Football University - What is WCO, spread, and Coryell?

Today we're going to cover a reader question from recently. "Calvinandhobbs" asked for a comparison/contrast of the Spread Offense and the West Coast Offense. I'm also going to cover (very briefly) the "Air Coryell" system since it often gets mixed up with the WCO.
The good news, dear reader, is that the three topics are very easy to understand. The catch is that the way they are employed by team can make them tricky to spot.
the Air Coryell system
First, the Air Coryell is not like the other two terms at all. It is not a strategic approach. It is a numbering (or "nomenclature") system used to communicate plays. It was used by two teams on the west coast (Oakland and SD), and was good for simplifying play calling. That's it. It was based on the idea that you could use a three digit system for labeling routes (on pass) and regular words for run plays.
It was also called the West Coast Offense. This is where things get a little sticky.
The term "west coast"
In the late 60's Bill Walsh was an assistant with the Bengals. He came up with a system that would later change a lot about football offense. It wasn't until he got onboard with the 49'ers that he used the final version, and it had much success.
This new system received the label "West Coast Offense", which was a misnomer. "WCO" was actually another name for a "play naming system" called the Air Coryell. It was Bernie Kosar (the Browns QB who was often on the wrong side of famous highlight reels against Denver) that used the term incorrectly, and was quoted by Dr. Z of ESPN fame. Walsh was often annoyed that his system was being mislabeled as an old nomenclature system.
No big deal. The name WCO has stuck, and now is widely regarded as the name of Walsh's system. Sometimes you may hear the WCO called Air Coryell, and you now know that Air Coryell is only a naming system, not an offensive strategic system.
So let's dismiss the Air Coryell, and focus on what is really important. What is the WCO, and what is a Spread Offense?
The modern West Coast Offense
The old school thought in football offense was that we run the ball on most plays, and then occasionally throw the ball down the field to stretch the defense vertically. The run was the heart of the game, and passes kept defenses "honest".
The West Coast changes that dynamic. The idea of the WCO is to use multiple high percentage passes to spread the field horizontally to set up lanes for the running game. There are less deep throws, but the throws made are likely to be caught, even if they don't gain an immediate first down.
A lot of folks think that a team that throws more than runs is a WCO team, but this isn't necessarily the case. There are also exceptions to the rule that complicate things.
Denver, for example, is considered a WCO team. But they run more than they throw. How does that make sense?
Denver's offense is predicated on the zone block / one cut run. Remember this imporatant addage above all else as you read this section: The one cut run always has the RB take advantage of a hole that wasn't pre-determined, and the direction of that cut is always back to the center of the field. From here on out, the pasing game issues I bring up in relation to Denver drive home the seriousness of the idea that the passes must spread the defense horizontaly.
Passes from the offense are secondary to the run, and are often misdirection plays that take advantage of a defense that has to constantly bite at the Denver runs. However, in deeper coach-speak this qualifies as a WCO based system. Whenever Jay throws a pass (let's say the signature bootleg) he is forcing the defense to cover lanes (either his own running lane or a passing lane) that keeps defenders away from the lanes used by the RB (always a cut to the center).
To most of us, it just looks like Jay is taking advantage of the defense by passing to an open receiver. But this isn't really what is happening. Bootlegs and option plays are both misdirection plays that are not likely to succeed in most systems. But Denver uses them rarely (increasing their percentage of success since teams expect runs), and when they do they are clearing the way for the run to succeed by hitting the edges of the field (a horizontal spread). And this is the key. The bootleg and the option are both threats of either a pass to the sideline (regardless of depth, but typically short) or a run by the QB to the edge. Throw in the screen (another of Denver's favorite tricks) and you have passes designed to spread the field to the edges.
The result is a passing game designed to clear open the lanes for our RBs. And this is why the system is considered WCO, even though there aren't as many pass plays as in other WCOs.

In this illustration (a simple pocket pass), the QB has easy options. His two strong side options (a WR and TE) hook back for the catch, but do so to the outside. This is high percentage, but still leading the defenders away from the running lanes. The RB screens right for an easy dump off. The #2 WR cuts in, than back out to attempt to pull a FS out of position, along with a zoning WILL if he is lucky.
The one cut runner runs to the edges, but finds targets of opportunities and "cuts back" to take advantage. This means he is almost always angled back towards the center of the field. This is why most of Denver's pass plays are to the edges. The spread that is created on the defense plays into the scrambling skills of an Elway, a Plummer, or a Cutler. Again, looking at the above illustration, you can see the play is an attempt to keep defenders from heavily covering the center of the field, which is the direction almost every single cut goes back to.
Some people think that Indy may have a WCO. They don't. Having a terrific passing game doesn't mean a team is WCO. Indy runs a timing based play action system. The QB is prepared to throw at a predetermined moment (sometimes blindly) because he has to know where each WR will be at that moment. Most of the passes are play action (run as if the play were a run) to buy the WRs and the QB time to execute. Runs still set up the pass.
The Spread Offense
So what is a spread offense? A lot of people see a spread offense and think that it must be a WCO. Again, people often see "pass heavy" in the WCO definition and think that all pass heavy systems are WCO.
The idea behind the spread offense is very simple. The idea is to have eligible receivers on the defensive side of the ball "spread out" so as to have distance between them. This forces a defense to account for many receivers (whether the receivers are WRs, TEs, or RBs). The spread is both horizontal and vertical. The spread also prevents double teams because each receiver needs to be accounted for, and spare defensemen just aren't available. Typically, at least one player goes deep while two other players each take a sideline. A fourth player takes an area near the center of the field, while a fifth either screens or takes a seam.

Remember this 3 TE set pass play from a couple of weeks ago? It is a formation that has been used by the Steelers, whose new coach likes the spread for Big Ben. It is a spread play, and forces a lot of 1:1 match-ups. Now we are starting to put previous material to work for new applications at the University!
There are many variations of spread offenses. Some are run first, and some focus heavily on a shotgun formation with multiple true receivers. However, any defense that spreads the field in both directions (whether run or pass first; whether with true WRs or multiple positions) can be said to be a spread offense. The no huddle is a feature of many spread offenses at the collegiate level, but no so much in the pros.
~~~~~~~~~~
Any questions on any of the three terms? How about ideas for future stories? This is a safe place to ask any questions related to football theory, play creation and calling, and coaching in general.
Next week I'll be covering the defensive line. We'll cover gap assignments, the meaning of "one gap" and "two gap", as well as the meaning of terms like "1 technique, 2 technique" etc.
The week after that I'll be covering CB techniques, with a focus on bump-and-run and off coverages, as well as zone and man assignements (and what a coach considers when making up the game plan for his CBs).
Have a terrific weekend! I'll get to questions as quick as I can!
0 recs |
20 comments
Comments
Thanks for this!
by Silverblood on Feb 23, 2008 5:47 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
There's an awful lot more to detail...
I'm glad this is a good start. The wco isn't really too complicated. The spread has several variations, ranging from the Spread Option to the Run and Gun. I hope to flesh out each further in future stories. I also plan to to do a pretty in depth piece on zone blocking, one cut running, and the very misunderstood "cut blocking" (which often gets confused with chop blocking). Per reader request, I'll also be doing a story on the bootleg and its variations.
How's your own student coming along (sister, right?)?
by Steve Nichols on Feb 23, 2008 7:47 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Why is oakland's vertical game considered obsolete
3-4 one gap, as used by San Diego: how does this work? I had assumed that the strength of 3-4 defenses was the three two gap linemen keeping the offensive linemen away from the LBs. What is SD doing different?
Thanks.
by Arctic Bronco on Feb 23, 2008 8:31 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Good questions!
I'm not sure that I agree that oak's vertical game is obsolete. This may be the appearance because of poor team discipline, older players, and poor management/coaching. But the offensive system itself isn't the problem (if you are asking me). oak has a decent young QB, and some youth sprinkled around the team. I expect them to start improving. I consider the team's biggest hinderance to be their meddlesome owner.
Teams take away the vertical game of oak in two ways. One, it takes time to execute a vertical pass so a defense will want the pass rush to be heavy. Also, teams should use their CBs in off coverage and their safeties in deep 1/2 coverages (each safety covering half of the field). oak can counter by selling short passes and the run more often.
The 3-4 as used by SD
Here is an excerpt from an earlier piece I did describing the SD approach to the gaps in the 3-4, as well as how it differs from other teams:
"The 'Phillips 3-4' is a one gap version of the 3-4. It is credited to Bum Phillips of the old Houston Oilers. The system is used by SD and Dallas. Wade Phillips is the son of Bum Phillips.
The d-lineman in this system are lighter but faster than the linemen in a two gap system. They use a lot more slants and are able to depend on the use of LBs to make up for their size disadvantage. There is more blitzing, and the system can often be confused with the PITT system which depends heavily on blitzes. In fact, the PITT system and the SD/DAL systems are borrowing a lot from each other. (PITT uses more of a zone blitz system).
The speed of the D-line also allows a lot of zone blitzes, where the LBs blitz and some d-linemen drop back into zone.
The Phillips is more aggressive than the 3-4 run by other teams. In comparison, the NE version is very conservative (bend don't break). In fact, the system has its roots in the old 3-4 Orange Crush from the Broncos. This is the reason that the NE d-line doesn't rack up a lot of sacks. They occupy the o-line."
The Fairbanks-Bullough is a two gap approach. It is much less aggressive, and is most notably used by NE. The DL plugs up the OL as much as possible, freeing up the LBs in the manner you expressed as your understanding of a more traditional 3-4.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 24, 2008 12:03 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Spread
It seems that the WCO was all the rage of the 90s and 80s, but recently with the Patriots success do you think it will come back? Or was that just their great talent?
Also,if anyone wants I can write more for the WCO,I read Bill Walsh's book (the name escapes me) and researched it online a few weeks ago out of curiosity.
by calvinandhobbes on Feb 23, 2008 9:11 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Yes, here and there.
It remains very popular at the college level in its many different forms because several elite programs can recruit to creat a team able to pull it off. In the pros it is not only more difficult to bulk up so heavily at one position (receiver), but defenses are also much more sophisticated at the pro level than at the college level. Some smaller schools have a lot of success with variants based off of schemes more than personnel. In Colorado the Air Force Academy runs the Flex Scheme of the spread, which is based on a lot of motions and pre-snap shifts. It is kind of a spread/option type of system.
The spread system in the pros either flys or crashes. We've seen college coaches try it (Redskins) and get torn to shreads, and we've seen other teams try it with success. It will pop up whenever a team has the personnel, but should remain uncommon in the pros.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 24, 2008 12:19 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm really enjoying this series
by Squeaky on Feb 24, 2008 11:08 AM MST reply actions 0 recs
Glad to hear you like it
by Steve Nichols on Feb 25, 2008 3:31 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Greg Cook
by PABlzrfn on Feb 24, 2008 1:17 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Awesome footnote PA
by Steve Nichols on Feb 25, 2008 3:33 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
HT...
by mdierk on Feb 25, 2008 1:25 PM MST reply actions 0 recs
Good question
I told him I though Vick fit the "throwing FB" model a single wing could take advantage of. His answer was mixed. He said "definetly no" because the QB is too important of an asset in the NFL to risk play by play in a single wing. But he also mentioned that the change teams might move towards wouldn't focus on scrambling QBs so much as more of a hybrid between TEs and WRs (which is an indication towards the 3 TE systems).
I personaly love the single wing, though I've never been involved with a program that uses it or competes against it. I have seen a lot of film and gone to a few high school games to watch it. It is akin to watching the Globetrotters play, just make the adjustment to football. Like the 3 TE, it is a throwback to an earlier era and can be either force oriented or finesse.
But as Dan points out (correctly), we won't see it at the pro level.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 25, 2008 10:44 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
It seems the problem is the transition
The only way this would happen, IMO, would be for a team to go for broke and design the entire offense around the single wing. It seems to me that there are plenty of quality college QB's who are athletic enough to play in the NFL but lack the skills to handle a complex passing game. One would think you could draft a couple of these guys, don't pay them the stud QB rate and rotate them into the game like running backs so none would take a real pounding.
But that is not gonna happen because the risk is too great and it would require a complete overhaul of the offense. Actually, given Atlanta's problems, perhaps they should consider it as they rebuild.
by MattR on Feb 26, 2008 9:03 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Hey,
I always remember him coming in and running on like five straight plays...:)
"Calm down son!"
by Jeremy Bolander on Feb 26, 2008 2:51 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
Close
In some systems TWO FBs line up behind the center to create more confusion.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 26, 2008 3:06 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
It might be even harder than that
The TEs are more blockers and occassional runners now (wings and flankers in old time football). Your entire playbook is now geared towards a system that none of the major colleges run, so your drafting becomes more difficult.
The nice thing about the 3 TE systems is that the only real thing changing is the formation (though that is a major change). The plays being run are much more conventional that the single wing, just run out of a radical change in formation philosophy. Instead of adding some weird positions, you simply eliminate the FB and a WR for two extra TEs. The two TEs are only doing what they normaly do (block and catch) except they have a thicker playbook. (In the single wing they sometimes run the ball).
The three TE systems allow for gradual change, and so the risk is minimized. Pittsburgh has a solid chance of being the first team to run more 3 TEs than the current experimental sets.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 26, 2008 2:54 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
I vaguely remember that my old HS team...
The single wing would be a better offense if enacted for the entire season, but for mid-season it was a disaster.
by mdierk on Feb 26, 2008 10:12 AM MST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not an easy system.
It is a good system for 8 man football, but a program would need at least a couple of years to run it with any success. It would also help if the youth and middle school systems feed the kids with the same scheme run at the high school level.
Our coaches were required to visit the two middle schools that fed our high school, as well as the youth coaches, so that the early coaches could get information on our nomenclatures and systems so kids could learn towards the high school program. Coaches could teach their kids however they wanted, but they at least had our information so they could pass it onto the kids to ready them for high school if they wanted it.
But hey, if the season was a disaster maybe the coach was just trying to have some fun. Fun is an element of the game some coaches forget about in the quest to win. In my book "winning" is a lot of fun, but if you're getting stomped then why not let the kids try something new?
by Steve Nichols on Feb 26, 2008 3:03 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
We shoould talk about..
by mdierk on Feb 26, 2008 3:21 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs
True
Unfortunatly politics is always a factor. In smaller towns it might be the town or the "parent on the school board" thing. But at large schools you get simular complaints every year too.
We got a lot of complaints from both sides of the fence. Jock parents hated us because we were strict about enforcing grade policies as well as school discipline issues. Non-jock parents hated us because we played kids that gave us the best chance to win (at the high school level). It's always something.
by Steve Nichols on Feb 26, 2008 3:51 PM MST up reply actions 0 recs

by 

































