Everyone's blaming Bevell, but......

[Sgt. Largent]

This whole thread is using this last game as evidence of his inibility to perform.

There are more factors at play than just play calling.

Welcome to .Net, let me show you around.

 

[hawker84]

This whole thread is using this last 4 years as evidence of his inibility to perform.

There are more factors at play than just play calling.

Welcome to .Net, let me show you around.

FIFY....... I think you'd be hard pressed to find very many (if any) posters who's turned on Bevell just because of Sunday night.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

I think some are missing or maybe ignoring the penalties in this game. Virtually every time we had success of any kind it was met with a major penalty. Some where the next series after a first down and some just killed a good play but there is no ignoring that the type and timing of penalties were the biggest factor of why our offense never got anything going.

Not saying it was intentional by the refs, though you could make a good argument but through the entire regular period of play right down to the last offensive series were after a first down and looking like we could potentially get into field goal range, we found ourselves penalized 20 yards backwards looking at a 1st and 30 with no shot at getting back into field goal range.

Once regulation ended and the officials held they're flags we moved the ball at will.

Seems like some want to blame Bevell for the penalties along with the drops and bad passes.

Personally if they just stopped the microscope ticky tacky calls I think we win this game pretty easily and look good doing it.

Not saying Bevell is great but I just don't understand how you can ignore everything else and blame him for everything that took place in that game. Unless you have an agenda.

Who has blamed him for the penalties? If they have I must have missed it. Most are simply tired of the bland play calling and lack of (perceived) adaptation to the game plan. If a team doesn't adapt, then they will usually lose.

This whole thread is using this last game as evidence of his inibility to perform.

There are more factors at play than just play calling.

If you subtracted all the dropped passes, penalties, sacks, fumbles, massive pressure, getting rid of ball, and just plain poor execution how many plays would we have left? Bevell is not infallible but come on. Everyone is to blame for this game one on offense. How do you adjust to 3rd and 35???

I guess there was a magic set of plays that would have let us dominate the Cards D and Bevell did not use it. It is so easy to pass judgement after a play sitting in your living room on what should have happened. Sheesh.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

After having looked at the game a second time I have a couple of takeaways:

1. Commit to the run. Michael has been the most productive offensive player for weeks. Wilson is not 100%. We need to account for that and we aren't. That is on Bevell.

To note:

1st quarter: 2 called run plays out of 9.
2nd quarter: 3 called run plays out of 11.
3rd quarter: 4 called run plays out of 11.
4th quarter: 3 called run plays out of 18.
Overtime: 7 called run plays out of 15.

We just aren't committing to the run. Period. What's worse is we're still putting out the 11 personnel groupings that are most effective due to Wilson's threat to run. We don't have that and defenses are not honoring that. That is a game plan failure pure and simple. We cannot continue to run the offense we installed in August and the one we excelled with at the end of last season by way of circumstance. The longer we willfully ignore the current reality -- the longer this ugly streak will endure.

2. Penalties are killing us.

This has been a persistent thorn in Seattle's side for years. Carroll clearly doesn't care about penalties. And when you're good enough to surmount your infractions -- nobody else does either. But Seattle isn't that good right now. And pretty much every drive with any kind of penalty (even on first down) is resulting in a punt within that same series of downs.

I'd say it's too late to all of a sudden instill a more focused regard for the rules. Seattle plays in the gray area by intent and design. And that's just a function of how the team is built from a philosophy perspective. This is not a Holmgren type of club. Which is both good and bad. But right now we're being undone because we're not explosive enough to work around infractions.

3. Execution on third down

It's the money down. And I'll dovetail this with the penalties for effect (Red = execution failure, Yellow = Penalty):

D1: 3rd/1. Wilson misreads option and keeps. -2 yards. Michael has that first.
D2: 3rd/4. Vannett drops. Wilson delivers a hot ball needlessly. Had first down.
D3: 3rd/6: Throwaway. Defense played well.
D4: 3rd/10: Incomplete to well covered RIchardson. Worth noting that hold call was declined anyway.
D5: 3rd/5: Baldwin for 16. But holding call forces 3rd/15
D5: 3rd/15: Incomplete. Possibility of bail out roughing the passer call but not egregious.
D6: 3rd/3: Graham for 14
D6: 3rd/24: Procise for 8. Thanks to OPI call on Kearse and false start on Sowell.
D7: 3rd/3: Pass deflected to Wilson for -1
D8: 3rd/25: Procise for 9. Holding on Sowell on 1st and 10
D9: 3rd/29: Baldwin for 13. Strip sack/fumble on 2nd down for - 20 killed drive
D10: 3rd/20: McEvoy for 10. Holding on Williams on 1st down
D11: No 3rd down. Seattle driving to AZ side of midfield. Hold by Gilliam. Second hold by Fant. Potential winning FG shot aborted.

These execution problems and penalties aren't part of the gameplan. These are mistakes made by players period. Each individually making up a stinky whole.

Looking at these failures, it's impossible for me to lay the lion's share of the blame at Bevell's feet. In reality, other than the philosophical difference I personally have with our collective stubbornness to adapt to our current limitations, I don't see a problem with Bevell at all. If even half of these issues don't occur, we're winning this thing like 13-3 or something close.

In looking at the plays though, here's the play by play result: runs (red) v. pass (yellow)

1. 0
2. 9
3. -2
4. 0
5. 6
6. 0
7. 0
8. 4
9. 0
10. 3
11. 10
12. 0
13. 0
14. 0
15. 6
16, 6
17. 0
18. 5
19. -10
20 0
21. 4
22. 3
23. 14
24. -10
25. -1
25. 2
26. 8
27. 3
28. 4
29. -1
30. 9
31. 5
32. -10
33. 0
34. -5
35. 9
36. 1
37. -20
38. 13
39. -10
40. 0
41. 0
42. 10
43. 8
44. 17
45. -10
46. -10

Kind of easy to see that we abandoned the run from beginning to end. Despite having pretty good success when we did run it.

I'm really hoping that we just run the ball and be damned with it for a couple weeks.

 

[Uncle Si]

This whole thread is using this last game as evidence of his inibility to perform.

There are more factors at play than just play calling.

the Dolphins and Rams games went unnoticed?

 

[Year of The Hawk]

After having looked at the game a second time I have a couple of takeaways:

1. Commit to the run. Michael has been the most productive offensive player for weeks. Wilson is not 100%. We need to account for that and we aren't. That is on Bevell.

To note:

1st quarter: 2 called run plays out of 9.
2nd quarter: 3 called run plays out of 11.
3rd quarter: 4 called run plays out of 11.
4th quarter: 3 called run plays out of 18.
Overtime: 7 called run plays out of 15.

We just aren't committing to the run. Period. What's worse is we're still putting out the 11 personnel groupings that are most effective due to Wilson's threat to run. We don't have that and defenses are not honoring that. That is a game plan failure pure and simple. We cannot continue to run the offense we installed in August and the one we excelled with at the end of last season by way of circumstance. The longer we willfully ignore the current reality -- the longer this ugly streak will endure.

2. Penalties are killing us.

This has been a persistent thorn in Seattle's side for years. Carroll clearly doesn't care about penalties. And when you're good enough to surmount your infractions -- nobody else does either. But Seattle isn't that good right now. And pretty much every drive with any kind of penalty (even on first down) is resulting in a punt within that same series of downs.

I'd say it's too late to all of a sudden instill a more focused regard for the rules. Seattle plays in the gray area by intent and design. And that's just a function of how the team is built from a philosophy perspective. This is not a Holmgren type of club. Which is both good and bad. But right now we're being undone because we're not explosive enough to work around infractions.

3. Execution on third down

It's the money down. And I'll dovetail this with the penalties for effect (Red = execution failure, Yellow = Penalty):

D1: 3rd/1. Wilson misreads option and keeps. -2 yards. Michael has that first.
D2: 3rd/4. Vannett drops. Wilson delivers a hot ball needlessly. Had first down.
D3: 3rd/6: Throwaway. Defense played well.
D4: 3rd/10: Incomplete to well covered RIchardson. Worth noting that hold call was declined anyway.
D5: 3rd/5: Baldwin for 16. But holding call forces 3rd/15
D5: 3rd/15: Incomplete. Possibility of bail out roughing the passer call but not egregious.
D6: 3rd/3: Graham for 14
D6: 3rd/24: Procise for 8. Thanks to OPI call on Kearse and false start on Sowell.
D7: 3rd/3: Pass deflected to Wilson for -1
D8: 3rd/25: Procise for 9. Holding on Sowell on 1st and 10
D9: 3rd/29: Baldwin for 13. Strip sack/fumble on 2nd down for - 20 killed drive
D10: 3rd/20: McEvoy for 10. Holding on Williams on 1st down
D11: No 3rd down. Seattle driving to AZ side of midfield. Hold by Gilliam. Second hold by Fant. Potential winning FG shot aborted.

These execution problems and penalties aren't part of the gameplan. These are mistakes made by players period. Each individually making up a stinky whole.

Looking at these failures, it's impossible for me to lay the lion's share of the blame at Bevell's feet. In reality, other than the philosophical difference I personally have with our collective stubbornness to adapt to our current limitations, I don't see a problem with Bevell at all. If even half of these issues don't occur, we're winning this thing like 13-3 or something close.

In looking at the plays though, here's the play by play result: runs (red) v. pass (yellow)

1. 0
2. 9
3. -2
4. 0
5. 6
6. 0
7. 0
8. 4
9. 0
10. 3
11. 10
12. 0
13. 0
14. 0
15. 6
16, 6
17. 0
18. 5
19. -10
20 0
21. 4
22. 3
23. 14
24. -10
25. -1
25. 2
26. 8
27. 3
28. 4
29. -1
30. 9
31. 5
32. -10
33. 0
34. -5
35. 9
36. 1
37. -20
38. 13
39. -10
40. 0
41. 0
42. 10
43. 8
44. 17
45. -10
46. -10

Kind of easy to see that we abandoned the run from beginning to end. Despite having pretty good success when we did run it.

I'm really hoping that we just run the ball and be damned with it for a couple weeks.

Thank you for digging deep. This is the stuff I was talking about. I agree Bevell needs to adjust more to what limitations we have but this past game there were many limitations.

 

[12thbrah]

This whole thread is using this last game as evidence of his inibility to perform.

There are more factors at play than just play calling.

the Dolphins and Rams games went unnoticed?

I would think again its more O-line issues than play calling. Dolphins, Rams and even the Cardinals now have elite d-lines and edge pass rushers. It seems like every snap either the pocket collapses immediately or there is a holding penalty that negates any decent gain.

 

[Smelly McUgly]

I'm just in shock at how bad this offense is. Yeah, the strategy of going cheap on the OL is a major part of the issue.

HOWEVER, I don't get how with a gimpy QB playing against a defense that is aggressive, we didn't call something like a counter until the fourth. I don't get how we have ONE run in the first quarter. I don't get why we're dropping our gimpy QB back five or seven steps or sending him on the RO on third-and-two.

Look, I know that many of us think that we know more than we do because we can beat the computer on All-Madden level. I get that. But some of the stuff I see makes no sense to me at all. Yes, sometimes it's execution. But some of the stuff we're doing on its face, knowing what the other team's tendencies are, don't make sense at all. I don't get even a sense of what the gameplan was supposed to be or why. Like, I could get that from losses where we don't execute, but most of the time, I don't even get why we're dialing up the things that we are.

Yes, it could definitely be just that I don't understand because I don't know enough. Sometimes, though, I feel like the playcalling is meant to be cute more than effective, a zig where we'd normally zag because the zig is obvious, so why not swerve 'em?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Looking at these failures, it's impossible for me to lay the lion's share of the blame at Bevell's feet. In reality, other than the philosophical difference I personally have with our collective stubbornness to adapt to our current limitations, I don't see a problem with Bevell at all. If even half of these issues don't occur, we're winning this thing like 13-3 or something close..

Great post, I didn't quote all of it because it's long.........but right on all your points.

I do think Pete's TRYING to get back to running the ball, as he says each and every presser. But the combo of this atrocious O-line and C-Mike not having the ability to carry the load is the reason you see us abandoning the run so quickly in games.

My hope is that when Rawls comes back, he stays healthy and gives the offense the balance it desperately needs to be productive with a hurt Russell and opposing defenses just coming after him.

 

[hawker84]

Thanks for doing this.

AZ has a top 5 pass defense and I believe the run defense is 14? So ya, this game plan makes total sense. :229031_banghead:

 

[StoneCold]

Thanks for doing this.

AZ has a top 5 pass defense and I believe the run defense is 14? So ya, this game plan makes total sense. :229031_banghead:

Yes, thanks for doing this. We had the same issue vs Miami. All I heard all week was how weak they were against the run and we, much like the AZ game, come out with no back sets and a pass heavy plays.

Maybe there's something we don't know. Maybe they don't trust Michael. But it would be a good question to ask Pete or Bevel, though I realize they'd just give us coach speak. Maybe we'll learn what they were thinking when they're gone.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Thanks for doing this.

AZ has a top 5 pass defense and I believe the run defense is 14? So ya, this game plan makes total sense. :229031_banghead:

Yes, thanks for doing this. We had the same issue vs Miami. All I heard all week was how weak they were against the run and we, much like the AZ game, come out with no back sets and a pass heavy plays.

Maybe there's something we don't know. Maybe they don't trust Michael. But it would be a good question to ask Pete or Bevel, though I realize they'd just give us coach speak. Maybe we'll learn what they were thinking when they're gone.

Watch back the game, Arizona's scheme was pack the box with 8-9 defenders, press cover our dinged up receivers, chip the hell out of Jimmy cause he's also hurt...........and then smother Russell.

It's been our problem all year against good fronts, without the threat of Russell breaking containment or a RB that can get to the 2nd level without a clean running lane, there's not choice but to try and throw it to get the defense to back off.

Now I will criticize Pete, Russell and Bevell for two things.

1. Gotta move the pocket around more. I know that's hard with a bad O-line because it means they have to be even more sound and communicate, but that's how you stop teams from 8-9 in the box rushing you up the middle.

2. GO MORE UP TEMPO! Too much running the clock down to zero trying to get the perfect play and protection called. It also ruins momentum and tempo after a good play. Go four minute offense and crank up the tempo. Maybe that'd help get the offense in sync and Russell in rhythm.

 

[Sprfunk]

Come on Okie, I'm sure there is a logical explanation why you would call a bubble screen on 2nd and 20 from the opponents 15 yard line....

 

[OkieHawk]

Come on Okie, I'm sure there is a logical explanation why you would call a bubble screen on 2nd and 20 from the opponents 15 yard line....

Correct, if you add "il" to logical.

 

[mrt144]

Bad news is, our running game, despite the 4.2 YPC by Michael...not that good. Ranked 30th by DVOA.

Seriously, all this RW this, RW that, our run game is bustos.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Come on Okie, I'm sure there is a logical explanation why you would call a bubble screen on 2nd and 20 from the opponents 15 yard line....

Because draws and screens are the only way to try and get substantial yardage when your O-line is so terrible your QB literally has less than 2 seconds to get rid of the ball.

Also when your offense is playing so terrible you don't want to cancel out a FG opportunity by calling a risky throw into the endzone.

What play would have you called knowing the situation?

 

[OkieHawk]

Come on Okie, I'm sure there is a logical explanation why you would call a bubble screen on 2nd and 20 from the opponents 15 yard line....

Because draws and screens are the only way to try and get substantial yardage when your O-line is so terrible your QB literally has less than 2 seconds to get rid of the ball.

Also when your offense is playing so terrible you don't want to cancel out a FG opportunity by calling a risky throw into the endzone.

What play would have you called knowing the situation?

Inside slant to Jimmy.

 

[Attyla the Hawk]

Looking at these failures, it's impossible for me to lay the lion's share of the blame at Bevell's feet. In reality, other than the philosophical difference I personally have with our collective stubbornness to adapt to our current limitations, I don't see a problem with Bevell at all. If even half of these issues don't occur, we're winning this thing like 13-3 or something close..

Great post, I didn't quote all of it because it's long.........but right on all your points.

I do think Pete's TRYING to get back to running the ball, as he says each and every presser. But the combo of this atrocious O-line and C-Mike not having the ability to carry the load is the reason you see us abandoning the run so quickly in games.

My hope is that when Rawls comes back, he stays healthy and gives the offense the balance it desperately needs to be productive with a hurt Russell and opposing defenses just coming after him.

Thanks!

On the highlighted point though, I would argue that not only was the O line functional, but efficient (on run plays). And further that when we did run, we had success.

Michael isn't even given a chance to carry a measurable load. Which in our last game in AZ, he did and performed very well.

We didn't run it ever really from the very beginning. Even when our passing play results were just horrible. I would agree if we started running and it was effective and THEN started passing all over. But that didn't happen this week. We went into the game scripting passes almost exclusively. And then never deviated from that even despite the obvious efficacy of our rushing attack on the rare occasions we did lean on Michael.

The offensive philosophy seems almost constipated on this point. We have continually been reluctant to just feed Michael despite being a very effective runner when called on. Not being on the practice field, I can't say if this is something that the coaches see during the week that merits this very lukewarm embrace of the running game. For all anyone knows, there is a very real reason for this reluctance. All I can see on game day, is that he is producing when called on and not just him, but the offensive line as a whole. Which may be an even more salient point in the discussion.

It feels like we're almost intentionally trying to make the O line's life harder by forcing a game plan that they are ill equipped to handle just yet. Similar to last year's O line group, this line is pretty much brand new. I do believe we need to tailor the plan to their strengths until they get enough experience to expand their roles. And that strength seems to be run blocking. RIght now, they are a holding penalty waiting to happen and we're not explosive enough to surmount those penalties.

It is entirely possible that Rawls' return will also include a much greater commitment to the run. I'm hoping this is so. Wilson is gutting it out admirably but the combination of injury and penalty factory is just stunting our performances horribly.

I would caution though, that regardless of Rawls' return, the 11 personnel read run doesn't look like it'll ever be effective so long as Wilson can't provide a threat to run. We've been seeing teams change how they defend it by cheating the end to crash down on the back, but staying just enough in no man's land so that if Wilson does run, he has to do so wide -- and relying on their secondary to come up and make plays at the LOS. A healthy Wilson doesn't get stuffed at the LOS and gashes them for 6-12. The built in advantage of the read option is nullified currently and that unblocked end is making plays on the back.

We are going to need a different trick in the rushing attack until Wilson is his explosive self. Which may not happen this year. Maybe we go to 12 personnel more? Having Vannett and Graham/Williams could be an answer.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Come on Okie, I'm sure there is a logical explanation why you would call a bubble screen on 2nd and 20 from the opponents 15 yard line....

Because draws and screens are the only way to try and get substantial yardage when your O-line is so terrible your QB literally has less than 2 seconds to get rid of the ball.

Also when your offense is playing so terrible you don't want to cancel out a FG opportunity by calling a risky throw into the endzone.

What play would have you called knowing the situation?

Inside slant to Jimmy.

That's a timing play, and the Cards were press covering Jimmy off the line chipping him. He was barely able to run out routes and fades, let along a timing slant.

Even Doug wasn't running slants successfully, and he's our best slant route runner.

btw, it was 2nd and 20, what good does an inside slant do for 10 yards tops?

 

[OkieHawk]

btw, it was 2nd and 20, what good does an inside slant do for 10 yards tops?

You can get a quick slant off to a 6ft 7 TE quickly. 10 yards is better than 0 or a negative gain.