Originally posted by Pariah
You answered your own question--the use of screens, slants and short passes. I'm really not trying to stir the pot, but the West Coast offense MUST have a strong run game to succeed--it's the foundation of the offense.
I'm not as familiar with some of the offenses you mentioned, but I do know that they base their offense on the run. It may not be a strong run game, but that does not mean that they are "pass-first."
Some of the "Chuck-and-Duck" offenses of the 80's were pass-first (Houston comes to mind), and I think the Rams in the 50's or 60's were, too; but beyond a few notable exeptions most every NFL offense uses the run as the building blocks to run the system. It's not that those systems can't be different--the WC offense is very different from what Buffalo does, for example. But it doesn't change the fact that they both establish the run to get other things done.
Pittsburgh basically abandoned the running game halfway through the season, when Bettis was hurt and/or ineffective, and Zeroue was unable to be an every-down back and carry the offense. Their WRs were better than their running backs, and they became mostly vertical.
The Pats functioned mostly out of a 3- to 4-WR set almost the entire season, predicating their offensive strategy on their WR Corps being better as a group than the LB/CB corps (coverage units) of the opposition, creating matchup problems around the field on short passes.
The Browns didn't have a star WR, but they had three or four above-average WRs, so they came out in a lot of 3 and 4 WR sets throughout the game (which represents virtually no threat of the run), creating a matchup problem with opposing coverage units. Like the Pats, they used the short-game passes (largely without safety support) to act as a running game before their Rookie RB came on like gangbusters at the end of the season.
The Rams used ultra-fast WRs on the outside, which demanded S support against the deep ball, and then possession WRs in the slots, as well as a nasty recieving RB in Faulk, to create gaps in coverage in the middle of the field and in the short game to create big runs after the catch.
The West Coast scheme is not a "Huck and Duck" scheme. As I said, it relies on short passes to WRs and TEs and screens to act as a running game, and depend on yards after the catch to stretch the field and create long gains. The holes don't open because defenders are playing the run, they open because defenders are blitzing in an effort to get to the QB. The system relies on a QB who can make fast reads on the blitzing D and deliver the ball accurately. West Coast schemes failed with Kordell Stewart and Jake Plummer under center because they're too dumb and not accurate enough to implement the system. They succeed with weak-armed QBs like Montana and Pennington because they're smart and can read D's quickly.
Assert that the West Coast scheme needs a great running game as much as you want, but last season Charlie Garner didn't gain 1000 yards in the consummate West Coast scheme, and Dorsey Levens only gained over 1000 yards twice when GB was in its heyday.
