Finally, analysis from the Seahawks NFCCG coaches film

Originally posted by jonnydel:

In our WCO though, we don't really have "option" or "sight adjust" routes - it's on the QB to adjust the routes at the LOS based off of his read of man or zone. Bill Walsh wasn't a huge fan of them because they included an unknown variable beyond the QB in the play. Two guys have to see the same thing and know they're going to do the same thing. There's a lot of pick 6's that happen every year because of the exact "option" route combo you're talking about. I remember years ago against the Steelers Alex threw a pick 6 because they had an "option" route on the outside with Arnaz Battle and Battle didn't see the zone coverage and didn't hitch his route - Mike Nolan talked about it in his post game press conference - that's the only reason I know that's what happened btw.

I know it's not a pure option route, but I recall reading an article by Walsh describing an pretty staple niner play 22 Z-in. That play vs zone had the flanker running a hook, the TE settle in the zone over the centerline and the back releasing to the flat. Now vs man, the flanker route essentially became a deep in, the TE route became a whip and the back releasesd the same. It was basically running away form man and settling in the zone.

I gave the sticks example because a lot of teams run it and I was unsure if we do. It's kinda of hard to tell on film cAuse it does look like two different plays based on coverage. Just from personal recollection I didn't remember seeing us ran sticks.

we still analyzing this game? i figured it was time to put this b***h to rest by now

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Given the personnel we have at receiver (Boldin, Crabtree, Patton and VD/McDonald) are there more complex routes that you would consider more effective?

If it were up to me, I would prefer sticking with the concepts we run, I just want then ran relying on the progressions that are within them. In pretty much all the plays/concepts that thl408 cut up the schemes appear to get someone open. It still just comes down to kaep getting comfortable/precise in his progression reading. Option routes are nice, but now you are relying on both the WR and qb reading the same things. I would trust someone like boldin, cause he was actually a qb at FSU before he tore his leg up and fell down the depth chart and was eventually moved to WR. Those WR that have experience at qb (Hines ward is another example) generally has success and can relate to what the qb is actually seeing.

I hear you! But the bold are two very different concepts. If we're running AR's and coverage read concepts, that means there isn't any progressions built into the passing play itself. Do you think that we'll start to incorporate some progression read concepts this year; maybe add in some WCO passing designs where CK is under center and there clearly are 5 timing progression-read receivers tied to his drop-backs?

My disagreement is that a WCO rarely has 5 progression reads. It's usually half field reads that include 3 reads to one side with 2 reads to the other depending on the coverage. Most of the time - at least in the playbooks, the QB is told to "pick a side". it's very rare that the play is designed to have 5 reads - there are some, but not many.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by jonnydel:
In our WCO though, we don't really have "option" or "sight adjust" routes - it's on the QB to adjust the routes at the LOS based off of his read of man or zone. Bill Walsh wasn't a huge fan of them because they included an unknown variable beyond the QB in the play. Two guys have to see the same thing and know they're going to do the same thing. There's a lot of pick 6's that happen every year because of the exact "option" route combo you're talking about. I remember years ago against the Steelers Alex threw a pick 6 because they had an "option" route on the outside with Arnaz Battle and Battle didn't see the zone coverage and didn't hitch his route - Mike Nolan talked about it in his post game press conference - that's the only reason I know that's what happened btw.

I know it's not a pure option route, but I recall reading an article by Walsh describing an pretty staple niner play 22 Z-in. That play vs zone had the flanker running a hook, the TE settle in the zone over the centerline and the back releasing to the flat. Now vs man, the flanker route essentially became a deep in, the TE route became a whip and the back releasesd the same. It was basically running away form man and settling in the zone.

I gave the sticks example because a lot of teams run it and I was unsure if we do. It's kinda of hard to tell on film cAuse it does look like two different plays based on coverage. Just from personal recollection I didn't remember seeing us ran sticks.

Ok, gotcha. we do run some combos like that - we just don't see it a lot

Originally posted by NCommand:

I hear you! But the bold are two very different concepts. If we're running AR's and coverage read concepts, that means there isn't any progressions built into the passing play itself. Do you think that we'll start to incorporate some progression read concepts this year; maybe add in some WCO passing designs where CK is under center and there clearly are 5 timing progression-read receivers tied to his drop-backs?

What I meant was the WCO concepts he cut up in the passing thread (spot, drive, mesh, sail, etc...), even in those examples the WCO concept based on its design had a guy open. It just required a progression read to get there. Sometimes kaep got sometimes he ignored it and went backside. I know in this thread there was a nice little all curls concept with the back going to the flat and kaep didn't even look at the concept side he attempted a back shoulder throw to boldin.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

Originally posted by NCommand:

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by NCommand:
Given the personnel we have at receiver (Boldin, Crabtree, Patton and VD/McDonald) are there more complex routes that you would consider more effective?

If it were up to me, I would prefer sticking with the concepts we run, I just want then ran relying on the progressions that are within them. In pretty much all the plays/concepts that thl408 cut up the schemes appear to get someone open. It still just comes down to kaep getting comfortable/precise in his progression reading. Option routes are nice, but now you are relying on both the WR and qb reading the same things. I would trust someone like boldin, cause he was actually a qb at FSU before he tore his leg up and fell down the depth chart and was eventually moved to WR. Those WR that have experience at qb (Hines ward is another example) generally has success and can relate to what the qb is actually seeing.

I hear you! But the bold are two very different concepts. If we're running AR's and coverage read concepts, that means there isn't any progressions built into the passing play itself. Do you think that we'll start to incorporate some progression read concepts this year; maybe add in some WCO passing designs where CK is under center and there clearly are 5 timing progression-read receivers tied to his drop-backs?

My disagreement is that a WCO rarely has 5 progression reads. It's usually half field reads that include 3 reads to one side with 2 reads to the other depending on the coverage. Most of the time - at least in the playbooks, the QB is told to "pick a side". it's very rare that the play is designed to have 5 reads - there are some, but not many.

Absolutely correct...the 4th and 5th option I'm referring to are the two outlets in the TE and RB (generally speaking). But yes, typically those last two are usually 3rd and 4th and we won't run many 3 and 4 WR sets.

Originally posted by jonnydel:

My disagreement is that a WCO rarely has 5 progression reads. It's usually half field reads that include 3 reads to one side with 2 reads to the other depending on the coverage. Most of the time - at least in the playbooks, the QB is told to "pick a side". it's very rare that the play is designed to have 5 reads - there are some, but not many.

Yea usually it's primary, secondary then check down. It takes someone like Montana in god mode to do what he was doing vs Denver in Super Bowl XXIV that progression reading was off the charts, again that a guy with a decade in the essentially the same system.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by NCommand:
I hear you! But the bold are two very different concepts. If we're running AR's and coverage read concepts, that means there isn't any progressions built into the passing play itself. Do you think that we'll start to incorporate some progression read concepts this year; maybe add in some WCO passing designs where CK is under center and there clearly are 5 timing progression-read receivers tied to his drop-backs?

What I meant was the WCO concepts he cut up in the passing thread (spot, drive, mesh, sail, etc...), even in those examples the WCO concept based on its design had a guy open. It just required a progression read to get there. Sometimes kaep got sometimes he ignored it and went backside. I know in this thread there was a nice little all curls concept with the back going to the flat and kaep didn't even look at the concept side he attempted a back shoulder throw to boldin.

Oh yeah yeah yeah. I get you now. Thanks for the clarification.

Originally posted by NCommand:

Oh yeah yeah yeah. I get you now. Thanks for the clarification.

No problem, I omitted the WCO in my initial post.

I just feel very strongly that if kaep can't get this progression Reading down to second nature there really is no reason to even call those plays. You would be better off just running the pistol and one read stuff with him. BUT based on the amount of times we call these you can tell that harbaugh really does want to have an element of WCO passing in his offense. Given all the garbage we have seen this off season I feel that this is the most important factor on weather we win a title with kaep. Rightly or wrongly I just have a strong gut feeling that kaep will get there and this passing game with start to click.

Here are examples of what I mean that we rarely have a 5th read on a play in a WCO. We run the majority of our pass plays out of play action. I'll show several examples from Bill Walsh's playbook for PA passes and one straight drop back. These are very representative of the vast majority of the passing plays included in this particular playbook. I don't assume that this is the entire playbook from that year but is very representative of the WCO philosophy.



I've highlighted the laid out progression for the plays. They're 4 plays off the same run action which is a HB lead off tackle. You see how there's ony 3 progression options laid out on these plays with one of them only have 2 options. So, for those that want to slam Harbaugh and Roman for calling plays with only 2 viable receiving options - you'll have to take a shot at Bill Walsh as well. The biggest reason is to allow the QB to be decisive - either the play is there or it's not and if it's not decide to run or throw it away quickly.



Here again we see a lot of the same. I've boxed in the "5" to show that is to lay out the step drop for the QB.

I've laid out the differing colors to correlate the reads for the progression. For example: top left is: Red against cover 3, with the hash marks being the receivers route alteration if the QB see's a different coverage. Blue against cover 2 zone



Again, we see progression read 1-3 only. Top right the hash's mean that if the FB doesn't have anyone to block, he releases into the shallow middle and becomes the 3rd option, but, if there's a blitz then the 3rd becomes the HB on the swing.



Here's a straight drop back pass. The QB is to pick a side to read to. To the left he has a 2 read option with 2 if he goes right with the 3rd read being in the middle of the field for either side.