Updated Title: Will Portis Shine Again in a West Coast Offense?

[SC Skins Fan]

I think WCO gets tossed around a whole lot without any real definition as to meaning. People use the term as if it means one single thing, when it is a general offensive philosophy that numerous coaches have added to over the years. I also think the magical quality this philosophy is imbued with is overdone. Moreover, from what I can gather about the San Francisco Walsh offense at least, it was predicated predominately on man blocking rather than zone blocking with lots of cut backs. So people are making Denver stand-in for the 'WCO' when it is really the Shannahan variation on the offense. What you mean really is lots of stretch plays and cut blocking allowing the runner to find his hole and cut back if the lane is there. Does this correlate to what Seattle does (Zorn) or Tennessee (Smith)? Basically, why are we even talking about Denver's offense when that is not what the Redskins will be running? We don't really know what the offense will look like, and basically people throw around WCO without really defining (or knowing) what they mean by the term.

I also don't particularly like Paul Zimmerman, but I do like how he points out that the very term WCO is a misnomer since the term itself derives (apparently) from a quotation from Bernie Kosar that referred to the San Diego offensive tree that ran through guys like Norv Turner, Ernie Zampese, Joe Gibbs, Don Coryell, and Sid Gillman, and was only applied to Walsh through later misquotation of that story by some other writer(s). Anyway, I just like that, though 'West Coast Offense' obviously has become synonomous with the Walsh offense.

CNN/SI - Inside Game - Dr. Z - SI's Dr. Z: The real West Coast offense - Friday October 29, 1999 07:19 PM


Other useful quotations from another guy I don't love, but these points speak to my point above.

"Indeed, the West Coast offense that Walsh created has seen more spinoffs than "Happy Days," which spawned an entire subset of sitcoms. Even in a league where coaches insist there is nothing new under the sun, the West Coast scheme is arguably the most bastardized offense of the modern game, a blueprint smudged by years of alteration."

"Gruden prefers an I-formation or a one-back set to the standard split backfield that Walsh used and also relies on zone-blocking. In the classic West Coast offense, the blocking was primarily man-to-man, and the staple rushing play was the sweep."

ESPN.com: NFL - All roads lead to Walsh ... sort of

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I think WCO gets tossed around a whole lot without any real definition as to meaning. People use the term as if it means one single thing, when it is a general offensive philosophy that numerous coaches have added to over the years. I also think the magical quality this philosophy is imbued with is overdone. Moreover, from what I can gather about the San Francisco Walsh offense at least, it was predicated predominately on man blocking rather than zone blocking with lots of cut backs. So people are making Denver stand-in for the 'WCO' when it is really the Shannahan variation on the offense. What you mean really is lots of stretch plays and cut blocking allowing the runner to find his hole and cut back if the lane is there. Does this correlate to what Seattle does (Zorn) or Tennessee (Smith)? Basically, why are we even talking about Denver's offense when that is not what the Redskins will be running? We don't really know what the offense will look like, and basically people throw around WCO without really defining (or knowing) what they mean by the term.

I also don't particularly like Paul Zimmerman, but I do like how he points out that the very term WCO is a misnomer since the term itself derives (apparently) from a quotation from Bernie Kosar that referred to the San Diego offensive tree that ran through guys like Norv Turner, Ernie Zampese, Joe Gibbs, Don Coryell, and Sid Gillman, and was only applied to Walsh through later misquotation of that story by some other writer(s). Anyway, I just like that, though 'West Coast Offense' obviously has become synonomous with the Walsh offense.

CNN/SI - Inside Game - Dr. Z - SI's Dr. Z: The real West Coast offense - Friday October 29, 1999 07:19 PM


Other useful quotations from another guy I don't love, but these points speak to my point above.

"Indeed, the West Coast offense that Walsh created has seen more spinoffs than "Happy Days," which spawned an entire subset of sitcoms. Even in a league where coaches insist there is nothing new under the sun, the West Coast scheme is arguably the most bastardized offense of the modern game, a blueprint smudged by years of alteration."

"Gruden prefers an I-formation or a one-back set to the standard split backfield that Walsh used and also relies on zone-blocking. In the classic West Coast offense, the blocking was primarily man-to-man, and the staple rushing play was the sweep."

ESPN.com: NFL - All roads lead to Walsh ... sort of

I think the basic point being raised is will Portis be used more as he was in Denver vs. the power based schemes used under Gibbs.

[SC Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

I think the basic point being raised is will Portis be used more as he was in Denver vs. the power based schemes used under Gibbs.

Right, and the basic point I'm raising is whether there is any real basis to say that the running game under Zorn will have any relationship to the running game deployed in Denver. The connection seems tenuous at best since we really don't know what the offense will look like and the only real connection comes through a misappropriation of the term 'West Coast Offense' when what you are talking about in Denver is a zone blocking scheme with lots of stretches and qb boots. From what I can gather the true Walsh WCO didn't even deploy zone blocking. So the question I'm asking is how we get from Zorn's offense to Denver's offense. Is there any basis for this linkage beyond an overuse of the term 'West Coast offense'?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

Right, and the basic point I'm raising is whether there is any real basis to say that the running game under Zorn will have any relationship to the running game deployed in Denver. The connection seems tenuous at best since we really don't know what the offense will look like and the only real connection comes through a misappropriation of the term 'West Coast Offense' when what you are talking about in Denver is a zone blocking scheme with lots of stretches and qb boots. From what I can gather the true Walsh WCO didn't even deploy zone blocking. So the question I'm asking is how we get from Zorn's offense to Denver's offense. Is there any basis for this linkage beyond an overuse of the term 'West Coast offense'?

I'm guessing the assumption is Zorn's offense will be more wide open thus giving CP the chance to be more explosive as he was in Denver.

I agree there's no direct correlation to this offense and Denver's.

[Slingin Sammy 33]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

Right, and the basic point I'm raising is whether there is any real basis to say that the running game under Zorn will have any relationship to the running game deployed in Denver. The connection seems tenuous at best since we really don't know what the offense will look like and the only real connection comes through a misappropriation of the term 'West Coast Offense' when what you are talking about in Denver is a zone blocking scheme with lots of stretches and qb boots. From what I can gather the true Walsh WCO didn't even deploy zone blocking. So the question I'm asking is how we get from Zorn's offense to Denver's offense. Is there any basis for this linkage beyond an overuse of the term 'West Coast offense'?

Your earlier post was very good BTW.

I agree with you, I think the comparisons between our offense and Denver's offense aren't really valid. If we want to look at what we'll be running I believe it will be very similar to Seattle's offense, or Green Bay's when Holgren was there. The Zone Blocking scheme will probably not be used, as Holgren's version of "WCO" or rather "Walsh offense" is closer to the original than Denver's.

Here's an interesting article from 2004 on the production of the Seattle offense.

NFL almanac says this is time of year for Seattle's offense

If form holds true, and I don't see why it wouldn't barring major injury issues, we should have another strong Nov./Dec., but may struggle early as the players adjust to the speed and timing of the new system.

[freddyg12]

Originally Posted by SC Skins Fan

I think WCO gets tossed around a whole lot without any real definition as to meaning. People use the term as if it means one single thing, when it is a general offensive philosophy that numerous coaches have added to over the years. I also think the magical quality this philosophy is imbued with is overdone. Moreover, from what I can gather about the San Francisco Walsh offense at least, it was predicated predominately on man blocking rather than zone blocking with lots of cut backs. So people are making Denver stand-in for the 'WCO' when it is really the Shannahan variation on the offense. What you mean really is lots of stretch plays and cut blocking allowing the runner to find his hole and cut back if the lane is there. Does this correlate to what Seattle does (Zorn) or Tennessee (Smith)? Basically, why are we even talking about Denver's offense when that is not what the Redskins will be running? We don't really know what the offense will look like, and basically people throw around WCO without really defining (or knowing) what they mean by the term.

I also don't particularly like Paul Zimmerman, but I do like how he points out that the very term WCO is a misnomer since the term itself derives (apparently) from a quotation from Bernie Kosar that referred to the San Diego offensive tree that ran through guys like Norv Turner, Ernie Zampese, Joe Gibbs, Don Coryell, and Sid Gillman, and was only applied to Walsh through later misquotation of that story by some other writer(s). Anyway, I just like that, though 'West Coast Offense' obviously has become synonomous with the Walsh offense.

CNN/SI - Inside Game - Dr. Z - SI's Dr. Z: The real West Coast offense - Friday October 29, 1999 07:19 PM


Other useful quotations from another guy I don't love, but these points speak to my point above.

"Indeed, the West Coast offense that Walsh created has seen more spinoffs than "Happy Days," which spawned an entire subset of sitcoms. Even in a league where coaches insist there is nothing new under the sun, the West Coast scheme is arguably the most bastardized offense of the modern game, a blueprint smudged by years of alteration."

"Gruden prefers an I-formation or a one-back set to the standard split backfield that Walsh used and also relies on zone-blocking. In the classic West Coast offense, the blocking was primarily man-to-man, and the staple rushing play was the sweep."

ESPN.com: NFL - All roads lead to Walsh ... sort of

Excellent post, I agree.