Bevell is at it again... bad plays against a weak Defense

[bbsplitter]

Hasn't that always been kind of Pete's MO on offense though? As soon as I saw the down and distance I knew what was going to happen, this shouldn't have been much of a surprise...

Not really, to be honest. We've gone for it on 4th down in "non-absolutely-critical" situations with him a number of times in the past.

With that same type of field position though?

Around midfield? Yes. Don't ask me to list which games specifically, though. However, with your defense failing hard all day and eight minutes remaining, it's inexcusable to have punted on 4th & 2 there, in that situation, all things considered.

Hmm alright, I'll have to rethink I guess. I just remember Wilson coming up short and expecting what came next. So maybe it was just the overall impression from the game.

 

[Timmahawk]

You guys blaming the offense are way off base. Sure, there were a few plays that were irritating, but the offense really had no shot to create momentum the entire game.

A: the kickoff fumble is a killer and kept the D on the field way too long.

B: the D couldn't stop anything on 3rd down, that also kept them on the field for too long.

C: Irvin's boneheaded penalty cost us 4 points, also kept the D on the field.

D: the 4th and 2 punt was absolutely the RIGHT call. The D got us the ball back with 3 mins, more than enough time to march downfield to win the game. If we go for it and don't get the first (less than 50%) chance, the game is essentially over since they would have basically been in field goal range.

E: The D had it's chances to make a number of plays and get the O the ball, they didn't and Rivers/Gates made the plays. It's as simple as that.

F: scoring quick is a great thing, it's not every week you play in 110 deg temp and none of the bounces go your way.

G: If we avg 7.2 yards per play all season, we go 15-1

 

[bbsplitter]

G: If we avg 7.2 yards per play all season, we go 15-1

Well we went 0-1 today. So I am not sure how that logic holds up.

 

[theincrediblesok]

Our defense didn't look quite right today, and the bone headed penalties didn't help from both sides of the ball. Miller had what 3 calls on him, and one of them they showed a replay where the commentator said he kicked a Chargers defender, but yet Miller had fallen down with no contact to anyone. On the 2nd or 3rd TD you can clearly see Bennett was trying to knock the ball from Rivers, but guess what the replay showed him being held, there was no call for that. It was one of those games where the bad calls were going both ways.

 

[Timmahawk]

G: If we avg 7.2 yards per play all season, we go 15-1

Well we went 0-1 today. So I am not sure how that logic holds up.

The broncos avg 6.3 yards per play last season, with an avg D and lost 2 games.

IMO this def effort is an outlier, for many reasons, just like the colts game last year.

Again, if our O is as efficient as it was today for the rest of the season, we will all be smiling in Feb.

 

[Sarlacc83]

G: If we avg 7.2 yards per play all season, we go 15-1

Well we went 0-1 today. So I am not sure how that logic holds up.

The broncos avg 6.3 yards per play last season, with an avg D and lost 2 games.

IMO this def effort is an outlier, for many reasons, just like the colts game last year.

Again, if our O is as efficient as it was today for the rest of the season, we will all be smiling in Feb.

Broncos were 13-3 in the regular season (Colts, Chargers, Patriots, and no Les, I didn't have to look that up....dammit). Then 16-4 overall.

 

[Timmahawk]

G: If we avg 7.2 yards per play all season, we go 15-1

Well we went 0-1 today. So I am not sure how that logic holds up.

The broncos avg 6.3 yards per play last season, with an avg D and lost 2 games.

IMO this def effort is an outlier, for many reasons, just like the colts game last year.

Again, if our O is as efficient as it was today for the rest of the season, we will all be smiling in Feb.

Broncos were 13-3 in the regular season (Colts, Chargers, Patriots, and no Les, I didn't have to look that up....dammit). Then 16-4 overall.

My bad, doesn't change the point though. Our D is still better than the Broncs D of 2013.

 

[DavidSeven]

If you're putting this one on Bevell, then you're just looking for ways to throw him under the bus. The play calling was not an issue today.

SD employed the same strategy it used against Denver in the playoffs - milk the entire clock on dink and dunk passing. Rivers' ability to convert on 3rd down was what won them the game. This loss had nothing to do with offensive play calling. If you extrapolate our efficiency to a better T.O.P., we'd score 35-40 points.

 

[Timmahawk]

Hell, if Percy doesn't cough it up on that kickoff we probably win.

The fact is, the D played like S on third down, and Gates found the fountain of youth and played like it was 2004.

 

[RolandDeschain]

If you're putting this one on Bevell, then you're just looking for ways to throw him under the bus. The play calling was not an issue today.

13 plays total combined involving your two best weapons on offense, including incompletions & a few unplanned dump-offs to Lynch, is not great play calling. Period. End of story. No exceptions. Not explainable, or defensible.

...But, you keep on trying, go right ahead.

 

[Timmahawk]

If you're putting this one on Bevell, then you're just looking for ways to throw him under the bus. The play calling was not an issue today.

13 plays total combined involving your two best weapons on offense, including incompletions & a few unplanned dump-offs to Lynch, is not great play calling. Period. End of story. No exceptions. Not explainable, or defensible.

...But, you keep on trying, go right ahead.

7.2 yards per play...

 

[RolandDeschain]

7.2 yards per play...

Yeah, what'd that get us, again?

 

[HawkWow]

The punt on 4th & 2 was the big one.

Yes, this was game over, and I and all of my friends were yelling at the TV, saying we have to go for it!

There is no way you can give that ball back to that Offense with our gassed defense having to come back on the field.

Gutless call, and it cost us a shot at winning this game.

With the way the game was going we are lucky we got the ball back at all.

But it wasn't "game over', was it?

This isn't meant to sound as sarcastic as it will come across in print...but you're not NFL coaches, you're a bunch of guys yelling at a TV. Likely without considering the ramifications not converting would have had on our chances of winning. Pete knows what his team is capable of. He wanted to win as badly as you and your friends.

Pete has an owner to answer to. An owner that is likely aware that we are shite in such situations and will probably commend him tomorrow for resisting the urge to go for it. I hope that conversation goes quickly, leaving plenty of time for Pete and JS to explain why our line still sux, making a 4th and 2 a huge gamble, while we've used our last 2 top picks on a RB and WR. Both rather redundant, I might add.

Suddenly it appears Pete is stealing a page from Sark and his approach to the Dawgs; build the team from the outside in, instead of vice versa. That ain't "gutless", bro...it's reckless.

And no, I'm not (overly) upset with Pete. He's the man, but he does have some explaining to do. The fact he will be standing in front of a Lombardi when giving that explanation should see him through to another week. It's a single loss, guys and gals. beat Denver next week and we will be whole again.

 

[Timmahawk]

7.2 yards per play...

Yeah, what'd that get us, again?

A defense that couldn't do S on third down? Or is that a trick question? Do you want our offense to be more or less efficient for the rest of the season?

 

[DavidSeven]

If you're putting this one on Bevell, then you're just looking for ways to throw him under the bus. The play calling was not an issue today.

13 plays total combined involving your two best weapons on offense, including incompletions & a few unplanned dump-offs to Lynch, is not great play calling. Period. End of story. No exceptions. Not explainable, or defensible.

...But, you keep on trying, go right ahead.

If we could've scored 35-40 points with more T.O.P., who cares how many touches certain individuals get? Lynch and Harvin didn't touch the ball on the 1st half 2 minute drill. We scored a TD. Was that a bad series just because those two guys didn't touch the ball?

And again, you are ignoring what was happening situationally in the game. We had penalties that put us in poor yardage situations and several series where quick score was essential. That is not the time to to run the ball or play the bubble screen game.

SD dictated what we could do on offense by absorbing so much of the clock. Simple as that.

 

[bbsplitter]

7.2 yards per play...

Yeah, what'd that get us, again?

Nothing, this time. But yards per play is a pretty good indicator for how effective each play is... I mean, by nature, that's the statistic.

 

[RolandDeschain]

7.2 yards per play...

Yeah, what'd that get us, again?

A defense that couldn't do S on third down? Or is that a trick question? Do you want our offense to be more or less efficient for the rest of the season?

Yards per play tells you NOTHING about efficiency. You could have a 25% completion percentage for a game, completing 10 of 40 pass attempts with five interceptions and average 10 yards per play. Stop confusing correlation and causation.

Nothing, this time. But yards per play is a pretty good indicator for how effective each play is... I mean, by nature, that's the statistic.

No, it's really not. It's highly situational. It can easily tell you a lot, a little, some, or absolutely nothing.

 

[Timmahawk]

7.2 yards per play...

Yeah, what'd that get us, again?

A defense that couldn't do S on third down? Or is that a trick question? Do you want our offense to be more or less efficient for the rest of the season?

Yards per play tells you NOTHING about efficiency. You could have a 25% completion percentage for a game, completing 10 of 40 pass attempts with five interceptions and average 10 yards per play. Stop confusing correlation and causation.

Nothing, this time. But yards per play is a pretty good indicator for how effective each play is... I mean, by nature, that's the statistic.

No, it's really not. It's highly situational. It can easily tell you a lot, a little, some, or absolutely nothing.

Yet in this game, we completed 68% of our passes and avg 8.1 y/a and 8.3 y/r. Is that not efficient? Do you want the O to be more or less efficient for the rest of the season? (Simple question you haven't answered)

 

[RolandDeschain]

Yet in this game, we completed 68% of our passes and avg 8.1 y/a and 8.3 y/r. Is that not efficient? Do you want the O to be more or less efficient for the rest of the season? (Simple question you haven't answered)

Rapidly skewed by a bunch of quickly ended drives to preserve that stat. Of course I want our offensive to be more efficient the rest of the season - in terms of scoring points and maintaining drives. Efficiency cannot be determined by yards per play, is my point. Also, even completion percentage is of limited value for that.

Here's a relevant point: Robert Griffin the third won Rookie of the Year because he completed a lot of "easy" throws close to the line of scrimmage, and they got a lot of yards after the catch especially from Alfred Morris on that stuff in his rookie year.

You have to look at how things unfold, and how the conclusion of a game is reached. Most raw stats are of limited value.

 

[bbsplitter]

7.2 yards per play...

Yeah, what'd that get us, again?

A defense that couldn't do S on third down? Or is that a trick question? Do you want our offense to be more or less efficient for the rest of the season?

Yards per play tells you NOTHING about efficiency. You could have a 25% completion percentage for a game, completing 10 of 40 pass attempts with five interceptions and average 10 yards per play. Stop confusing correlation and causation.

Nothing, this time. But yards per play is a pretty good indicator for how effective each play is... I mean, by nature, that's the statistic.

No, it's really not. It's highly situational. It can easily tell you a lot, a little, some, or absolutely nothing.

I am really confused now. Of course it is highly situational. That's why we have a O.C. Each play is it's own situation, which he must make a call for. That play, that he just called, results in X amount of yards, which are averaged into a statistic. If you call crappy plays, the statistic will be lower. That's not to say he didn't have few head-scratchers, but a couple of them might have involved more of Pete's offensive game plan versus something creative that Bevell could have dialed up. I don't agree with them, but to completely dismiss yards per play as showing Bevell had an overall good game.. is a fallacy in my opinion.