Tales of Mythology - The Myths of the West Coast Offense

by Doc Bear on Aug 29, 2009 11:30 AM MDT in 2009 Denver Broncos Season Preview

One concept that you hear being thrown around a lot by folks who know what they're saying, those who don't know any better or those who should is "They run a West Coast Offense, you know...", with the suggestion that this has a specific meaning that everyone should understand. My experience has been that this is only partly true. The term WCO has several meanings, depending on who is using it.

Even among those who agree on its derivation, there are extensive variations on the theme. Let's look at some uses of the term in modern times and then go over the things that Bill Walsh used to create his system. Finally, we'll talk about some modern examples that are considered WCOs and see how they match up.

History

Usually, this is a name given to a system that has descended from the body of work left to us by Bill Walsh, but even that isn't always true. The myth of the West Coast Offense is that it is a single, monolithic edifice - in other words, that the term has a specific meaning. Historically, though, what the term meant in the past and what it means today has changed completely. Even if you can connect the dots between the old and the new with any level of precision, many of the systems we now use it to describe are so contradictory as to defy logic.

The term WCO has been used by some to refer to an offensive system that derives from any of three sources. The first source is the work of Sid Gillman, a college coach who went on to become the head coach of the LA Rams from 1955 to 1959 and who was the head coach (and general manager, for a while) of the San Diego Chargers from 1960 to 1969. Gillman was considered an offensive genius for his work on developing the passing offense. His work was intricate and thorough, and many systems that would come later can be traced to his approach of using the vertical and horizontal planes of the field to improve the results of the offense. Gillman once said,

"A football field is 53.33 yards wide by 100. We felt that we should take advantage of the fact that the field was that wide and that long. So, our formations reflected the fact that we were going to put our outside ends wide enough that we could take advantage of the whole width of the field. And then we were going to throw the ball far enough so that we forced people to cover the width and the length."

Gillman installed several other aspects of the modern pro game. As a young man, he worked in a movie theater. At that time, newsreels that gave short blurbs on events of the day were popular. Gillman cut out the parts involving pro football and spliced them together, taking them home to study them on his home projector. Later, he would be one of the first coaches to use game film to break down the opposing offenses and defenses. He also developed a motion offense that he called the 'Feast or Famine' in order to counter the pass rush of the Boston Patriots. It's also noteworthy that Gillman approached then-NFL Commissioner Pete Rozelle in 1963 with the idea of having the champions of the AFL and the NFL play a single final game, but his idea was not implemented until the Super Bowl game was played in 1967.

The second source is that of Don Coryell, who became famous with the 'Air Coryell' passing offense. That offense emphasized the vertical passing approach of Gillman's system. It was a high-risk, high-reward approach that traded a higher number of incompletions and interceptions for higher scores. This is not the most common use of the term West Coast Offense, but you do run into it at times.

Finally, the most common derivation of the term is to describe the offense that was developed by Bill Walsh. Although Walsh became famous for using this short-yardage, pass-oriented, horizontally-based timing-pattern offense in San Francisco, he actually developed it while working as an assistant coach for the Cincinnati Bengals back in the mid 1970s, so the use of the term WCO is actually a misnomer. Perhaps Midwest Offense would be more historically accurate.

In one of those great meaningless definitions, Wikipedia describes the WCO as "one of two similar but distinct offensive-strategic-systems of play: (A) the "Air Coryell" system; or (B) more commonly the pass play system popularized by Bill Walsh. However, WCO may simply refer to an offense that places a greater emphasis on passing than on running." Since relatively few systems in modern professional football don't place a greater emphasis on the passing game than the running game, this is less of a definition than a dustbin - it's a place to put things, but not a very nice one.

So, what is the West Coast Offense? Of the modern systems that are referred to this way, you have as diverse approaches as the Broncos in 2008 and The Chicago Bears of that same year. Before breaking them down, let's look at the history of the WCO and see if we can separate some of the malt from the grist.

When Bill Walsh took over the San Francisco 49ers in 1979, he had already put into action most of the factors that went into his offense. At that time, the term West Coast Offense wasn't used, but the essence of the approach was well established. As he installed the offense of the 49ers, you could begin to see the overall concept leaping to life. Here are some of the essential factors.

1. Complexity

The WCO isn't an easy offense to master. When Walsh took over the 49ers, they had gone 2-14 the previous season. One columnist referred to them as the 'worst 2-14 team in history'. It didn't get easier quickly. In fact, the 49ers would go 2-14 again in his first year. Was there a difference? Yes - the same columnist now referred to them as the 'best 2-14 team in history. He was right, too - they were suddenly very tough to defend. Walsh knew that it would take time to institute and develop this offense (at least 2 years), but he also expected that doing so would give the 49ers the best chance to win, and win championships, for a long time. He was right, and that hasn't changed. There are a lot of systems that can win a championship, but if you use this one, you're going to institute a complex system that will take time to develop. When a team is described as running a 'simplistic' approach to the WCO, it usually isn't the WCO at all. It's some other variant, and you're just reading some spin. By the way, there's a lot more on Walsh's passing approach and plays right here.

2. Deception

The WCO uses a concept that Mike Shanahan, a Bill Walsh disciple, would later become famous for. He would run many plays off of a single formation, and would run the same plays from multiple formations. It drove defenses out of their minds. It still does. Wash was the first to establish this as a hallmark of his system, and it was extremely effective.

3. Key Concepts

If you're going to run a WCO, here are some of the foundations of the system. The WCO is based on three simple things: Creating mismatches, overloading zones and creating and exploiting holes in the defense. While many might argue (fairly) that these are now common to many systems, including the system Josh McDaniels is installing in Denver, at that time it was a complete innovation in the pro game.

4. Ball Control

This one still fools a lot of people. Back in the late 1970s, the conventional wisdom was that you can have three things happen when you throw the ball and two are bad (incompletions and interceptions). Walsh took the perspective that if you do it right, you can improve on the stats from running the ball by creating a ball-control passingsystem. It worked, too. It was an innovation that still is argued by the uninitiated today.

Walsh liked completions. He hated incompletions, but he despised interceptions. His system was based in an attempt to eliminate both. He liked to consider his approach to the passing game as a "long handoff." He used high-percentage, short passes to accomplish this. He did so by stretching the field more horizontally than vertically. Both approaches (and the vertical was most loved, perhaps, by Don Coryell and Al Davis) harken back to Sid Gillman's pioneering innovations but Walsh would take the horizontal game to a level that even Gillman hadn't considered.

And the result was, as it is today, often called a dink-and-dunk offense. This visceral reaction to the system is usually based in a fan's interest in the 'big play' or a commentator's desire for the same but it still shows a poor understanding of football. Anything that works, wears down the defense, discourages them, increases completion percentage and scores a lot of points is a heck of a system. Personally, I'd rather win ugly than lose brilliantly, but everyone needs to make up their own mind about that.

The WCO had another innate advantage - it kept teams from putting 8 in the box for fear of a short pass to another open zone that turns into a long gain. If a system is finding itself having trouble going up against that approach to the defense, they aren't running the system properly.

5. High Completion Percentage

Walsh was often referred to later as 'The Genius'. This was in part because he had a rare brilliance at improving the passing skills of his quarterbacks. When he took over the 49ers, he had Steve DeBerg as his initial quarterback. Although Walsh knew from the beginning that DeBerg wouldn't stay on as his starter, in the first year he managed to improve Steve's passing stats to the point where DeBerg had more attempts and a higher completion percentage - at about 60% - than anyone in the history of pro football up to that point. Although many - most - quarterbacks are now capable of those numbers, at the time it was an innovation of nuclear proportions.

Walsh also took a short, slender beanpole of a QB with an inconsistent background, a suspect arm and few takers and helped Joe Montana become one of the best in history. Joe has always given a lot of credit to Walsh and we should, too. We can also note that the list of QBs that Walsh developed into exceptional players is long. This wasn't a hit/miss proposition, but the result of an individual with a rare level of insight into what makes a quarterback great applying those principles in an effective fashion.

6. The Dominance of the Pass

Walsh believed that the smashmouth approach lacked innovation. He made an attempt to fill that void that has succeeded beyond anyone's expectations except his own. A ball-control, pass dominant, complex system with lots of timing routes, short passes and a very high completion rate was the outcome.

It's important to keep in mind Walsh's very specific and effective use of the running game. It wasn't that he couldn't run the ball, and it wasn't that he didn't like and use that option. He just understood a faster way to manipulate the defense than 3 yards and a cloud of dust. The proof was in the Super Bowl victories.

7. Multiple receivers

Walsh never used less than three receivers and he often went to 4 and 5, of whom one could be a tight end and one or even two could be running backs. This innovation has been used in a wide variety of other approaches since then.

Of the 5 that might be on the field, only three were really going to be options. Walsh did not believe in having his quarterbacks make more decisions than was necessary. The quarterback was responsible for checking the primary receiver. If it didn't look like that would work, he checked down to his secondary. If that wasn't a sure thing, there would immediately be a dump-off pass to the outlet receiver. It was fast, effective and completely new. Now, it's part of many systems.

8.The Open Man

All of the routes were designed so that if they were run properly, at least one man had to be open. This is done by many systems today, but back then it was a new issue for the defenses to obsess over. I love some of the modernIndianapolis Colts routes (others also run them) - they achieve this by getting a 'rub', or 'smash' a defender on a cornerback covering one receiver to get another one open. Ted Bartlett calls it a smash route, and was kind enough to diagram it for those who are interested (Here). I've also got a good detailed discussion of the route here.

There are a lot of ways to make this concept of creating an open man work, but what is probably most important for the fan is to recognize that the game is set up this way, so you can go back later and identify the specifics of how it's achieved on any given play. Watch for it - it's there, and it will add another dimension to your enjoyment of the game.

9. Timing Patterns

Walsh was an innovator, at the pro level, of the timing route. Many of the passes would be thrown before the receiver even made his cut, just on the basis of how the play unfolded. This required an incredible amount of practice time - Walsh on many occasions violated NFL rules on how much he could have the QB and WRs practicing. They had to be on the same page. If not, that pass could go to, and through, a hole that was there because the receiver wasn't. The crowd would boo the QB if it resulted in an INT, but it was up to the receiver to get there on time. That still is a common occurrence, in part because nearly every system in modern pro football employs Walsh-style timing routes. If the QB throws a perfect pass to a spot on the field that a receiver isn't near, it might not be a mistake on the QB's end. Announcers are quick to assume that the QB is in error, but that's often not true.

10. Yards After the Catch

There were some comments posted after the Seattle game, worrying because a large percentage of Kyle Orton's yards were yards after the catch (YAC). Those fans can stop worrying. The West Coast Offense was designed that way, and that innovation, too, has made its way into many systems including the one currently in Denver. The patterns are designed to confuse defenders, to create holes in the defense, to permit the receivers to get open and to create more YAC. It's the nature of the beast.

11. Pass to Score, Run to Win

I know - it's been said by many coaches. That's fine - it's a smart football concept that works for a lot of systems. Walsh used it as part of his system. He believed in ball control on many levels but he liked to strike first, strike hard and then use his defense and his running game to run out the clock. It isn't an innovation singular to the WCO, but it was part of the system. What people sometimes forget, though, is that Walsh was happy piling up the points before he made the change. Some coaches have shown a tendency to get a small lead and try to switch their offense to the run prematurely. They often create tighter games than they should. If it's working, it's a good idea to let it work for you. You'll exhaust the defense (another advantage of this offense) and create a scenario in which you can more easily score again later if your defense lets you down.

Part of passing to score was to throw longer passes when you got inside the opponent's 25-yard line. Walsh understood that the back of the end zone acted as a 12th defender once you got in close, and he liked to take full advantage of the amount of open field that he had when he got to the 25. Contrary to what many people believe about the WCO, it wasn't entirely about the short pass. Walsh had studied Gillman's vertical game as well, and adapted it to suit his own needs.

12. And Don't Forget to Run

Although Walsh was a master at the short passing game, that didn't keep him from cultivating 1,000-yard rushers like Roger Craig. He didn't believe in running on 1st down, though. Walsh knew that if you gained a completion on first down, 2nd and 3rd downs would be harder to predict and would increase the flexibility of his system, opening the door to the running game and to more short passes, as well as the occasional longer ones. Walsh required that his running backs also be excellent receivers. Sound familiar?

13. Tight Ends are Important

Walsh took the perspective that the tight end was a far more important player than many fans would believe today. He saw his tight end as the linchpin connecting his running and passing attacks together. He worked constantly to find the best and most versatile tight ends, players who could run block, pass block and receive. He used them to overload zone coverage, to run interference on passing routes and to exploit weaknesses in the coverage. You never knew if they would be primary receivers, secondary, outlet receivers or decoys. He pioneered a lot of ways to use his TEs. Coaches today still use his groundbreaking concepts.

14. Possession Receivers

Walsh was the first to look for a big, strong wide receiver who could repeatedly go over the middle and get yards. That's a part of the WCO that is still helpful at the least, and essential if the opportunity is there.

And Many More...

Believe it or not, the above is the short version of the essential concepts of the WCO. Walsh's innovations and preferred usage of the system would take up a book. In fact, if you have a few spare dollars or a willing friend to go in with, I'd recommend the book The Genius by David Harris. It covers much of Walsh's time with the 49ers in detail. You can learn the ways in which he changed training camps across the league by scripting, for the first time, every moment of the camp, running the drills and plays at game speed. There are a lot of other aspects of his career that will give you a much deeper understanding of how to take a losing team, build it, train it and succeed. While Walsh would burn out after about a decade (a very common occurrence among professional head coaches), he left behind a storehouse of knowledge and innovation that will influence professional football for decades to come.

Examples of Modern WCOs?

So, let's consider a couple of systems that most fans are currently familiar with. The Bears system in 2008, for example, liked to tell you that "We get off the bus running" (Lovie Smith). That's fine, but contrary to how it's portrayed in the media, that clearly isn't the West Coast Offense. The West Coast uses the pass as its primary form of ball control.

Did they employ a three-receiver approach? Sometimes, sure they did. Last season there were a lot of plays that didn't use more than two, and that's really not the WCO. Is their system complex? Well, I think that the answer is "More than many think, but certainly not as much as Walsh intended." That may change this season, but last year the Bears offense was often fairly predictable. It ran the ball on 1st down (and often 2nd down) most of the time, which Walsh wouldn't agree with.

Do they employ a big wide receiver to go over the middle? No - the Bears generally didn't like going over the middle last season although there's no doubt that tight ends Greg Olsen and Desmond Clark can. They didn't have that big WR, substituting the TEs. Yet, they did garner a lot of YAC. Their approach seems to use some of the principles, but isn't truly a WCO. It would probably be more accurate to say that they employed some WCO concepts - short passing, run to win - as well as applying a run-based offensive system.

One of the common complaints in Chicago was that teams stacked the box, having 8 players up near the line of scrimmage. Since one of the core attributes of the WCO was that teams feared doing this (it creates the opportunity for a big play), what was happening? There are several things to consider if another team is stacking the box successfully.

Scheme - The first issue is simple - no one will stack the box against the pass. They stack because they are expecting a run. Since Chicago bragged about running all day, every day, the opposing teams were usually right about that. The point here is not one system or another being 'right', but whether or not a team is taking advantage of the strengths of a particular system - in this case, the WCO.
Why don't you stack 8 against the pass? Denver fans might remember the answer - it's because you then leave a single safety back and you're exposed. If you are running the WCO properly, you'll be passing most commonly on 1st and 2nd down. Since the scheme is set up for a high number of YAC and will create an open receiver, stacking the box if you're the defender will increase the number of big plays against you. Since the standard plays in the WCO are only of 2 to 10 yards anyway, the strength of the quarterback's arm isn't a factor here. I know that a lot of announcers have mistakenly told people differently, but these are the facts of the WCO.
Again - If the system is run right, there will be an open receiver on every play. The passes are short, so the strength of the quarterback's arm is of less importance than most casual fans are aware. The plays have to be designed properly and run properly. If you're running the ball on 1st and 2nd down, you're really not running the WCO at all.
Receivers - The receivers have to get to the right spot at exactly the right moment. If they don't, or can't run those plays or if the receiver doesn't run the routes precisely, the system won't work. If you stack the box against 4 and 5 receivers, you're essentially ensuring that a big play can be successful.
Quarterback - The quarterback needs to do several things. He needs to make good decisions, check down as needed and get the ball out. Mobility isn't a big issue within this offense. Smart play is. So is accuracy.
Use of the running back is another aspect. If the opposing team knows that you are probably going to run the ball on first and second down, you're not really running any version of the WCO. You're setting yourself up to have a lot of third-and-long plays that let the opposing line tee off on your O-line and QB and blitz to their heart's content.Hester may make strides this year, but last year his route-running was frequently poor. In fact, Chicago suffered from that overall. It was part of the reason that the QB tended (and he did) to hold the ball too long - no one was getting open.

Many teams successfully stacked the box on 3rd down and blitzed against Chicago's front five. If your O-line can't pick up the blitz successfully, you're going to be in serious trouble. If you're throwing a lot on third down, usually you've run with less than perfect success on 1st and/or 2nd. If your running back is your team's leading receiver, your quarterback isn't seeing his options well or your receivers aren't getting open enough. That refers back to scheme, possibly to decision making and certainly to issues with receivers more than to arm strength. Overall, Chicago's system was less of a WCO than just a run-oriented ball-control offense that employed a lot of short passes. There's nothing at all wrong with that, but it's really not a WCO.

How about Denver last season? You could still see the WCO basis that Mike Shanahan installed, but it, too, was changing to the point of losing much of the WCO basis. A concentration on the pass was consistent with the WCO, but there was a plethora of mid-to-long passing. The routes often met the criteria, though - they were often complex and many were run off out of different formations, while different plays were run out of the same formation. That seemed to be changing, though.The running game, in the WCO, is still used to keep defenses honest. That wasn't done properly, as many here have discussed. There wasn't as much of an emphasis on throwing on first down, throwing short and moving the chains, either.

Brandon Marshall is a classic WCO receiver, so that fit well. The Broncos also had good YAC numbers. They often failed as a ball-control passing offense, though, but attempting too many longer passes when a shorter-routed receiver was wide open. Overall, I'd have to say that there were more criteria met than missed, but I don't know if that would still be true this year if things had stayed the same. There was so much more of an emphasis on the vertical game that it might not have been a WCO if that had continued. Keep in mind that Walsh did use the vertical game, but it wasn't the area of emphasis.

I hope that this helps. One of the biggest understandings that a lot of fans face is this - the principles and attributes of the WCO have made their way into many other systems, including the one being installed in Denver. If you pay attention, you'll be able to see how many of those systems have unfolded. I hope that this will help you to enjoy the game a little more, and to understand it a little better.

Go Broncos!

Many thanks to one of our resident coaches, SlowWhiteGuy, who gave generously of his time and encyclopedic knowledge in the preparation of this article. In an era when untrained people brag of their level of football knowledge, SWG is one of the folks who really does understand the sport and he shares his gift unstintingly. Much appreciated, my friend.

Do you have an idea for a story or a player you'd like to see receive a Tales? Drop Doc a line at mhrtales@gmail.com.

Tweet Comment 41 comments | 22 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Novelette

Your condensed version of the Novel is wonderful. rec’d of course!

by Endzone on Aug 29, 2009 12:06 PM MDT reply actions

Great Read!

And HIGHLY recommended!

It's Orange Crush time. And no I am NOT talking about the soft-drink.
Which I beg the question: "Can liquid really be... soft?"

The past is settled, its only the future now. A new one, for Denver, and for BMarsh. Light'em up Beast!

by USMCWall on Aug 29, 2009 12:30 PM MDT reply actions 1 recs

10 stars

Great work, Doc.
Rec’d and enjoyed!

Go Broncos!

by Royal With Cheese on Aug 29, 2009 12:41 PM MDT reply actions

Great job, Bear!

5th rec for you!

Wherever you go, there you are.

by YosemiteSam on Aug 29, 2009 1:03 PM MDT reply actions

They stack because they are expecting a run. Since Chicago bragged about running all day, every day, the opposing teams were usually right about that.

What an awesome statement. So those expecting the same thing to happen here, should be mistaken. IF McDaniels is running the type of offense we are expecting.

by solace on Aug 29, 2009 1:58 PM MDT reply actions

McD isn't running a WCO

His approach in the past has tended to stretch the field horizontally as well as vertically, for example. There are some other differences, but you’re still right – its highly unlikely that we’ll see much in the way of stacking the line. It just isn’t good defense if the principles of the WCO are followed in general, and I think that many of them will be.

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 29, 2009 2:05 PM MDT reply actions

So I'm confused....

I’ve read your article several times now (and keep getting more out of it!). It sounds to me exactly like the Broncos 2009 offense. He may have stretched vertically when he was in NE, but I haven’t seen that here.

What are some of those other differences you alluded to?

Wherever you go, there you are.

by YosemiteSam on Aug 29, 2009 11:10 PM MDT up reply actions

McDaniels comes from the tradition of several other sources

over time you will see quite a bit more of his system. He employs aspects that are more specific to certain spread formation derivatives, including Weis’, perhaps some of Urban Meyer (the influence is often overstated, but it’s possible that it’s there) and there is an aspect of Erhardt-Perkins as well.

One of the things that is interesting regarding the WCO is that many of the aspects of it – including the timing patterns, RB/receivers and many others – have become a part of other systems. You could consider it as something of a root system, but the modern approaches incorporate other influences as well. I’ll be looking to see the details as they unfold – right now, we’re only seeing certain base approaches, so it’s hard to talk in any detail about other differences. The preseason just hasn’t given us enough to move forward, but in looking at the other influences that are seen in NE, we can watch for those influences. I’m sure that many of the staff will talk about them as they manifest – right now, not that much has

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 30, 2009 12:33 AM MDT up reply actions

Maybe in 10 years

we’ll be adding the McDamoeba offense to the list!

Wherever you go, there you are.

by YosemiteSam on Aug 30, 2009 1:04 AM MDT up reply actions

Nice thought

:-D

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 30, 2009 2:18 AM MDT up reply actions

Thanks, Doc

Following up, sort of, on Solace….

What I take away from this is that the idea of a quarterback needing to be a constant threat with the deep ball is over-rated. Over and over we hear that if the QB can’t keep the D honest with 40-yard bombs, the other team will stack the line, and stifle the running game. If I follow this right, stacking the line against a shart passing game doesnt’ really help, since defenders close to the line on the wrong part of the field will be of little or no help in bringing down receivers who catch short passes.

I’d even guess that this is part of why the much-loathed bubble screen can work so well. If the defense stacks the line and the offense gets the screen and all the blockers on one side, there’s still overload and mismatch. Whether a DB starts the play 2 yards deep or 5 yards deep, he potentially has 40 yards to run to make it across the field to the action. There may be ways in which the threat of the deep ball helps the play to run better — I’m sure it does — but those are all secondary to the part where the play is designed to create horizontal mismatches.

This is fascinating stuff. I really appreciate it.

And as for the Bears, the predictability of their offense….. oh, brother. They seem to believe themselves to be a running team simply because they call a lot of running plays, not because they do so to any great effect.

by Chibronx on Aug 29, 2009 2:16 PM MDT reply actions

Adding....

I meant to say that we’re led to believe that in the absence of the deep ball, defenses will stack the line against both the running game and the short passing game…..

by Chibronx on Aug 29, 2009 2:17 PM MDT up reply actions

Forte is just one player

I like him a great deal, and he’s very skilled. However – very few modern offenses can be successful with only one RB and the ones behind Forte weren’t up to the challenge. I think that the Bears will do better with Kevin Jones if he can stay healthy and regain some of his early success. That’s also going to be a challenge for the Bear’s rebuilt O line.

If the Bears continue to run on 1st and second down with limited success, even Cutler may have issues with the amount of pressure that he could see. As always – it’s a team sport, and scheme and players need to mesh. If the O line, receivers or scheme falter, they’ll see many of the same problems. If Hester takes a big step forward it will help. I’m not sold that he will, but it would help them a great deal.

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 29, 2009 3:07 PM MDT reply actions

Excellent

I tried to describe the WCO in an article and got caught on the shoals of those who insisted upon the Walsh definition. Nicely done Bear; you cover everything clearly.

One interesting factoid about the Walsh flavor of the WCO was that he developed it while with the Bengals when his first string QB went down and the backup QB was Virgil Carter. Virgil Carter was quick and intelligent, but had a weak arm. Walsh molded an offense that thrived with that kind of QB.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Aug 29, 2009 3:11 PM MDT reply actions

Your avatar

is awesome. As a fan of the game and as a former cornerback it’s impossible to NOT like that picture. Nice!

"FLAG! Fail on the field. Re-do." -Disco_Stu

by Joe Medina on Aug 29, 2009 3:55 PM MDT up reply actions

Thanks

I still remember watching that one on TV; some plays just stick in your head. Hopefully Cromartie regains form this year, he was a train wreck last season.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Aug 30, 2009 9:08 PM MDT up reply actions

He sure was

The injury factor seems to have been greater than anyone was told. I have the game from this week recorded, but haven’t had a chance to go over it yet. I’ll look forward to seeing his progress – he’s in incredible shape, from what I have seen.

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 31, 2009 10:25 AM MDT up reply actions

Exactly right, Brian

I didn’t add that mostly because I’ve used that fact in a couple of other articles here and didn’t want to bore the members silly, but you’re exactly right. Walsh was an offensive assistant under Paul Brown and was expected to figure out a workable offense with a true noodle-armed QB, a mediocre RB and a couple of WRs. It’s amazing what he has been able to achieve. Later, Brown would decide that Walsh was ‘too soft’ to be an NFL head coach and would pull a job he promised Walsh out from under him, leading to Walsh going to Stanford and then being available to the 49ers.

Walsh’s abilities to teach QBs were legendary, and for good reason. When he replaced Montana (who had suffered a back injury) with Steve Young, people were horrified. He knew that Young would work hard on mechanics and footwork, and could somehow see that he had tremendous potential. He trained QBs at the college and pro level and has had a rare level of impact on his chosen sport. Fascinating guy, wasn’t he?

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 29, 2009 4:49 PM MDT up reply actions

System QBs

Just from memeory, one season Montana was top QB rating in league and got hurt. Then Steve Young had even higher rating and got hurt. Then Bono (don’t remmeber first name, the guy who led the Bills to the comeback victory over the Oilers) had an even higher rating.

by Dwhite on Aug 29, 2009 7:35 PM MDT up reply actions

Good point

This thing about ‘system QBs’ is terribly overblown. I rarely hear anyone who coaches using such a term. The real questions are more specific – what are their strengths and weaknesses? How can they improve. Do they fit the team’s scheme? If not, can they learn?

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 29, 2009 8:47 PM MDT up reply actions

He trained QBs at the college and pro level and has had a rare level of impact on his chosen sport. Fascinating guy, wasn’t he?

Amen to that, his ability to make the most of what he had was remarkable. I still resent those great 49er teams for stealing some of the Chargers best defensive talent, but even there the way he used Fred Dean was just brilliant.

Walsh’s abilities to teach QBs were legendary, and for good reason. When he replaced Montana (who had suffered a back injury) with Steve Young, people were horrified.

Good point, I know the conventional wisdom is that Norv is a terrible coach, but he is rarely credited with developing quarterbacks. Both Alex Smith and Philip Rivers made quantum jumps in performance under his coaching.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Aug 30, 2009 9:24 PM MDT up reply actions

No question

Rivers was one of the best last season. From what I’ve seen so far, his protection needs more work, but his skillset is undeterred

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 31, 2009 10:27 AM MDT up reply actions

Yeah

I was surprised by that Arizona game. Vasquez seemed to settle down against Atlanta, but it is a worry. I hope we go right tackle next draft for sure.

"Football is a physical sport, sometimes you have a disagreement on what's going on, and you have a discussion about it." Kris Dielman

by Brian (DaBolts) on Sep 1, 2009 8:01 AM MDT up reply actions

Great stuff Doc Rec'd

"I am not one of those who think that coming in second or third is winning." -- Robert F. Kennedy

by Ted Bartlett on Aug 29, 2009 3:24 PM MDT reply actions

Well written as always

and rec’d!

by SlowWhiteGuy on Aug 29, 2009 3:28 PM MDT reply actions

I have seen the future of Xs and Os football writing...

…and his name is BroncoBear.

Congratulations Bear. A department chair has been named after you, and the original copy of this dissertation will be preserved in the MHR-U vault.

Your Doctor of Letters is confered.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" Defoe

by Steve Nichols on Aug 29, 2009 5:39 PM MDT reply actions

Compliments from you three are especially appreciated

Since I’ve learned more in the past 1.5 years from you (and styg and John, of course) than I had in the 5 decades previous. Thanks, my friends.

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 29, 2009 6:24 PM MDT reply actions

Thanks for the explanation, rec'd

I agree, Larsen shouldn’t get any bigger. I am getting tired of his bone crushing hits knocking the pixels off my TV, once they fall to the floor they are very hard to find.

by Arctic Bronco on Aug 29, 2009 8:02 PM MDT reply actions

Great post, as always, Bear!

..and rec’d as well!

" Life is what happens while you're making other plans "

by hairybear on Aug 29, 2009 8:39 PM MDT reply actions

West Coast Offense?

Is that the one where the receivers run down the field and the quarterback throws the ball to one of em?

"Surprised to see you, Captain, though pleased." — from Star Trek episode Space Seed.

by spock on Aug 29, 2009 10:06 PM MDT reply actions

lol

That’s the one, my Vulcan friend. That’s the one…..

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 29, 2009 10:14 PM MDT reply actions

great presentation

my knowledge has grown. :D

seriously, thanks & rec’d

"The best defense is a good offense. Or is it the other way around." Wolverine
Pray for the best, prepare for the worst, and know you will come down somewhere between the two.
Livin' in La La Land and Lovin' It

by Brian Shrout on Aug 29, 2009 10:15 PM MDT reply actions

This is a 2 salmon report, Bear! Rec'd.

Also SWG for your contributions. When Wade Phillips introduced the WCO in 1993, he said that we would pass to setup the run. Pass on 1st down. Just like Walsh would do. It seemed odd at the time to get away from the run philosophy of Dan Reeves but certainly played to the strengths of John Elway. As today Denver’s offense seems to play to the strengths of their QBs and to the team that is being built. If the offense keeps the defense off the field – controlling the TOP – and scores a few points, it will go a long way to putting the team in a position to win. That did not happen last year here. I can see that that is being addressed strongly. This is one of the reasons that I really like this post. Great job, guys!

by Blackknigh on Aug 30, 2009 12:00 AM MDT reply actions

Thanks Bear, you know WAY more X's & O's than I have forgotten...

No, no, I mean you have forgotten way more than I remember…

No, I mean…Crap, nevermind…You know what I’m sayin’

Nice!

by BroncoSense72 on Aug 30, 2009 8:57 AM MDT reply actions

lol

Yes, I’m having one of those mornings too……Thanks, BS72

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 30, 2009 10:04 AM MDT reply actions

Missing POint on West Coast Offense

Thought this would be a good addition to a great article.

I really liked this article, but found that you skipped over one of the key components by Bill Walsh’s implementation of the West Coast. Bill said that the WCO revolved a lot around the footwork of the quarterback along with the footwork of the WR. This of course is the timing of the passes, but he said that really a throw was in relation the QB looking off the defense and then releasing the ball after going through the footwork to the targeted receiver. Bill Walsh put together an instructional video some of it can be seen in this you tube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTnsWWfgml0

by Agnej007 on Aug 30, 2009 4:00 PM MDT reply actions

No question

Actually, the entire issue of QB specifics was something that I chose to edit for space limitations. Footwork was one of three areas that I had to avoid in hopes of a novella-sized article rather than a textbook. The quote from page 110 of The Genius was, “For Bill, playing the position began with footwork.”

By the way, the other areas that I cut included a section of terminology – Walsh’s concepts are still seen in multiple systems – and a section on reading the defenses, including the drills he used. Nice video, and thanks for adding that. God to have you commenting, and welcome!

Hillis/Moreno in '09

by Doc Bear on Aug 30, 2009 4:57 PM MDT reply actions

Disagreement of Bears

My only issue is that you don’t consider what the Bears do a West Coast offense…

A few numbers:

the Bears ranked 21st in the NFL in 2008 on rushes on 1st down. They ranked only 15th on runs on 2nd and long. So while they may have paid lip service to the concept of “getting off the bus running” that really wasn’t the case. Also, more than half of Orton’s pass attempts were short ones.

Also, a big reason that the Bears faced so many 8 man fronts was because they weren’t able to properly pass the football, regardless of whatever system they used.

The offense also fit your definition by using Forte as primary passing target, a la Roger Craig. The Bears used the TE’s and RB’s as the primary passing targets, and didn’t use a lot of 3 WR sets, because of depth issues and talent issues at WR. The actual routes they ran – timing based short routes, fall right in with the concept of a WCO.

by Str1fe5 on Sep 6, 2009 6:08 PM MDT reply actions