Bevell is fired (hypothetically speaking)

[McGruff]

I think they go into most games planning to run, but when it doesn't work early, the guy with the clipboard in his hands starts chucking the ball around.

TBH . . . I think both can work. But if we are going to chuck it, I'd rather go full WCO on it and abandon the play action deep pass.

The irony is during the Lynch years everyone complained that we didn't chuck it around enough with the pass when the run wasn't working for quarters and entire first halves.

And just to tag on to this . . . hindsight is the fan's biggest gift and the coaches greatest curse.

Every time some fan says "Bevell needs to not be so predictable" I am reminded of another fan (or even the same fan at another time!) saying "Bevell needs to not get so cute."

Bottom line is that the success of any given play is predicated on 4 elements . . .

1. is it the right playcall?
2. is it executed correctly?
3. is it the right defense?
4. does the defense make a great play?

The OC really only has input into 1 of those elements, but often gets blamed for all 4.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I think they go into most games planning to run, but when it doesn't work early, the guy with the clipboard in his hands starts chucking the ball around.

TBH . . . I think both can work. But if we are going to chuck it, I'd rather go full WCO on it and abandon the play action deep pass.

The irony is during the Lynch years everyone complained that we didn't chuck it around enough with the pass when the run wasn't working for quarters and entire first halves.

All I know is this, when Russell's healthy and our line is playing even mediocre, this is a dynamic offense that can put up 30-40 pts a game. That tells me that the four headed monster is in sync and working well together. So why mess up that chemistry............... for what?

I do agree that when our players execute, it can be beautiful to watch and is as dynamic as they come.

When we don't execute, I think the tension is exposed.

I think this year has been harder than most for 3 reasons.

First, the online is brutally young, and its gonna take time.

Second, the extended absence of Thomas Rawls set us back a bit running the ball.

Third, fan expectations coming into this year were and remain absurdly high.

All valid, but the biggest issue this year was Russell's injuries. I think we found out that he masked a LOT of issues with the inconsistency of the line and RB position.

 

[Own The West]

IMHO we lost the superbowl in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters when we continued to throw the ball at a time their front 7 was tired and had no answer for Lynch. That decision, which Russell said he asked for "to stay aggressive", gave Brady the ball back multiple times to carve up our D that was gimped coming into the game and had lost two more starters as the game went on. That slant should have never been an issue, because we should have kept running it down their throat and burning the clock. Entire coaching staff fail.

Interesting side note: In spite of all their assertions that it was the right play to call. They've never run a slant on an X and 1 situation since.

But I digress...

We have an inconsistent, yet athletic line and an extremely mobile QB. When we're having protection problems, why aren't rolling the pocket? Running delays or traps? (Not bubble) screens? Optioning the ends? Any of 20 things that make rushers pause instead of blindly tearing up field?

 

[McGruff]

I think they go into most games planning to run, but when it doesn't work early, the guy with the clipboard in his hands starts chucking the ball around.

TBH . . . I think both can work. But if we are going to chuck it, I'd rather go full WCO on it and abandon the play action deep pass.

The irony is during the Lynch years everyone complained that we didn't chuck it around enough with the pass when the run wasn't working for quarters and entire first halves.

All I know is this, when Russell's healthy and our line is playing even mediocre, this is a dynamic offense that can put up 30-40 pts a game. That tells me that the four headed monster is in sync and working well together. So why mess up that chemistry............... for what?

I do agree that when our players execute, it can be beautiful to watch and is as dynamic as they come.

When we don't execute, I think the tension is exposed.

I think this year has been harder than most for 3 reasons.

First, the online is brutally young, and its gonna take time.

Second, the extended absence of Thomas Rawls set us back a bit running the ball.

Third, fan expectations coming into this year were and remain absurdly high.

All valid, but the biggest issue this year was Russell's injuries. I think we found out that he masked a LOT of issues with the inconsistency of the line and RB position.

Excellent point as well . . . so 4 reasons.

 

[McGruff]

IMHO we lost the superbowl in the late 3rd/early 4th quarters when we continued to throw the ball at a time their front 7 was tired and had no answer for Lynch. That decision, which Russell said he asked for "to stay aggressive", gave Brady the ball back multiple times to carve up our D that was gimped coming into the game and had lost two more starters as the game went on. That slant should have never been an issue, because we should have kept running it down their throat and burning the clock. Entire coaching staff fail.

Interesting side note: In spite of all their assertions that it was the right play to call. They've never run a slant on an X and 1 situation since.

But I digress...

We have an inconsistent, yet athletic line and an extremely mobile QB. When we're having protection problems, why aren't rolling the pocket? Running delays or traps? (Not bubble) screens? Optioning the ends? Any of 20 things that make rushers pause instead of blindly tearing up field?

Those are good questions, and for some of them there are answers. And most of those answers come down to "inconsistent and inexperienced offensive line."

Rolling the pocket with an inexperienced line often leads to lots of holds and missed assignments.

Delays and traps are great, except they take a long time to develope and are susce[ptible to the same death by stunt that Tampa exposed.

Screens . . . again OL inexperience is a culprit here. inexperienced OL often get caught prematurely downfield on screens.

Optioning the ends? I'll admit ignorance. What do you mean here?

JMO, but the best tactical choice we can make right now is to fire out of our block with quick runs. Don't give our guys a chance to think too much, and don't give the defense a chance to read and react or stunt. Just pull back the hammer and pound them.

Between that and the Read Option now being viable, I think we can regain our running game, which will eventually open back up the pass.

 

[nash72]

I know this isnt going to come out right, but i'm not slamming anybody and I would love to have some input, but since when has Pete Carroll ever been considered an offensive minded coach? I feel he's one of the greatest defensive minded coaches ever, but I question his input when it comes to the offense. He has a game plan in which he wants to pound the ball and let the defense pick up the slack. It worked with Lynch, but we dont have Lynch anymore. It just seems like we rarely, rarely blow a team out and its frustrating. I know Pete's the head coach and he knows more about football than I will ever know, but I question his philosophy sometimes. I just wish he would stay out of the offense pretty much altogether. Again, i'm sure i'm way off, but its just how I feel.

 

[cymatica]

Optioning the ends? I'll admit ignorance. What do you mean here?

I think he meant tight end option, using them as a safety net. Worked great with Miller.

 

[Jerhawk]

It's been a genuine pleasure reading the entirety of this thread. Great job everyone, awesome football talk.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I know this isnt going to come out right, but i'm not slamming anybody and I would love to have some input, but since when has Pete Carroll ever been considered an offensive minded coach? I feel he's one of the greatest defensive minded coaches ever, but I question his input when it comes to the offense. He has a game plan in which he wants to pound the ball and let the defense pick up the slack. It worked with Lynch, but we dont have Lynch anymore. It just seems like we rarely, rarely blow a team out and its frustrating. I know Pete's the head coach and he knows more about football than I will ever know, but I question his philosophy sometimes. I just wish he would stay out of the offense pretty much altogether. Again, i'm sure i'm way off, but its just how I feel.

Look at our scores the entire Carroll era, and there really aren't that many blowouts.

This is the NFL, it's hard to blow teams out, too much parity. But Pete's also the kind of coach that doesn't care about style points. He cares about winning his way, which is to physically impose his will on the other team by being nastier, tougher, stronger and faster than his opponent...................and protecting the ball at all costs.

If that means running a more conservative style offense and allowing your elite D to take care of business, then that's what he wants.

 

[Uncle Si]

But Pete's also the kind of coach that doesn't care about style points. He cares about winning his way, which is to physically impose his will on the other team by being nastier, tougher, stronger and faster than his opponent...................and protecting the ball at all costs.

If that means running a more conservative style offense and allowing your elite D to take care of business, then that's what he wants.

Pretty spot on

 

[nash72]

I know this isnt going to come out right, but i'm not slamming anybody and I would love to have some input, but since when has Pete Carroll ever been considered an offensive minded coach? I feel he's one of the greatest defensive minded coaches ever, but I question his input when it comes to the offense. He has a game plan in which he wants to pound the ball and let the defense pick up the slack. It worked with Lynch, but we dont have Lynch anymore. It just seems like we rarely, rarely blow a team out and its frustrating. I know Pete's the head coach and he knows more about football than I will ever know, but I question his philosophy sometimes. I just wish he would stay out of the offense pretty much altogether. Again, i'm sure i'm way off, but its just how I feel.

Look at our scores the entire Carroll era, and there really aren't that many blowouts.

This is the NFL, it's hard to blow teams out, too much parity. But Pete's also the kind of coach that doesn't care about style points. He cares about winning his way, which is to physically impose his will on the other team by being nastier, tougher, stronger and faster than his opponent...................and protecting the ball at all costs.

If that means running a more conservative style offense and allowing your elite D to take care of business, then that's what he wants.

I understand what your saying. I just believe that he relies on the defense too much and it causes a ton of our games to be much closer than they need to be. How many times does it come down to the 4th quarter and its a close game? I just feel the offense might be too conservative and the team doesnt put away opponents when they have a chance. Just a thought.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I know this isnt going to come out right, but i'm not slamming anybody and I would love to have some input, but since when has Pete Carroll ever been considered an offensive minded coach? I feel he's one of the greatest defensive minded coaches ever, but I question his input when it comes to the offense. He has a game plan in which he wants to pound the ball and let the defense pick up the slack. It worked with Lynch, but we dont have Lynch anymore. It just seems like we rarely, rarely blow a team out and its frustrating. I know Pete's the head coach and he knows more about football than I will ever know, but I question his philosophy sometimes. I just wish he would stay out of the offense pretty much altogether. Again, i'm sure i'm way off, but its just how I feel.

Look at our scores the entire Carroll era, and there really aren't that many blowouts.

This is the NFL, it's hard to blow teams out, too much parity. But Pete's also the kind of coach that doesn't care about style points. He cares about winning his way, which is to physically impose his will on the other team by being nastier, tougher, stronger and faster than his opponent...................and protecting the ball at all costs.

If that means running a more conservative style offense and allowing your elite D to take care of business, then that's what he wants.

I understand what your saying. I just believe that he relies on the defense too much and it causes a ton of our games to be much closer than they need to be. How many times does it come down to the 4th quarter and its a close game? I just feel the offense might be too conservative and the team doesnt put away opponents when they have a chance. Just a thought.

I agree, but the results are hard to dispute.

I'd absolutely LOVE to see the offense really open it up and see what kind of damage it can do. But that can also lead to Russell getting hit even more with 5-7 step drops throwing it 40 times a game, etc.

So it's a double edged sword.

 

[chris98251]

No. it's near heart attacks, high blood pressure, a drinking habit, angry wife due to household destruction and the necessary clean up, blow some teams out and take their heart and many Seahawks fans would have better health and relationships during the season.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

Laugh (cry), good one

 

[Hasselbeck]

If he's fired, that would lead me to believe the season would have come off the tracks and we limp into January and promptly get blown out due to another miserable performance by the OL.

However, everyone who wants Bevell gone is probably in for a rough December and January. Because at MOST we lose one game to end the regular season. And that's going to lead to a bye and that's going to lead to a home game for a shot at the NFC title.

But hypothetically speaking? Pete would probably look to a Steve Sarkisian type to run the offense. Looking at the probable coaching changes elsewhere, there aren't many striking offensive minds that are about to be sh**canned either. Maybe the Browns do a Browns like thing and fire Hue Jackson for an 0-16 season. That's about the best hail Mary candidate I can throw out there.. Otherwise you're looking at someone very similar, and arguably worse, to Darrell Bevell.

Hue was Cable's OC in Oakland. Just saying . . . .

And Hue was the best thing to happen to that offense up until recently.

He'd be a phenomenal OC here, but I think thats a major pipe dream at this point.

 

[hawkfan68]

Bevell called a great game last night. Can't complain about the results and the points put up. Good calls and great execution.

 

[cymatica]

I just don't understand while it is so jekyll and hyde. Maybe it is just as simple as the matchups, but it seems like the good offenses have more consistency. Or maybe my idea of a good offense wouldn't keep on course the whole season and result being on the wrong end of blowouts. I know the defense plays a major role, but the offensive approach has had something to do with not losing by double digits since 2011

 

[Largent80]

It appears Jeckyl and Hyde because of injuries and match ups. It's when you play teams and individual match ups, pretty simple. Tampa was fighting for life, just beat KC in KC and we all know how hard that is to do. They won again Sunday.

We had a game that we could afford to lose. We had our starting center out which we saw last night the difference he makes, and put up 240 rushing yards on the #2 defense against the run.

It is a tale of a football season. Up's, down's, high's and low's.

 

[McGruff]

I just don't understand while it is so jekyll and hyde. Maybe it is just as simple as the matchups, but it seems like the good offenses have more consistency. Or maybe my idea of a good offense wouldn't keep on course the whole season and result being on the wrong end of blowouts. I know the defense plays a major role, but the offensive approach has had something to do with not losing by double digits since 2011

Match ups are part of, but execution is where we've struggled, especially on the OL.

Typically if you see alot inconsistency, it is attributed mainly to youth.