool]

Given Bugel's history, I'm betting that it wasn't his idea to use that sissy zone-blocking.

With their smaller linemen, Denver has a history of red zone problems. I suspect that Jim Zorn will use two or even three TEs in power situations.

Well I think this is one of the reasons why you have guys like Cooley, Davis, Kelly, Sellers, Yoder and Thrash on your team. These are bigger targets that can catch the ball in traffic and have at least good hands (Yoder) to great hands (the rest).

[BigRedskinDaddy]

Well I think this is one of the reasons why you have guys like Cooley, Davis, Kelly, Sellers, Yoder and Thrash on your team. These are bigger targets that can catch the ball in traffic and have at least good hands (Yoder) to great hands (the rest).

Two reasons I don't see us having nearly as hard a time in the red zone this year are 1: JZ's creativity in working with a shorter field, and 2: the fact that our lineman can work either way through Buges' coaching. They will prove to be equally adept at both man, straight power drive-blocking and get to an area, wall-off zone blocking. Gives us nice options down there in crunch time.

[BD]

At the pro-level, the only successful pass-heavy implementation of the WCO has been by the Eagles and in their best years, they have even been more balanced. Usually, the WCO is balanced and Seattle ran slightly more than they passed when they've had their greatest success. Seattle would have run more often had Alexander been a bit harder. Don't make the mistake and think the WCO is a 'pass-happy' offense as it is based on the last offense to win an NFL game with 0 pass attempts. Back in the day when Walsh ran the 49ers, the team was often among the best running teams and were run dominant in most of their successful years.

A slight correction to that, Darth Tater: Green Bay.

Holmgren, then Rhodes, then Sherman, then McCarthy all ran an offense in the WCO that was, in several years, very pass happy. Now granted, they were running that offense through a Hall of Fame QB - but they still ranked in the top ten offenses in the league 10 out of the past 15 years, even though they had a 1000+ yard rusher on the team in 7 out of those 15 years.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/

In the year they won the Super Bowl, for example, their leading rusher had 1067 yards - but also had 648 yards receiving. Now of course part of that is due to injuries at the RB position (only Ahman Green had a sustained tenure in Green Bay in that period), but it's still worth noting, especially since Zorn comes from this coaching tree.

BTW - just cause I haven't posted in forever doesn't mean I haven't been around. Missed you guys.

BD

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Like most offenses that have been extensively used for over 20 years, the WCO has a lot of variations and hybrids now. WCO is more of a philosophy than a true offense at this point. Holmgren is not running what Walsh ran and Zorn is already not running what Holmgren ran.

But the philosophies you state are mostly accurate. I wouldn't say that "protecting the QB" is a key to the WCO. It's more of a key to every offense outside of Spurrier's. The difference is how you do it in the WCO. The WCO puts a lot of responsibility on the QB for finding the blitz and getting rid of the ball to a bevy of check down options before trouble gets there.

I would also say that "Accuracy" needs to be included. If you are running the WCO and your QB is not connecting on 60 or 61 percent of his passes, you have some major problems.

Also, any good offensive coach is going to account for personnel. Seattle ran more than they passed? Why? Because they had Shaun Alexander, Walter Jones, and Steve Hutchinson.

Green Bay passed more than they ran. Why? Because they had Brett Favre in his prime.

The problems that the Skins have had on offense over the years is that we always try to make our personnel bend to our coaching, not the other way around.

Norv Turner tries to turn Michael Westbrook into Michael Irvin.

Marty...well...Marty didn't have an offense.

Spurrier tries to make Stephen Davis into Marshall Faulk.

Gibbs tries to run Clinton Portis like he is John Riggins.

Saunders tries to turn Jason Campbell into Kurt Warner.

My hope is that we realize what our players are actually good at this year and try to run the offense in that direction, regardless of what the WCO says you are supposed to do. If Zorn spends the season having Moss run five yard slants into a linebacker, I would be concerned.

[Darth Tater]

BA,

Show me the stats were they were pass happy. I looked at the link and the only times they were pass happy were years when their offenses were questionable.

[Major Harris]

The problems that the Skins have had on offense over the years is that we always try to make our personnel bend to our coaching' date=' not the other way around.

Norv Turner tries to turn Michael Westbrook into Michael Irvin.

Marty...well...Marty didn't have an offense.

Spurrier tries to make Stephen Davis into Marshall Faulk.

Gibbs tries to run Clinton Portis like he is John Riggins.

Saunders tries to turn Jason Campbell into Kurt Warner.

My hope is that we realize what our players are actually good at this year and try to run the offense in that direction, regardless of what the WCO says you are supposed to do. If Zorn spends the season having Moss run five yard slants into a linebacker, I would be concerned.[/quote']

very good points there. we need to tailor to our personnel better. hopefully zorn will do that.

[HawaiianTime]

Since the passing is based on precise timing, pressing the receivers to disrupt the timing would make sense.

Actually pressing the QB is the best way to disrupt the WCO. Case in point this past SB.

KDawg, can you explain to everyone what difference is between the run-n-shoot and the WCO?

[Silent Majority]

Thanks KDawg and others who have contributed to this thread. Great read.

[zoony]

Like most offenses that have been extensively used for over 20 years' date=' the WCO has a lot of variations and hybrids now. WCO is more of a philosophy than a true offense at this point. Holmgren is not running what Walsh ran and Zorn is already not running what Holmgren ran.[/quote']

This is absolutely correct. IMO, there really isn't such thing as a pure WCO anymore... hasn't been for some time. At this point, coaches have grabbed what they like from the WCO and integrated it into their overall scheme. Some more than others of course.

In it's purest form, the difference between the WCO and a standard NFL offense are fairly simple. In the WCO, the short passing game becomes the ground game. The idea is to get your skill players out into space before they touch the ball, but in doing so you get the ball out quickly before the rush can get to your QB. A quick-witted QB who can make the lightning fast read is a must. 3 step drop, get the ball out. as safe as a run if executed correctly, except the ball is already past the LOS and the down lineman by the time the skill player touches it.

In short, a traditional WCO uses the pass is to set up the run and more passes downfield. A traditional NFL offense uses the run to set up the passes downfield.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

In short, a traditional WCO uses the pass is to set up the run and more passes downfield. A traditional NFL offense uses the run to set up the passes downfield.

In some ways, in the pure WCO, the short passing game becomes the run game. Joe Montana's passes to Roger Craig were long handoffs for all intents and purposes.

But when you look at Seattle under Holmgren, they were basically running a power I offense with WCO principles in the passing game.

[Major Harris]

\

But when you look at Seattle under Holmgren' date=' they were basically running a power I offense with WCO principles in the passing game.[/quote']

the power i has 3 backs. maybe you meant a power running game out of the i, but not the power i set.

[zoony]

the power i has 3 backs. maybe you meant a power running game out of the i, but not the power i set.

I thought 3 backs was the wishbone? And the power I meant 2 backs, 2 TE's, and 1 WR. Where the standard I was 1 TE and 2 WR's :whoknows:

(I believe you... just asking wtf that formation I just described is)

[zoony]

In some ways' date=' in the pure WCO, the short passing game becomes the run game. Joe Montana's passes to Roger Craig were long handoffs for all intents and purposes.

But when you look at Seattle under Holmgren, they were basically running a power I offense with WCO principles in the passing game.[/quote']

:slap:

. In the WCO, the short passing game becomes the ground game. The idea is to get your skill players out into space before they touch the ball,

[Major Harris]

I thought 3 backs was the wishbone? And the power I meant 2 backs, 2 TE's, and 1 WR. Where the standard I was 1 TE and 2 WR's :whoknows:

(I believe you... just asking wtf that formation I just described is)

it depends on how they're lined up.

the power-i offense has a fullback, a tailback, then a "power back" that lines up on either side of the fullback.

the wishbone has a fullback lined up behind the quarterback, with 2 runningbacks lined up deeper than the fb, lined up basically behind each guard.

what you're describing are basically variations of the i formation. i guess some might call the 2 te set out of the i their "power set" but that could be true of any formation.

[Playsmart30]

If that five principles is use for every Offense. Special Protecting the QB, Timing the pass, and reading coverage is three i know all offence use

Protecting the Quarterback:

The offensive line must know their assignments and be aware of the blitz. Oftentimes, the WCO utilizes a 5 receiver attack, meaning you'll only see five guys blocking plenty. If the defense sends more guys than you have available to block, the quarterback and receiver must both be able to hot route successfully.

Timing the Pass:

Route depth must time out with the drop of the quarterback. The WCO is a timing offense. If the receiver comes into his break too early, the defense is still probably in position to make a play. If the QB holds on to the ball too long or drops too slowly, he screws the timing up.

Using Multiple Receivers:

The WCO utilizes a primary and secondary receiver to flood an area and in the case of a zone, make the defender pick a receiver to cover, or in the case of man defense one receiver clears the other.

The backs are often used to distract the undercoverage (the backers or up safeties). If the backs catch enough passes, the backers will creep up on them and try to jump a route, freeing up your other options.

Reading the Coverage:

Quarterbacks reads are generally fairly simple. The West Coast Offense purposely keeps reads simpler in order to give the QB an advantage and stop them from being tentative when throwing the football. They have a variety of reads that I won't get in to for the sake of keeping things fairly simple

Practicing the Fundamentals:

It's all well and good if you know all the principles, but if you aren't practicing all of them and working on timing with your receivers, it means nothing. Practice, practice, practice.

I admit, although I have been studying, I don't know everything about the west coast offense, but I do know enough to know that alot of the stuff people here assume it to be is false. But that's okay, not everyone is a complete loser like myself

Hope this helps out a little with some of you. If you have something to add or want to discuss anything, feel free.

[zoony]

it depends on how they're lined up.

the power-i offense has a fullback, a tailback, then a "power back" that lines up on either side of the fullback.

the wishbone has a fullback lined up behind the quarterback, with 2 runningbacks lined up deeper than the fb, lined up basically behind each guard.

what you're describing are basically variations of the i formation. i guess some might call the 2 te set out of the i their "power set" but that could be true of any formation.

okay, so here's the million dollar question. Why do they call it the fullback, if he's lined up between the halfback and the qb?

seems like it should be:

Line of scrimmage

Quarterback (quarter of the way back from the LOS)

Halfback, i.e. RB (half way back from the LOS)

Fullback (all the way back from the LOS)

But you never see them lined up this way. That bugs me. And what's the difference b/w a halfback and a RB? Nothing?

[zoony]

Just as a side note, I think that the Eagles run the closest thing to a pure WCO that exists anymore. jmo of course

[Major Harris]

okay, so here's the million dollar question. Why do they call it the fullback, if he's lined up between the halfback and the qb?

seems like it should be:

Line of scrimmage

Quarterback (quarter of the way back from the LOS)

Halfback, i.e. RB (half way back from the LOS)

Fullback (all the way back from the LOS)

But you never see them lined up this way. That bugs me. And what's the difference b/w a halfback and a RB? Nothing?

i've often wondered the same about the fb, rb, qb and why they're called what they're called when looking at where they line up. i can't answer that.

there really is no difference that i know of between a rb, a halfback and a tailback. just depends on what terminology is being used. maybe there is a rule of thumb that i don't know about.

[Pimpey42000]

Which is why the WCO generally employees large strong receivers in the slot/split end or very fast receivers in the slot/flanker positions.

I dont know this may also help explain why Zorn was fired up about his two draft picks being "out of shape." But regardless good explanation by KDawg of the concept of WCO.

[desertfox59]

Well, the roots of all offensive system lie in the work of Shaugnessy, Brown, Gillman and Lombardi.

The roots start sooner than those guys, you forgot: Walter Camp, Amos Stagg, Glenn Warner, Knute Rockne, Don Faurot.....

[desertfox59]

i've often wondered the same about the fb, rb, qb and why they're called what they're called when looking at where they line up. i can't answer that.

there really is no difference that i know of between a rb, a halfback and a tailback. just depends on what terminology is being used. maybe there is a rule of thumb that i don't know about.

The roots of the term halfback come from the notion that in a three back set, like say a wishbone or split T formation, the halfback would primerarly run dives on only one half or the other of the center on the line of scrimmage. The right Halfback would line up on the right side of the formations and the left Halfback would line up on the left side of the formation. Where as the Fullback lines up behind center thus reflecting that He could run dives to either side or the "Full" formation.

later when the I formations became popular, the Halfback became known as a Tailback, as he would "tail" the fullback.

Later still in single back formations the term running back or RB replaced the Tailback term because there was longer a Full back in the formation for the Tailback to "Tail", yet sometimes there was still a halfback to one side of the formation or the other in the backfield (we'd probably call this person a "Slot" or motion reciever nowadays) Still called a Halfback (see: Art Monk and/or Cris Cooley)