Discussion: Design the West Coast Defense

by John Morgan on Jul 22, 2009 4:52 PM PDT

The "West Coast Defense" started as a harmless aside, but it captured the imaginations of Seahawks fans. Ok, not normal fans, but for the blue in the blood types that are reading this blog, it was everything from the second coming to a punchline. Even the boldness of its name is exciting. For now, who cares what it really is, if it's anything at all. Let's discuss what it could be. Design the West Coast Defense. A couple rules are in play. Current personnel must be used. It functions out of a 4-3 and standard 4-3 variations (Ie 4-2, 3-3, 4-1 etc).

Tweet Comment 40 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Blitz all 11 players on every down.

Actually, I have no idea. Since I’m assuming there will definitely be Tampa roots involved, I don’t really know how to design one aside from the cookie-cutter formations.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 22, 2009 5:23 PM PDT reply actions

My preface is that

I’ve come to feel kind of foolish since spending so much early speculation on it, and since so many interviews and quotes from Bradley and others describe our defense as simply another 4-3 with a Tampa 2 shell. I’ve never forgotten that Mora said we will be running a 4-3 Over, during the press conference at the end of the first day of the draft, introducing Aaron Curry. He didn’t necessarily say it was a base, or anything, so I don’t know the extent that it fits in, if at all. Maybe it’s been scrapped, I dunno.

But my design for the WCO revolves around the 4-3 Over. The Over means Leroy Hill will most often line up in a standup formation, a step outside the tackle. Like Shawne Merriman. The weak side, so primarily where the TE is not, but Curry & Hill won’t follow the TE in motion & switch; it gives away too much.

Hill on the line means gap assignment will be moved over, and different. The NT still needs to have 2-gap assignment; I just spent 20 minutes or more trying to identify a way to give 2-gap assignment somewhere else, and the weak side end could take two (actually, either he or Hill would take 2 anyway) but it would slide the 3-tech into the other A gap, and that diminishes the potential for havoc on the strong side, so it’s not worth it. So, Cole has 2-gap assignment, and it’s a drawback. But possibly mitigated.

The best pass rusher, and the 3-tech tackle, are on the strong side, opposite Hill. The Over formation allows Kerney to set up wider, and Mebane as a 3-tech gets the B gap, against usually the RG, the weakest link on most lines. This is like an XL Justin Tuck setup.

That puts the other DE next to Hill. Shading the tackle (usually LT), but also has 2-gap coverage, the other B gap. This means he has to be kind of a DT, kind of an end, needs to chip off the tackle to free Hill up for the QB, or stay in those lines for run defense. So Cory Redding gets the nod over Tapp, the developing reserve who may be starting by October with Kerney’s health.

Because Redding has 2 gaps, and shades the tackle, and one LB is on the line, the other two LBs need to adjust accordingly. MLB Tats shades to that side, to help with that gap, while Curry takes the strong side of the field, covering the TE.

The whole alignment can change to an Over, when called for, with ease. Hill steps back. Curry steps forward. Lofa steps over towards Curry, and the two tackles slide over, so that Cole shades the other side of the Center and Mebane has 2-gap coverage.

The Tampa 2 coverage shell is mostly still in place. But the whole thing is exploitable behind and to the outside of the SLB Curry. Which means one safety is a couple steps forward. The two deep zones are the other safety and the strong side corner. CBs go back to S/W, and not just playing one side. The S-side corner has deep assignment so has to backpedal fast and not let anything past him. The W-side corner presses more and keeps everything to the inside, to utilize the safety help and the MLB underneath coverage. I think Trufant is more suited to keeping everything in front of him, and Lucas the bigger Cb more suited for pressing. The strong-side safety has underneath outside coverage, next to Curry, or takes Curry’s zone if a slot or trips wideout gets ahead of his man on a crossing route, which Curry takes.

That’s the base. The most fun would be to switch to the Under nickel, which uses Curry as a rusher, and brings in Wilson as the nickel in place of Hill. Not much 3-3, not much exotic about it except that one side always has an LB standing up on the line, and the deep coverage isn’t split between safeties because of it, but between safety/corner, with the box safety in the box against the run (ala Russell’s position against the Wild Cat) or swinging out & underneath against the pass.

I described it rather than diagrammed it, because I’m using Chrome right now and it looked funny. But here’s a diagram of the Under, so a reciprocal of my Over, with thirds coverage instead of Cover two:

by jacobstevens on Jul 22, 2009 5:57 PM PDT reply actions 8 recs

I don't care who plays or how they are aligned

they just have to wear these

….not.

by PRIDEin253 on Jul 22, 2009 7:18 PM PDT reply actions

I think 11 of those would scare the crap out of any opposing offenses

by ninjasocks on Jul 22, 2009 11:03 PM PDT up reply actions

please god

make those horrible neon-lime jerseys go away.

by Stevo's on Jul 22, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions

i concur

heinous

by Built2Spill on Jul 23, 2009 8:05 AM PDT up reply actions

lol i actually like them

but then again, I’m the guy with a lime green iPhone case lol.

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Jul 23, 2009 8:37 AM PDT up reply actions

If those come out I'll be the first to shell out $100 for a Housh jersey.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 23, 2009 3:17 PM PDT up reply actions

Same, I love em.

by jacobstevens on Jul 24, 2009 10:25 AM PDT up reply actions

I like 'em too.

Garish? Maybe. But I’m alright with that.

by thebyron on Jul 23, 2009 4:11 PM PDT up reply actions

Ugh

Give me Seahawks Gunmetal Blue. Every time.

The only thing good about those candy-lime jersey’s is they might render the opposing defenders blind.

by Stevo's on Jul 24, 2009 2:28 PM PDT up reply actions

I think the WCD is based somehow on the principles of the WCO

I don’t remember the exact quote, but “West Coast Defense” seems too specific to be a synonym for “Something new we’re thinking up in South Alaska”.

Some poorly-formed ideas:

While the WCO uses the pass to set up the run, the WCD shuts down the pass to encourage the run (which gets shut down by a couple of big honkers in the middle).

Neither the WCO or the WCD live by homerun plays. The WCO thrives on dinks and dunks while the WCD prevents the big plays by playing a prevent sort of defense. Instead of frequent blitzes, enough pressure is established by the front four for the LBs and DBs to play a blanketing coverage.

by ninjasocks on Jul 22, 2009 11:23 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs

Those are actually novel ideas

passing correlates more strongly to winning, so it would make sense to focus on stopping it more. Although if you’re actually poorer at run defense, that will inflate your numbers, because rushing is safer if it’s working at all, so why would they try to pass on you? But recognizing it as more important, that would only seem to be a good thing.

But, with enough time, pass rush beats blocking, and receivers beat coverage. Pretty much always. With enough time. The race between those two facets, and which breaks down first, has a lot to do with success in football. Defenses want to be good at both, but pass rush ultimately puts you in the driver’s seat, forces the offense to be successful in a limited timeframe if at all, and you’re just more vulnerable if you rely on superior coverage.

Obviously pass rush is a pass defense facet, not run defense, but if it’s not a priority, that could be a problem. If coverage is emphasized more than pass rush, that would be a losing strategy, to me.

If you get enough pressure out of your front 4, with less blitzing, and prevent big plays in the passing game, that’s pretty much Tampa Two (assuming by preventing big plays you have two deep; in the past three years Tampa actually ran quarters more than they did two deep, so 2 deep, thirds or quarters — calling cards for conservative football).

by jacobstevens on Jul 23, 2009 6:55 AM PDT up reply actions

"WCD" does not make any sense

This will not be a West Coast Defense. WCO got its name because Bill Walsh developed it. Since the Seahawks D will be based on the Tampa 2, you may as well call it an East Coast Defense.

by Stevo's on Jul 23, 2009 8:09 AM PDT reply actions

Since Bradley is from North Dakota and Mora from Washington

Perhaps it should be named the Alaskan Midwest Plains East Coast Tampa 25 Defense

by B.B.Finnegan on Jul 23, 2009 8:17 AM PDT up reply actions 1 recs

Well, if you want to get into that

it’s a misnomer, one way or another. Dr. Z always said the name came when Bernie Kosar was describing the Don Coryell style offense, being run in San Diego, a vertical passing offense that uses that vertical depth to enable a power running game. Joe Gibbs & Norv Turner come from that background. So did Al Davis and Dick Vermeil and Mike Martz.

The Walsh WCO name application came from Bill Parcells during the Giants-49ers rivalry. Walsh learned from Sid Gillman. In San Diego. Who Don Coryell also learned from. Walsh took the same principles and made the WCO that we all know and love today, with the Bengals and Ken Anderson. I think it’s the right one to call WCO, but some disagree. It was called WCO first, but the Air Coryell offense has been around longer.

by jacobstevens on Jul 23, 2009 8:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Also

I think it was our new DB coach from Carolina, Tim Lewis, that said “WCD.” Mora said at one point “4-3 Over,” and otherwise from all parties we’ve heard that it’s a new defense, with a lot of Tampa 2 principles, but some new wrinkles. “Relentless effort,” we hear that a lot, and it’s lip service really, but Mora has always been aggressive and likes to send extra men at the QB. That’s almost antithetical to Tampa Two. So how do they make this marriage work? Will they really be as much in line with Tampa Two as it seems? Or will Mora not be able to show restraint and send guys quite a bit?

They also have better 3-4 experience and knowledge from Dan Quinn, and they speak very highly of him, he seems to have been a part of designing the defense in some way. So, if they’re creating a frankenstein, rather than some brand new conceptual thing like Bill Walsh did, but they bring all the pieces together here, it’s maybe obnoxious but feasible to call it WCD.

by jacobstevens on Jul 23, 2009 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions

The photo's caption still has me laughing

The demise of the Broncos in '09 is our future. Pray hard.

by Nick Andron on Jul 23, 2009 8:44 AM PDT reply actions

"It functions out of a 4-3"

Bleh. There goes my 3-4/4-3 flex theory.

by Groundhog on Jul 23, 2009 12:48 PM PDT reply actions

Have there ever been any good hybrid 3-4/4-3 defenses?

Lots of teams try it (or are forced to suffer through it) as they transition from one system to the other, but it doesn’t seem to be all that effective (not that that would stop anyone from trying it again).

by ninjasocks on Jul 23, 2009 2:13 PM PDT up reply actions

Ravens these last several years?

I thought they were running a real hybrid.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Jul 23, 2009 3:20 PM PDT up reply actions

Apparently they were/are

I guess I’m thinking of the Packers, Niners and Cardinals teams that have struggled using 3-4/4-3 hybrid defenses while transitioning to 3-4.

by ninjasocks on Jul 23, 2009 3:44 PM PDT up reply actions

Also the Patriots, I think.

by The Ancient Mariner on Jul 23, 2009 3:54 PM PDT up reply actions

Yep. I was going to say that the Pats

Are secretly running the WCD, but haven’t named it yet.

by Groundhog on Jul 23, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions

I think they just switched

from a 4-3 (Goose & Sam Adams) to a 3-4, then to the 4-6, and then back to the 3-4.

I don’t think there’s any true hybrid defenses, by intentional design, out there except the Patriots coming close, but they probably run a 2-5 and 5-2 more frequently than they do a 4-3. And really they’re just a very versatile 3-4 defense. What SF, Denver, etc., are running, as a hybrid, I think it just weakness mitigation due to talent issues.

by jacobstevens on Jul 24, 2009 10:53 AM PDT up reply actions

Tampa 2 + 4-3 Over

As previously reported throughout the Seattle media covering the Seahawks, Mora, Bradley & company brainstormed the defense for a few weeks not long after the new defensive coaches were hired and put together the ‘blueprint’ for the team’s ‘09 defense. The intent was to garner all of their input around the table, rebuilding the defensive playbook from scratch. Soon after they roughed out the defensive playbook, Mora told us what it was gonna be. Mora said their base defense was gonna be the ’4-3 Over’, except with the 3 LBs kept behind the DL. The ‘4-3 Over’ has 3 DL opposite the strong side of the opposing OL.

DL: Kerney at LDE, Mebane at 3-tech LDT, Cole at NT-RDT, and Redding at RDE.
LB: Curry at LOLB, Lofa at MLB, Hill at ROLB.
DBs: Trufant at LCB, Lucas at RCB, Grant at SS, and Russell at FS.

Similarly, Bradley discussed the defensive backfield with the media, telling us that it would be a Tampa 2 type of defense. I never heard him call it a cover 2 type, unless he was using the C2 term to be inclusive of the T2 term. With the T2, Lucas, Hill, Lofa, Curry and Trufant each cover 1/5 of the field from the LOS to about 8 yards deep. Lofa has to do double duty covering the deep middle fifth of the field as well. Russell and Grant each cover 2/5s of the backfield from about 8 yds past the LOS and deeper. The DL has to get pressure on the QB.

by 008klm on Jul 23, 2009 8:38 PM PDT reply actions

Interesting commentary

I’d like to see alot of trickery and adjustment like Belichek uses. New stuff every week and adjustments according to team. No more of this “We’re going to do what we do and force them to adjust to us.” Which has been all too easy to do against our defense.

I want lots of blitzing and attacking. Lots of aggression. And no prevent defense unless it’s the final few minutes and all we gotta do is keep them out of the end zone on a last series of plays. Otherwise attack, attack, attack. Constant aggression and pain inflicted on opposiing offenses.

If we’re going to lose games, lose games attacking. I still remember when Spag’s installed a more attacking oriented defense in New York. The first few games they looked like garbage, but by game four or five they were clicking. And we see how that defense turned out in the end.

Marshall would have given up on the idea if he failed a few games. Hopefully these new defensive coordinators stick with the plan until it clicks with the players.

by ASeahawkfan on Jul 24, 2009 2:46 AM PDT reply actions

You mention New York

it spawned out of Coughlin’s commitment to stopping the run. He wanted something that basically provided for run blitzing, inherently. Spagnuolo’s big thing was placing the DTs heads up against each guard, rather than the traditional NT/UT alignment, so double teaming any end or DT creates a bigger gap, that can be exploited. Compared to the NT/UT alignment that puts both your interior guys in instant position to be double-teamed.

The drawback is that not each gap is as safely accounted for, but they play the LBs close to the line and make run defense a priority anyway, so the run blitzing accounts for that. And the risk that that adds in pass coverage is mitigated by the more enabled pass rush it creates.

So the DTs have more options in how to attack, and you’re right it’s pretty aggressive, the loading up of one side then blitzing from the other and such, really compliments it. It made Justin Tuck a star, although I don’t think it would have been nearly as effective if the interior guys couldn’t bring that kind of pass rush when they had to. So I think the Rams have what it takes to make it effective, if Carriker can still rush the passer. And they’ll love Rocky Bernard more than they will Chris Canty, I think — Fred Robbins is already a very stout run defender.

by jacobstevens on Jul 24, 2009 10:22 AM PDT up reply actions