matthew, we know that football is not your thing, but if you're going to mention it, at least learn what the West Coast offense actually is, from your guide, the deeply knowledgable Paul Zimmerman (aka "Dr. Z"):

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/dr_z/news/1999/10/28/inside_football/

for those that don't want to click through, the real West Coast offense is the deep-passing game that Sid Gillman invented (and such luminaries as Al Davis and Don Coryell extended).

The Bill Walsh offense, while brilliant, is nothing but the Fran Tarkenton approach to offense during his second stint with the Vikings developed into a full system.

And while i prefer power football myself, the idea that such approaches to the game as the West Coast or the Bill Walsh offense are "frou frou" is "dumb dumb." They've been part of the game for decades. It would be like complaining that home runs are part of baseball just because in the early days, they were rare and not a key part of the game. They've been there for 80 years now, and deep passing and moving the ball around through short passing have been part of footbal for at least 70 years themselves.

Meanwhile, i pick the steelers. 

I haven't watched Seattle a TON this year, but what I have seen was far from quintessential West Coast Offense.  Running a lot, as they do, isn't actually a disqualifier; Ricky Watters and Ahman Green got lots of carries/yards in addition to their catches, and if you're going to say that the teams on which they were playing (Green Bay, SF)  weren't running the WCO, then you're not talking sense.

What's different is that the WCO uses short rhythm passing (particularly slants and swing routes, it seems to me) to set up everything else--both the run and the vertical pass.  It's this inversion of traditional football theory--wherein "everything starts with the run"--that differentiates the WCO both from the Lombardiists and the Coryellites.

Because Alexander is as good as he is running the ball, and their wideouts are as unexceptional over the middle as they are, Seattle would be very foolish to wager their success or failure on their ability to establish the short passing game.  So they aren't.

well, essentially you're right, djmoonbat.

as the dr. z link makes clear, even back in 1999, walsh had accepted that his approach was being called the "west coast" offense, and notice how, in matthew's original posting, norv turner calls it "the west coast offense that was run in sf in the '80s and '90s," because norv (as dr. z notes) does know the difference.

so in practice, the West Coast offense label is used promiscuously but usage drives correctness.

but matthew does like to get these things precise, and so he should want to use the terms as originally intended....

I dunno, that looked like a West Coast Offense (in the "like the 49ers in the 80s" sense) to me watching tonight.

That was the most "West Coast"ish outing I've seen from Seattle this year.  Not coincidentally, they lost.

i don't watch that much pro football anymore (if you want to see the unacceptable face of socialism, watch the nfl), but every single playoff game i watched, the refs had trouble calling pass interference correctly.

the advantage, al, of being self-employed!

but just so you don't get too jealous, i should note that my local soccer pub also records and reairs at night any important match, so as long as i don't check soccernet, i can see the match fresh at night even if i don't get out in the p.m.