West Coast Offense Principles/Info

[JohnnyLV]

5 hours ago, Bugg said:

 If it's gonna be run/run/3rd and 8 pass, doesn't matter what you call it, it's gonna be bad. 

That wouldn't really be a WC offense but with Bowles, who knows?

It's amazing that the same fans that hated Hack because he could not throw a short pass accurately, is now roasting him for throwing like 20 perfect short passes. Some of which were far hash to sideline a pass few in the NFL can throw safely

 

[jbt]

21 minutes ago, johnnysd said:

That wouldn't really be a WC offense but with Bowles, who knows?

It's amazing that the same fans that hated Hack because he could not throw a short pass accurately, is now roasting him for throwing like 20 perfect short passes. Some of which were far hash to sideline a pass few in the NFL can throw safely

 

 

[PCP63]

I'll reiterate again why I cannot stand the WCO. The first reason is probably the best. The terminology is just way too overcomplicated for NO reason. The same call, "FB 372 Banana Split X Comeback Z Dig Roger" could instead just be "Ghost Tosser" (yes, I understand Ghost Tosser is a completely different play). The first makes players have to think about their assignment, and they're just waiting to hear what their specific assignment is. The latter makes them much more flexible to line up anywhere without changing anything, and it makes it so that they visualize CONCEPTS, not just whatever their route happens to be on that play. It also makes it much easier to make adjustments, as a simple tag here and there can replace what 6 words in a WCO system would be.

 

The second reason is that other systems, namely Coryell, are simply based upon more sound principles. Namely, that the intermediate passing game, along with a strong power running game, is more effective than dink n' dunk football. It's based more upon triangle reads, and less upon the short passing game void of intermediate threats in the WCO. In the WCO, many of the plays are simply random routes thrown together. No plays that really attack certain coverages with tenacity, no option routes for the receivers, too many check-downs, etc.

 

I believe that the better offense would be something like an Air Coryell system with Erhardt-Perkins terminology (think Ghost Tosser, an actual play in Charlie Weis' '03-'04 Pats playbook). It would combine effective tactics and philosophies found in the Coryell-style system, but keep the very simple and effective terminology of EP. This is doubly the case when we have Hack a QB, a QB that thrived under the exact same system.

 

EDIT: And I should add, one aspect of the WCO that I find to be FANTASTIC is the timing of routes and the WRs' steps. With my own personal coaching, I subscribe to a system called "R4" that predicates the entire passing games based upon timing the QB's steps during a drop back to the WRs' steps of their routes.

[Bugg]

11 hours ago, PCP63 said:

I'll reiterate again why I cannot stand the WCO. The first reason is probably the best. The terminology is just way too overcomplicated for NO reason. The same call, "FB 372 Banana Split X Comeback Z Dig Roger" could instead just be "Ghost Tosser" (yes, I understand Ghost Tosser is a completely different play). The first makes players have to think about their assignment, and they're just waiting to hear what their specific assignment is. The latter makes them much more flexible to line up anywhere without changing anything, and it makes it so that they visualize CONCEPTS, not just whatever their route happens to be on that play. It also makes it much easier to make adjustments, as a simple tag here and there can replace what 6 words in a WCO system would be.

 

The second reason is that other systems, namely Coryell, are simply based upon more sound principles. Namely, that the intermediate passing game, along with a strong power running game, is more effective than dink n' dunk football. It's based more upon triangle reads, and less upon the short passing game void of intermediate threats in the WCO. In the WCO, many of the plays are simply random routes thrown together. No plays that really attack certain coverages with tenacity, no option routes for the receivers, too many check-downs, etc.

 

I believe that the better offense would be something like an Air Coryell system with Erhardt-Perkins terminology (think Ghost Tosser, an actual play in Charlie Weis' '03-'04 Pats playbook). It would combine effective tactics and philosophies found in the Coryell-style system, but keep the very simple and effective terminology of EP. This is doubly the case when we have Hack a QB, a QB that thrived under the exact same system.

 

EDIT: And I should add, one aspect of the WCO that I find to be FANTASTIC is the timing of routes and the WRs' steps. With my own personal coaching, I subscribe to a system called "R4" that predicates the entire passing games based upon timing the QB's steps during a drop back to the WRs' steps of their routes.

On the occasions Hackett and then Schottenheimer ran the WCO, the terminology became a total pain in the ass. There are times when  you need to RUN A PLAY RIGHT NOW and the Jets were more worried about getting the call into the headset, and then having the QB tell the huddle the play, and then barely get to the line before the playclock expired, or it did expire, or they had to spend a timeout. Agsin issue becomes are they trying to advance the ball and score or become students of the WCO? The WCO is only a tool,not the goal. It's very dependent on the OC and doesn't really trust the QB. Brett Favre, for his healthy 11 games, pretty much ignored it. In the 2 minute, Jets did not call 2 or 3 plays on clock stoppages. Now Aaron Rodgers can change the play or audible, but nobody here now is sharp enough to do that. If you are going to run this, it has to be way more flexible and situationally aware than as it was  run here in the past. 

[glenn31]

On 8/13/2017 at 11:35 AM, Bugg said:

Not jumping to any conclusions. But we have seen this movie before and know how it ends. Unless the variable change is an effective deep threat passing attack. We did not see it last night. 

Coslet brought it here. Carroll kept it in 94. Herm resurrected it, and Mangini & Baby Schott ran a variation of it.

That's 4 different regimes that ran this system here in the past 27 years. All for a cumulative playoff record of 2-5.

I've seen enough of it and none of these glittery fluff pieces where they define the terminology or pull out the Walsh coaching tree for the nth time in the last 35 years to show how knowledgeable they are to football fans born after 2000 is gonna change the fact that aside from pre-injury Penny, this O always fails spectacularly when it is encased in green & white.

[C Mart]

On 8/18/2017 at 6:33 AM, CanadaSteve said:

Someone takes the time and effort to bring a well-written article, one that actually raises the bar to this web-site and educate the masses on actual footbalk acruement and help the basic fan grasp actual technique on how one of THE MOST successfully offensive systems created in the history of the sport works from a technical standpoint,  and you sh*t on it by saying dink and dunk doesn't work?

its unfortunate that someone who has actually gone to the effort to make this sight better through actually football knowledge had to read your POS first.

Personally, I thank you for your time and effort C Mart!

Welcome...No sweat. Sadly, he's not the only one that doesn't understand the WCO concepts and how the Jets, so far, appear to be bringing Hack along (developing, what a concept).  

Many members of the media are saying the same dink and donk sh*t (Chris Canty for one)...Thanks. And thanks to others above

[C Mart]

20 hours ago, Kleckineau said:

Sid Gillman created it years before Walsh.

And there has been more than a few strong armed QBs to benefit from it.

my gawd if some read the article it mentioned Walsh incorporated Gilliam's vertical passing into his offense

 

"What Gillman started, and Bill Walsh and his descendants finished, was the use of route combinations to specifically attack the defense."

[C Mart]

20 hours ago, johnnysd said:

That wouldn't really be a WC offense but with Bowles, who knows?

It's amazing that the same fans that hated Hack because he could not throw a short pass accurately, is now roasting him for throwing like 20 perfect short passes. Some of which were far hash to sideline a pass few in the NFL can throw safely

 

And basing the Jets O & Hack off of the first PS game..

[C Mart]

14 hours ago, PCP63 said:

I'll reiterate again why I cannot stand the WCO. The first reason is probably the best. The terminology is just way too overcomplicated for NO reason. The same call, "FB 372 Banana Split X Comeback Z Dig Roger" could instead just be "Ghost Tosser" (yes, I understand Ghost Tosser is a completely different play). The first makes players have to think about their assignment, and they're just waiting to hear what their specific assignment is. The latter makes them much more flexible to line up anywhere without changing anything, and it makes it so that they visualize CONCEPTS, not just whatever their route happens to be on that play. It also makes it much easier to make adjustments, as a simple tag here and there can replace what 6 words in a WCO system would be.

 

The second reason is that other systems, namely Coryell, are simply based upon more sound principles. Namely, that the intermediate passing game, along with a strong power running game, is more effective than dink n' dunk football. It's based more upon triangle reads, and less upon the short passing game void of intermediate threats in the WCO. In the WCO, many of the plays are simply random routes thrown together. No plays that really attack certain coverages with tenacity, no option routes for the receivers, too many check-downs, etc.

 

I believe that the better offense would be something like an Air Coryell system with Erhardt-Perkins terminology (think Ghost Tosser, an actual play in Charlie Weis' '03-'04 Pats playbook). It would combine effective tactics and philosophies found in the Coryell-style system, but keep the very simple and effective terminology of EP. This is doubly the case when we have Hack a QB, a QB that thrived under the exact same system.

 

EDIT: And I should add, one aspect of the WCO that I find to be FANTASTIC is the timing of routes and the WRs' steps. With my own personal coaching, I subscribe to a system called "R4" that predicates the entire passing games based upon timing the QB's steps during a drop back to the WRs' steps of their routes.

The Oblique Triangle Spread Principle

Defenses always catch up to offenses if given enough time. They got smart to the coupled vertical and horizontal attacks and adapted zone/man combinations and pattern matching zones.

Traditional zones are usually uniform grids across the field. Pattern matching zones change size, shape, and location depending on what routes the offense was running at them. They were a way to defend route combinations.

If you’re good with spatial geometry, you can see how the above route combinations were typically of square or rectangle configurations. Accordingly, defenses countered with their own rectangles in zone coverage. Pattern matching zones change the size and location of the rectangles, negating the route combinations.

Walsh discovered how to beat these zones with an alternate passing geometry. By combining routes to make oblique triangles, his receivers could beat almost any flavor of zone, including pattern matching. The triangles also made man-to-man coverage less effective, so Walsh unleashed nearly unstoppable attacks.

To create triangles, three receivers need to align to one side of the formation. A very common triangle combination is illustrated below, which shows the inside receiver running a shallow out, the slot receiver running a fade, and the outside receiver running an in. The weak side receiver’s route is not as important in this concept, but they typically run deep to pull a safety with them.

[C Mart]

2 hours ago, glenn31 said:

Coslet brought it here. Carroll kept it in 94. Herm resurrected it, and Mangini & Baby Schott ran a variation of it.

That's 4 different regimes that ran this system here in the past 27 years. All for a cumulative playoff record of 2-5.

I've seen enough of it and none of these glittery fluff pieces where they define the terminology or pull out the Walsh coaching tree for the nth time in the last 35 years to show how knowledgeable they are to football fans born after 2000 is gonna change the fact that aside from pre-injury Penny, this O always fails spectacularly when it is encased in green & white.

That's the spirit...Rule something out just because it wasn't "successful" yrs ago run by different players, coaches etc....SOJF

[C Mart]

For those w/the staring down of a WR criticism: So us as fans (and uninformed media) don't know if a QB is intentionally staring down a WR or not.....

 

The single best example of a Sean Payton offense creating a mismatch came in Week 2 last season against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers:

New Orleans is out in a basic three wide receiver set. They have Marques Colston lined up in the slot (red circle). This is with 0:24 left in the game down by one point with no timeouts. To this point, the Saints offense has struggled. Brees sees man-to-man in the slot between Colston and Leonard Johnson, a young corner with little experience against top-flight receivers, and quickly goes through a series of audibles and checks at the line.

As this play begins, there is absolutely no question where Brees is going with the football. He is staring down Colston. They teach you not to do this in quarterbacking 101, but this play is just mano-a-mano, Colston vs. Johnson. To this point, Colston has created very little separation, but he's just running a straight fly. Another thing to note is the Buccaneer defense. They're in man to man across the board with a single safety high, so they're running the risk of giving up the big play in an attempt to make an even bigger one.

[PCP63]

1 hour ago, C Mart said:

The Oblique Triangle Spread Principle

Defenses always catch up to offenses if given enough time. They got smart to the coupled vertical and horizontal attacks and adapted zone/man combinations and pattern matching zones.

Traditional zones are usually uniform grids across the field. Pattern matching zones change size, shape, and location depending on what routes the offense was running at them. They were a way to defend route combinations.

If you’re good with spatial geometry, you can see how the above route combinations were typically of square or rectangle configurations. Accordingly, defenses countered with their own rectangles in zone coverage. Pattern matching zones change the size and location of the rectangles, negating the route combinations.

Walsh discovered how to beat these zones with an alternate passing geometry. By combining routes to make oblique triangles, his receivers could beat almost any flavor of zone, including pattern matching. The triangles also made man-to-man coverage less effective, so Walsh unleashed nearly unstoppable attacks.

To create triangles, three receivers need to align to one side of the formation. A very common triangle combination is illustrated below, which shows the inside receiver running a shallow out, the slot receiver running a fade, and the outside receiver running an in. The weak side receiver’s route is not as important in this concept, but they typically run deep to pull a safety with them.

I feel like I should mention that I do not believe that the WCO run today are even close to the same level of complexity as Walsh's offenses. The WCO run today are more bastardized versions of it. The offense Morton runs is not the offense Walsh ran.

 

Now, with that being said, most NFL offenses are pretty much the same, and use at least some principles from all three of the systems most predominantly used. Yes, I do understand that every team does use triangle reads. Even Schotty did. But some concepts and techniques are objectively better than others. Throwing only a handful of attempts over 10 yards is not a recipe for success. I appreciate the need for a short passing game to an extent, but the intermediate passing game, something which most WCO proponents essentially ignore, is far more valuable. Not only are less teams built to handle it, but you have similar success rates as short passing without the massive accuracy drops and predictability of the long game.

 

I just wish we'd focus on the intermediate game, scrap all gimmick plays, and actually let our QBs go through their progressions. I truly believe that in an Erhardt-Perkins system (I know it's technically just the language, but the Patriots have made it a system in an of itself), Hack would be very successful. He can make the right audibles, call the right protections, and make the right reads. You just need to give him the reins. 

[jetscrazey]

I look forward of a season of going back and forth on whether to blame the lack of big plays on the players or the system.

[PCP63]

Now, unrelated to the WCO vs. EP debate, another aspect I DO like about the WCO and its timing nature is that it provides natural look-offs without any wasted time. If I have a guy running a go route, and he gets jammed at the line upon the snap, it's already too late. You can look him off naturally, and progress to your next read, while your initial locking-on to that receivers draws the defense towards there. That's one reason why I also love the R4 system that I always glow about. It teaches these young guys (HSers) to create natural look-offs better than most guys even coming into the NFL.

[Jet Nut]

You have got to chuckle at the idea that the WCO is some failed, overcomplicated, dink and dunk offense for weak armed QBs that is incapable of being used in a winning system today.  And that no one here is capable of playing it because no one is smart enough to get the verbiage.  Probably the most successful offense of the last 50 years and we cant use it to any level of success.

[glenn31]

3 hours ago, C Mart said:

That's the spirit...Rule something out just because it wasn't "successful" yrs ago run by different players, coaches etc....SOJF

I prefer to be defined with the term "realist" but SOJF does have a nice ring to it... Like T-1000, if you will