Bevell is great.

[mrt144]

"Bizarre decisions" according to who? There are gut feelings and there are facts. The facts actually show that Bevell & Co. have fielded one of the NFL's best offenses in every year since 2012. If you have actual numbers that show me the offense has under-performed all this time, please provide.

DVOA Offense Ranks:

2015 - #4 (through Week 12, excluding @MN)
2014 - #5
2013 - #7
2012 - #4

It takes more than gut feelings and group-think about playcalls to buck real trends that are supported by facts.

I love citing DVOA. But I don't love applying it as a deodorant for flawed coaching. Gus Bradley was a mediocre DC IMO, who struggled with soft zones and ineffective blitzing. But his defenses ranked 10th in 2011 and 2nd in 2012 in defensive DVOA. He hardly earned those rankings because his defense was loaded with HoF caliber talent playing a simple scheme. I was happy to see Bradley go, and when he was replaced by a better DC in Dan Quinn, the defense played at a historic level.

For that reason, and many others, I don't think citing DVOA does a very good job of explaining Bevell's performance. Even great units can have a weak link. Even Greg Knapp had a good offense when he had Jeff Garcia, Garrison Hearst, and Terrell Owens. Imagine what he'd do with the talent in Seattle the past 3.5 years? Probably about the same as Bevell.

Now that said, I'm not anti-Bevell as much as I am frustrated by his inability to put Wilson in a position to succeed. The past three weeks have proven decisively that Wilson's struggles really just came down to scheme fit issues, the offense just wasn't putting Wilson in position to succeed. Rather, it was putting Marshawn Lynch in a position to succeed.

But now, things have shifted and the offense is actually doing smart things to allow Wilson to play up to his HoFer potential. The playcalling has gotten better too. Everything is starting to click. And I think Bevell deserves a ton of credit for all that.

So I'm fine with keeping Bevell at this point, hell, he seems like an honest to goodness asset, but it's pretty much entirely because of what he's done in the last 3 weeks scheming the offense for a post-Lynch era, not because he piggybacked on a loaded roster for high DVOA scores in previous seasons.

Touchdown!

 

[Hawks46]

"Bizarre decisions" according to who? There are gut feelings and there are facts. The facts actually show that Bevell & Co. have fielded one of the NFL's best offenses in every year since 2012. If you have actual numbers that show me the offense has under-performed all this time, please provide.

DVOA Offense Ranks:

2015 - #4 (through Week 12, excluding @MN)
2014 - #5
2013 - #7
2012 - #4

It takes more than gut feelings and group-think about playcalls to buck real trends that are supported by facts.

I love citing DVOA. But I don't love applying it as a deodorant for flawed coaching. Gus Bradley was a mediocre DC IMO, who struggled with soft zones and ineffective blitzing. But his defenses ranked 10th in 2011 and 2nd in 2012 in defensive DVOA. He hardly earned those rankings because his defense was loaded with HoF caliber talent playing a simple scheme. I was happy to see Bradley go, and when he was replaced by a better DC in Dan Quinn, the defense played at a historic level.

For that reason, and many others, I don't think citing DVOA does a very good job of explaining Bevell's performance. Even great units can have a weak link. Even Greg Knapp had a good offense when he had Jeff Garcia, Garrison Hearst, and Terrell Owens. Imagine what he'd do with the talent in Seattle the past 3.5 years? Probably about the same as Bevell.

Now that said, I'm not anti-Bevell as much as I am frustrated by his inability to put Wilson in a position to succeed. The past three weeks have proven decisively that Wilson's struggles really just came down to scheme fit issues, the offense just wasn't putting Wilson in position to succeed. Rather, it was putting Marshawn Lynch in a position to succeed.

But now, things have shifted and the offense is actually doing smart things to allow Wilson to play up to his HoFer potential. The playcalling has gotten better too. Everything is starting to click. And I think Bevell deserves a ton of credit for all that.

So I'm fine with keeping Bevell at this point, hell, he seems like an honest to goodness asset, but it's pretty much entirely because of what he's done in the last 3 weeks scheming the offense for a post-Lynch era, not because he piggybacked on a loaded roster for high DVOA scores in previous seasons.

Great post Kearly. This is really the crux of it, and it brings up my two biggest issues with Bevell: situational play calling, and a (seeming) inability to adjust in a timely manner. Why did it take half the year to figure this out, especially when Russ has shown an affinity to a 2 minute offense when he gets the ball out quickly and in rhythm ?

 

[Recon_Hawk]

"Bizarre decisions" according to who? There are gut feelings and there are facts. The facts actually show that Bevell & Co. have fielded one of the NFL's best offenses in every year since 2012. If you have actual numbers that show me the offense has under-performed all this time, please provide.

DVOA Offense Ranks:

2015 - #4 (through Week 12, excluding @MN)
2014 - #5
2013 - #7
2012 - #4

It takes more than gut feelings and group-think about playcalls to buck real trends that are supported by facts.

I love citing DVOA. But I don't love applying it as a deodorant for flawed coaching. Gus Bradley was a mediocre DC IMO, who struggled with soft zones and ineffective blitzing. But his defenses ranked 10th in 2011 and 2nd in 2012 in defensive DVOA. He hardly earned those rankings because his defense was loaded with HoF caliber talent playing a simple scheme. I was happy to see Bradley go, and when he was replaced by a better DC in Dan Quinn, the defense played at a historic level.

For that reason, and many others, I don't think citing DVOA does a very good job of explaining Bevell's performance. Even great units can have a weak link. Even Greg Knapp had a good offense when he had Jeff Garcia, Garrison Hearst, and Terrell Owens. Imagine what he'd do with the talent in Seattle the past 3.5 years? Probably about the same as Bevell.

Now that said, I'm not anti-Bevell as much as I am frustrated by his inability to put Wilson in a position to succeed. The past three weeks have proven decisively that Wilson's struggles really just came down to scheme fit issues, the offense just wasn't putting Wilson in position to succeed. Rather, it was putting Marshawn Lynch in a position to succeed.

But now, things have shifted and the offense is actually doing smart things to allow Wilson to play up to his HoFer potential. The playcalling has gotten better too. Everything is starting to click. And I think Bevell deserves a ton of credit for all that.

So I'm fine with keeping Bevell at this point, hell, he seems like an honest to goodness asset, but it's pretty much entirely because of what he's done in the last 3 weeks scheming the offense for a post-Lynch era, not because he piggybacked on a loaded roster for high DVOA scores in previous seasons.

Yet, Russell has the best career numbers for any other QB into their 4th year and the offensive as a whole has resulted in NFL leading stats in the throwing and running game since he was drafted. Does that sort of production happen with a weak link on the coaching staff, especially when the offense has never really been loaded with talent?

If we're going to point to the one thing that's changed the last few games, I don't think it's the scheme. Yes, there's been tweaks to the scheme, but it's more the offensive coming together as a whole which has open things up for the passing game, especially the offensive line blocking better and Thomas Rawls. It's no coincidence that with a stellar running game in the last 3 weeks, like year 1-3, that Russell is more effective and that when there is no run game (first 8 games of the season) his performance goes down. It's the philosophy that Pete's been preaching since he got here. The pass game is reliant on the run game and vice versa.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Bevell didn't grow a brain overnight. We have several seasons of bizarre decisions by him and the last three games don't erase that. It takes more than a few games against bad defenses to buck a trend.

"Bizarre decisions" according to who? There are gut feelings and there are facts. The facts actually show that Bevell & Co. have fielded one of the NFL's best offenses in every year since 2012. If you have actual numbers that show me the offense has under-performed all this time, please provide.

DVOA Offense Ranks:

2015 - #4 (through Week 12, excluding @MN)
2014 - #5
2013 - #7
2012 - #4

It takes more than gut feelings and group-think about playcalls to buck real trends that are supported by facts.

For the millionth time, DVOA isn't a catch-all defense of Bevell when you have Russell Wilson on your team.

 

[DavidSeven]

Right, I forgot all the success Russell has had in his four years here has been in spite of all the coaching he's received. They haven't worked to his strengths at all; haven't protected him from typical rookie mistakes; haven't masked a dozen limitations that are obvious to anyone who's watched him closely.

Pete and Tom and Darrell are all indebted to Russell Wilson, the first ever QB in NFL history to come into the league as a fully formed player. Thank gawd for the sandlot king. When it's good, it's all him. When it's bad, it's all on the coaches. No wonder that contract negotiation this past summer didn't get contentious at all, eh?

 

[bevellisthedevil]

If we breeze through the rest of our games and win a second superbowl in three years, especially if our offense is clicking, Bevell will have a head coaching job anyway.

He has called three straight good games so I am waiting for him to call a garbage game in the very near future. His situational awareness is horrible and I swear he can take the most talented players and make them look like UDFA's. However, he can make UDFA's look like probowlers. Our OC is maddening. If we need to run time off the clock, he is throwing. If we need a quick score, he is running the ball.

Gotta give the guy credit for the last three games though. Quick passes and shorter routes have opened the offense up. I just wish he would have figured that out earlier in the season.

 

[Scottemojo]

If we breeze through the rest of our games and win a second superbowl in three years, especially if our offense is clicking, Bevell will have a head coaching job anyway.

He has called three straight good games so I am waiting for him to call a garbage game in the very near future. His situational awareness is horrible and I swear he can take the most talented players and make them look like UDFA's. However, he can make UDFA's look like probowlers. Our OC is maddening. If we need to run time off the clock, he is throwing. If we need a quick score, he is running the ball.

Gotta give the guy credit for the last three games though. Quick passes and shorter routes have opened the offense up. I just wish he would have figured that out earlier in the season.

I feel the same way, but I don't expect any reversion to the past.

I shared this with another poster.

During the Bye week, Pete was on Sirius telling Pat Kirwan that they were self scouting during the bye week to see what changes they needed to make to the team.

The following week we lost. We got behind the sticks with penalties (bogus ones, mostly) and it all kind of got messed up.

The following week, after the win Pete said the gameplan was the same one as the Cards game.

So even though the results have not been the same, the gameplans since the bye have been very different than the first half the year. as you said, short passing, lots of spread formations, much quicker plays.

Like the read option, I think it is here as a staple.

And if we stick with it, I think this offense is potentially as lethal as new England's has been, except we are way better at running the ball.

 

[Cartire]

If we breeze through the rest of our games and win a second superbowl in three years, especially if our offense is clicking, Bevell will have a head coaching job anyway.

He has called three straight good games so I am waiting for him to call a garbage game in the very near future. His situational awareness is horrible and I swear he can take the most talented players and make them look like UDFA's. However, he can make UDFA's look like probowlers. Our OC is maddening. If we need to run time off the clock, he is throwing. If we need a quick score, he is running the ball.

Gotta give the guy credit for the last three games though. Quick passes and shorter routes have opened the offense up. I just wish he would have figured that out earlier in the season.

I feel the same way, but I don't expect any reversion to the past.

I shared this with another poster.

During the Bye week, Pete was on Sirius telling Pat Kirwan that they were self scouting during the bye week to see what changes they needed to make to the team.

The following week we lost. We got behind the sticks with penalties (bogus ones, mostly) and it all kind of got messed up.

The following week, after the win Pete said the gameplan was the same one as the Cards game.

So even though the results have not been the same, the gameplans since the bye have been very different than the first half the year. as you said, short passing, lots of spread formations, much quicker plays.

Like the read option, I think it is here as a staple.

And if we stick with it, I think this offense is potentially as lethal as new England's has been, except we are way better at running the ball.

I enjoy your current optimism.

 

[Scottemojo]

Oh, I'm still irritated it took this long for them to figure out. But, evolution is a messy process.

 

[kearly]

Yet, Russell has the best career numbers for any other QB into their 4th year and the offensive as a whole has resulted in NFL leading stats in the throwing and running game since he was drafted. Does that sort of production happen with a weak link on the coaching staff, especially when the offense has never really been loaded with talent?

If we're going to point to the one thing that's changed the last few games, I don't think it's the scheme. Yes, there's been tweaks to the scheme, but it's more the offensive coming together as a whole which has open things up for the passing game, especially the offensive line blocking better and Thomas Rawls. It's no coincidence that with a stellar running game in the last 3 weeks, like year 1-3, that Russell is more effective and that when there is no run game (first 8 games of the season) his performance goes down. It's the philosophy that Pete's been preaching since he got here. The pass game is reliant on the run game and vice versa.

The offense had all the same parts, plus Graham, and was average in the first half of the year. Its not like the offense is more talented right now than it was in the first half of the season, In fact, it's down two of its biggest stars.

And yet, the offense has been a revelation the past three weeks, and it's not a random hot streak. There are reasons behind it. First, the switch to Rawls (who fits the new OL much better than an aging Lynch). Second, an emphasis on getting the ball out to help our pass protection. Third, there's been a dramatic increase in spread concepts to help Wilson's pre-snap reads (and hurrying to the line a bit better to give Wilson more freedom to audible). Fourth, using route combinations to get our receivers open easily.

But undo all those changes, go back to Lynch, and become a run and hold the ball to throw deep team, and the offense would revert to being okay but not great, and terrible in the RZ.

I think Bevell deserves a ton of credit for his role in those changes. Seattle has had the best offense in football the past month. And to me, it highlights how far the offense was from its potential prior to these changes during the past 3+ seasons.

So I'm all for praising Bevell's work the past few weeks and I think his outlook is totally different now. But was he a good OC before a month ago? I don't think so.

 

[mikeak]

Why would they need half a season to self scout????

Honestly they could go on this forum and have been told the issues a long time ago....

And don't give me the "Super Bowl play was the right call". It was risky - up the middle in traffic when it wasn't needed

If that was our 3rd / 4th down fine. That situation demanded a roll-out / read option or heck ANYTHING that didn't start with an EMPTY backfield

That isn't about Xs and Os it is about STUPID or smart decision making

 

[kearly]

Fair enough, kearly. But then my only question is, who is likely more responsible for emphasizing the Lynch-centered, ball-control offense over developing a quick-strike, middle-of-the-field passing game? To me, that smells a lot like Pete Carroll and Tom Cable.

That very well could be true.

 

[DavidSeven]

Again, sounds like people are blaming Bevell for a lot of things that seem like they were influenced by Carroll and Cable.

When the assignment was to craft a conservative, ball-control, deep-strike offense that protected an elite defense, that was accomplished with great success. When the assignment changed at mid-season after the defense revealed itself to be vulnerable, we switched gears pretty seemlessly. So, at what point has the OC failed to deliver? It's his fault that Tom Cable sold us a bill of goods on a terrible OL and the GM thought Cary Williams was a legit corner? No, he's not the one who gets to decide that the defense and OL aren't good enough for the philosophy. Seems to me he got dealt a bad hand by those above him and was likely told to play it the same way until we were down to two blinds.

 

[kearly]

Seattle learned a very valuable lesson this past month.

When they traded for Percy Harvin, the felt that the formula was right, but the ingredients needed to be better. It didn't work.

When they traded for Jimmy Graham, the felt that the formula was right, but the ingredients needed to be better. Graham played pretty well, but Seattle's offense actually got worse.

Now they've changed the formula, without changing the ingredients much. And suddenly, the offense has taken off.

 

[kearly]

Again, sounds like people are blaming Bevell for a lot of things that seem like they were influenced by Carroll and Cable.

When the assignment was to craft a conservative, ball-control, deep-strike offense that protected an elite defense, that was accomplished with great success. When the assignment changed at mid-season after the defense revealed itself to be vulnerable, we switched gears pretty seemlessly. So, at what point has the OC failed to deliver? It's his fault that Tom Cable sold us a bill of goods on a terrible OL and the GM thought Cary Williams was a legit corner? No, he's not the one who gets to decide that the defense and OL aren't good enough for the philosophy. Seems to me he got dealt a bad hand by those above him and was likely told to play it the same way until we were down to two blinds.

There's a lot of stuff you've said in defense of Bevell that I didn't agree with, but one of your stronger points is this:

I think many of Bevell's critics, myself included, have over-estimated Bevell's ability to dictate the structure of the offense. It may very well be that Bevell has less input on the structure of the offense than Carroll or Cable. Scotte told a great story about how Pete used the bye week to review the offense, which certainly seems to suggest that the impetus for the changes originated with Pete.

So while Pete probably deserves credit for the changes, he probably also deserves blame for taking too long to implement them.

The offense he had setup until recently was not an offense that could just out-execute opponents like Mike Holmgren did in his heyday. It relied on players to win matchups in the passing game, as opposed to scheming guys open. Many have said "that can't be an offense in the NFL," but it actually worked because Wilson and Lynch were so special.

And given that Bevell was locked into this style of offense, it meant that he couldn't just execute the offense and expect to score 30 every week. We had the most basic and predictable offense in the league, which is why so often Bevell had to make sub-optimal "they'll never see it coming" types of calls to fool defenses when he needed a conversion.

Look at the offense the past three weeks. Seattle is simply going out there and executing the offense and blowing the doors off of teams. And the "they'll never see it coming " type of playcalls have almost totally vanished, because Bevell doesn't need to resort to those kinds of desperate calls when the offense can manufacture first downs simply with good execution within the scheme, the same way that Bill Belichick doesn't have to bother with goofy calls running the Patriots offense. Because he doesn't need to.

So a lot of what myself and others have blamed Bevell for in the past was A) More or less out of his control and B) an unfortunate consequence of having such a simple offense being thrust upon him.

 

[olyfan63]

During the Bye week, Pete was on Sirius telling Pat Kirwan that they were self scouting during the bye week to see what changes they needed to make to the team.
..snip...
So even though the results have not been the same, the gameplans since the bye have been very different than the first half the year. as you said, short passing, lots of spread formations, much quicker plays.

Like the read option, I think it is here as a staple.

And if we stick with it, I think this offense is potentially as lethal as new England's has been, except we are way better at running the ball.

It all comes down to Pete doing some soul-searching and asking, "WWBD?"

No, no, not "What Would Bevell Do?"
WWBD = "What Would Bill Do?"
As in Bill Walsh. Pete's overall #1 coaching/organization mentor.

Pete's been bullheaded, wanting to play the game a certain way, stuck on an "identity". I suspect that's always been the true limiting factor, making "Fire Bevell!" somewhat irrelevant; Bevell's just been following Pete's lead. Pete's a smart man, and with the ruthless competition in the NFL, when you're repeatedly getting your ass kicked, Pete knew something needed to change. The self-scouting was his way of figuring out what to change.

See, if it's working and you're winning Super Bowls, it's "identity", not bull-headedness. At 4-5, Pete's was forced to acknowledge the difference this year. Pete realized the defense isn't as dominant this year, so the offense has to pick it up by scoring, early and often.

So Pete put on his thinking cap, talked to some great offensive football minds, about how to "hide" the weaknesses of the O-Line (pass pro) and maximize the overall O's strengths (Russell Wilson's decisionmaking, mobility, and leadership, O-line run blocking, read option).

So I think it all comes back to Pete taking the shackles off Wilson and Bevell.
After being beaten by a quick-short-passing team in NE Patriots, Pete adapted to the new reality of the game.
IIRC, the rules changes a couple years ago on defensive contact on receivers. (Arguably) that one rule change threw Pete's formula, Pete's winning model just enough out of balance that we lose SB49, then other teams see and exploit the flaw in our model, given a pattern.

So now Pete has adjusted his grand model of the game to the new reality, to *attack* more in the passing game, with more quick passes, out of spread formations. Teams weren't expecting this from Seattle. Now we'll see how well the rest of the NFL can adjust. Fall 2016 would be soon enough for that.

Remember how teams were disrespecting our offense, and our passing game especially, earlier in the season? The Rams game being an obvious example... well, it's not happening anymore.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I'm pretty sure that Pete was never responsible for 3rd-and-7 packages involving no hot routes.

 

[Scottemojo]

Again, sounds like people are blaming Bevell for a lot of things that seem like they were influenced by Carroll and Cable.

When the assignment was to craft a conservative, ball-control, deep-strike offense that protected an elite defense, that was accomplished with great success. When the assignment changed at mid-season after the defense revealed itself to be vulnerable, we switched gears pretty seemlessly. So, at what point has the OC failed to deliver? It's his fault that Tom Cable sold us a bill of goods on a terrible OL and the GM thought Cary Williams was a legit corner? No, he's not the one who gets to decide that the defense and OL aren't good enough for the philosophy. Seems to me he got dealt a bad hand by those above him and was likely told to play it the same way until we were down to two blinds.

True.

But there were some individual play calls that were "off schedule" situationally, and those are Bevell. It was always a handful of plays per game, where you just could not figure out how the play made situational sense, or mathced the personnel group on the field, and the only explanation was it was meant to trick the defense.
I feel like the seamless change we see now was in part because many of these spread plays were in the offense already.
And Bevell does get blamed for things that are Pete.
But we had enough examples of gameplans featuring short quick passing to know we could do it. In 2013 December was ugly, with a beat up O-line underlying losses to SF and a home loss to the Cards. The offense was stagnant, it simply could not give enough time to Russ to execute play action. And those division rivals were sitting on that play action anyway. So to finish the season, we beat the Rams handily with a short pass attack that featured numerous slants to Baldwin and especially Tate. It was out of our character, but it took the heat off the O-line.

In 2014 again, injuries to the line, a scuffling offense struggling to get over 20 points per game, and we are facing a Cards team that likes to blitz. So a lot of blitz beaters were called. Quick passes that garnered YAC.

The quicker to develop plays have been there before, even been the primary game plan before.
The frustration for this year was how many playcalls put the burden of good pass pro on a group with no experience. how we would dial up play action when no run threat had yet been established. THe philosophy may be Petes, but the call sheet is in Bevell's hands.

I am happy as hell tht our offensive identity has been turned on it's ear. taking the burden off the defense is going to pay huge dividends in turnovers. If this stays the new identity of the offense, our receivers can lose some of the pedestrian reputation they have unfairly acquired. Our line, without the burden of having to protect slow developing play action, can lose some negative spotlight.

In a way, we were both wrong and right. I was wrong to lay too much of the offensive failure on Bevell. But the fact that a shift in philosophy has the offense suddenly looking good means that dumb ass fans like myself who called for a quicker developing offense were not total finger pointing morons either. And play action on third or 4th and long will never be smart. I am pretty sure you can understand why I was frustrated with playcalls, knowing that they often exposed our own weaknesses, not a weakness on the defense.

I really do think that given the skillset of our WR group, a spread attack can have us as one of the best offenses in the NFL long term. It minimizes the weakness of the line, prevents defenses from stacking the box to stop the run, and using that stack to disguise blitzes, maximizes the YAC potential our receivers possess, minimizes the pass blocking deficits of out tight end group, and used with combination routes working off each other, eases the burden on the QB immensely.

Funny how the execution is suddenly good now that the offense very, very different.

 

[Ozzy]

Good discussion guys, appreciate the exchange.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Yet, Russell has the best career numbers for any other QB into their 4th year and the offensive as a whole has resulted in NFL leading stats in the throwing and running game since he was drafted. Does that sort of production happen with a weak link on the coaching staff, especially when the offense has never really been loaded with talent?

If we're going to point to the one thing that's changed the last few games, I don't think it's the scheme. Yes, there's been tweaks to the scheme, but it's more the offensive coming together as a whole which has open things up for the passing game, especially the offensive line blocking better and Thomas Rawls. It's no coincidence that with a stellar running game in the last 3 weeks, like year 1-3, that Russell is more effective and that when there is no run game (first 8 games of the season) his performance goes down. It's the philosophy that Pete's been preaching since he got here. The pass game is reliant on the run game and vice versa.

The offense had all the same parts, plus Graham, and was average in the first half of the year. Its not like the offense is more talented right now than it was in the first half of the season, In fact, it's down two of its biggest stars.

And yet, the offense has been a revelation the past three weeks, and it's not a random hot streak. There are reasons behind it. First, the switch to Rawls (who fits the new OL much better than an aging Lynch). Second, an emphasis on getting the ball out to help our pass protection. Third, there's been a dramatic increase in spread concepts to help Wilson's pre-snap reads (and hurrying to the line a bit better to give Wilson more freedom to audible). Fourth, using route combinations to get our receivers open easily.

But undo all those changes, go back to Lynch, and become a run and hold the ball to throw deep team, and the offense would revert to being okay but not great, and terrible in the RZ.

I think Bevell deserves a ton of credit for his role in those changes. Seattle has had the best offense in football the past month. And to me, it highlights how far the offense was from its potential prior to these changes during the past 3+ seasons.

So I'm all for praising Bevell's work the past few weeks and I think his outlook is totally different now. But was he a good OC before a month ago? I don't think so.

I agree completely with your #1 and #2 points (and add the o-line is hitting their stride). However, with #3, I don't see the dramatic increase of spread offenses that you and Scotte see (though the fact both you see this means I might be wrong here lol). I do see a slight uptick in these calls, but that doesn't explain the majority of success the offense has had recently, imo.

For example, take the 2nd drive of the Vikings game that lead to a 81 yard TD. There was nothing really new to what they've done in the past and from what I can tell, only a little obvious spread concept used. They ran only 1 play out of empty set and it was called back for a false start. All of the other plays ran were the usual 2-te sets, 2-rb offset I, or 3 wr sets they've been running all year. Even the TD run by Rawls was a 2-te and 2-rb set or "Big I" formation. So what changed if it wasn't because if it's new spread concepts? They executed well. It took all season, but they finally ran a RB screen for positive yards. They also ran a WR screen that worked for 10 yards and a TE screen that worked for 21 yards.

That's not to say that the addition of new spread concepts aren't helping, just that it's a combination of their new stuff and old stuff coming together which is why they are so dangerous right now.

As to your #4 point, the route combinations, I think you're right. This is where a big differences has been, but not so much about getting receivers open (IMO receivers have been getting open before), but about making the reads and decision making process easier for Russell.

They've been quick routes called in the early part of the season, but the problem, IMO, had been that they've combine these short routes with longer developing routes, so what was happening was a lot of quick routes that were getting open were ignored in favor of the longer developing routes that we're getting killed because our offensive line couldn't hold their blocks long enough.

What's helped, imo, is that they aren't designing plays requiring multiple level reads, but instead calling their quick passing plays using only short routes which force Russ to throw with timing and on the deep routes using spread concepts which keep the reads easy with the use of 2-man route combinations.

A few examples. On the short stuff:

The two bunch routes of the 2nd gif isn't even a good play design (or kearse ran the wrong route), but it demonstrates that a quick pass with timing gets you the easy yards that keeps the offense on schedule.

On the longer developing routes the spread concepts are being utilized the best. It seems they've been having a lot of success using a lot 2 WR combination routes that make it easier to read like this throw to Lockett.

Edit: I apologize if It reads like I'm trying to teach you something, Kearly. I'm not. Mostly, I'm just sharing thoughts out loud.