PDA

View Full Version : Do we really run a "west coast offense" and a "Cover 2" ??



StillPurple
03-25-2008, 12:01 AM
I really wonder about our schemes. We constantly hear that the Vikings run a "west coast offense" with a "Cover 2" defense. And yet: through the year, we abandoned the Cover 2, and our QB had a 45 % completion rating, in an offense that preferred to run the ball off tackle, rather than throw it short.

In short: we have abandoned the west coast offense, and the "Cover 2".

Right ?

DiehardVikesFan
03-25-2008, 12:02 AM
We actually run what is called the kickass offense

StillPurple
03-25-2008, 12:15 AM
I only wish...

The last 4 games still leave a total sour taste in my mouth: defenses stacking the box, and our "genius" coach running the ball off tackle into the teeth of their D. It happened in the 49ers game and every game after that. AP was shut down after game 12. Let's face reality. Defenses dared our coaching staff and QB to throw the ball, and we failed miserably. Tarvaris proved to be a dud.

I just wonder where this leaves us in 2008.

Coaching staff: get AP in SPACE, please !!
::)

DiehardVikesFan
03-25-2008, 12:17 AM
I think that's why they brought in Berrian.
Against Denver i believe it was, they dared us to throw it deep and we hit Williamson in stride, and we all know what happened.
Berrian hopefully will allow us to stretch out defenses.

vikes2456
03-25-2008, 12:49 AM
I hope TJ gels and the offense clicks and explodes next year. Then this offense becomes legendary and the "kickass offense" is adopted by multiple teams.

kevoncox
03-25-2008, 01:03 AM
"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:


I think that's why they brought in Berrian.
Against Denver i believe it was, they dared us to throw it deep and we hit Williamson in stride, and we all know what happened.
Berrian hopefully will allow us to stretch out defenses.


That doesn't solve the problem. If we leave the game in Tjs hands to win it. We will lose more than we win.

ragz
03-25-2008, 01:12 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:


I think that's why they brought in Berrian.
Against Denver i believe it was, they dared us to throw it deep and we hit Williamson in stride, and we all know what happened.
Berrian hopefully will allow us to stretch out defenses.


That doesn't solve the problem. If we leave the game in Tjs hands to win it. We will lose more than we win.

technically history would tell us that that's not true since we were 8-4 with him as a starter last year.


as for the general question...these terms get thrown around way too much and used to make people sound smarter than they are.
most of the league runs a variation of the west coast offense or the cover 2.
i think the objective is to have variety in all your looks if you are to really catch anyone off guard.
if every team that was labeled a wco, or cover 2 defense, exclusively just ran plays that defined those two terms it would be pretty easy to defend and score on those teams regularly.
if anything it's the base, but after that you have so many different formations and personel that you use it doesn't really matter all that much, if you ask me.

singersp
03-25-2008, 04:59 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I really wonder about our schemes. We constantly hear that the Vikings run a "west coast offense" with a "Cover 2" defense. And yet: through the year, we abandoned the Cover 2, and our QB had a 45 % completion rating, in an offense that preferred to run the ball off tackle, rather than throw it short.

In short: we have abandoned the west coast offense, and the "Cover 2".

Right ?


Where the hell did you dream up that stat? Do you have a link?

Jackson's completion % for 2007 was 58.2%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackTa00.htm

Marrdro
03-25-2008, 07:47 AM
The term WCO is a bit overused these days as it has morphed into so many different versions, however, there are two predominant philosophies when you discuss the WCO since the Bill Walsh era.

One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".

Here is a good discussion/set of links I provided DaVike in another thread a while ago.

Very interesting reads if you have the time that will help you understand what variant we run.

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=42552.msg727982#msg727982

As to our defense, I don't think you saw us "Give up" on our cover 2 scheme last year but rather get away from it a bit because we lacked the ability to get pressure from our front 4 which is what the whole defensive scheme is based off of.

In an effort to get pressure on the QB they started to send LB'rs which inturn took LB'rs out of the zones that they would normally drop back into to take away the quick stuff like short slants and quick outs.

That in turn had a trickle down affect as it made our CB's play a bit more press coverage which isn't thier strong suite.

Again, I don't think we gave up on the scheme but were forced to come up with different ways to overcome the lack of pressure from our front 4.

NodakPaul
03-25-2008, 08:52 AM
"singersp" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


I really wonder about our schemes. We constantly hear that the Vikings run a "west coast offense" with a "Cover 2" defense. And yet: through the year, we abandoned the Cover 2, and our QB had a 45 % completion rating, in an offense that preferred to run the ball off tackle, rather than throw it short.

In short: we have abandoned the west coast offense, and the "Cover 2".

Right ?


Where the hell did you dream up that stat? Do you have a link?

Jackson's completion % for 2007 was 58.2%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackTa00.htm


Stop trying to interject fact into the argument.
Don't you know that the only things that matter are emotion and wild theories?

Zeus
03-25-2008, 08:58 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


I really wonder about our schemes. We constantly hear that the Vikings run a "west coast offense" with a "Cover 2" defense. And yet: through the year, we abandoned the Cover 2, and our QB had a 45 % completion rating, in an offense that preferred to run the ball off tackle, rather than throw it short.

In short: we have abandoned the west coast offense, and the "Cover 2".

Right ?


Where the hell did you dream up that stat? Do you have a link?

Jackson's completion % for 2007 was 58.2%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackTa00.htm


Stop trying to interject fact into the argument.
Don't you know that the only things that matter are emotion and wild theories?


And boobs.
Don't forget boobs.

=Z=

seaniemck7
03-25-2008, 08:59 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"singersp" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


I really wonder about our schemes. We constantly hear that the Vikings run a "west coast offense" with a "Cover 2" defense. And yet: through the year, we abandoned the Cover 2, and our QB had a 45 % completion rating, in an offense that preferred to run the ball off tackle, rather than throw it short.

In short: we have abandoned the west coast offense, and the "Cover 2".

Right ?


Where the hell did you dream up that stat? Do you have a link?

Jackson's completion % for 2007 was 58.2%.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JackTa00.htm


Stop trying to interject fact into the argument.
Don't you know that the only things that matter are emotion and wild theories?


I prefer imagination and out-of-the-ass-stats as bases for my arguements...

C Mac D
03-25-2008, 09:03 AM
We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.

NodakPaul
03-25-2008, 09:06 AM
"kevoncox" wrote:


"DiehardVikesFan" wrote:


I think that's why they brought in Berrian.
Against Denver i believe it was, they dared us to throw it deep and we hit Williamson in stride, and we all know what happened.
Berrian hopefully will allow us to stretch out defenses.


That doesn't solve the problem. If we leave the game in Tjs hands to win it. We will lose more than we win.


Possibly.
TJack actually won twice as many games as he lost last year, but at least two of those games we won in spite of the play at QB.
However, I am not ready to say that leaving TJ under center is an automatic loss though.
With the addition of Berrian, we actually have someone who can catch running deep routes.
All of have the image of TWill dropping a perfect bomb in the Denver game - hard to fault TJ with that one.
If we start connecting on a few of those passes, our run game will open up considerably.

Having someone who can actually catch the ball make a pretty big difference in the way the secondary and LB corps play.
The Berrian - Rice - Wade lineup is a fairly good one, and even TJack should be able to flourish in it.


If not, hopefully we will draft some competition for him...

NodakPaul
03-25-2008, 09:06 AM
"C" wrote:


We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...

jargomcfargo
03-25-2008, 10:00 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I only wish...

The last 4 games still leave a total sour taste in my mouth: defenses stacking the box, and our "genius" coach running the ball off tackle into the teeth of their D. It happened in the 49ers game and every game after that. AP was shut down after game 12. Let's face reality. Defenses dared our coaching staff and QB to throw the ball, and we failed miserably. Tarvaris proved to be a dud.

I just wonder where this leaves us in 2008.

Coaching staff: get AP in SPACE, please !!
::)


Who is to blame?

Is it called that way because the coaching staff knows TJ can't deliver despite the defense playing the run?

Or does TJ get the blame because the offensive play calling lacks the creativity to take advantage of mismatches like a WCO is supposed to?

Or is it both?

I feel things will likely improve this year with a better team around TJ and More experience.

But if it turns out to be the SOS offense instead of the KAO, there wont be much fan support or tolerance.

C Mac D
03-25-2008, 10:03 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...


True, but last place overall...

jargomcfargo
03-25-2008, 10:05 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


The term WCO is a bit overused these days as it has morphed into so many different versions, however, there are two predominant philosophies when you discuss the WCO since the Bill Walsh era.

One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".

Here is a good discussion/set of links I provided DaVike in another thread a while ago.

Very interesting reads if you have the time that will help you understand what variant we run.

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=42552.msg727982#msg727982

As to our defense, I don't think you saw us "Give up" on our cover 2 scheme last year but rather get away from it a bit because we lacked the ability to get pressure from our front 4 which is what the whole defensive scheme is based off of.

In an effort to get pressure on the QB they started to send LB'rs which inturn took LB'rs out of the zones that they would normally drop back into to take away the quick stuff like short slants and quick outs.

That in turn had a trickle down affect as it made our CB's play a bit more press coverage which isn't thier strong suite.

Again, I don't think we gave up on the scheme but were forced to come up with different ways to overcome the lack of pressure from our front 4.


I for one thought that worked well. If we can get more front four pressure without blitzing, we should be able to have the flexibility to mix up the reads similar to what the Giants did to Brady. I'm not saying they will be as good as the Giants, but definately should be better than we were.

Marrdro
03-25-2008, 10:10 AM
"jargomcfargo" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


The term WCO is a bit overused these days as it has morphed into so many different versions, however, there are two predominant philosophies when you discuss the WCO since the Bill Walsh era.

One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".

Here is a good discussion/set of links I provided DaVike in another thread a while ago.

Very interesting reads if you have the time that will help you understand what variant we run.

http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=42552.msg727982#msg727982

As to our defense, I don't think you saw us "Give up" on our cover 2 scheme last year but rather get away from it a bit because we lacked the ability to get pressure from our front 4 which is what the whole defensive scheme is based off of.

In an effort to get pressure on the QB they started to send LB'rs which inturn took LB'rs out of the zones that they would normally drop back into to take away the quick stuff like short slants and quick outs.

That in turn had a trickle down affect as it made our CB's play a bit more press coverage which isn't thier strong suite.

Again, I don't think we gave up on the scheme but were forced to come up with different ways to overcome the lack of pressure from our front 4.


I for one thought that worked well. If we can get more front four pressure without blitzing, we should be able to have the flexibility to mix up the reads similar to what the Giants did to Brady. I'm not saying they will be as good as the Giants, but definately should be better than we were.

I agree.
Question(s) is/are.....

a.
Will our young crop of DE's (Robison/Edwards) increase thier sack totals/QB pressures from what they did last year.
(I think the will by the way).
b.
Will Winny stay healthy this year for a full season.
c.
Will Griff/Gordon/McCauley put up better numbers than they did last year. (I think they will).
d.
Will the changes/additions at DT get more pressure up the middle/collapsing the pocket which will flush the QB?
(I'm still hesitant on this one but will be abit optimistic).

Gimme (a) and (c) with (b) and I think we will see an improvement.
Gimme all 4 and we will be a force.

V-Unit
03-25-2008, 10:10 AM
I still question whether we have ever played a traditional cover 2. I remember in the Tampa 2 the CBs played bump and run every single down. We line up 10 yards off of the receiver.

As for the WCO. We definelty run it, but we have too many mistakes, flags, and incompletions to run it effectively.

NodakPaul
03-25-2008, 10:15 AM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...


True, but last place overall...


Only in passing yards per game.
That is a skewed stat because we were second in the number of passing attempts against us per game.
Our pass D was a lot better than most people gave them credit for.

Prophet
03-25-2008, 10:22 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...


True, but last place overall...


Only in passing yards per game.
That is a skewed stat because we were second in the number of passing attempts against us per game.
Our pass D was a lot better than most people gave them credit for.


pts/game (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=90EF032553EBBC9033E0117D3B5BB1F7?season=2007&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1) is even a better stat and the Vikings were #12 in giving up the least amount of pts.
Now the KAO will be a little further along so it should be a fine season for the purple shaded brood.

davike
03-25-2008, 10:31 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...


Thats because we had like 50 more attempts then anyone else. People passed on us constantly. And you must also keep in mind that when you are up by quite a bit, which we were in that 5 game winning streak we had, the defense will start playing with the "bend but don't break" idea. And so almost anyone could have quite a few yards on simple short passes.

snowinapril
03-25-2008, 10:32 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...


True, but last place overall...


Only in passing yards per game.
That is a skewed stat because we were second in the number of passing attempts against us per game.
Our pass D was a lot better than most people gave them credit for.


pts/game (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=90EF032553EBBC9033E0117D3B5BB1F7?season=2007&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1) is even a better stat and the Vikings were #12 in giving up the least amount of pts.
Now the KAO will be a little further along so it should be a fine season for the purple shaded brood.


Proph = 20,002 posts

Good one!

All I can say is that we aren't doing enough on either side of the ball to be a super bowl team.
Got to improve on both Offense and Defense.
We need to dictate to the other teams our will.

C Mac D
03-25-2008, 10:34 AM
"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...


True, but last place overall...


Only in passing yards per game.
That is a skewed stat because we were second in the number of passing attempts against us per game.
Our pass D was a lot better than most people gave them credit for.


pts/game (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=90EF032553EBBC9033E0117D3B5BB1F7?season=2007&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1) is even a better stat and the Vikings were #12 in giving up the least amount of pts.
Now the KAO will be a little further along so it should be a fine season for the purple shaded brood.


There was a reason teams were passing against us, because the opposing teams knew they could.

I agree with Prophet, Points/Game is a better indicator... however, stupid coaching such as having Marcus McCauley covering Santana Moss... now that's not the secondary's fault...

Need I say more:
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5558/chillyclownlh4.png

Marrdro
03-25-2008, 10:41 AM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...


True, but last place overall...


Only in passing yards per game.
That is a skewed stat because we were second in the number of passing attempts against us per game.
Our pass D was a lot better than most people gave them credit for.


pts/game (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=90EF032553EBBC9033E0117D3B5BB1F7?season=2007&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1) is even a better stat and the Vikings were #12 in giving up the least amount of pts.
Now the KAO will be a little further along so it should be a fine season for the purple shaded brood.


There was a reason teams were passing against us, because the opposing teams knew they could.

I agree with Prophet, Points/Game is a better indicator... however, stupid coaching such as having Marcus McCauley covering Santana Moss... now that's not the secondary's fault...

Need I say more:
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5558/chillyclownlh4.png



Ahhhhhhhhhh, the clown is back.


Comeon my friend.
At least give me a heads up before you use that thing.
;D(lots of smiley faces) ;D

NodakPaul
03-25-2008, 10:46 AM
"C" wrote:


There was a reason teams were passing against us, because the opposing teams knew they could.

I agree with Prophet, Points/Game is a better indicator... however, stupid coaching such as having Marcus McCauley covering Santana Moss... now that's not the secondary's fault...



You missed the point.
Teams didn't pass against us because they knew they could... They passed against us because they simply couldn't run.
Again, our passing D was in the top half of the league.
You're a pretty smart guy C Mac, I know you can grasp that. ;)

mountainviking
03-25-2008, 10:49 AM
That there is a double edged sword.
Teams passed at us cuz they couldn't run.
Which makes our run defense look even better, cuz it lowers those attempts.
Makes our pass defense look worse than it really is, cuz with 50/atttempts a game, you're going to give up some yards...as long as the points don't go with it, we're OK.


The big thing to me is sustaining drives so our defense doesn't have to win the game on its own.
Too many games the past few years we saw the defense play tough in the first and third quarters, but get tired and sloppy late in halfs.
If TJack improves and our OLine doesn't implode, the passing game should improve as well, and open up the running game some...which will improve our defense too.

C Mac D
03-25-2008, 10:57 AM
"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


There was a reason teams were passing against us, because the opposing teams knew they could.

I agree with Prophet, Points/Game is a better indicator... however, stupid coaching such as having Marcus McCauley covering Santana Moss... now that's not the secondary's fault...



You missed the point.
Teams didn't pass against us because they knew they could... They passed against us because they simply couldn't run.
Again, our passing D was in the top half of the league.
You're a pretty smart guy C Mac, I know you can grasp that. ;)


I can grasp that, however, Tampa Bay had both a great Run-D and Pass-D the year they won the Super Bowl... How about the Ravens the year they won it?

Just because teams are forced to pass against us doesn't mean our secondary has to give up a lot of yards.

davike
03-25-2008, 11:34 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


The term WCO is a bit overused these days as it has morphed into so many different versions, however, there are two predominant philosophies when you discuss the WCO since the Bill Walsh era.

One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".

Here is a good discussion/set of links I provided DaVike in another thread a while ago.
Very interesting reads if you have the time that will help you understand what variant we run.
http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=42552.msg727982#msg727982

As to our defense, I don't think you saw us "Give up" on our cover 2 scheme last year but rather get away from it a bit because we lacked the ability to get pressure from our front 4 which is what the whole defensive scheme is based off of.

In an effort to get pressure on the QB they started to send LB'rs which inturn took LB'rs out of the zones that they would normally drop back into to take away the quick stuff like short slants and quick outs.

That in turn had a trickle down affect as it made our CB's play a bit more press coverage which isn't thier strong suite.

Again, I don't think we gave up on the scheme but were forced to come up with different ways to overcome the lack of pressure from our front 4.


I totally agree it is a term overused. Yeah it was a good discussion. And enlightening as well. I know what you mean by you can run more and still be a WCO. But I do have one problem still though.

This statement:
One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".


You have just described every offense in the NFL.

In none of the articles does it say that WCO teams run to set up the pass. In some teams (Denver) they go about it differently, thats why they run more then they pass.

Here are the articles you posted:

http://www.kffl.com/article.php/73828/488


Use the pass to set up the run. Most teams using the West Coast offense more often than not have a pass-first mindset, choosing to instead spread the defense out to get better matchups in the run game. (The major exception to this rule would be the system the Denver Broncos utilize.) The offense also should be prepared to throw on any down or distance during the game.

Denver still pass to set up the run....the next article will explain.

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_coast_offense

A WCO is designed pretty much to stretch the field. But Welsh still intended it to be a pass to set up the run offense, which during his time was an uncommon thing. Thats why it worked so well, now days defenses are starting to learn it causing teams to create variations that aren't very similular to Welsh's at all.

jargomcfargo
03-25-2008, 11:48 AM
"C" wrote:


"Prophet" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:




We definitely didn't run the Cover 2... we couldn't cover anybody.


Nice try - except for the fact that our passing D was actually rated 11th in yards per attempt...


True, but last place overall...


Only in passing yards per game.
That is a skewed stat because we were second in the number of passing attempts against us per game.
Our pass D was a lot better than most people gave them credit for.


pts/game (http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats;jsessionid=90EF032553EBBC9033E0117D3B5BB1F7?season=2007&seasonType=REG&defensiveStatisticCategory=GAME_STATS&d-447263-o=2&conference=ALL&tabSeq=2&role=OPP&d-447263-p=1&d-447263-s=TOTAL_POINTS_GAME_AVG&d-447263-n=1) is even a better stat and the Vikings were #12 in giving up the least amount of pts.
Now the KAO will be a little further along so it should be a fine season for the purple shaded brood.


There was a reason teams were passing against us, because the opposing teams knew they could.

I agree with Prophet, Points/Game is a better indicator... however, stupid coaching such as having Marcus McCauley covering Santana Moss... now that's not the secondary's fault...

Need I say more:
http://img147.imageshack.us/img147/5558/chillyclownlh4.png

DOUCHE
;D

Marrdro
03-25-2008, 11:56 AM
"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


The term WCO is a bit overused these days as it has morphed into so many different versions, however, there are two predominant philosophies when you discuss the WCO since the Bill Walsh era.

One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".

Here is a good discussion/set of links I provided DaVike in another thread a while ago.
Very interesting reads if you have the time that will help you understand what variant we run.
http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=42552.msg727982#msg727982

As to our defense, I don't think you saw us "Give up" on our cover 2 scheme last year but rather get away from it a bit because we lacked the ability to get pressure from our front 4 which is what the whole defensive scheme is based off of.

In an effort to get pressure on the QB they started to send LB'rs which inturn took LB'rs out of the zones that they would normally drop back into to take away the quick stuff like short slants and quick outs.

That in turn had a trickle down affect as it made our CB's play a bit more press coverage which isn't thier strong suite.

Again, I don't think we gave up on the scheme but were forced to come up with different ways to overcome the lack of pressure from our front 4.


I totally agree it is a term overused. Yeah it was a good discussion. And enlightening as well. I know what you mean by you can run more and still be a WCO. But I do have one problem still though.

This statement:
One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".


You have just described every offense in the NFL.

In none of the articles does it say that WCO teams run to set up the pass. In some teams (Denver) they go about it differently, thats why they run more then they pass.

Here are the articles you posted:

http://www.kffl.com/article.php/73828/488


Use the pass to set up the run. Most teams using the West Coast offense more often than not have a pass-first mindset, choosing to instead spread the defense out to get better matchups in the run game. (The major exception to this rule would be the system the Denver Broncos utilize.) The offense also should be prepared to throw on any down or distance during the game.

Denver still pass to set up the run....the next article will explain.

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_coast_offense

A WCO is designed pretty much to stretch the field. But Welsh still intended it to be a pass to set up the run offense, which during his time was an uncommon thing. Thats why it worked so well, now days defenses are starting to learn it causing teams to create variations that aren't very similular to Welsh's at all.

Good stuff my friend.

Yes under Walsh his concept was to stretch the field via the pass but since the onset of the Cover 2 that has been negated a bit.


Teams are starting to move away from the West Coast offense because defenses have learned two ways to exploit it.

Taken from the link below.
If you go ahead and look at the other links provided on that page you will see some additional indept discussions/articles on how the cover 2 negates the (Pass First) variant of the WCO and how the running game exploits the cover 2.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified


However, the Tampa 2 suffers from power runners. Big, bruising running backs can normally run over the smaller linebackers and a lot of times won't be stopped until they reach the safety. A good running game cheats the safety out of the coverage he wants to run and makes him hesitate since he has to watch the run. When play-action passes can get involved and the safety has to respect the team's running game, a lot of times it can spell a long completion or a touchdown. The Panthers are good at demonstrating this and exposing it, since they possess a power-running, play-action pass offense. A vast majority of their passes come off the play-action, and when the safety has to watch out for the run, it really opens up holes in the coverage.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5912648/The-Cover-2-Explained


Which gets back to the variant (Run to setup the Pass) that I believe we run.

From the same article.....

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

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?


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.

Traditional Walsh variants of the WCO do in fact throw the ball more than they run.



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.

In order for a team to start to bite on the run (Play action pass) the team must first establish a effective running game.
In short, that means, runs to set up the pass.

Again, great stuff my friend.

davike
03-25-2008, 12:16 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


The term WCO is a bit overused these days as it has morphed into so many different versions, however, there are two predominant philosophies when you discuss the WCO since the Bill Walsh era.

One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".

Here is a good discussion/set of links I provided DaVike in another thread a while ago.
Very interesting reads if you have the time that will help you understand what variant we run.
http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=42552.msg727982#msg727982

As to our defense, I don't think you saw us "Give up" on our cover 2 scheme last year but rather get away from it a bit because we lacked the ability to get pressure from our front 4 which is what the whole defensive scheme is based off of.

In an effort to get pressure on the QB they started to send LB'rs which inturn took LB'rs out of the zones that they would normally drop back into to take away the quick stuff like short slants and quick outs.

That in turn had a trickle down affect as it made our CB's play a bit more press coverage which isn't thier strong suite.

Again, I don't think we gave up on the scheme but were forced to come up with different ways to overcome the lack of pressure from our front 4.


I totally agree it is a term overused. Yeah it was a good discussion. And enlightening as well. I know what you mean by you can run more and still be a WCO. But I do have one problem still though.

This statement:
One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".


You have just described every offense in the NFL.

In none of the articles does it say that WCO teams run to set up the pass. In some teams (Denver) they go about it differently, thats why they run more then they pass.

Here are the articles you posted:

http://www.kffl.com/article.php/73828/488


Use the pass to set up the run. Most teams using the West Coast offense more often than not have a pass-first mindset, choosing to instead spread the defense out to get better matchups in the run game. (The major exception to this rule would be the system the Denver Broncos utilize.) The offense also should be prepared to throw on any down or distance during the game.

Denver still pass to set up the run....the next article will explain.

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_coast_offense

A WCO is designed pretty much to stretch the field. But Welsh still intended it to be a pass to set up the run offense, which during his time was an uncommon thing. Thats why it worked so well, now days defenses are starting to learn it causing teams to create variations that aren't very similular to Welsh's at all.

Good stuff my friend.

Yes under Walsh his concept was to stretch the field via the pass but since the onset of the Cover 2 that has been negated a bit.


Teams are starting to move away from the West Coast offense because defenses have learned two ways to exploit it.

Taken from the link below.
If you go ahead and look at the other links provided on that page you will see some additional indept discussions/articles on how the cover 2 negates the (Pass First) variant of the WCO and how the running game exploits the cover 2.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified


However, the Tampa 2 suffers from power runners. Big, bruising running backs can normally run over the smaller linebackers and a lot of times won't be stopped until they reach the safety. A good running game cheats the safety out of the coverage he wants to run and makes him hesitate since he has to watch the run. When play-action passes can get involved and the safety has to respect the team's running game, a lot of times it can spell a long completion or a touchdown. The Panthers are good at demonstrating this and exposing it, since they possess a power-running, play-action pass offense. A vast majority of their passes come off the play-action, and when the safety has to watch out for the run, it really opens up holes in the coverage.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5912648/The-Cover-2-Explained


Which gets back to the variant (Run to setup the Pass) that I believe we run.

From the same article.....

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

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?


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.

Traditional Walsh variants of the WCO do in fact throw the ball more than they run.



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.

In order for a team to start to bite on the run (Play action pass) the team must first establish a effective running game.
In short, that means, runs to set up the pass.

Again, great stuff my friend.


Yeah! The tampa 2 counters it. Which is why I said teams are coming up wtih other variants of the WCO that aren't really the true Walsh WCO. It has has been changed....just as it is expected to. I agree with you there.



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).


It may actually be running to set up the pass. But they still consider them to be passing to set up the run, which is one of the reasons its a WCO. I have read interviews where Shanahan and other coaches say thats whay they do even if it may not appear so. I will try to find the interview.

Marrdro
03-25-2008, 12:30 PM
"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


The term WCO is a bit overused these days as it has morphed into so many different versions, however, there are two predominant philosophies when you discuss the WCO since the Bill Walsh era.

One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".

Here is a good discussion/set of links I provided DaVike in another thread a while ago.
Very interesting reads if you have the time that will help you understand what variant we run.
http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=42552.msg727982#msg727982

As to our defense, I don't think you saw us "Give up" on our cover 2 scheme last year but rather get away from it a bit because we lacked the ability to get pressure from our front 4 which is what the whole defensive scheme is based off of.

In an effort to get pressure on the QB they started to send LB'rs which inturn took LB'rs out of the zones that they would normally drop back into to take away the quick stuff like short slants and quick outs.

That in turn had a trickle down affect as it made our CB's play a bit more press coverage which isn't thier strong suite.

Again, I don't think we gave up on the scheme but were forced to come up with different ways to overcome the lack of pressure from our front 4.


I totally agree it is a term overused. Yeah it was a good discussion. And enlightening as well. I know what you mean by you can run more and still be a WCO. But I do have one problem still though.

This statement:
One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".


You have just described every offense in the NFL.

In none of the articles does it say that WCO teams run to set up the pass. In some teams (Denver) they go about it differently, thats why they run more then they pass.

Here are the articles you posted:

http://www.kffl.com/article.php/73828/488


Use the pass to set up the run. Most teams using the West Coast offense more often than not have a pass-first mindset, choosing to instead spread the defense out to get better matchups in the run game. (The major exception to this rule would be the system the Denver Broncos utilize.) The offense also should be prepared to throw on any down or distance during the game.

Denver still pass to set up the run....the next article will explain.

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_coast_offense

A WCO is designed pretty much to stretch the field. But Welsh still intended it to be a pass to set up the run offense, which during his time was an uncommon thing. Thats why it worked so well, now days defenses are starting to learn it causing teams to create variations that aren't very similular to Welsh's at all.

Good stuff my friend.

Yes under Walsh his concept was to stretch the field via the pass but since the onset of the Cover 2 that has been negated a bit.


Teams are starting to move away from the West Coast offense because defenses have learned two ways to exploit it.

Taken from the link below.
If you go ahead and look at the other links provided on that page you will see some additional indept discussions/articles on how the cover 2 negates the (Pass First) variant of the WCO and how the running game exploits the cover 2.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified


However, the Tampa 2 suffers from power runners. Big, bruising running backs can normally run over the smaller linebackers and a lot of times won't be stopped until they reach the safety. A good running game cheats the safety out of the coverage he wants to run and makes him hesitate since he has to watch the run. When play-action passes can get involved and the safety has to respect the team's running game, a lot of times it can spell a long completion or a touchdown. The Panthers are good at demonstrating this and exposing it, since they possess a power-running, play-action pass offense. A vast majority of their passes come off the play-action, and when the safety has to watch out for the run, it really opens up holes in the coverage.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5912648/The-Cover-2-Explained


Which gets back to the variant (Run to setup the Pass) that I believe we run.

From the same article.....

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

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?


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.

Traditional Walsh variants of the WCO do in fact throw the ball more than they run.



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.

In order for a team to start to bite on the run (Play action pass) the team must first establish a effective running game.
In short, that means, runs to set up the pass.

Again, great stuff my friend.


Yeah! The tampa 2 counters it. Which is why I said teams are coming up wtih other variants of the WCO that aren't really the true Walsh WCO. It has has been changed....just as it is expected to. I agree with you there.



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).


It may actually be running to set up the pass. But they still consider them to be passing to set up the run, which is one of the reasons its a WCO. I have read interviews where Shanahan and other coaches say thats whay they do even if it may not appear so. I will try to find the interview.

Thanks, I would love to see that.
That might give me some additional insight into our scheme and you know how much I love digging into our schemes.

;D

NodakPaul
03-25-2008, 12:31 PM
"C" wrote:


"NodakPaul" wrote:


"C" wrote:


There was a reason teams were passing against us, because the opposing teams knew they could.

I agree with Prophet, Points/Game is a better indicator... however, stupid coaching such as having Marcus McCauley covering Santana Moss... now that's not the secondary's fault...



You missed the point.
Teams didn't pass against us because they knew they could... They passed against us because they simply couldn't run.
Again, our passing D was in the top half of the league.
You're a pretty smart guy C Mac, I know you can grasp that. ;)


I can grasp that, however, Tampa Bay had both a great Run-D and Pass-D the year they won the Super Bowl... How about the Ravens the year they won it?

Just because teams are forced to pass against us doesn't mean our secondary has to give up a lot of yards.



I don't know why you would compare us to either of those defenses.
Obviously they had better pass Ds than us.
I am not saying that we have the best pass defense in the league.
In fact, I said they were just in the top 16.
But when people drop stats like last in passing yards per game or say that we couldnt' cover anybody, it implies that our pass D is one of the worst in the league.
It simply is not.

davike
03-25-2008, 03:22 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"davike" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


The term WCO is a bit overused these days as it has morphed into so many different versions, however, there are two predominant philosophies when you discuss the WCO since the Bill Walsh era.

One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".

Here is a good discussion/set of links I provided DaVike in another thread a while ago.
Very interesting reads if you have the time that will help you understand what variant we run.
http://www.purplepride.org/forums/index.php?topic=42552.msg727982#msg727982

As to our defense, I don't think you saw us "Give up" on our cover 2 scheme last year but rather get away from it a bit because we lacked the ability to get pressure from our front 4 which is what the whole defensive scheme is based off of.

In an effort to get pressure on the QB they started to send LB'rs which inturn took LB'rs out of the zones that they would normally drop back into to take away the quick stuff like short slants and quick outs.

That in turn had a trickle down affect as it made our CB's play a bit more press coverage which isn't thier strong suite.

Again, I don't think we gave up on the scheme but were forced to come up with different ways to overcome the lack of pressure from our front 4.


I totally agree it is a term overused. Yeah it was a good discussion. And enlightening as well. I know what you mean by you can run more and still be a WCO. But I do have one problem still though.

This statement:
One is, "Pass to set up the run", and the other is "Run to setup the pass".


You have just described every offense in the NFL.

In none of the articles does it say that WCO teams run to set up the pass. In some teams (Denver) they go about it differently, thats why they run more then they pass.

Here are the articles you posted:

http://www.kffl.com/article.php/73828/488


Use the pass to set up the run. Most teams using the West Coast offense more often than not have a pass-first mindset, choosing to instead spread the defense out to get better matchups in the run game. (The major exception to this rule would be the system the Denver Broncos utilize.) The offense also should be prepared to throw on any down or distance during the game.

Denver still pass to set up the run....the next article will explain.

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_coast_offense

A WCO is designed pretty much to stretch the field. But Welsh still intended it to be a pass to set up the run offense, which during his time was an uncommon thing. Thats why it worked so well, now days defenses are starting to learn it causing teams to create variations that aren't very similular to Welsh's at all.

Good stuff my friend.

Yes under Walsh his concept was to stretch the field via the pass but since the onset of the Cover 2 that has been negated a bit.


Teams are starting to move away from the West Coast offense because defenses have learned two ways to exploit it.

Taken from the link below.
If you go ahead and look at the other links provided on that page you will see some additional indept discussions/articles on how the cover 2 negates the (Pass First) variant of the WCO and how the running game exploits the cover 2.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5913880/West-Coast-Offense-Simplified


However, the Tampa 2 suffers from power runners. Big, bruising running backs can normally run over the smaller linebackers and a lot of times won't be stopped until they reach the safety. A good running game cheats the safety out of the coverage he wants to run and makes him hesitate since he has to watch the run. When play-action passes can get involved and the safety has to respect the team's running game, a lot of times it can spell a long completion or a touchdown. The Panthers are good at demonstrating this and exposing it, since they possess a power-running, play-action pass offense. A vast majority of their passes come off the play-action, and when the safety has to watch out for the run, it really opens up holes in the coverage.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5912648/The-Cover-2-Explained


Which gets back to the variant (Run to setup the Pass) that I believe we run.

From the same article.....

http://www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243

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?


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.

Traditional Walsh variants of the WCO do in fact throw the ball more than they run.



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.

In order for a team to start to bite on the run (Play action pass) the team must first establish a effective running game.
In short, that means, runs to set up the pass.

Again, great stuff my friend.


Yeah! The tampa 2 counters it. Which is why I said teams are coming up wtih other variants of the WCO that aren't really the true Walsh WCO. It has has been changed....just as it is expected to. I agree with you there.



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).


It may actually be running to set up the pass. But they still consider them to be passing to set up the run, which is one of the reasons its a WCO. I have read interviews where Shanahan and other coaches say thats whay they do even if it may not appear so. I will try to find the interview.

Thanks, I would love to see that.
That might give me some additional insight into our scheme and you know how much I love digging into our schemes.


;D


I am sorry, I can't find it, but if someone else knows what I am talking about and knows where to find it let me know! Or just post it. I think it was in a pregame interview if I remember right.

This article does say that. I suppose it depends upon how you look at it.

www.milehighreport.com/story/2008/2/23/192226/243


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).

They pass to keep the defense away from the lanes a RB uses and stretch out the defense. Keeps the defense honest. They pass to set up the run.

Purple Floyd
03-25-2008, 09:31 PM
IMO
much of the lack of productivity in our offense comes from the fact that our playbook is a derivative of the Walsh offense, but the talent that we have is much more suited to the Coryell offense, which is similar to what Dallas, Washington,San Diego and the Rams have run in various forms.

We have a premiere straight ahead runner in AP, A big, powerful line, a QB who can throw the ball way the hell down field and a TE in Sasser
that can control the line of scrimmage and also block for the back. We also had the best run blocking fullback in the league until we let him sign with another team.As far as the WR's, I also think with Berrian and the two guys Rice and Allison we can have the speed to get down field if the QB can put the ball in their hands.

jargomcfargo
03-25-2008, 10:33 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


IMO
much of the lack of productivity in our offense comes from the fact that our playbook is a derivative of the Walsh offense, but the talent that we have is much more suited to the Coryell offense, which is similar to what Dallas, Washington,San Diego and the Rams have run in various forms.

We have a premiere straight ahead runner in AP, A big, powerful line, a QB who can throw the ball way the hell down field and a TE in Sasser
that can control the line of scrimmage and also block for the back. We also had the best run blocking fullback in the league until we let him sign with another team.As far as the WR's, I also think with Berrian and the two guys Rice and Allison we can have the speed to get down field if the QB can put the ball in their hands.



I absolutely loved watching the intensity on the face of Don Coryell walking up and the down the sidelines non-stop during a game. He was one of the great coaches in the history of the NFL as far as I'm concerned.

I don't agree that our offense is suited to that type of system.

Well, maybe so. But let me just back up a step and start over.

If Childress has a system that is a derivative of Walsh rather than Coryell makes no difference. Each system relies on an exceptional quarterback.

Montana with Walsh and Fouts with Coryell.

(I should bold this part.) The problem or the difference is this.

Both Walsh and Coryell were exceptional to the point they were bringing something new and original to the game that hadn't been seen before. The same could be said for Buddy Ryan's defense.

The WCO and Tampa 2 are far from original or innovative.

So how is it going to make the Vikings champions?

I'm tired of people saying the system is great but we don't have the qb or players.

I say take what you have, shitt can the system and make something happen.

Marrdro
03-26-2008, 11:06 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


IMO
much of the lack of productivity in our offense comes from the fact that our playbook is a derivative of the Walsh offense, but the talent that we have is much more suited to the Coryell offense, which is similar to what Dallas, Washington,San Diego and the Rams have run in various forms.

We have a premiere straight ahead runner in AP, A big, powerful line, a QB who can throw the ball way the hell down field and a TE in Sasser
that can control the line of scrimmage and also block for the back. We also had the best run blocking fullback in the league until we let him sign with another team.As far as the WR's, I also think with Berrian and the two guys Rice and Allison we can have the speed to get down field if the QB can put the ball in their hands.

I've seen that someplace before as well.
Didn't you put something out like that before but with some other info?

Very interesting none-the-less.

Purple Floyd
03-26-2008, 07:15 PM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


IMO
much of the lack of productivity in our offense comes from the fact that our playbook is a derivative of the Walsh offense, but the talent that we have is much more suited to the Coryell offense, which is similar to what Dallas, Washington,San Diego and the Rams have run in various forms.

We have a premiere straight ahead runner in AP, A big, powerful line, a QB who can throw the ball way the hell down field and a TE in Sasser
that can control the line of scrimmage and also block for the back. We also had the best run blocking fullback in the league until we let him sign with another team.As far as the WR's, I also think with Berrian and the two guys Rice and Allison we can have the speed to get down field if the QB can put the ball in their hands.

I've seen that someplace before as well.
Didn't you put something out like that before but with some other info?

Very interesting none-the-less.


Probably several times. When we got Walker that was one of the problems we had with his productivity. He came from a Coryell style offense and excelled in it. They lined him up 8 yards deep and stuck a fullback in front of him so when the ball was snapped he had the time to see the hole develop and hit it with a full head of steam. When we got him we went with that I formation for a few games and then started to try to transition him to a split back because Burns didn't want to change the offense to fit him and we all know how it ended up. He was not suited to running laterally and cutting up hill when a seam opened.

Now we have AD and the a similar offense to what we ran in the burnsie years. The good thing is that he is a much better cutter than Walker was so he can be successful with those plays. But the part that worries me is that he is a big strong man and those cuts he will have to make in this offense when we transition to the split back or single back offense Childress has been talking about
(and supported by not bringing T Rich back) are going to take a heavy toll on his knees. Due to his unique combination of size,strength and speed, every time he makes a cut on this artificial turf he puts a tremendous amount of stress on his joints and that is going to shorten his career.

That is why I would much rather see us running plays that have been so successful for players like Emmitt Smith, Dickerson,Riggins,Faulk,Marcus Allen,Curtis Martin etc. They had long, successful,productive careers. Then you look at the closest backs to AD in size and style in this type of offense (Terrell Davis,Shaun Alexander,Ahman Green) and you can see that they were able to put up phenomenal numbers for a year or two but their knees just couldn't take it over the long haul. Backs with a build like Barry Sanders, Westbrook, etc who are more compact and shifty.

But that wouldn't be kickass then, now would it? ;D

Marrdro
03-27-2008, 05:45 AM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


"Marrdro" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


IMO
much of the lack of productivity in our offense comes from the fact that our playbook is a derivative of the Walsh offense, but the talent that we have is much more suited to the Coryell offense, which is similar to what Dallas, Washington,San Diego and the Rams have run in various forms.

We have a premiere straight ahead runner in AP, A big, powerful line, a QB who can throw the ball way the hell down field and a TE in Sasser
that can control the line of scrimmage and also block for the back. We also had the best run blocking fullback in the league until we let him sign with another team.As far as the WR's, I also think with Berrian and the two guys Rice and Allison we can have the speed to get down field if the QB can put the ball in their hands.

I've seen that someplace before as well.
Didn't you put something out like that before but with some other info?

Very interesting none-the-less.


Probably several times. When we got Walker that was one of the problems we had with his productivity. He came from a Coryell style offense and excelled in it. They lined him up 8 yards deep and stuck a fullback in front of him so when the ball was snapped he had the time to see the hole develop and hit it with a full head of steam. When we got him we went with that I formation for a few games and then started to try to transition him to a split back because Burns didn't want to change the offense to fit him and we all know how it ended up. He was not suited to running laterally and cutting up hill when a seam opened.

Now we have AD and the a similar offense to what we ran in the burnsie years. The good thing is that he is a much better cutter than Walker was so he can be successful with those plays. But the part that worries me is that he is a big strong man and those cuts he will have to make in this offense when we transition to the split back or single back offense Childress has been talking about
(and supported by not bringing T Rich back) are going to take a heavy toll on his knees. Due to his unique combination of size,strength and speed, every time he makes a cut on this artificial turf he puts a tremendous amount of stress on his joints and that is going to shorten his career.

That is why I would much rather see us running plays that have been so successful for players like Emmitt Smith, Dickerson,Riggins,Faulk,Marcus Allen,Curtis Martin etc. They had long, successful,productive careers. Then you look at the closest backs to AD in size and style in this type of offense (Terrell Davis,Shaun Alexander,Ahman Green) and you can see that they were able to put up phenomenal numbers for a year or two but their knees just couldn't take it over the long haul. Backs with a build like Barry Sanders, Westbrook, etc who are more compact and shifty.

But that wouldn't be kickass then, now would it? ;D

I hear ya to a point but don't agree that he is going away from having a FB in front of the RB.

I just think that T-rich didn't bring the flexibility to the FB position he needs.
If anything I think the FB will get more involved in the scheme now with respect to movement/motion the way he has been trying to do it with Dugan.

I think he is looking for
a guy that can line up in the backfield (Gives a run formation look) that can then split out off Tackle (still looks like a run but aludes to pass).
Again, if you remember, we saw Dugan doing that alot last year and I think that is the plan for Mills in this scheme.

By the way, excellent points/post.

BBQ Platypus
03-27-2008, 02:17 PM
"UffDaVikes" wrote:


IMO
much of the lack of productivity in our offense comes from the fact that our playbook is a derivative of the Walsh offense, but the talent that we have is much more suited to the Coryell offense, which is similar to what Dallas, Washington,San Diego and the Rams have run in various forms.

We have a premiere straight ahead runner in AP, A big, powerful line, a QB who can throw the ball way the hell down field and a TE in Sasser
that can control the line of scrimmage and also block for the back. We also had the best run blocking fullback in the league until we let him sign with another team.As far as the WR's, I also think with Berrian and the two guys Rice and Allison we can have the speed to get down field if the QB can put the ball in their hands.


I know what you mean.
I've always favored the Coryell offense myself - the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and a vertical offense takes advantage of that basic law of physics.
If your personnel can execute, it's an inherently more efficient way of moving the ball, and it has the added advantage of forcing the defense to pick their poison - the run or the long pass.
Usually, they'll choose to avoid giving up the big play, which spreads the field opens up the running game.

But we need to be patient here.
The West Coast Offense can be effective, too.
Its focus on opening up passing lanes lanes and running good routes makes passing more a matter of timing than vision.
Ideally, every version of the WCO allows your offense to eat up the clock while minimizing mistakes.
It's also generally easier to play from behind when you have more short passes in your playbook.
But it takes some time for a WCO team to really get into the feel of things.
The timing and machinations of the West Coast Offense need to be precise, no matter what variant of it you're running.
It all depends on the ability of the whole team - especially the quarterback - to get in sync with everybody else.

Again, this isn't the way I would choose to do things (yeah, I know - I'm not a coach).
But that doesn't mean it can't work.

(I know you weren't necessarily arguing that the WCO can't work, I'm basically just thinking aloud).

Purple Floyd
03-27-2008, 05:00 PM
"BBQ" wrote:


"UffDaVikes" wrote:


IMO
much of the lack of productivity in our offense comes from the fact that our playbook is a derivative of the Walsh offense, but the talent that we have is much more suited to the Coryell offense, which is similar to what Dallas, Washington,San Diego and the Rams have run in various forms.

We have a premiere straight ahead runner in AP, A big, powerful line, a QB who can throw the ball way the hell down field and a TE in Sasser
that can control the line of scrimmage and also block for the back. We also had the best run blocking fullback in the league until we let him sign with another team.As far as the WR's, I also think with Berrian and the two guys Rice and Allison we can have the speed to get down field if the QB can put the ball in their hands.


I know what you mean.
I've always favored the Coryell offense myself - the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and a vertical offense takes advantage of that basic law of physics.
If your personnel can execute, it's an inherently more efficient way of moving the ball, and it has the added advantage of forcing the defense to pick their poison - the run or the long pass.
Usually, they'll choose to avoid giving up the big play, which spreads the field opens up the running game.

But we need to be patient here.
The West Coast Offense can be effective, too.
Its focus on opening up passing lanes lanes and running good routes makes passing more a matter of timing than vision.
Ideally, every version of the WCO allows your offense to eat up the clock while minimizing mistakes.
It's also generally easier to play from behind when you have more short passes in your playbook.
But it takes some time for a WCO team to really get into the feel of things.
The timing and machinations of the West Coast Offense need to be precise, no matter what variant of it you're running.
It all depends on the ability of the whole team - especially the quarterback - to get in sync with everybody else.

Again, this isn't the way I would choose to do things (yeah, I know - I'm not a coach).
But that doesn't mean it can't work.

(I know you weren't necessarily arguing that the WCO can't work, I'm basically just thinking aloud).


I have no arguments there. I do know that the Walsh offense can be a very efficient and effective offense. My only point was that I am not sure 3 of the most important parts of our offense, namely the QB, the RB and the OL are as suited to run it as they would the Coryell offense. And this is why:

QB: The Walsh offense relies on the QB being able to make quick decisions with shorter drops and to make throws based on timing that has to be developed between a WR and a QB as they stretch the field horizontally. The advantages to that when executed correctly are obvious. It is nearly impossible to defend because the ball is placed in a WR's hands in a spot where there are no defenders or where they don't have time to react.

The Coryell offense is one that relies on the QB taking deeper drops and scanning the field to find a WR who has beaten a defender on a deeper route by stretching the field vertically.This takes a stronger arm but doesn't rely on decisions that have to be made as quick and the accuracy and timing
doesn't have to be quite as precise.

In looking at the two, I really think TJ is a better candidate for the second one than the first one. I have not sen anything to indicate he has the fastest decision making process(and not many NFL QB's do) and I am not convinced he has surgical precision accuracy and timing. What he does have is a big arm and enough mobility to be able to take a 7 step drop and get the ball way the hell down the field to BB or Rice or to Wade on an out pattern. By pulling the safeties deep down field, there will be bigger lanes for the TE and the RB's to get open.


RB:

I think CT was a great pickup to run the Childress offense. He is powerful, shifty, and has great vision and lateral speed. At 5'11 he is compact enough to make quick cuts without putting undue stress on his joints and his weight is just right to be able to break tackles as he runs laterally if the defender doesn't wrap him up perfectly. His build is one that can take what the Walsh offense hands him and he can be productive over the long haul even if he does have the occasional injury.

AD on the other hand, as I stated above, at 6'2 is built to be a coryell straight ahead runner. Can he make the cuts? Absolutely. But the question is with his straight up running style how long are his knees going to hold up to all of the lateral force they will be taking as they stretch the field horizontally like Darrin Nelson and Barry Sanders were so good at and like Westbrook still is.


OL: The line had had trouble for 2 years with their pass blocking. With the fact that there were too many times when a 1 step drop was longer than the line could protect I am not positive what the result would be when the QB needed 5-7 steps back compared to 3-5 like we do now, but I believe they would have less complicated assignments and with that would come better execution. Otherwise we should keep Hutch and possibly Hererra and scrap the rest of the line for different talent.

I guess this year and the coming few years the play on the field will either prove me right or wrong. I would rather be wrong and celebrate the raising of the Lombardi trophy.

ragz
03-27-2008, 11:35 PM
okay so after these last 2-3 pages aren't you guys basically saying what i said 3 pages ago.
they are both overused terms that simplify schemes that are far more complicated.
that text book definitons that are being posted does not define how each variation uses the basic themes or the personel they have.
it doesn't factor in different looks all together that may have no connection to wco or cover 2.
all it is, is a style that might get used more than other formations over the course of a game.
childress basically has to address this on a week to week basis, and usually responds by saying most of the league runs a variation of the wco.
forget about all this stuff, cuz you know what they are doing on game day? calling the plays they think are going to work, not figuring out how to best utilize the text book defintion of what a wco or cover 2 does.

StillPurple
03-28-2008, 10:30 AM
I once heard Bill Parcels say that all NFL teams run a version of one of the following:

- "Air Coryell" - pass, pass, pass (Colts, Patriots, Packers, Saints, etc.)
- "Washington offense" - very complex, 'perfect execution'-oriented offense with lots of plays (Redskins, etc.)
- "Buddy Ryan" - emphasis on defense controlling the game (Ravens, Tampa, Bears, etc.)

I thought that was interesting.

I also thought it interesting that Brian Billick once said that the West Coast offense is just a name, and doesn't really mean anything.

I personally think that the Vikings have some sort of hybrid. We pound the ball straight ahead, like some team from the 1970s. I actually thought our playbook was sort of from that era this year (and I don't mean that in a negative way). I saw power sweeps (guards pulling on sweeps for AP) and stuff. I saw a lot of off-tackle running. I saw the QB mostly throwing deep routes, and few short or medium routes.

On defense: one reason we get thrown on a lot is because of a lack of an edge pass rusher. The opposing QBs have 2-3 extra seconds in the pocket to throw on us. Also, yes, they throw because they can't run on us. I also think that for all the talk of the "Cover 2", we don't press the opposing receivers on the line of scrimmage much, and that is what you are supposed to do in a Cover 2 defense. That, combined with the lack of a pass rush gives the opposing QB too much time.

I hope the Vikings will do a couple of things from now until August '08:

- Draft a DE pass rusher
- Fix the problem of our corners not jamming the receivers on the LOS (line of scrimmage)
- Have a more complex offense that involves more short passes (new QB ??)

Marrdro
03-28-2008, 10:42 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I once heard Bill Parcels say that all NFL teams run a version of one of the following:

- "Air Coryell" - pass, pass, pass (Colts, Patriots, Packers, Saints, etc.)
- "Washington offense" - very complex, 'perfect execution'-oriented offense with lots of plays (Redskins, etc.)
- "Buddy Ryan" - emphasis on defense controlling the game (Ravens, Tampa, Bears, etc.)

I thought that was interesting.

I also thought it interesting that Brian Billick once said that the West Coast offense is just a name, and doesn't really mean anything.

I personally think that the Vikings have some sort of hybrid. We pound the ball straight ahead, like some team from the 1970s. I actually thought our playbook was sort of from that era this year (and I don't mean that in a negative way). I saw power sweeps (guards pulling on sweeps for AP) and stuff. I saw a lot of off-tackle running. I saw the QB mostly throwing deep routes, and few short or medium routes.

On defense: one reason we get thrown on a lot is because of a lack of an edge pass rusher. The opposing QBs have 2-3 extra seconds in the pocket to throw on us. Also, yes, they throw because they can't run on us. I also think that for all the talk of the "Cover 2", we don't press the opposing receivers on the line of scrimmage much, and that is what you are supposed to do in a Cover 2 defense. That, combined with the lack of a pass rush gives the opposing QB too much time.

I hope the Vikings will do a couple of things from now until August '08:

- Draft a DE pass rusher
- Fix the problem of our corners not jamming the receivers on the LOS (line of scrimmage)
- Have a more complex offense that involves more short passes (new QB ??)

very nice post.

quick question.
do u think our offense was limited by the qb?
i do to a point and believe we will sum more stuff this year.

StillPurple
03-28-2008, 04:44 PM
Thanks.

Yes, I do think that our QB limited us. One game that springs to mind is the 49ers game, when the Niners stacked the box, putting 8 and even 9 defenders in the box to stop AP. And they did that throughout the game, because they had ZERO respect for Tarvaris. And Tarvaris did nothing against that.

... any other QB in the NFL probably would have made them pay for having BOTH receivers in single coverage all game, with only one safety deep.

I think our QB does not keep any NFL defensive coordinators up at night, to be honest.

That might change as Tarvaris gains experience, but I think it was far too easy to take our passing game out of the equation last year.

BBQ Platypus
03-28-2008, 05:33 PM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I once heard Bill Parcels say that all NFL teams run a version of one of the following:

- "Air Coryell" - pass, pass, pass (Colts, Patriots, Packers, Saints, etc.)
- "Washington offense" - very complex, 'perfect execution'-oriented offense with lots of plays (Redskins, etc.)
- "Buddy Ryan" - emphasis on defense controlling the game (Ravens, Tampa, Bears, etc.)

I thought that was interesting.

I also thought it interesting that Brian Billick once said that the West Coast offense is just a name, and doesn't really mean anything.

I personally think that the Vikings have some sort of hybrid. We pound the ball straight ahead, like some team from the 1970s. I actually thought our playbook was sort of from that era this year (and I don't mean that in a negative way). I saw power sweeps (guards pulling on sweeps for AP) and stuff. I saw a lot of off-tackle running. I saw the QB mostly throwing deep routes, and few short or medium routes.

On defense: one reason we get thrown on a lot is because of a lack of an edge pass rusher. The opposing QBs have 2-3 extra seconds in the pocket to throw on us. Also, yes, they throw because they can't run on us. I also think that for all the talk of the "Cover 2", we don't press the opposing receivers on the line of scrimmage much, and that is what you are supposed to do in a Cover 2 defense. That, combined with the lack of a pass rush gives the opposing QB too much time.

I hope the Vikings will do a couple of things from now until August '08:

- Draft a DE pass rusher
- Fix the problem of our corners not jamming the receivers on the LOS (line of scrimmage)
- Have a more complex offense that involves more short passes (new QB ??)


I agree with you on most of your technical points, except I'd like to correct you on the nature of the Air Coryell offense.
While the Coryell offense does emphasize the vertical passing game, it also requires a solid North-South running game.
It spreads the field to the outside, thus keeping the inside lanes open.
Pass to score, run to win is the basic philosophy.
And I agree with UDV that right now, we're better suited to run the Air Coryell.
(But I think we can learn).

StillPurple
03-28-2008, 10:46 PM
I would be totally OK with us spreading the defense with a verticle passing game and then letting AP run underneath and exploit that !!!
::) ;D

Marrdro
03-29-2008, 05:07 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I would be totally OK with us spreading the defense with a verticle passing game and then letting AP run underneath and exploit that !!!
::) ;D

pretty good thread so far guys.
keep the stuff coming.

by the way, i think we will see alot of d's exploited by our offense via both the run and the pass.

Chazz
03-29-2008, 09:36 PM
I agree.
Question(s) is/are.....

a.
Will our young crop of DE's (Robison/Edwards) increase thier sack totals/QB pressures from what they did last year.
(I think the will by the way).
b.
Will Winny stay healthy this year for a full season.
c.
Will Griff/Gordon/McCauley put up better numbers than they did last year. (I think they will).
d.
Will the changes/additions at DT get more pressure up the middle/collapsing the pocket which will flush the QB?
(I'm still hesitant on this one but will be abit optimistic).

Gimme (a) and (c) with (b) and I think we will see an improvement.
Gimme all 4 and we will be a force.

That's why we draft Pat Sims in the 2nd. With him and Kevin next to each other they would bring a consistant push up the middle. Truth be told...with all the speculation of who we will draft this year, Sims is the only guy I feel we MUST get. We may need to move up the 2nd to ensure we land him.

olson_10
03-29-2008, 09:46 PM
everybody runs their own versions of these things..the only true WCO and cover 2 were run by the coaches that made them up..everybody else has just sort of thrown in hybrid systems to accomodate the players they have

StillPurple
03-30-2008, 12:42 AM
I think we need to work on the following things for 2008:

- Corners need to jam the receivers more on the line of scrimmage
- We need a more complex offense that puts more emphasis on the short to medium passing game
- We need an edge pass rusher at DE (Draft should clear that up ?)
- Get Peterson in SPACE, rather than run him off tackle into a stacked box

Marrdro
03-30-2008, 02:59 AM
"olson_10" wrote:


everybody runs their own versions of these things..the only true WCO and cover 2 were run by the coaches that made them up..everybody else has just sort of thrown in hybrid systems to accomodate the players they have

excellent point my friend.
;D

Marrdro
03-30-2008, 03:01 AM
"StillPurple" wrote:


I think we need to work on the following things for 2008:

- Corners need to jam the receivers more on the line of scrimmage- We need a more complex offense that puts more emphasis on the short to medium passing game
- We need an edge pass rusher at DE (Draft should clear that up ?)
- Get Peterson in SPACE, rather than run him off tackle into a stacked box


so your advocating giving u on the cover 2?
maybe just a bit more press
::)

Purple Floyd
03-30-2008, 11:50 AM
"Marrdro" wrote:


"StillPurple" wrote:


I think we need to work on the following things for 2008:

- Corners need to jam the receivers more on the line of scrimmage- We need a more complex offense that puts more emphasis on the short to medium passing game
- We need an edge pass rusher at DE (Draft should clear that up ?)
- Get Peterson in SPACE, rather than run him off tackle into a stacked box


so your advocating giving u on the cover 2?
maybe just a bit more press
::)


I don't advocate dropping the Dungy 2 unless we fail to get De's that can get to the QB. In that defense, it's success really hinges on that upfield pressure and if it isn't there, there is no way the secondary is going to be able to do it's job. So long story short, if we are not able to get pressure from the Dline, then we need to abandon the 10 yard cushion and get more physical with the Wr's off of the line. When the QB has time to throw and the WR's have a cushion to run in, we are going to give up alot of passes and alot more 1st downs.