Proset Formation

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Edit: Agree that this is a great thread and thanks to all who have enlightened me! Learning a lot here!

Good point Giedi and someone else mentioned the difference in lines in an earlier post. With the current line I don't see Walsh's offense working...not quick enough...but incredible power--when healthy.

I recall Walsh saying he would like to be able to have one formation--not that it was totally possible, with all plays out of the single set, to keep the D guessing...no tip offs. Wonder what he thought about his protege's going to variations? Particuarly the I.

Of course, his playbook had just about everything under the sun in it but it was when and how plays were used that mattered.

That is funny, because under holmgren, shanahan and pretty every other coordinators, we where multi-forms/multi-concepts. We would wrap "drive", "spot" and every other WCO concept 6-7 times a game out of many different forms. That's how you would get jerry catching 10-12 balls in a lot of the games.

Originally posted by Niners816:
That is funny, because under holmgren, shanahan and pretty every other coordinators, we where multi-forms/multi-concepts. We would wrap "drive", "spot" and every other WCO concept 6-7 times a game. That's how you would get jerry catching 10-12 balls in a lot of games.

Yes, and Walsh also used formations and movement to make the D commit...but he hated the idea of giving any tell-tale signs of where a play was going. To that end, he made sure that any movement or formation could open differing spots depending on the defensive adjustment.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Yes, and Walsh also used formations and movement to make the D commit...but he hated the idea of giving any tell-tale signs of where a play was going. To that end, he made sure that any movement or formation could open differing spots depending on the defensive adjustment.

I remember him commenting on how much he liked what Indy was doing with manning and tom Moore. That was basically his limited motion on a couple of formation. Hell it seemed like they ran their whole playbook from either an ace two tights, ace 3 wide or ace 4 wide.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Yes, and Walsh also used formations and movement to make the D commit...but he hated the idea of giving any tell-tale signs of where a play was going. To that end, he made sure that any movement or formation could open differing spots depending on the defensive adjustment.

Personally, I a big fan of multi forms and tons of motion. I loved what our offense was from '79 to pretty much 2002. With the exception of trestman turning our pass/run splits into almost a run and shoot type profile in 1995. I'm very much in favor of a pass to set up the run offense, but I love/want balence.

Originally posted by Niners816:
I agree with this. It's still kinda shocking to me that it looks like holmgren will never have a position above coordinator with us. Even when he was winning a title in GB I always felt like he was gonna come home.

Never the right timing! But he would likely have come back in 2008 if Dr. York had gone after him...but the Dr wanted a break from the Eddy years and promoted Singletary. Not sure about the timing...might not have worked but...

Just a bit of nostalgia with the pro set, Jim Brown and a young Bobby Mitchell, Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor, one was technically a fullback the other a halfback. They were interchangable and blocked for each other. I think with these 8 man boxes today Coach Walsh would've dissected it and caused the D to shift before the first quarter was over.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Never the right timing! But he would likely have come back in 2008 if Dr. York had gone after him...but the Dr wanted a break from the Eddy years and promoted Singletary. Not sure about the timing...might not have worked but...

If they Just would have waited a week or two to promote sing- holmgren, shanahan and gruden were all available. However, I think our rep was pretty damaged at that point I doubt we would have got any of them.

Originally posted by Niners816:
Personally, I a big fan of multi forms and tons of motion. I loved what our offense was from '79 to pretty much 2002. With the exception of trestman turning our pass/run splits into almost a run and shoot type profile in 1995. I'm very much in favor of a pass to set up the run offense, but I love/want balence.

In today's game I believe Walsh would have used more motion...any advantage! With the athleticism of defenders the oline would likely have to morph as well. But he would be getting better players in the draft as well...so...?

My only problem with multi forms and motion is the learning curve given limited practice time. He wanted perfection on every play...would likely be driven nuts by the silly penalties the niners have racked up this year.

Originally posted by Niners816:
I agree with this. It's still kinda shocking to me that it looks like holmgren will never have a position above coordinator with us. Even when he was winning a title in GB I always felt like he was gonna come home.

never say never.

Originally posted by RishikeshA:
Just a bit of nostalgia with the pro set, Jim Brown and a young Bobby Mitchell, Paul Hornung and Jim Taylor, one was technically a fullback the other a halfback. They were interchangable and blocked for each other. I think with these 8 man boxes today Coach Walsh would've dissected it and caused the D to shift before the first quarter was over.

Agree and this makes me so sad! The offensive coaches just seem a step behind the defenses they are playing...good thing our team has such great personnel!

Originally posted by Giedi:
Personally I thought Shanny went with the One cut and Go run offense because of Elway's arm to add verticality to the WCO and make it have that vertical dimension similar to the Coryell offense.

"One-cut-and-Go" is basically the same as saying "Zone Run". The RB runs stretch and when he see's a lane in one of the O-Line's zones, he makes "one cut and goes".

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by Giedi:

I've read some of Walsh's masters thesis "Flank Formation:stress defense" Masters Thesis Link

On page 75 starts the run concepts. Bottom line, he states that flanking run maneuvers need speed. Specifically the blockers have to be faster than the ones being blocked or the flanking runs (i.e. sweeps don't work very well). Since linebackers have been getting faster and faster as the NFL has implemented more and more rules that freed up the passing offenses (as so well stated by THL408), I think what is going on is that the split back, sweep type offense doesn't work anymore because of the current speed of the Linebackers. That's why the more direct blocking and zone blocking - which I'm reading as the Weak I and the Strong I, and the power I formations - are now prevalent and the pro-set formations have been less utilized. He mentions in the thesis that in combination with the direct blocking (power run formations) the deceptive blocking should be used to utilize a defender's speed to get him in the wrong position, or create favorable blocking angles. All in all, the pro-set does not lend itself very well to the power blocking concepts now utilized by what looks like a good portion of the WCO coaches being mentioned.

I think that is Harbs idea of his offense. I believe he wants the power run game with the WCO passing game. As THL has illustrated numerous times we run all the WCO concepts in our passing game. That is the nice thing about the I, strong and weak form is they lend themselves nicely to running all the traditional WCO passing concepts and not lossing the disguise they provide in the power run game.

Now I still think there is a place for the pro form in a modern WCO. As I mentioned above, it lends itself nicely to the hb passing attack and a double screen game. Also think the split could be utilized as a formation shift based on coverage. For example, let's say we come out in an I form and kap reads a cover 2 look. Why not shift that formation to a split and audible to a Texas concept(cover2 beater) and get those backs to the flank and set up the Texas concept with the back and TE and on the other side get that back in either a better blocking position or even make him a hot receiver to exploit and blitz pressure.

My criticism of the WCO and the power run game is simply that - in the long run - I think the WCO is basically a straight jacket for Colin. Shannahan added verticality (easy to do since he coached under Al Davis the king of the Vertical Offense) and took advantage of the Elway Arm. I think - eventually - that's where this offense will evolve to. The power run first, then the WCO passing attack with some verticals via Ellington and Patton, and two good TE's that can catch. Vance and another good receiving Tight End.

Sweeps are out of the question with this O-line, on top of that, Gore doesn't have the speed to run the sweep the way Wendell and Wattters were able to run it because they has good speed to the outside. What I will say is I hope with the addition of Martin, the inside traps and quick hitters will be more effective. If the inside trap game gets consistent, then the power off tackle will be more effective.

The cover two is more of a pass defense than a run defense in my opinion, if you are running the cover two off a 3-4 front, so if Colin sees a Cover two with a 34 front, I'd rather Colin audible to a trap or an off tackle run. With so many teams employing a version of the zone blitz to stop WCO attacks, teams need a power run game to counter the zone blitz. Here's why, the Zone Blitz philosophy is to give the QB a false read. It *may* look like a cover two and Colin audibules to a zone beater, but they might drop a lineman in that area if it's really a zone blitz.

Originally posted by Niners816:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Personally I thought Shanny went with the One cut and Go run offense because of Elway's arm to add verticality to the WCO and make it have that vertical dimension similar to the Coryell offense.

That sounds right, I had theorized that maybe it also had something to do with what he saw with us in his years here. We did start to see a loss of effectiveness in the run game from '92-'94. For what ever the reason, it was very wise and Denver became a plug and play run game with every back seemed to become a 1000 yard back.

Outside of bill walsh, mike holmgren and mike shanahan have been my favorite offensive minds. How fortunate for us was it to at least one of them from 1979 to 1994.

Me two, they were my favorite OC's for a long time and while I admire and respect Seifert, Shanahan and Holmgren were direct links to our Hall of Fame coach on the offensive side. They did tinker and take the WCO to the next level, in my opinion. Thanks to Shanahan and Holmgren, the WCO added 3 more superbowls to it's reputation as a successful super bowl level offense.

The loss of run effectiveness from '92 to '94 is probably the transition from the Super Bowl lines of the '89 and '90 seasons. Randy Cross or some of the other good Super Bowl level O-Linemen retired and Siefert had to draft new O-linemen to replace them. At least that's what I recall. Also, around '92-ish Steve wasn't the most effective QB (like Colin is now) and so defenses would concentrate on the run and force Steve to pass. Of course, that changed when he finally *got it* as Colin will eventually *get it.* And the rest is history.

Originally posted by dtg_9er:

Originally posted by Giedi:

I've read some of Walsh's masters thesis "Flank Formation:stress defense" Masters Thesis Link

On page 75 starts the run concepts. Bottom line, he states that flanking run maneuvers need speed. Specifically the blockers have to be faster than the ones being blocked or the flanking runs (i.e. sweeps don't work very well). Since linebackers have been getting faster and faster as the NFL has implemented more and more rules that freed up the passing offenses (as so well stated by THL408), I think what is going on is that the split back, sweep type offense doesn't work anymore because of the current speed of the Linebackers. That's why the more direct blocking and zone blocking - which I'm reading as the Weak I and the Strong I, and the power I formations - are now prevalent and the pro-set formations have been less utilized. He mentions in the thesis that in combination with the direct blocking (power run formations) the deceptive blocking should be used to utilize a defender's speed to get him in the wrong position, or create favorable blocking angles. All in all, the pro-set does not lend itself very well to the power blocking concepts now utilized by what looks like a good portion of the WCO coaches being mentioned.

Edit: Agree that this is a great thread and thanks to all who have enlightened me! Learning a lot here!

Good point Giedi and someone else mentioned the difference in lines in an earlier post. With the current line I don't see Walsh's offense working...not quick enough...but incredible power--when healthy.

I recall Walsh saying he would like to be able to have one formation--not that it was totally possible, with all plays out of the single set, to keep the D guessing...no tip offs. Wonder what he thought about his protege's going to variations? Particuarly the I.

Of course, his playbook had just about everything under the sun in it but it was when and how plays were used that mattered.

His thesis (link was mentioned previously and to lazy to repost) mentioned cycles, football cycles. I don't have it with me, but he went through the offensive history of various philosophies that came and went as football evolved. What I think he was alluding to and what his desciples probably tried to do is just stay ahead of that cycle or even predict when the cycles change. Just like Walsh was just ahead of that cycle by drafting very small quick linemen to employ the flank run attack - when everybody was using the 3-yards and a cloud of dust philosophy. For exampe: Harbaugh has decided to go with a run first power game while a good portion of the NFL is still running the pass first WCO and defenses are countering it with faster and faster, but smaller and smaller defenders. At least that's my take on it. The failure of Shanahan and Holmgren in the latter stages of their careers may be the result of failing to stay ahead of that particular philosophical cycle.

Originally posted by SaksV:

Originally posted by Giedi:

Personally I thought Shanny went with the One cut and Go run offense because of Elway's arm to add verticality to the WCO and make it have that vertical dimension similar to the Coryell offense.

"One-cut-and-Go" is basically the same as saying "Zone Run". The RB runs stretch and when he see's a lane in one of the O-Line's zones, he makes "one cut and goes".

Well, that's true, but the point was that it's a north south kind of run, vs the more east/west kind of sweep type runs. Vertical offenses generally have a heavy dose of deception to aid the WR in getting behind the defense. Play faking a sweep doesn't draw the defense to the LOS as much as play faking a zone run or power off tackle, in my opinion. I think the Linebackers will be pulled horizontally one way or the other with flank sweep type runs, vs with more direct blocking runs, they are pulled more towards the LOS and leaving a bigger gap in the defense for a WR or a TE to exploit.