Ifs, whiffs, and gifs.

[Zebulon Dak]

I still can't believe a play was called that had Jimmy blocking in that situation. The one guy who is technically always more open than any other player on the team was not in the endzone.

Do you get the feeling that these guys game plan offensively with virtual disregard for the situation or personnel on the field? Like, we need a TD, let's keep Jimmy in to block and rely on somebody like Lockette to make a play, is basically treated the same as if it were Willosn & Kearse, or anybody else really, in the same roles.?

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Scotte, do you have an idea what the break down of assignments were on the wide open pass play to Cook?

It seemed pre-snap, Bailey and Irvin were handling the two tight ends on the strong side and that Cary Williams and KJ Wright were covering Tavon Austin. Is that right?

After Cook motioned across the formation was Bailey supposed to follow him and Bruce stayed with the inline TE 1-on-1 or could it have been that Bailey and Cary were supposed to switch assignments?

Pete said he though Cary had a great game, so that tells me it probably was on Bailey to follow Cook.

Also, the first play with Lockette's and Graham's route converging into each other is just rubbish play design (unless Graham took it too deep or Lockette to shallow).

If nobody followed him on the motion, it was a zone, and Foles probably knew where he was going before the snap. I assumed Wagner had Cook, but I can't say for sure who screwed up. I do love that play design though. In fact, up the page on one of the bailey screwups they run another nice 3 man combo route that messes up the zone on the right side.

I could be wrong, but the way Seattle played it didn't look like zone.

Sherman is on the outside and is covering his guy the whole way. If it was cover 3 wouldn't Sherm have dropped into his deep 3rd coverage where Cook ended up? The rest of the D looked like they were quick to cover a single guy, as well.

Another note on that play. The use of Tavon Austin lined up in the backfield might have led to some confusion there. That's 2 TDs (including KC's Maclin in preseason and Austin's TD run) over a handful of games and that play where a receiver in the backfield have given Seattle trouble. Something to be aware of for Seattle moving forward.

 

[Smellyman]

Awesome post and thread. Thanks Scotte. On the first video highlight it seems that Russell didn't even look to the other side of the field. He targeted Lynch from the get go and stuck with it. Isn't this the type of play many of us criticize Kaep for. I'm in no way suggesting that Wilson is consistently playing like Kaep but on that play he executed like Kaep would do.

Russell's best year was 2013, IMO. He's fallen a bit in 2014 and thus far is shaky in 2015 but the season has just started so there's time. I hope he gets back to his play in 2013. He just seems a bit distracted the past couple of years. It's all fixable and I'm sure he will work to improve and fix it.

Because there is a blitz in his face on the right side and there is 0 time to go to second receiver. Two blitzing LB's on the right side actually. You also usually throw into the blitz not away from it.

Lynch was the hot receiever and Baldwin was on a deep route.

Kaep would get criticized for having a clean pocket and staring at a guy for 5 seconds. RW had about .3 seconds on that play.

c'mon people

 

[Recon_Hawk]

I still can't believe a play was called that had Jimmy blocking in that situation. The one guy who is technically always more open than any other player on the team was not in the endzone.

Do you get the feeling that these guys game plan offensively with virtual disregard for the situation or personnel on the field? Like, we need a TD, let's keep Jimmy in to block and rely on somebody like Lockette to make a play?

Somewhat I do. I think the thought process is to not tip anything to the defense based on personnel or usage. If Jimmy releases on every play action it would be easy to ignore the run fake.

 

[Scottemojo]

I still can't believe a play was called that had Jimmy blocking in that situation. The one guy who is technically always more open than any other player on the team was not in the endzone.

Do you get the feeling that these guys game plan offensively with virtual disregard for the situation or personnel on the field? Like, we need a TD, let's keep Jimmy in to block and rely on somebody like Lockette to make a play, is basically treated the same as if it were Willosn & Kearse, or anybody else really, in the same roles.?

Jimmy probably had to block, like in the backfield next to a tackle, more times Sunday than the rest of his career combined.

I don't know how they game plan offensively. I mean, most of the time it is pretty obvious what they intend from a playcall. But personnel? I wonder. I know that Graham was brought here to fix red zones issues. But calling plays that treat him like Zach Miller won't do shit for red zone issues. Jimmy pretty much blocks like a basketball player. Cuz, he is.

 

[Ozzy]

Great stuff and thanks for taking the time to share. My main complaint isn't usually the actual call although the one to end the half was terrible but now the personel is used. You highlighted it perfectly. Wish brock would ask these questions when talking to Pete on mondays.

 

[Hawks46]

Yea, it's weird, it's like offensive play calling has nothing to do with what the personnel on the field are capable of.

I've also seen a decided lack of hot routes on blitzes. Some offenses have a certain guy called and it's in there, some offenses it's on the WRs to recognize blitz and break off into a hot route if it's available. I have no idea what Bevell has them do.

On that 2nd gif, I have no idea how Wilson doesn't see that guy coming over the middle. He has no pressure on him, it almost looks like he took his eyes from down field to the rush. I'd also agree that Wilson looked better in 2013 than he does now. I'm not sure if he's regressed because he's had a shitty OL the entire time or what, but there are times when he's watching the pass rush and not downfield, which is a no no for QBs.

I'm curious to see how GB plays us. The last two games, they've had our number in coverage, playing cover 1 and cover 2 robber a lot and jumping a lot of Wilson's throws. You would think having a WR that gets instant separation like Lockett, or a big, fast target with a huge catch radius like Graham would change things, but so far, we've used Graham exactly like we would've used Miller.

 

[Smellyman]

Yea, it's weird, it's like offensive play calling has nothing to do with what the personnel on the field are capable of.

I've also seen a decided lack of hot routes on blitzes. Some offenses have a certain guy called and it's in there, some offenses it's on the WRs to recognize blitz and break off into a hot route if it's available. I have no idea what Bevell has them do.

On that 2nd gif, I have no idea how Wilson doesn't see that guy coming over the middle. He has no pressure on him, it almost looks like he took his eyes from down field to the rush. I'd also agree that Wilson looked better in 2013 than he does now. I'm not sure if he's regressed because he's had a shitty OL the entire time or what, but there are times when he's watching the pass rush and not downfield, which is a no no for QBs.

I'm curious to see how GB plays us. The last two games, they've had our number in coverage, playing cover 1 and cover 2 robber a lot and jumping a lot of Wilson's throws. You would think having a WR that gets instant separation like Lockett, or a big, fast target with a huge catch radius like Graham would change things, but so far, we've used Graham exactly like we would've used Miller.

confidence may be shaky with a crap OL, but he also had good WR's in the past. As I mentiond in the Ringless/Bevell thread. Kearse and Lockette are useless and not reliable. quit putting those punters out there.

 

[Scottemojo]

Yea, it's weird, it's like offensive play calling has nothing to do with what the personnel on the field are capable of.

I've also seen a decided lack of hot routes on blitzes. Some offenses have a certain guy called and it's in there, some offenses it's on the WRs to recognize blitz and break off into a hot route if it's available. I have no idea what Bevell has them do.

On that 2nd gif, I have no idea how Wilson doesn't see that guy coming over the middle. He has no pressure on him, it almost looks like he took his eyes from down field to the rush. I'd also agree that Wilson looked better in 2013 than he does now. I'm not sure if he's regressed because he's had a shitty OL the entire time or what, but there are times when he's watching the pass rush and not downfield, which is a no no for QBs.

I'm curious to see how GB plays us. The last two games, they've had our number in coverage, playing cover 1 and cover 2 robber a lot and jumping a lot of Wilson's throws. You would think having a WR that gets instant separation like Lockett, or a big, fast target with a huge catch radius like Graham would change things, but so far, we've used Graham exactly like we would've used Miller.

Well, not exactly. After that crappy first half, I noted Wilson looking for Graham a lot more. But I get what you are saying.

The insistence I see on offensive guys fitting what we do is so disparate to the D, where we tailor things to personnel very well.

I hope Bevell figures it out. I don't like his playcalling all that much, but when he calls good games, and he has, I will not be shy about saying so.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

I swear they don't call stuff based on personnel. They rotate guys in and out at WR & TE and just expect them to fill the role of the play called. They don't think "ok, this is the situation and this is what we need to happen so we better have A do this and B do this and C do this". Not since Percy at least, where it was clear that they were trying to get him the ball. 3s & 4s are expected to be able to do the same things as 1s & 2s. It's like they expect no drop off as they go down the depth chart. It's really interesting to me.

And it's the same thing when it comes to the situation. When people question Bevell's situational awareness. I think that's just it, Pete doesn't require him to use it. Or have it. Just call plays that you think will work and mix it up. It's why 4th & 1 might be a delayed hand off, or it might be a rub/slant route or it might be a seam route to the end zone. Call a play that you think will work and don't worry about what down it is or how many yards to the line to gain. Some times you end up looking like a genius and sometimes you end up looking like a schmuck.

I'm far from an expert. This is just the way I'm seeing things.

 

[Scottemojo]

I swear they don't call stuff based on personnel. They rotate guys in and out at WR & TE and just expect them to fill the role of the play called. They don't think "ok, this is the situation and this is what we need to happen so we better have A do this and B do this and C do this". Not since Percy at least, where it was clear that they were trying to get him the ball. 3s & 4s are expected to be able to do the same things as 1s & 2s. It's like they expect no drop off as they go down the depth chart. It's really interesting to me.

And it's the same thing when it comes to the situation. When people question Bevell's situational awareness. I think that's just it, Pete doesn't require him to use it. Or have it. Just call plays that you think will work and mix it up. It's why 4th & 1 might be a delayed hand off, or it might be a rub/slant route or it might be a seam route to the end zone. Call a play that you think will work and don't worry about what down it is or how many yards to the line to gain. Some times you end up looking like a genius and sometimes you end up looking like a schmuck.

I'm far from an expert. This is just the way I'm seeing things.

I know you think I am a bevell basher. And I am, so good on you for your awareness. But it isn't a play being guessed right by the other team that bothers me, and never has. It is when I can't explain why that play call had an above average chance of working. Early in the Rams game there is a play where the Rams buzz a 9th guy into the box to stop Lynch. Now, that does not bother me at all if the Hawks run, a well designed zone block can put 4 on 4 blocking on one side and if he gets through that first wall, big ass play. But when they show blitz and there are no hot routes, that just doesn't make any sense.

Can you imagine Phil Jackson ever devising a game plan where he had Shaq shooting 3 pointers a few times a game? That is what Bevell's playcalls feel like a handful of times per game. Mostly explainable. But sometimes you just scratch your head and wonder WTF was that I just saw?

 

[HansGruber]

I thought a worse play by Bailey was this one. The first one was a physical mistake, this play he doesn't appear to know what he is doing.

Not a surprise. It's the kid's first game in the pro's. Hopefully, he'll get a chance to develop his skills with the Kam holdout. I expect to see some more fubars this Sunday for Bailey, but hoping he'll turn it around in a few weeks.

 

[HansGruber]

I swear they don't call stuff based on personnel. They rotate guys in and out at WR & TE and just expect them to fill the role of the play called. They don't think "ok, this is the situation and this is what we need to happen so we better have A do this and B do this and C do this". Not since Percy at least, where it was clear that they were trying to get him the ball. 3s & 4s are expected to be able to do the same things as 1s & 2s. It's like they expect no drop off as they go down the depth chart. It's really interesting to me.

And it's the same thing when it comes to the situation. When people question Bevell's situational awareness. I think that's just it, Pete doesn't require him to use it. Or have it. Just call plays that you think will work and mix it up. It's why 4th & 1 might be a delayed hand off, or it might be a rub/slant route or it might be a seam route to the end zone. Call a play that you think will work and don't worry about what down it is or how many yards to the line to gain. Some times you end up looking like a genius and sometimes you end up looking like a schmuck.

I'm far from an expert. This is just the way I'm seeing things.

Sadly, this is exactly how I feel about it as well. It was depressing to hear Holmgren, the most predictable offensive play-caller in the history of the NFL, calling out the team for some really putrid play-calls (in his polite, non-critical way).

The Bevell situation is just so beyond me. Why demand competition if you're going to keep a two-bit hack at OC? The dude sucks and EVERYONE knows it. And why can't some team hire him away? WTF? It's like watching the Seahawks in 2006 and knowing Tim Ruskell isn't going anywhere. He just cost you your HOF LG, your star RB, and your QB with his stupidity, and nothing will be done about it.

Argh.

 

[Siouxhawk]

On the play before the half, why doesn't RW pull the trigger earlier and hit Marshawn at the 5? He'd be in isolation with the corner and I like Marshawn's chances to shed the tackle. I don't think it was a questionable play call at all.

 

[DavidSeven]

Last play: Could it be that the intention was to draw the DB off Baldwin in the corner toward Lynch and then throw it to him in the endzone? When I first saw this, I wondered why he didn't throw it earlier to Lynch but then wondered if Lynch was a decoy until the play didn't develop as they hoped. Not sure Baldwin is the best target for that in any event.

Unexplainable play action is just dumb to me, why do you want your QB looking anywhere but at his targets on a play where the D is not going to bite on PA (an I will point out that the Rams were not fooled even a bit)

I don't usually get to hung up on if the other team knew you were going to run or pass. I simply don't understand making the play harder than it has to be, especially given the clock and location.

I'm just spit-balling, but I think one explanation is that weren't trying to fake them at the handoff, but still had to go through the motion to draw attention to Lynch on his route. The PA may just be a mechanism to get everything in motion; I notice they aren't even bothering to sell the handoff. They wanted the Rams to guess pass, but they wanted them to guess a pass to Lynch. Just in watching it unfold, I think they were hoping the back-end CB might pull off Doug if he saw Wilson's eyes fixed on Lynch. That's the misdirection in this play. Obviously, it didn't work, but really the only way to explain why Russell delivered the ball to Lynch so late.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Last play: Could it be that the intention was to draw the DB off Baldwin in the corner toward Lynch and then throw it to him in the endzone? When I first saw this, I wondered why he didn't throw it earlier to Lynch but then wondered if Lynch was a decoy until the play didn't develop as they hoped. Not sure Baldwin is the best target for that in any event.

Unexplainable play action is just dumb to me, why do you want your QB looking anywhere but at his targets on a play where the D is not going to bite on PA (an I will point out that the Rams were not fooled even a bit)

I don't usually get to hung up on if the other team knew you were going to run or pass. I simply don't understand making the play harder than it has to be, especially given the clock and location.

I'm just spit-balling, but I think one explanation is that weren't trying to fake them at the handoff, but still had to go through the motion to draw attention to Lynch on his route. The PA may just be a mechanism to get everything in motion; I notice they aren't even bothering to sell the handoff. They wanted the Rams to guess pass, but they wanted them to guess a pass to Lynch. Just in watching it unfold, I think they were hoping the back-end CB might pull off Doug if he saw Wilson's eyes fixed on Lynch. That's the misdirection in this play. Obviously, it didn't work, but really the only way to explain why Russell delivered the ball to Lynch so late.

That makes sense to me. Fire Bevell.

 

[ivotuk]

THis play was always going at Bailey. It was an Iso, and the ball is actually out before he falls.

I thought a worse play by Bailey was this one. The first one was a physical mistake, this play he doesn't appear to know what he is doing.

Actually I think that was Cary WIlliams responsibility with KJ taking Tavon Austin.

I know this stuff takes a long time to put together, and you are always very thorough Scotte, so thank you for doing this. Every year the input to this site from it's members gets better and better. It's to the point that I trust what I read on here a lot more than most of what I read elsewhere that is written by people paid to do so.

 

[WilsonMVP]

Awesome post and thread. Thanks Scotte. On the first video highlight it seems that Russell didn't even look to the other side of the field. He targeted Lynch from the get go and stuck with it.

More I look at it, the more I think the ugliness of that 1st play is on Wilson. I just don't think Lynch is the correct pre-snap read, as you said. No threat to go deep, so the DB isn't going to play off. He'll play close and try to jump it, which he does.

The other side looks more favorable pre-snap, and Lockett gets the CB off Baldwin with the rub. I think they ran something similar to this against the blitz in the New Orleans playoff game (play where Baldwin gets his helmet ripped off while falling out of bounds).

Even if he was looking left I dont think he could even get that pass off. If you count from the snap im guessing he had 1.5 to 2 sec if we are being very generous before 3 defenders were in his face?

 

[Scottemojo]

On the play before the half, why doesn't RW pull the trigger earlier and hit Marshawn at the 5? He'd be in isolation with the corner and I like Marshawn's chances to shed the tackle. I don't think it was a questionable play call at all.

You don't see a single thing wrong with playfaking a handoff to lynch so you can then throw a pass to Lynch while your best red zone catching threat blocks?

Answer me this, which play has a higher chance of success, a pass to Graham in the end zone, or a pass to Lynch at the 5? You have a TO left, so as long as you don't chew up all the clock the FG is in the bag, but a pass into the endzone to a guy who has caught dozens of those passes over the last4 years certainly seems like a better option than a play action swing pass. With a rollout.

 

[Scottemojo]

THis play was always going at Bailey. It was an Iso, and the ball is actually out before he falls.

I thought a worse play by Bailey was this one. The first one was a physical mistake, this play he doesn't appear to know what he is doing.

Actually I think that was Cary WIlliams responsibility with KJ taking Tavon Austin.

I know this stuff takes a long time to put together, and you are always very thorough Scotte, so thank you for doing this. Every year the input to this site from it's members gets better and better. It's to the point that I trust what I read on here a lot more than most of what I read elsewhere that is written by people paid to do so.

Noted and corrected above. I had the wrong name in my notes