Offensive Scheme: Ball Control vs. Big Play

[Oldfan]

:So, I'm not seeing many people comment one way or the other on the notion of consistency. I agree that this is the key factor here, and that eating up the clock and the yards by moving the chains again and again is a huge advantage for the offense and allows the defense to rest.

Additionally, sustained drives that recur throughout a game have the effect of establishing and maintaining momentum and demoralizing an opponent.

Not to say that a quick-strike big play doesn't take the wind out of your sails either - I just think with long slow drives the doom factor is higher, and you have more time to think about it.

The stats guys at footballoutsiders.com have the consistency factor worked into a complex system which alters their rankings considerably at times when compared to the NFL rankings.

They ranked our offense #15, higher than the NFL, and our defense #11, lower than the NFL. The Skins have an interesting situation going on. With a realistic chance for significant improvement on offense in year two of the scheme and a more aggressive scheme to get more takeaways on defense, we could be very good in 2009. Cross your fingers.

[Oldfan]

WHEREAS

Oldfan does not write like a lawyer; and

MassSkinsFan has unjustly accused Oldfan of such conduct;

LET IT BE DECREED

That MassSkinsFan acknowledges

THUSLY

Oldfan does not write like a lawyer

:DCan I sue for damages?

[darrelgreenie]

Both the Coryell and Walsh's WCO are "fully dimensional" passing games. As to our discussion, the key words in the Walsh quote are "...in varying degrees." An effective WCO offense mixes runs with lots of quick, short passes to keep the chains moving. That's "ball control."

Oldfan, did you watch the clip?

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8008fcc1

How would you describe the passing game in the clip?

[Oldfan]

Oldfan, did you watch the clip?

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8008fcc1

How would you describe the passing game in the clip?

I watched the clip, Darrel, but I didn't see or hear a "passing game" being described. What I saw and heard were receiver techniques and comments about playing the position that might be applied to any offense.

What specifically did you think contradicted anything I have written here?

And, what did you think of the quotes I gave you from internet sources?

[darrelgreenie]

I watched the clip, Darrel, but I didn't see or hear a "passing game" being described. What I saw and heard were receiver techniques and comments about playing the position that might be applied to any offense.

C'mon old fan.

You know that clip is a breakdown of the WCO.

How would you describe the type of passing game shown in the clip?

Ball Control or Big Play?

What specifically did you think contradicted anything I have written here?

You were saying that the WCO doesn't have a vertical threat.

You were saying that Zorn's/Redskins passing game is short by design because its a WCO.

And, what did you think of the quotes I gave you from internet sources?

I think you can find several different quotes on the interent about the WCO, with varying degrees of accuracy. But, the quotes i gave are from the man himself, Bill Walsh.

[Oldfan]

C'mon old fan.

You know that clip is a breakdown of the WCO.

How would you describe the type of passing game shown in the clip?

Ball Control or Big Play?

Darrel, what you saw Jerry Rice demonstrate on that tape was pass patterns like the square out which every WR, in every scheme, from high school and up, are taught. The precise timing Jerry describes is common to other schemes including Al Saunders' Coryell. That tape cannot be accurately labeled "a breakdown of the WCO."

The only thing on that tape relevant to our debate occurs at .58 when the narrator says, "short passes are the signature stroke of the West Coast Offense." Did you hear that? So, to answer your question, by logical deduction, that remark describes a ball control offense.

You were saying that the WCO doesn't have a vertical threat.

You were saying that Zorn's/Redskins passing game is short by design because its a WCO.

You are twisting my words. From here on, if you want me to respond, use the the quote feature rather than tell me what I said in your words.

I think you can find several different quotes on the interent about the WCO, with varying degrees of accuracy. But, the quotes i gave are from the man himself, Bill Walsh.

Your quotes from Walsh did not say one word to confirm or deny the point we are debating. I pulled on-point quotes from westcoastoffense.com and wikipedia. I could have pulled a dozen more from other sites without breaking a sweat.

Here's another from an article in the New York Times after Walsh died. I added the bold to the final line.

Walsh’s playbooks bulged, focusing on a passing game that became known as the West Coast offense. It featured mostly short or medium-range passes designed to work against all types of defenses, and it included trick plays. His was a horizontal offense, in contrast to the vertical strategy that depended on long — and low percentage — passes downfield. Walsh’s offense became the aerial equivalent of a ball-control strategy previously associated with a running game.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/sports/football/31walsh.html?_r=1

[darrelgreenie]

These debates start off so well, why does it seem that they end up so contentious?

Darrel, what you saw Jerry Rice demonstrate on that tape was pass patterns like the square out which every WR, in every scheme, from high school and up, are taught.

I don't see the point of this statement.^^

I thought the clip would be a good spring board for this converstion, since its probably the best example of a pure WCO that's ever been.

Jerry Rice demonstrates the square out, the slant, the comeback, the shake, the go and the post. *(the funny thing is the play on the clip is double go which means not 1 but 2 receivers are going deep).

6 routes are on the clip yet only 2 are less then 15 yards the square out which virtually no teams use anymore and the slant when properly executed has big yardage after the catch.

How can you make blankets statements like the one below?

That tape cannot be accurately labeled "a breakdown of the WCO."

You can disagree all you want bro, that doesn't change the fact that the Network calls the clip:

America's Game - 1989 49ers - Rice on West Coast Offense

Jerry Rice demonstrates the functions of the West Coast offense.

http://www.nfl.com/videos?videoId=09000d5d8008fcc1

The only thing on that tape relevant to our debate occurs at .58 when the narrator says, "short passes are the signature stroke of the West Coast Offense." Did you hear that? So, to answer your question, by logical deduction, that remark describes a ball control offense.

How about the fact that all but 2 of 6 the patterns shown were greater then 15 yards? I'd say that is relevant.

Or at 3:10 when the narrator says..."San Fransico can strecth the field vertically with a variety of plays"

Or at 3:52 when Rice says "I read the defense and know its man-to-man and we're going for the homerun all i have to do is beat my man"

Me-

You were saying that the WCO doesn't have a vertical threat.

You were saying that Zorn's/Redskins passing game is short by design because its a WCO.

Me-

No, Zorn's offense is designed for ball control. He gave us vanilla WCO because his skill people never got beyond vanilla. It's not an easy system to learn.

^^

You are twisting my words. From here on, if you want me to respond, use the the quote feature rather than tell me what I said in your words.

Okay........

Let's be clear. The term"vertical threat" tells us that the offense wants to send receivers deep on a regular basis. Walsh's WCO did not do that, the typical Coryell scheme does. The term is NOT synonymous with "big play" or "quick-strike" in describing an offense but vertical offenses are usually big play teams. A big play team has big play-makers. Most fans know the difference between a big play receiver and a possesion receiver. Darren sproles is a big play RB.

Your quotes from Walsh did not say one word to confirm or deny the point we are debating.

You're right the quote doesn't come right out and say the WCO is not a short passing ball control offense.

But, the presence of the vertical component to the WCO points out that it is not the 'ball control' offense in the sense that you imply, since you assert that there is no vertical component.

I pulled on-point quotes from westcoastoffense.com and wikipedia. I could have pulled a dozen more from other sites without breaking a sweat.

Here's another from an article in the New York Times after Walsh died. I added the bold to the final line.

You are pulling quotes from sportswriters and various places on the internet, dude my quotes are from the creator of the WCO. And he decribes his offense as 'fully dimensional' not 'ball control'.

[Oldfan]

darrelgreenie: These debates start off so well, why does it seem that they end up so contentious?

It's usually because one the parties is simply inclined to be argumentative.

Oldfan: Darrel, what you saw Jerry Rice demonstrate on that tape was pass patterns like the square out which every WR, in every scheme, from high school and up, are taught.

DG: I don't see the point of this statement.^^

The point was that the patterns Rice demonstated were not specific to the WCO. Most fans would know that without my telling them.

I thought the clip would be a good spring board for this converstion, since its probably the best example of a pure WCO that's ever been.

Darrel, be serious. A four-minute video clip is the best information you can find on the WCO or just the best you could find that doesn't completely trash your weak argument?

You can disagree all you want bro, that doesn't change the fact that the Network calls the clip:

America's Game - 1989 49ers - Rice on West Coast Offense

Jerry Rice demonstrates the functions of the West Coast offense.

Correction Darrel, the video clip is titled: America's Game - 1989 49ers - Rice on the West Coast Offense, a title which promises more information than the clip delivers.

"Jerry Rice demonstrates the functions of the West Coast offense" is a misleading tagline authored by an unknown flunky at the website. Pass patterns common to all schemes are not "functions" specific to the WCO by any reasonable stretch of the word.

Jerry Rice demonstrates the square out, the slant, the comeback, the shake, the go and the post. *(the funny thing is the play on the clip is double go which means not 1 but 2 receivers are going deep)...6 routes are on the clip yet only 2 are less then 15 yards the square out which virtually no teams use anymore and the slant when properly executed has big yardage after the catch.

Do I understand you correctly? You seem to be implying that the video clip of 4.39 duration is more than a demonstration of some of the receiver patterns commonly used in the Walsh scheme. To you, it also denies the truth of the narrator's statement at .58 when he says that "short passes are the signature stroke of the West Coast Offense" because Rice didn't demonstrate more short passes in the clip.

You're right the [Walsh] quote doesn't come right out and say the WCO is not a short passing ball control offense.

He doesn't come right out and say it because he isn't talking about his offense specifically. You are simply interpreting his term "fully dimensional" and the term "ball control" as being mutually exclusive. They are not.

But, the presence of the vertical component to the WCO points out that it is not the 'ball control' offense in the sense that you imply, since you assert that there is no vertical component.

I never made that assertion. The "no vertical component" notion is your strawman created because you have no counter for what I actually wrote:

Oldfan: Let's be clear. The term"vertical threat" tells us that the offense wants to send receivers deep on a regular basis. Walsh's WCO did not do that, the typical Coryell scheme does.The term is NOT synonymous with "big play" or "quick-strike" in describing an offense but vertical offenses are usually big play teams.

I have since supported the above with multiple quotes.

[skinny21]

This has been an engaging debate and I thank you all for that.

The WCO attempts to stretch the field horizontally, traditionally focusing on routes under 20 yds (I actually believe its 15 but that may be dependent on the coach incorporating their version of the WCO). Even though they will still take shots deep when the opportunity is there, this type of offense is very much a ball-control offense.

[skinny21]

Oldfan: I'm sure you've touched on this somewhere, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on solving our redzone woes. I'm guessing the newbies and cooley/sellers should be targeted more this year, but I'm curious if you've got other thoughts for this?

Also, it scares the heck out of me that the WCO is meant, at least partially, to aid a suspect O-line and our line still had a lot of pass pro issues last year. I'm hoping another year in the scheme (as you've said - both so the line and wrs/qb plays better together and the offense is less vanilla) and a hopefully healthy line will remedy this.

[Oldfan]

skinny21: Oldfan: I'm sure you've touched on this somewhere, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on solving our redzone woes. I'm guessing the newbies and cooley/sellers should be targeted more this year, but I'm curious if you've got other thoughts for this?

In the second half of the 2004 season, Ramsey and Robert Royal teamed up for five TDs. Royal went to the middle of the end zone and ran a square out. He had the DB screened off like a basketball forward being covered by a guard in the low post. Ramsey flipped a soft pass away from the defender. They made it look easy.

We don't need to have a finesse scheme in the redzone. We now have four receivers better than Robert Royal and big enough to bully those smaller DBs.

Last season, the defense took Cooley away because he was our only legit redzone threat.

I don't like Sellers or Portis as receivers. I think JZ overrated them last season and paid the price. If it looks like a passing down, I want Davis, Cooley, Kelly, Thomas and Betts on the field in the redzone.

Also, it scares the heck out of me that the WCO is meant, at least partially, to aid a suspect O-line and our line still had a lot of pass pro issues last year. I'm hoping another year in the scheme (as you've said - both so the line and wrs/qb plays better together and the offense is less vanilla) and a hopefully healthy line will remedy this.

A stud OT would be a big help, but it's also reasonable to expect that Campbell will make those decisions quicker next season which will help a lot.

[skinny21]

I don't like Sellers or Portis as receivers. I think JZ overrated them last season and paid the price. If it looks like a passing down, I want Davis, Cooley, Kelly, Thomas and Betts on the field in the redzone.

I'm not that big a fan of Portis or Sellers out of the backfield either (though you gotta give big Mike some props for his occasional hurdle), though didn't Sellers catch 6 or so TDs in a similar fashion as you described for Royal in 05 or 06?

[darrelgreenie]

I never made that assertion. The "no vertical component" notion is your strawman created because you have no counter for what I actually wrote:

You're delving into symmantics.

Oldfan: Let's be clear. The term"vertical threat" tells us that the offense wants to send receivers deep on a regular basis. Walsh's WCO did not do that, the typical Coryell scheme does.The term is NOT synonymous with "big play" or "quick-strike" in describing an offense but vertical offenses are usually big play teams.

Strawman?

In the quote you say flat out that Walsh's WCO did not send receivers deep on a regular basis.

That statement is funny because i'm looking at some of the plays Bill Walsh diagrammed and you know what? almost every play has at least 1 receiver going deep.

I guess nobody told Bill Walsh that his offense doesn't send receivers deep on a regular basis.

Oldfan, i'm an easy breezy type dude, and as much as possible i try to maintain that within our debates.

I wish we could disagree and debate without spiralling into this type of petty quibbling back-and-forth because i respect,although often disagree, with your opinions.

But, that train has already left the station.

Wether you disagree with more or not allow me to suggest this book:

Its a great read.

HTTR!

[darrelgreenie]

Oldfan: I'm sure you've touched on this somewhere, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on solving our redzone woes. I'm guessing the newbies and cooley/sellers should be targeted more this year, but I'm curious if you've got other thoughts for this?

I know you didn't ask me but i'll give my :2cents:

I hope Zorn and JC are much more aggressive in the Redzone.

I would like to see more fades/back shoulder or jump balls thrown to Kelly and Thomas the endzone.

I would also like to see more motion and more play-action in the redzone.

[skinny21]

You're delving into symmantics.

In the quote you say flat out that Walsh's WCO did not send receivers deep on a regular basis.

That statement is funny because i'm looking at some of the plays Bill Walsh diagrammed and you know what? almost every play has at least 1 receiver going deep.

You're right about the semantics, I was just wondering if this whole issue came from the use of "regular basis". While the focus is the shorter routes, they very much call plays with go and deep post type routes.

[Oldfan]

darrelgreenie: Oldfan, i'm an easy breezy type dude, and as much as possible i try to maintain that within our debates.

Darrel, I'd classify your debating style as Internet Argumentative with the usual mix of sarcasm, strawman arguments, and shouting in large typesizes.

Strawman? In the quote you say flat out that Walsh's WCO did not send receivers deep on a regular basis.

That's exactly what I said "flat out," so why did you continue, even after I made an issue of it, to claim that I asserted that the WCO didn't have a vertical component? If the difference was mere semantics as you said, then why insist on your language? I drew the "deep threat" comparison between the WCO and the Coryell and supplied quotes to support it.

That statement is funny because i'm looking at some of the plays Bill Walsh diagrammed and you know what? almost every play has at least 1 receiver going deep.

Who knows or cares what you're looking at? The conventional WCO focuses on short to medium ranges passes to achieve ball control -- that's the assertion I've made, supported by authoritative sources, that's what you must disprove.

I guess nobody told Bill Walsh that his offense doesn't send receivers deep on a regular basis.

More sarcasm, making no debate point whatsoever.

Wether you disagree with more or not allow me to suggest this book:

Your juvenile attempt at a putdown is pitifully weak.

[Oldfan]

You're right about the semantics, I was just wondering if this whole issue came from the use of "regular basis".

Darrel's strawman is his claim that I said that the WCO had no vertical component. That's far removed from what I said and not merely a matter of semantics.

While the focus is the shorter routes, they very much call plays with go and deep post type routes.

In what way does my statement conflict with yours? You say the focus is on the shorter routes, thus by inference, there is less emphasis on deeper routes. I said that the WCO doesn't pose the vertical threat on a regular basis and the Coryell does.

[SkinsFTW]

In 2009, when Zorn's offense is moving the chains steadily, defenses will try to compress the field to stop the short stuff. That's when the WRs will go deep.

And that continues to be Campbell's biggest weakness. He hesitates, he underthrows, he finds sacks.

This is what made the offense so dangerous with Montana and later Young. Montana was great rolling out or evading the defender in the pocket and he found the receiver without telegraphing it. Young was great as well but I think he took more sacks and fumbled more. All things that Campbell still has problems with.

Sure, Montana was a "system" player, but he was perfect for that system. Campbell doesn't compare well to Montana or Young.

Remember though, that 49ers offense had its weaknesses as well. 83, 85, 86, 87, 90, 92, 93, 95 49er teams lost in the playoffs to teams with either very good defensive lines and/or front 7. It seems that pressure, like what Brady felt in the SB against the Giants, is how you beat the horizontal offense. That and forcing turnovers on their long drives. No other way to explain their 49-3 Playoff loss to the Giants in 86. WTF happened there?

Personally, I think the WCO is overrated. Sure, it negates the need for a stud OL and doesn't require the most physically talented players in the league. It does require the smartest, most disciplined, hardest working players though and I really don't think that guys like Randel El, Moss, Portis, Cooley, and Campbell compare well to Rice, Clark, Montana, Francis, Craig. Then compare Walsh and his composure on the sideline with Zorn yelling at ball boys, lol.

The 80's 49ers are STILL the only team to consistently win running the WCO without superior talent. No other team has done as well, not even Favre and the Packers, and they had a ton of great players. Seems to me like Favre would have won a few more SB's running a Gibbs type offense. He would have been an even better Theismann in that offense but took to many risks for the WCO.

[Oldfan]

I'm not that big a fan of Portis or Sellers out of the backfield either (though you gotta give big Mike some props for his occasional hurdle), though didn't Sellers catch 6 or so TDs in a similar fashion as you described for Royal in 05 or 06?

Sellers and Brunell did combine on the same play. I recall it as three or four times. 2005, I think.

[Oldfan]

SkinsFTW: Sure, Montana was a "system" player, but he was perfect for that system. Campbell doesn't compare well to Montana or Young.

Right, but Jason doesn't have to face teams loaded with talent like the Raiders, Skins, Giants and Cowboys were in the 80s.

Personally, I think the WCO is overrated.

I think it's better suited to today's game than the Coryell, but you hit upon the part that I think is overrated. Many people think that the WCO QB can be a weak-armed putz. That might have been true at one time, but not anymore. A top defense today will shut down the short game by compressing the field, so you have to be able to go deep now and then and hurt them when they do that. Finding a smart, accurate QB who is also a good deep thrower isn't easy.

[skinny21]

Darrel's strawman is his claim that I said that the WCO had no vertical component. That's far removed from what I said and not merely a matter of semantics.

"Regular basis" can mean something isn't common, I'm guessing that you're not saying vertical (20+ yd) routes are uncommon in the WCO... just that they're not the norm or goal for this offense.

Darrell (again I'm guessing here) seemed to think you meant the former, I was trying to reconcile your arguments. Similarly, by arguing the inclusion of vertical elements to the WCO, it sounded as though he believed this to be an offense aimed at stretching the field vertically. I'd be surprised if in fact Darrell disagreed with the notion that the WCO is considered to attack/stretch the field more horizontally.

In what way does my statement conflict with yours? You say the focus is on the shorter routes, thus by inference, there is less emphasis on deeper routes. I said that the WCO doesn't pose the vertical threat on a regular basis and the Coryell does.

They don't conflict at all, once again this was only aimed at bridging what I think is a perceived gap between you two.

[skinny21]

Sellers and Brunell did combine on the same play. I recall it as three or four times. 2005, I think.

Yeah, I couldn't recall, 7 receiving tds that year ain't bad though. That was the year I remember thinking "thank God we aren't trying to run it in from 2-4 yds out", and it worked like a charm.

[Oldfan]

They don't conflict at all, once again this was only aimed at bridging what I think is a perceived gap between you two.

I understand, but the real gap between us is that Darrel does not believe that the conventional WCO is a ball control offense. When I started this thread, I didn't expect anyone to contest that. I expected the debate to center on whether or not the ball control strategy as a foundation was the best the Skins could do.

I didn't expect the consistency factor to be that difficult to explain either. Of those who responded on that point, only a few posters seemed to understand the concept and appreciate its value.

[skinny21]

I understand, but the real gap between us is that Darrel does not believe that the conventional WCO is a ball control offense. When I started this thread, I didn't expect anyone to contest that. I expected the debate to center on whether or not the ball control strategy as a foundation was the best the Skins could do.

I didn't expect the consistency factor to be that difficult to explain either. Of those who responded on that point, only a few posters seemed to understand the concept and appreciate its value.

Fair enough. I think this stemmed from Darrell thinking the two (ball control and big plays) are mutually exclusive per (what he perceived to be) your definition of ball control as opposed to conventional wisdom - i.e. keeping defenses honest by taking shots when the opportunity arises).

[Voice_of_Reason]

The best offenses are completely balanced, and able to attack a defense wherever their weakness is.

You get into problems when your personnel dictates that you can only do certain things. Then you are forced into doing those things, and the defense, which gets paid also, knows what's coming.

This is why I think that you have to have the ability to throw the ball sideline to sideline, endzone to endzone, and be able to run the ball both for grinding out "3 yards and a cloud of dust" but also be able to break a 20+ yard run ~1 out of every 10 rush attempts. Running the ball 10 times for 30 yards is just not going to scare anybody.

I think I agree with oldfan, and I would prefer an offense that is consistent, and able to eat up clock and yardage. But I also think that taking your shots down the field is a very important thing to do.

Also, I believe that your offensive game plan, NOT PHILOSOPHY, can change every game. You're playing a team that stinks in the defensive secondary, air it out a bit more, make them stop you. You're playing a team that can't stop the run, run the damn thing down their throats.

In Gibbs I, I think that generally everybody can agree that was a ball control, run first type offense. However, in 1983, they set every offensive record in the book, and in the SB against the Broncos, scored 35 points, mostly through the air, in 1 quarter.

That's what you're looking for: the ball control type offense that can come up with 3-5 big plays per game. Do that, and you score ~30 points per game and win a ton.