Learning the West Coast Offense: Part 2

[RiggosMohawk]

Ok, next question to derail the thread.

From TC on, we've heard about Jason's comfort in the shotgun and Zorn's reluctance to use it much, and how that would be an ongoing compromise between the two. The only reasoning behind Zorn's POV that I heard was that a shotgun formation basically eliminates the run option from the formation which he didn't want to do.

However, another goal of the WCO repeated in many places is to get as many receivers into the pattern as possible, so keeping RB/TE in for pass blocking isn't that desirable. Shotgun obviously helps in that respect though.

So KDawg/gurus, any ideas on other reasons to stay away from the shotgun in a timing-based offense? Is it b/c the QB isn't going to hit that 3d/5th step? I don't see why you can't run quick slants & timed in routes from a shotgun. And does having 5 receiving options in the pattern really help? They all have to be covered, but the QB would need ALL DAY to go through those reads.

[RiggosMohawk]

And another one just popped into my head.

JZ has "his" version of the WCO, Andy Reid has one, Holmgren etc.... what's really different between them? Is it their predominant formation (I-form vs single back), a favorite route, favoring the SE over the flanker, etc... Betting this is a question best answered by several pages of analysis OLS

thanks

[Oldfan]

From TC on, we've heard about Jason's comfort in the shotgun and Zorn's reluctance to use it much, and how that would be an ongoing compromise between the two. The only reasoning behind Zorn's POV that I heard was that a shotgun formation basically eliminates the run option from the formation which he didn't want to do.

This is testing my memory, but I think Zorn has said that his main objection is that he likes the idea of timing the pass with the QBs drop (in addition to the diminished run options that everyone cites).

I've been singing the praises of the shotgun spread in the NFL since Ramsey was here. He might still be here if we'd used it.

[Oldfan]

And another one just popped into my head.

JZ has "his" version of the WCO, Andy Reid has one, Holmgren etc.... what's really different between them? Is it their predominant formation (I-form vs single back), a favorite route, favoring the SE over the flanker, etc... Betting this is a question best answered by several pages of analysis OLS

I think it's easier to tell you what's the same. The concepts of using short, quick passes mixed with runs to achieve ball control and QBs throwing on rhythm are basic.

[gortiz]

Hey Old ...

I haven't noticed the skins running a lot out of a split back (near, pro etc) formation. seattle did it pretty well if I remember.

have you seen that?

[Oldfan]

Hey Old ...

I haven't noticed the skins running a lot out of a split back (near, pro etc) formation. seattle did it pretty well if I remember.

have you seen that?

Against the Giants, Portis and Betts lined up split for two plays. Campbell's pass intended for Betts was knocked down by rushing DE on one. I don't remember how the other one failed. Haven't seen it since.

[KDawg]

So KDawg/gurus, any ideas on other reasons to stay away from the shotgun in a timing-based offense? Is it b/c the QB isn't going to hit that 3d/5th step? I don't see why you can't run quick slants & timed in routes from a shotgun. And does having 5 receiving options in the pattern really help? They all have to be covered, but the QB would need ALL DAY to go through those reads.

The reason to stay away from gun is the lack of a rushing attack from it. That said, I personally know of a bunch of ways to run from the 'Gun. Only issue is, the best ways aren't with the guy lined up in the backfield. It's option type stuff. Honestly, with the success the wildcat is having, I think it would be worth a shot to try, at least in a practice setting to see what you can do. However, with our offense, Portis is the guy that teams need to gameplan for.

Unless we start splitting Portis out as a slot or lining him up as an HBack, going from 'Gun probably won't scare too many defenses.

Even from the gun, the QBs hit their steps. It's actually easier for a QB to read the field from the 'Gun. Both pre-snap and post-snap.

Having 5 options absolutely helps. Usually, the QB will only read one side of the field, all five guys aren't going to that side, but defenses have to account for all receivers going out. If I have more receivers than you have defensive guys in coverage, I win

And another one just popped into my head.

JZ has "his" version of the WCO, Andy Reid has one, Holmgren etc.... what's really different between them? Is it their predominant formation (I-form vs single back), a favorite route, favoring the SE over the flanker, etc... Betting this is a question best answered by several pages of analysis OLS

thanks

Alot of the differences are based strictly on language. Andy Reid doesn't really like running the ball, as Eagle fans will tell you.

Zorn loves it, so his WCO, rather than being like Walsh's philosophy of "Pass first, run later", Zorn has a more balanced version of it.

That's completely dumbing it down, but, it's an answer none the less

[jtyler42]

This is true, but it isn't easy. On defense, your MLB is in the best cover position, but he could get caught up in traffic and he has to leave the middle open. If it's not the MLB, then the coverage responsibility depends on whether the RB goes right or left at the snap, in which case, two defenders are occupied on their initial responsibilities. Right?

Oldfan on most plays from the college level to the NFL level when the D is playing man 2 man on RB's, and TE's, or WR's in bunch formations they will switch men depending on which way their man release(inside or outside)...It's very common...

Double agreed with OF and KD's posts. However I've heard repeatedly about WCO, playaction and Cover 2 is that playaction is the #1 weapon to beat Cover 2 style Ds, esp the Tampa variation. Right? Wrong? Insane? Are there other ways (misdirection) to get that MLB to take his first step forward, and not backward?

PA is very effective against Cover2 or any zone in particular b/c it holds the LB's up in the line for a count or two and they can't get into their zones right away thus this allows the recievers to get into their vacated zones...

I think you are missing my point. I was commenting on the frequency of play action. I said we cannot expect to see it as often in the WCO as we did in the Gibbs-Coryell.

A = play action fakes

B = throwing on rythym, mostly off three and five step drops

Since the WCO is based on B, and you can't do A and B at the same time, there isn't as much play action in the WCO as in the Coryell in which play-action is a staple.

Oldfan PA doesn't disrupt the timing of a WC style offense...The PA fake is just done quicker...Watch our game, or the Eagles or any other WCO this weekend I gaurantee you will see alot of PA, you just aren't going to see alot of the 7 step PA's that you would see in a vertical offense, they will be much quicker(3 and 5 step variety)...

Ok, next question to derail the thread.

From TC on, we've heard about Jason's comfort in the shotgun and Zorn's reluctance to use it much, and how that would be an ongoing compromise between the two. The only reasoning behind Zorn's POV that I heard was that a shotgun formation basically eliminates the run option from the formation which he didn't want to do.

However, another goal of the WCO repeated in many places is to get as many receivers into the pattern as possible, so keeping RB/TE in for pass blocking isn't that desirable. Shotgun obviously helps in that respect though.

So KDawg/gurus, any ideas on other reasons to stay away from the shotgun in a timing-based offense? Is it b/c the QB isn't going to hit that 3d/5th step? I don't see why you can't run quick slants & timed in routes from a shotgun. And does having 5 receiving options in the pattern really help? They all have to be covered, but the QB would need ALL DAY to go through those reads.

It's really just the coaches preference...You can run all the routes out of the shotgun that you can from under center, the difference as Zorn stated is that it changes the QB's drop and you eliminate the different PA passes, and running plays that you can do...

And another one just popped into my head.

JZ has "his" version of the WCO, Andy Reid has one, Holmgren etc.... what's really different between them? Is it their predominant formation (I-form vs single back), a favorite route, favoring the SE over the flanker, etc... Betting this is a question best answered by several pages of analysis OLS

thanks

I would say that the predominant formations play a part, but it would also be is it a vertical WCO(Eagles, GB, NO, Denver, Minn) or is it more of a dink and dunk version(Redskins, TB, Sea), then also I believe as each coach branches off the WCO tree they may change some of the terminology, etc to kind of put their stamp on it...

[KDawg]

Hey Old ...

I haven't noticed the skins running a lot out of a split back (near, pro etc) formation. seattle did it pretty well if I remember.

have you seen that?

Well, which formation are you talking about? Near and Split are different.

Split has both backs, spaced evenly in the backfield.

Near is more like an I form with an offset fullback, in terms of the West Coast Offense.

However, in other types of offenses, near and far mean different things. The backs are NEXT to each other, with the fullback either 'near' or 'far' from the TE. I think you were getting at this one.

Oldfan posted what I was going to say (Great minds, OF ). We ran it a few times and I haven't seen the split back formation since

[KDawg]

Oldfan on most plays from the college level to the NFL level when the D is playing man 2 man on RB's, and TE's, or WR's in bunch formations they will switch men depending on which way their man release(inside or outside)...It's very common...

Absolutely. The MLB isn't in the best position to cover. Actually, the MLB is the guy you DON'T want covering most of the time. Corners are responsible for #1 to their side. To determine what number a receiver is, cut the field in half, right through the center's body. #1 is the receiver furthest from that cut point. So the guy on the outside. #2 changes, if it's straight man it could be the OLB's man OR the safetey's man. The #2 receiver is the second receiver to a side (Slot, TE, etc), if there's only 1 receiver, then whatever back goes that way becomes number 2. #3 can be covered by the safety or the MLB. If you have a MLB you don't want in coverage, he's generally responsible for #4.

PA is very effective against Cover2 or any zone in particular b/c it holds the LB's up in the line for a count or two and they can't get into their zones right away thus this allows the recievers to get into their vacated zones...

In theory NFL defenses are pretty good about it, but even they get fooled sometimes!

Oldfan PA doesn't disrupt the timing of a WC style offense...The PA fake is just done quicker...Watch our game, or the Eagles or any other WCO this weekend I gaurantee you will see alot of PA, you just aren't going to see alot of the 7 step PA's that you would see in a vertical offense, they will be much quicker(3 and 5 step variety)...

Agreed!

[darrelgreenie]

And another one just popped into my head.

JZ has "his" version of the WCO, Andy Reid has one, Holmgren etc.... what's really different between them? Is it their predominant formation (I-form vs single back), a favorite route, favoring the SE over the flanker, etc... Betting this is a question best answered by several pages of analysis OLS

thanks

One difference is personnel. Andy Reid has an elusive rb w/ great hands in Brian Westbrook. Reid's version of the WCO finds ways to get the ball in Westbrooks hands. (Screens, arrow routes, swing passes etc.)

Holmgren's WCO had many incarnations. Back when Shuan Alexander was still good it was a power running WCO that often used a fullback. Last year w/o an effective running game they leaned on their trio of receivers. (Engram, Branch, Burleson) usually from a Single back 3 wide set. I haven't watched them as much this year. Holmgren finally drafted a good TE in John Carlson, so i figure they'll mix in some stuff to get him involved since their receivers have been banged up.

*Interesting side note they have 2 of Jason's college WR on their roster:

Courtney Taylor and Ben Obamanu

Great thread fellas

[darrelgreenie]

Double agreed with OF and KD's posts. However I've heard repeatedly about WCO, playaction and Cover 2 is that playaction is the #1 weapon to beat Cover 2 style Ds, esp the Tampa variation. Right? Wrong? Insane? Are there other ways (misdirection) to get that MLB to take his first step forward, and not backward?

I always thought the #1 weapon against a Cover 2 defense is to run the ball. But, no doubt PA is effective:

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d80aefed6

I love NFL playbook

[jtyler42]

Absolutely. The MLB isn't in the best position to cover. Actually, the MLB is the guy you DON'T want covering most of the time. Corners are responsible for #1 to their side. To determine what number a receiver is, cut the field in half, right through the center's body. #1 is the receiver furthest from that cut point. So the guy on the outside. #2 changes, if it's straight man it could be the OLB's man OR the safetey's man. The #2 receiver is the second receiver to a side (Slot, TE, etc), if there's only 1 receiver, then whatever back goes that way becomes number 2. #3 can be covered by the safety or the MLB. If you have a MLB you don't want in coverage, he's generally responsible for #4.

Exactly for the most part when a D goes man it's the OLB's and SS that do the covering the MLB typically will rush or kinda play a spy role in the middle of the field...Teams leave backs uncovered alot, that's why in the WCO they catch so many passes...

In theory NFL defenses are pretty good about it, but even they get fooled sometimes!

No doubt! I probably should have re-worded that. The LB's aren't really held in the line but they will take a step up into the line before they drop back.

[TSO]

Play action in our offense is a very interesting topic to discuss. One thing I'd like to add is the one style of play action we've never seen under Gibbs/Saunders, and one that I'm not sure any other WCO team employs... it's the one where Jason Campbell comes out from under center and turns his back as if it's either a play action or a run, but he doesn't follow completely through. He takes about one and a half to two steps than quickly turns backand throws to either the X or Z reciever, who's usually running a short curl route.

It's not a full play action, but a half one. Not sure what to call it, and i'm not sure I've seen anyone else doing it. I'm real interested in seeing if you guys know anything about it and whether or not you've also noticed.

[Oldfan]

JTyler42: Oldfan PA doesn't disrupt the timing of a WC style offense...The PA fake is just done quicker...

That really doesn't make sense. Walsh's scheme ties the timing of the route to the QB's feet. The WCO concept is to run the pass routine as quickly as possible. The timing is slowed by a play fake no matter how quickly it's done.

Watch our game, or the Eagles or any other WCO this weekend I gaurantee you will see alot of PA

You will see a lot of shotgun too, but the gun is not a WCO concept and neither is play action. West Coast teams are called that when they generally run Walsh's scheme. No team runs it exclusively, but most teams incorporate some WCO ideas into their offense.

Oldfan on most plays from the college level to the NFL level when the D is playing man 2 man on RB's, and TE's, or WR's in bunch formations they will switch men depending on which way their man release(inside or outside)...It's very common...

Yes, I know. But my point was that the RB used as an outlet going left or right adds initial coverage responsibility for two defenders. The more decisions the defenders have to make, the more chance there is of confusion and a missed assignment.

[Oldfan]

KDawg: Absolutely. The MLB isn't in the best position to cover. Actually, the MLB is the guy you DON'T want covering most of the time.

I didn't make myself clear. I meant that the MLB is in the best natural position on the field to cover the RB swinging left or right since he lines up directly opposite him.

[Oldfan]

jtyler42: PA is very effective against Cover2 or any zone in particular b/c it holds the LB's up in the line for a count or two and they can't get into their zones right away thus this allows the recievers to get into their vacated zones.

Yes, play action is useful when defenders fall for the deception, but it is a disadvantage when they don't because then it's only slowing the QB down in making his drop. In order to make play action effective, teams first have to "establish" the running game. In order to establish the running game, they need an O line that can dominate the line of scrimmage. Teams that lack a dominant O line can't run play action effectively.

Bill Walsh originally designed his offense to use quick, short tosses mixed with runs precisely because he didn't have a dominant O line to support Virgil Carter. He didn't abandon play action, but the concept is not an integral part of the WCO.

In today's NFL, where the rules aim at parity, it is very difficult to build and keep a dominant O line. That's why more teams are using the WCO and abandoning the Coryell which starts up front with a dominant O line, a power running game, and lots of play action.

[KDawg]

I didn't make myself clear. I meant that the MLB is in the best natural position on the field to cover the RB swinging left or right since he lines up directly opposite him.

Even though he lines up directly across, I'd still say that OLB's are in better natural position to pick up a back coming out of the backfield. The back is most of the time, unless it's a middle screen, going to come out towards the end of the line of scrimmage first. OLBs are there.

[Oldfan]

Even though he lines up directly across, I'd still say that OLB's are in better natural position to pick up a back coming out of the backfield. The back is most of the time, unless it's a middle screen, going to come out towards the end of the line of scrimmage first. OLBs are there.

We were talking about using the RB as an outlet. I have him heading toward the flat either left or right. You can give the coverage to your OLBs if you like, but as an OC, I like the fact that I'm giving both of your OLBs a read to make and it's not easy for your MLB to man up on him.

In a nutshell, I think my RB is at a disadvantage in the protection scheme staying in to block a bigger defender with momentum (not all my RBs are going to block as well as Portis). I think he's an advantage as an outlet going left or right. However, we can agree that having him chip now and then is a good idea.

[KDawg]

We were talking about using the RB as an outlet. I have him heading toward the flat either left or right. You can give the coverage to your OLBs if you like, but as an OC, I like the fact that I'm giving both of your OLBs a read to make and it's not easy for your MLB to man up on him.

In a nutshell, I think my RB is at a disadvantage in the protection scheme staying in to block a bigger defender with momentum (not all my RBs are going to block as well as Portis). I think he's an advantage as an outlet going left or right. However, we can agree that having him chip now and then is a good idea.

Remember, the idea of this thread is our WCO. We HAVE Portis.

That said, what reads are you giving the OLB? The fact that he sees a back coming his way? It's not a read, it's an easy pickup.

[Oldfan]

Remember, the idea of this thread is our WCO. We HAVE Portis

We don't have Portis back there on every down, but I don't like it even with Portis back there because he's still, at times, drawing another blitzer into the pocket simply because he's not out in the pattern. The OLB you have covering the RB in the flat can't blitz at the same time, for example.

That said, what reads are you giving the OLB? The fact that he sees a back coming his way? It's not a read, it's an easy pickup.

Let's not split hairs. Both your OLBs have to check the RBs direction as their first assignment. I'm calling that a "read."

[jtyler42]

That really doesn't make sense. Walsh's scheme ties the timing of the route to the QB's feet. The WCO concept is to run the pass routine as quickly as possible. The timing is slowed by a play fake no matter how quickly it's done.

Oldfan I'm not sure where you're getting your information but PA IS and has always been a big part of the WCO. You have waggle's, bootleg's, and naked's these are the type of PA's that were run by pure WCO's(ie: Walsh, Holmgren in Sea). In our version b/c we kept the power running scheme you don't see as much of the waggle's, bootleg's etc(we use them just not as much)...but more of the classic or straight drop back PA's...PA pass routes can still be on rythmn, the QB still takes a 3, 5, or 7 step drop even with the fake, and the accomodating routes are run by the recievers...

You will see a lot of shotgun too, but the gun is not a WCO concept and neither is play action. West Coast teams are called that when they generally run Walsh's scheme. No team runs it exclusively, but most teams incorporate some WCO ideas into their offense.

No most teams incorporate Sid Gillman's ideas into their offense...He is the father of the rythmn passing offense not Bill Walsh...No the shotgun is not a concept of the WCO but PA definitely is...I'm not sure where you're getting that...

Yes, I know. But my point was that the RB used as an outlet going left or right adds initial coverage responsibility for two defenders. The more decisions the defenders have to make, the more chance there is of confusion and a missed assignment.

no argument here I agree with that.

Yes, play action is useful when defenders fall for the deception, but it is a disadvantage when they don't because then it's only slowing the QB down in making his drop. In order to make play action effective, teams first have to "establish" the running game. In order to establish the running game, they need an O line that can dominate the line of scrimmage. Teams that lack a dominant O line can't run play action effectively.

Defender's don't have to fall for the deception. A PA is succesful if you get the LB or S to take a false step or hold for 1 count. That split second of indecision means an open area on the field. Whether or not the D bites on the PA doesn't determine how fast or slow the QB is in his drop...That's all on the QB...

In order to make PA effective the QB,RB, & OL have to really sell the fakes...The Colts are one of, if not the best PA teams in the NFL and they have no running game, they are dead last this yr but you see teams every weekend biting on Manning's PA fakes...Why? b/c they carry out the fakes so well...

Teams that don't have dominant lines actually run more PA, and move the pocket more b/c it slows down the pass rush...It's the teams with the good lines that can just drop the qb back 5 or 7 steps every play and protect.

Bill Walsh originally designed his offense to use quick, short tosses mixed with runs precisely because he didn't have a dominant O line to support Virgil Carter. He didn't abandon play action, but the concept is not an integral part of the WCO.

Oldfan you got it all wrong man it wasn't about the Oline it was about the QB...Walsh was a vertical coach when he got his start...He learned under Al Davis/Sid Gillman...He brought that vertical offense with him to Cinncinnati and it was very successful...Read this...

http://sfo.scout.com/a.z?s=69&p=2&c=641292

In today's NFL, where the rules aim at parity, it is very difficult to build and keep a dominant O line. That's why more teams are using the WCO and abandoning the Coryell which starts up front with a dominant O line, a power running game, and lots of play action.

Oldfan I would say it's actually split about evenly between the teams that use the WCO or the Coryell/Gillman offense...Again Oldfan yes the Coryell teams employed a power downhill running game as opposed to the horizontal finnesse running game of the WCO, but those vaunted Coryell teams were pass first as well...Even during Gibbs 1.0 we were pass first to get the lead, then we would beat you up and close out the game running...

[Oldfan]

Oldfan I'm not sure where you're getting your information but PA IS and has always been a big part of the WCO. You have waggle's, bootleg's, and naked's these are the type of PA's that were run by pure WCO's(ie: Walsh, Holmgren in Sea). In our version b/c we kept the power running scheme you don't see as much of the waggle's, bootleg's etc(we use them just not as much)...but more of the classic or straight drop back PA's...PA pass routes can still be on rythmn, the QB still takes a 3, 5, or 7 step drop even with the fake, and the accomodating routes are run by the recievers...

Our problem here is in separating what should be termed a West Coast concept and what should not be. Play action is a concept introduced in pro football when George Halas put Sid Luckman under center in the T - formation in the early 40s. It is a concept that has been associated with every offensive scheme that begins with the QB under center since. So, it would be very misleading to tell someone that it is a WCO concept. The same is true for bootlegs, and such.

No most teams incorporate Sid Gillman's ideas into their offense...He is the father of the rythmn passing offense not Bill Walsh...No the shotgun is not a concept of the WCO but PA definitely is...I'm not sure where you're getting that..

.

You are reading too much into that article you linked. Throwing on rhythm, timing the routes with the QBs steps, didn't come from Gillman. I don't know how Walsh came up with that, but Gillman's contributions to the Coryell and Walsh schemes were 1) having the routes timed to open in a sequence for the QB to read and; 2) having the QB's throw timed to get there when the receiver came open (Gillman: "If you wait until he's open, it's already too late").

Defender's don't have to fall for the deception.

You wrote the above and then wrote two paragraphs describing how defenders act when they bite on the run fake. That's "falling for the deception."

Teams that don't have dominant lines actually run more PA...

You have it backwards. For about 50 years, the phrase "establish the run" was repeated countless times. It means that in conventional offenses a team had to first run the ball effectively in order to make their play action passes work. You aren't going to get the DBs to bite on play action if the guys playing in front of them are stopping the run without their help.

Again Oldfan yes the Coryell teams employed a power downhill running game as opposed to the horizontal finnesse running game of the WCO but those vaunted Coryell teams were pass first as well...Even during Gibbs 1.0 we were pass first to get the lead, then we would beat you up and close out the game running...

You are confusing two different ideas: running to set up the pass, and passing to get the lead. In Gibbs One, Joe would have been perfectly happy to run every down if your defense didn't do what it had to do to stop his attack. But most teams of that era would commit enough manpower to stopping the run first. That's when play action and the Coryell offense went to the air...and yes, they did pass the get the lead and then they ran the Riggo Drill to milk the clock.

[darrelgreenie]

Originally Posted by jtyler42

Oldfan I'm not sure where you're getting your information but PA IS and has always been a big part of the WCO. You have waggle's, bootleg's, and naked's these are the type of PA's that were run by pure WCO's(ie: Walsh, Holmgren in Sea). In our version b/c we kept the power running scheme you don't see as much of the waggle's, bootleg's etc(we use them just not as much)...but more of the classic or straight drop back PA's...PA pass routes can still be on rythmn, the QB still takes a 3, 5, or 7 step drop even with the fake, and the accomodating routes are run by the recievers...

Our problem here is in separating what should be termed a West Coast concept and what should not be. Play action is a concept introduced in pro football when George Halas put Sid Luckman under center in the T - formation in the early 40s. It is a concept that has been associated with every offensive scheme that begins with the QB under center since. So, it would be very misleading to tell someone that it is a WCO concept. The same is true for bootlegs, and such.

You're both right.

The play (action) pass is major part of every offense including the WCO.

Bill Walsh lists: "6 categories of passes that are essential to a complete passing attack"

-The 3-step drop

-5 step drop

-7 step drop

-The play pass

-The action pass

-The screen pass

[KDawg]

You're both right.

The play (action) pass is major part of every offense including the WCO.

Bill Walsh lists: "6 categories of passes that are essential to a complete passing attack"

-The 3-step drop

-5 step drop

-7 step drop

-The play pass

-The action pass

-The screen pass

We have a winner.

Just because it wasn't developed for the West Coast Offense, it's still a part of it. That's like saying "The offensive line wasn't taught to block in a West Coast Offense, so it's not a part of the offense."

It's a branch of evolution.

Greenie, you hit the nail on the head my friend