All Kidding Aside...Would You Fire Bevell?

All Kidding Aside...Would You Fire Bevell?

  • Absolutely.

    Votes: 82 43.9%
  • You know what? Yes, I think I would.

    Votes: 45 24.1%
  • Hmmmm. I am not sure. I think he's the obvious scapegoat at times.

    Votes: 27 14.4%
  • I don't think so. We can't blame everything on Bevell.

    Votes: 15 8.0%
  • Not at all. He's actually a much better OC than we give him credit for.

    Votes: 18 9.6%

  • Total voters
    187

Siouxhawk

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
3,776
Reaction score
0
HoustonHawk82":sqpw6dd4 said:
I voted no.

Defenses and their coaches have figured the Hawks O out, and have equipped themselves to deal with us accordingly. When you are watching the playoffs and the SB from the comfort of your own home, you begin to start thinking of ways to keep yourself in that home. You come up with plans and schemes to defend what was successful and caused you to be sitting where you are. You are held accountable for what went wrong. So, you come up with stuff. Teams have.

For our coaches, the task at hand is to develop new twists on the same success. That means you have to try things out to see what is successful against the teams that are now tooled-up to defend you. That is a tall order, even if you have elite talent on the roster. When the talent gets a little beat up, it makes it doubly hard. When you have serious injuries, even worse.

I think at this point it could be a whole hell of a lot worse for us. We are sitting at 1-1, and were 0-2 at this point last year. That is progress, however small. The last two weeks we have faced (arguably) 2 of the most formidable defensive fronts in the league, and to come out with an even record is the best we could have hoped for with recovering talent, and recently banged up talent. Again, it could be a whole lot worse.

Being a fan of the team since the beginning, I tend to look at the whole body of work and lean on that. Without researching stats or calling-up gifs, we all can agree these have been our most successful years in team history. I am comforted by that. We have had waaayyyy worse coaching over the years and I have yet to see a clear reason to toss out the Offensive Coordinator now, beyond simply just to see if it makes things better. That is a big gamble, and not one I have decided I'm ready to see just yet.

Whether or not you want to place blame on Bevell for the call in SB 49 and not on Pete, that's fine. But they had a meeting on the sidelines that all the coaches had input on while the commercials were playing. They went with what they figured would be the best option. Belichick sent in the goalline D. The DB gambled, and he won. Great play for them. Had things been an inch or so different, we would have won and we wouldn't be having this little chat.

For an OC, it is impossible to come up with a series of plays that will create 100% success all of the time. I said it in the game-day forum yesterday; run run pass?, pass run pass?, pass pass pass?, run run run?, run pass pass?, it didn't matter. Nothing worked to throw the D out of their gameplan and get players to cheat one way or another. Up the middle?, off tackle?, around the end?, nothing worked. They looked for specific sets and played them, and did not react in a way that enabled us to expose them with audibles. We hoped to catch them in certain formations and to react a certain way, and we focused on matchups, but they prepared and were coached to react accordingly. Sometimes you can figure out how they are defending you and counter, sometimes you can't. All you can do is put the best you have in a position and the players then are tasked with making plays. To top it all off, they had a twelfth-man of their own, the refs.

Bevell didn't poke the ball out of C-Mike's hands there at the end. Bevell didn't wear number 88 yesterday and jump the snap-count in our final drive. Bevell didn't plat LT and get beat repeatedly, and Bevell didn't take 3 flags out of his back pocket for OPI when our receivers were doing what they always have done before. We were jobbed.

Yesterday I see as an anomaly. Anytime a team has it's first home game in a new stadium, with about 20 legendary players in attendance wearing gold jackets, and 900 celebrities in the stands wearing blue and yellow, we're toast. Nope, yesterday Goodell made a cell phone call, simple as that. If you need more evidence, take a look at Pete's reactions yesterday to the OPI calls. In recent memory, I can think of no other game in which he went nuts like that. He knew the calls were bad and we were being played. He knew it plain as day. No OC can overcome a SB-40 type jobbing. To believe any different is a stretch to me.

Yesterday we were simply the losing team in a celebration of the new Los Angeles Rams, and there was no way we were coming out of that game victorious. Today we are all second-guessing everything to attempt to explain it. Bevell is just a convenient spot to place blame.
HH, this encapsulates every darn thing I've been thinking about in regards to Bevell and our offense from Sunday's loss. So much so that I'm not going to write one more thing on the subject as you've covered every salient point in this debate being rehashed to death.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
The biggest mistake this team made, and I harped on this constantly when it happened, was letting Okung walk. That is not on Bevell.

You do not play Russian roulette with a $20 million QB.

Despite Wilson's bum ankle, the effect of Okung's absence on our run game is even more profound.

We're expecting a million dollar offense with a $2 offense line. Try to make sense of that.
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
Sowell didn't call read option plays with his QB nursing a high ankle sprain. Okung wouldn't have made any difference.
 

nash72

New member
Joined
Feb 18, 2015
Messages
832
Reaction score
0
HoustonHawk82":2fpp0olw said:
Yesterday I see as an anomaly. Anytime a team has it's first home game in a new stadium, with about 20 legendary players in attendance wearing gold jackets, and 900 celebrities in the stands wearing blue and yellow, we're toast. Nope, yesterday Goodell made a cell phone call, simple as that. If you need more evidence, take a look at Pete's reactions yesterday to the OPI calls. In recent memory, I can think of no other game in which he went nuts like that. He knew the calls were bad and we were being played. He knew it plain as day. No OC can overcome a SB-40 type jobbing. To believe any different is a stretch to me.

Yesterday we were simply the losing team in a celebration of the new Los Angeles Rams, and there was no way we were coming out of that game victorious. Today we are all second-guessing everything to attempt to explain it. Bevell is just a convenient spot to place blame.

I believe this to some account, but no game is called so badly that a team cant even score a TD. Thats on our horrid offesnse and coaching.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
Largent80":e0dv5rdf said:
Okung wouldn't have made any difference.

Denver: 141 rush yards/game. 4.7 ypc.

Seattle: 89.5 rush yards/game. 3.2 ypc.

But okay, Sowell = Okung. ::eyeroll.
 

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
DavidSeven":67sic948 said:
Largent80":67sic948 said:
Okung wouldn't have made any difference.

Denver: 141 rush yards/game. 4.7 ypc.

Seattle: 89.5 rush yards/game. 3.2 ypc.

But okay, Sowell = Okung. ::eyeroll.

Break it out by run direction and then we're getting somewhere.
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
Comparing numbers is useless unless one uses more numbers.

Compared to last years Rams games in which Okung was a participant more than 10 sacks were registered by the Rams. They had 2 yesterday.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
Guys, we don't need advanced analytics to tell us that Bradley Sowell has not played like a franchise LT and that Okung probably deserves some credit for Denver's improved run offense, which is using the same RB from last year and a limited first-year QB.

Bradley Sowell is bad. Russell Okung is good. This is something any football person will tell you.
 

HawkGA

New member
Joined
May 1, 2009
Messages
107,412
Reaction score
1
DavidSeven":1po64l1x said:
The biggest mistake this team made, and I harped on this constantly when it happened, was letting Okung walk. That is not on Bevell.

You do not play Russian roulette with a $20 million QB.

Despite Wilson's bum ankle, the effect of Okung's absence on our run game is even more profound.

We're expecting a million dollar offense with a $2 offense line. Try to make sense of that.

I agree with this in principle but I'm not sure Okung makes a huge difference. There's a decent chance he wouldn't even be on the field.
 

hawksfansinceday1

Active member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
24,629
Reaction score
3
Location
Vancouver, WA
HoustonHawk82":2cycjhin said:
...........Defenses and their coaches have figured the Hawks O out, and have equipped themselves to deal with us accordingly. When you are watching the playoffs and the SB from the comfort of your own home, you begin to start thinking of ways to keep yourself in that home. You come up with plans and schemes to defend what was successful and caused you to be sitting where you are. You are held accountable for what went wrong. So, you come up with stuff. Teams have.

For our coaches, the task at hand is to develop new twists on the same success. That means you have to try things out to see what is successful against the teams that are now tooled-up to defend you. That is a tall order, even if you have elite talent on the roster. When the talent gets beat up, it makes it doubly hard. When you have injuries, even worse.........
The Patriots just put up 31 on the Dolphins, a team we struggled to score 12 against, with a second and third string QB at the helm as well as their best red zone threat (Gronk) not playing, injuries to their o-line, number one RB, etc. Based on what you said above, to me there's no other way of looking at the Hawks' situation and am left with but one conclusion: our coaching staff struggles very badly in adjusting to other teams' adjustments. Offensively, how much of that is Bevell and how much is Pete none of us knows for sure. But it's clear to me it's become a trend. We saw the same thing defensively with TEs last year as well so I admit it isn't just the offense/Bevell.

My issues with Bevell specifically are in approach and playcalling because that's what we see as fans: as Montana mentioned, where was the quick passing game yesterday? Why are we running the RO with a QB who is clearly no threat to run the ball? Why an empty backfield on 4th and inches? Why a rookie RB on back to back carries after the first one failed?

The approach yesterday (lack of quick passing game) to me seems indicative of Pete and/or Bevell being unwilling or unable to adjust as you mentioned is vital to continued success in the NFL.
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
DavidSeven":3184xiyi said:
Guys, we don't need advanced analytics to tell us that Bradley Sowell has not played like a franchise LT and that Okung probably deserves some credit for Denver's improved run offense, which is using the same RB from last year and a limited first-year QB.

Bradley Sowell is bad. Russell Okung is good. This is something any football person will tell you.

Did Sowell kick your dog?......Okung to my eye was an average lineman in the NFL when he actually played. Okung wouldn't make a difference this year either. This is a thread about Bevell and his play calling. Okung has nothing to do with it.
 

Hasselbeck

New member
Joined
May 2, 2009
Messages
11,397
Reaction score
4
Largent80":3rql0z3j said:
DavidSeven":3rql0z3j said:
Guys, we don't need advanced analytics to tell us that Bradley Sowell has not played like a franchise LT and that Okung probably deserves some credit for Denver's improved run offense, which is using the same RB from last year and a limited first-year QB.

Bradley Sowell is bad. Russell Okung is good. This is something any football person will tell you.

Did Sowell kick your dog?......Okung to my eye was an average lineman in the NFL when he actually played. Okung wouldn't make a difference this year either. This is a thread about Bevell and his play calling. Okung has nothing to do with it.

Okung wouldn't make a difference over a guy that could have been flagged 10 times for a false start and who let one of the best pass rushers in football go unblocked numerous times?

Solid analysis
 

Largent80

New member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Messages
36,653
Reaction score
5
Location
The Tex-ASS
Hasselbeck":3emkuqyh said:
Largent80":3emkuqyh said:
DavidSeven":3emkuqyh said:
Guys, we don't need advanced analytics to tell us that Bradley Sowell has not played like a franchise LT and that Okung probably deserves some credit for Denver's improved run offense, which is using the same RB from last year and a limited first-year QB.

Bradley Sowell is bad. Russell Okung is good. This is something any football person will tell you.

Did Sowell kick your dog?......Okung to my eye was an average lineman in the NFL when he actually played. Okung wouldn't make a difference this year either. This is a thread about Bevell and his play calling. Okung has nothing to do with it.

Okung wouldn't make a difference over a guy that could have been flagged 10 times for a false start and who let one of the best pass rushers in football go unblocked numerous times?

Solid analysis
Thank you
 

hawker84

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 10, 2012
Messages
5,603
Reaction score
318
Location
Tri Cities, WA
Largent80":1v5riu5u said:
DavidSeven":1v5riu5u said:
Guys, we don't need advanced analytics to tell us that Bradley Sowell has not played like a franchise LT and that Okung probably deserves some credit for Denver's improved run offense, which is using the same RB from last year and a limited first-year QB.

Bradley Sowell is bad. Russell Okung is good. This is something any football person will tell you.

Did Sowell kick your dog?......Okung to my eye was an average lineman in the NFL when he actually played. Okung wouldn't make a difference this year either. This is a thread about Bevell and his play calling. Okung has nothing to do with it.

Yep. Okung is extremely overrated. You have to stay healthy and on the field to be considered a difference maker.
 

Siouxhawk

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
3,776
Reaction score
0
Uncle Si":2veuzqv7 said:
Siouxhawk":2veuzqv7 said:
johnnyfever":2veuzqv7 said:
Largent80":2veuzqv7 said:
Last time I looked games in September DO count. I could care less if Bevell finally adjusts the game plans later in the year. EACH FRIGGIN GAME matters to HFA and that is something the Seahawks need.

Exactly. Is our goal to make the playoffs or to win the superbowl? Many of us have been fans for a long time, and I hate to see even one game when the talent on this team is wasted by poor coaching. It is definititely an issue, and has been for a while. It needs to be addressed. With this defense and our offense, 2 superbowl wins and 2 appearances with better offensive gameplans were in the cards. The strengths of this coaching staff are player selection and development, team and practice atmosphere and cap management. Offensive gameplanhas been lacking, and always has.

If you want to see the biggest gains, practice and correct your worst areas. Offensive playcalling, strategy and adjustment has been a thorn in our side for years. I don't think anyone can argue that point.
I'd argue that point completely. Over the last 4 years, we are one of the most successful franchises in the league. So we go through a little bit of a feeling-out process early. Big whoop. If you've paid attention, you'd realize how successful we've been as the season progresses. Our coaching staff is a huge part of that. The solution you seem to be espousing is one endorsed by the Cleveland's and Buffalo's of the NFL world and how has that worked out for them?

I'm a big fan of a level head. It's why I appreciate posters like Sioux who not go off the rails with things aren't going well.

But I do want to ask this maybe a different way, Sioux.

If this was a player, our QB let's say, that was noticeably struggling for some time, how long do you go before you make the change, regardless of his past successes?
I said I wasn't going to post anymore because Houston Hawk succinctly captured everything going on in my head about Sunday's game. But you asked a direct question Si, so indulge me please as I give my reply.

First of all, I see what you're trying to do, but a player is inherently more result-based than a coach. If an offensive lineman is physically outmatched every time even though he's been taught leverage and footwork techniques to counter that bull rush repeatedly in practice, you obviously make a change.
The coach, on the other hand, will do whatever it takes to give that lineman the help he needs to succeed, whether that be through film study, specific drills in practice or in-game adjustments to provide help to that player depending on formations and the play call. But having said that, it's still up to the player to perform on the field when it's go time.
I always say the best coaches are the ones who put their team in a position to win a higher percentage of time than most. And that's exactly what we have with the Seahawks' staff. How many times do we get blown out? Practically never. Two Super Bowls in the last 3 years. Four straight playoff appearances. Multiple Pro Bowlers.
I understand the usual moaning and groaning after a loss, but the reaction to implode the team after one stinking setback wouldn't be very wise and would actually be the antithesis of what the Hawks under Pete has instilled -- We're all we got; we're all we need.

Does scoring only 3 points in a game concern me? Hell yeah. But I'm banking on 100 games worth of observing this staff to feel confident that they'll get it right. And isn't getting it right the outcome everyone on this board is striving for as we're all Seahawks fans?

Thanks for the chance to explain myself, Si.
 

johnnyfever

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
60
Location
Spokane
Okung used to be good, became average and injury prone, but was light years ahead of sowell, who I believe ties the laces of his shoes together. Would it have made a difference with the lack of offensive strategy? I think it would help for sure, but Okung was overpriced for what he was. Remember the end of last season when the defender touched him on the shoulder and broke him? Overpriced is one thing, but overpriced on the bench really sucks. If he plays more than half this season on the field I will be stunned.
 

DavidSeven

New member
Joined
Jan 18, 2013
Messages
5,742
Reaction score
0
I wonder how many people are writing stuff like this about any of our linemen...

[tweet]https://twitter.com/VicLombardi/status/777616570314993664[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/MaseDenver/status/777886633202900992[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/ReadAmFootball/status/774276876428775424[/tweet]

[tweet]https://twitter.com/zjwhitman/status/774082689766862848[/tweet]
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,916
Reaction score
1,108
I would not only fire Bevell.

I would go to his house, sing the "You are So Fired" song on his front porch and put it on YouTube for all the long-suffering Seahawk fans to enjoy.

Also Twitter & Vine.

Then we would all invite Marshawn to drop the box of Bevell's stuff collected from the VMAC onto the porch and flip him off one last time, sponsored by Skittles.

It would be great.
 

mrt144

New member
Joined
Dec 30, 2010
Messages
4,065
Reaction score
0
So Cable makes OL better for other teams? Faint praise.
 
Top