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

[mheisig]

[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.

[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.

[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'?

[freddyg12]

Blocking schemes were discussed here in 06 & I remember reading a wash post article about how when Saunders convinced Bugel to teach his guys zone/cut blocking, our run game took off w/Betts (since CP was injured).

so we have already used the same blocking technique as Denver to some degree. In addition, Portis likes to run inside. It is a misconception that because he's small he likes to run tosses outside. Look at his big runs in Denver, a lot of them were simply huge holes up the middle.

Their line was great then, but look at their run game since. It's not bad, but they haven't had a dominant running game for a few years. If CP was still there he'd be going through some tough years & people would be saying; can he get back to his form of the first 2 years?

I believe the substantial difference w/Zorn & the new O. will be the willingness to take more chances & give the O. a new personality in doing so. If JC is on his game the way he should be, Portis will have a great year. We also need the O line to stay healthy too. You can't expect any great back to do too much running behind Fabini & Heyer. Those guys did well all things considered, but they couldn't start on most nfl teams.

[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.

[irish]

Originally Posted by Mattyk72

First off CP is only 26, he'll be 27 this fall but that's still not what I would call an old player. Second, he's only had 1 season where he missed significant time, so I don't see how that makes him injury prone.

27 isnt young for a RB. He only missed significant time once but now he always has something bothering him and he doesnt seem to play more than 2 plays in a row without needing a blow. I see Barber and Addai playing play after play but when I watch CP he makes 1 or 2 runs and heads to the sideline. CP will still be productive but his days as a beast are past.

[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.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

27 isnt young for a RB. He only missed significant time once but now he always has something bothering him and he doesnt seem to play more than 2 plays in a row without needing a blow. I see Barber and Addai playing play after play but when I watch CP he makes 1 or 2 runs and heads to the sideline. CP will still be productive but his days as a beast are past.

Is this some sort of joke? Barber, assuming you're talking about Marion, has started only three games in the past four years (or something like that)

Addai had 261 carries last year for a 4.1 ypc average. Portis had 325 carries last year with hardly any drop-off in ypc (3.9) versus Addai. Portis also had more receptions and receiving yards than Addai-47 catches, 389 yards vs 41 catches, 364 yards. Each had 8 games of 20+ carries, though two of Portis' were actually 30+ carries.

I think Addai is a very good running back, but you're making a mistake if you use him in an argument against Portis.

[tryfuhl]

Without zone blocking, probably not. But zone blocking leads to more of a chance of injury as you tend to take bigger hits from stronger and faster guys rather than have a couple pull you down. Now he can be more explosive this year no doubt.

[MTK]

LOL Addai got hurt on his first carry of the season last year. Give me a break.

[over the mountain]

Originally Posted by love them hogs

I thought that I heard Zorn say the running scheme is going to be the same as it was last year.He is only changing the passing schemes.So if you expect Portis to come back to "form", it will come from his and the o-lines health and not a change in scheme.

yeah i heard the same thing, alot of changes in the passing game but running stays the same . . . . but were they talking about the schemes or language/terms?

also alot of people seem to think that if we use broncos zone blocking scheme portis will get back to his bronco form but didnt we switch to zone blocking last year to create lanes for portis to pick and choose his holes and cuts when gibbs smashmouth was not working?

my guess, 1,300 rushing yards 10 tds = the usual solid contribution from mr. portis

go skins!

[irish]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Is this some sort of joke? Barber, assuming you're talking about Marion, has started only three games in the past four years (or something like that)

Addai had 261 carries last year for a 4.1 ypc average. Portis had 325 carries last year with hardly any drop-off in ypc (3.9) versus Addai. Portis also had more receptions and receiving yards than Addai-47 catches, 389 yards vs 41 catches, 364 yards. Each had 8 games of 20+ carries, though two of Portis' were actually 30+ carries.

I think Addai is a very good running back, but you're making a mistake if you use him in an argument against Portis.

Who's argueing against Portis? I said he will still be productive but his best days are behind him.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by irish

Who's argueing against Portis? I said he will still be productive but his best days are behind him.

Did you not just say Portis seems to have something bothering him all the time and has to take every couple of plays off, yet Addai is there on the field playing play after play?