Is the weak link Bevell?

[billyberu]

Specifics people, specifics. I just read four pages of "Bevell sucks because Bevell sucks". You're seeing press man with 8 in the box. 1 or 0 safeties. What are you going to run to beat it? Okay.......Go!

Lets start with a WR screen to Golden Tate not any other WR, because GT can make something happen even if blocking is sub par. Swing route or screen to any RB would also be nice. Releasing the tight end down the seam instead of having him block. Slants to any WR. Here are four things to try, I'm not saying they'll work but thers at least worth a TRY. If those don't work, TRY something different. At the end of the day if something fails over and over again, TRY something new.

Hey, I appreciate you taking a crack at it! Somebody stepping up and putting some thought into it. Please keep in mind that I'm not trying to attack the poster. Love John L. by the way.

You can't run screens to WR's against press man. That's a pick six waiting to happen. I do like the routes to RB idea. That is a very good press man plan. The problem is that we just don't really have the kind of back that is going to punish teams that try to play man with a LB on our backs. Marshawn is a very good option against zone because you can get him the ball in the flat and make a CB try to tackle him. He isn't going to beat somebody to a spot though. The tight end down the seam can be okay if the TE has a huge catch radius or has the speed to beat a LB or Safety. Our TE's are better suited or making plays on crossing routes and outs, which we do try to run a little bit. Luke Willson should be a guy that can beat a LB on those types of routes, and we do try to hit him some.

The slant should be the staple against press man. If you can win on a slant route, you can get easy completions, for potentially huge gains. For an outside receiver, when you see press man, every route is going to automatically be converted to either a slant or a fade. This is where our personnel is becoming a problem. Defenses aren't stupid. They know these rules. So they know you're going to try to complete a slant. So what do they do? They play inside leverage and contest the slant and try to take it away. When the defense tries to anticipate the slant and take it away, you should be able to get separation on a fade, right? Good receivers can really throw a wrench into this. Take your Marshalls, Johnsons, Dez Bryants and those guys for example. Take away the slant, they're going to burn you on a fade. Get scared and get on your heels looking for the fade, and they're going to release hard inside on the slant, and all of a sudden, as a CB, you're in no-mans land. With our receivers, the CB can take away the slant, knowing full well that our guys aren't big or fast, and he can recover if it is a fade. There certainly is also an element of craft here. Great route runners can cause the separation almost through trickery, even if they aren't big or fast.

We're really struggling to get separation with the slant. We did have decent separation a handful of times on the fade against Arizona, but Russell misfired. Our guys weren't open by much, and it would have taken very good passes, but most of the passes he threw downfield just weren't catchable. Because we can't get separation through the slant or over the top on the fade, we're starting to see the tweener passes, which Russell prefers to throw to Kearse. We've seen a handful of back shoulder fades, which happen when the receiver doesn't win the route over the top, so the QB throws it behind the DB, who isn't looking, and is trying to sprint downfield to keep up with the fade. Heck, we've even seen a few front-shoulder fades, which I can't recall ever seeing before. Those are the throws where it looks like Russell just throws the ball into a crowd up the seam. They're really a result of nobody winning a route and being open, so Russell just has to throw it near a receiver and hope the guy can make a play on it.

RB screens may be worth a try. There are a few wrinkles here and there that could get a first down for us. But ultimately, if we can't win slant or fade routes, we're playing with our hands tied behind our backs. I know he is fun to whip, but it really has very little to do with Darrell Bevell. Just about every playcaller in modern NFL history would be calling those same routes.

Great post and quite informative. There are only a handful of posts in this whiney thread that are worth reading. Good analysis is the salve for the losing game blues.

 

[Uffda]

Just think he needs to know when to go off the cards/sheets/gameplan ? and adapt to the current situation/reality, faster...or at all.

 

[brimsalabim]

That doesn't sound encouraging at all Billy. How did we get this far?

 

[Hasselbeck]

I've been as critical as anyone about Bevell but the fact is.. Sundays game we ran into our kryptonite. Every team has such a thing, for example the 49ers kryptonite is us. I firmly believe that.

We've long struggled against the Cardinals, save for 58-0 last year, and they have the remedy to give us problems. Patrick Peterson is IMO the second best corner in football. So he basically took out whoever he was on. The Cardinals front 7 is also a very imposing force and again, has always given this team problems. You pair those two things together with Russell just being off all day .. And that was recipe for a loss.

Fortunately enough for us - not many teams match up this well with us like the Cardinals do. I know many point to the 49ers but their secondary is not in the same level as Arizona's.

Going forward though the whole offense will have to improve from Sunday but I don't know how they could manage to play worse. The Rams DL will pose problems but I think their secondary can be beat with a little more regularity than the Cardinals.

 

[plyka]

Specifics people, specifics. I just read four pages of "Bevell sucks because Bevell sucks". You're seeing press man with 8 in the box. 1 or 0 safeties. What are you going to run to beat it? Okay.......Go!

Did you see one of the only 3rd down conversions against the Cardinals? It was a 8 yard in route to Lockette with the inside WRs clearing the field with his run.

The plays are easy to come up with --we can define them by "Anything besides 50 yard bombs." They are called picks, bubble screens, flares, wheels, quick slants, quick seams, in routes, out routes, hook routes, route combos, short cross routes across the entire field, etc.

Basically, just go back to the Saints game and see how the Hawks moved the ball. The intermediate routes are not being utilized neither are any of the shorter stuff.

 

[brimsalabim]

Specifics people, specifics. I just read four pages of "Bevell sucks because Bevell sucks". You're seeing press man with 8 in the box. 1 or 0 safeties. What are you going to run to beat it? Okay.......Go!

That's parts on the OC and his staff. The defenses have made adjustments to what we were doing. Now It's our staffs job to figure out a way to exploit those changes.
It's a chess game and it comes with the job title.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I love how Tical basically takes almost all blame away from Bevell when we get blitzed on half our passing downs or more and throw no screens. Just have Marshawn and one of the TEs each chip somebody on the outside and have Russell throw to whichever one is more open immediately afterwards. It's stupidly simple, and it's effective.

Tical, you very obviously have a lot of knowledge, but to be honest I don't get how you can basically say there's nothing Bevell can do to get our offense going. There are non-elite offenses putting up decent points against decent-to-good defenses. The Lions put up 20 points on the Giants in Detroit with Stafford having 0 TDs and 2 ints, and Eli having 1 TD and 1 int. Our defense had 5 interceptions, (yes, one right before the half) and put up three more points than the Lions did. Woo. The Patriots put up 41 on the Ravens defense in Baltimore. (Yes, considering Brady's receiving options this year, that's not an elite offense.) The train wreck-of-2013 Falcons put up 24 on the 49ers in San Francisco. The freaking JETS put up 20 on the Panthers IN Carolina. How about the Titans putting up 34 on the Cardinals? The Cardinals putting up 30 points on the Rams?

These are all games that happened in the last three weeks. Think about those offenses versus those defenses regardless of who won. Are you seriously trying to tell us that there's virtually nothing that Bevell can do to improve our offense?

Christine Michael is supremely fast, you don't think activating him and doing the occasional reverse could be quite effective most of the time, for instance?

I simply don't buy it. There's way too much evidence to the contrary. Our offense has put up SIGNIFICANTLY below league average numbers for two straight weeks, and the downward trend started three weeks ago. The Cardinals defense is allowing an average of 20.1 points per game, we put up less than half of that on them. The Giants defense is allowing 25.1 points per game, and we put up 23. Nine interceptions by our defense in those two games and we couldn't even meet the league AVERAGE for offensive points scored against them.

It's pathetic, and there is absolutely no way in hell that Bevell is nearly blameless. None. It's impossible.

 

[Tical21]

I love how Tical basically takes almost all blame away from Bevell when we get blitzed on half our passing downs or more and throw no screens. Just have Marshawn and one of the TEs each chip somebody on the outside and have Russell throw to whichever one is more open immediately afterwards. It's stupidly simple, and it's effective.

Tical, you very obviously have a lot of knowledge, but to be honest I don't get how you can basically say there's nothing Bevell can do to get our offense going. There are non-elite offenses putting up decent points against decent-to-good defenses. The Lions put up 20 points on the Giants in Detroit with Stafford having 0 TDs and 2 ints, and Eli having 1 TD and 1 int. Our defense had 5 interceptions, (yes, one right before the half) and put up three more points than the Lions did. Woo. The Patriots put up 41 on the Ravens defense in Baltimore. (Yes, considering Brady's receiving options this year, that's not an elite offense.) The train wreck-of-2013 Falcons put up 24 on the 49ers in San Francisco. The freaking JETS put up 20 on the Panthers IN Carolina. How about the Titans putting up 34 on the Cardinals? The Cardinals putting up 30 points on the Rams?

These are all games that happened in the last three weeks. Think about those offenses versus those defenses regardless of who won. Are you seriously trying to tell us that there's virtually nothing that Bevell can do to improve our offense?

Christine Michael is supremely fast, you don't think activating him and doing the occasional reverse could be quite effective most of the time, for instance?

I simply don't buy it. There's way too much evidence to the contrary. Our offense has put up SIGNIFICANTLY below league average numbers for two straight weeks, and the downward trend started three weeks ago. The Cardinals defense is allowing an average of 20.1 points per game, we put up less than half of that on them. The Giants defense is allowing 25.1 points per game, and we put up 23. Nine interceptions by our defense in those two games and we couldn't even meet the league AVERAGE for offensive points scored against them.

It's pathetic, and there is absolutely no way in hell that Bevell is nearly blameless. None. It's impossible.

Well thought out and backed post. I'm really tired so I'm going to cut this really short. Where did the Michael line come from? I love his talent, would love him out there, but don't know if Bevell is to blame for him not playing.

As for the rest of the other teams. None of those teams have any single weakness as deficient as ours against press man and press man blitzes. We have a unique blend of subpar pass blocking, a QB whose instinct is to hold it a bit, and a WR core that can't get open against physical press coverage.

Screens, sure. We tried one to Marshawn and it got blown up. We should try more, I agree. Marshawn to me doesn't scream screen receiver, but I agree we should try when nothing else is working.

We could try to get cute with formations and pick plays to try and squeeze a little space underneath. I just hate that philosophy though. It just puts band-aids on the fact that you can't run a slant. The competitor in me would keep running the slant until we get it right. It is a freaking slant, shouldn't be that difficult.

I do want to point out that we had some guys semi-open down the field quite a few times. We just hit one or two of those, it is a different game, and maybe it is enough to scare them out of the coverage. They were begging us to beat them downfield, and we were never able to take advantage.

Think about it. You're the QB. When you line up, you see press man all over the field, and a single high safety. In essence, this signifies that the defense is laughing at you. You're licking your chops, right? You know you have to get rid of it quick, but all you have to do is lob it up. If your guys can get off the ball at all, you've got free deep passes. Well, our guys couldn't get off their defender, and when they did, Russell missed them. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but you've got to keep at it. And just about every coordinator college or pro would have done the same thing. This is exactly why we desperately needed Percy and/or Rice, and why I woudn't pay Tate big money.

 

[ivotuk]

I place a lot of blame on Cable. I'm extremely disappointed in the offensive line and especially our run game of late. He was given a big title, lots of influence, plenty of draft resources, and our running game has been going down hill.

If we can't run the ball, then opposing defenses just have to put their best player on Golden Tate (Patrick Peterson), and the rest of the receivers aren't that big of a threat. Especially if Kearse is gimpy. I'd like to know where our tight ends were last game, blocking on the offensive line maybe? Thanks Cable...

And plyka, you can't use the same game plan we had for the Saints against the Cards, completely different defenses as well as talent level. N.O. can't come close to AZ's front 7.

I'd like to see some WCO short passing plays in there. Bunch the WRs, run a TE across the middle, hell, even a reverse might loosen up the defense. Golden is elusive enough and Doug is quick enough that a reverse with those two could be deadly. And where in the hell was the flea flicker?

But yea, Tom Cable has been here a while now and has been handed a lot of resources and power, yet we still struggle to run consistently. I'd like to know why, especially with that much money and high picks invested there.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Well thought out and backed post. I'm really tired so I'm going to cut this really short. Where did the Michael line come from? I love his talent, would love him out there, but don't know if Bevell is to blame for him not playing.

I was just using Michael as an example of a play that I think would have a fair degree of success for us. I don't know who's behind not activating him, but if it's not Bevell, I have to think Bevell could probably get him activated if he really wanted to. He's the offensive coordinator; I mean, he'd have to have screwed up in some insanely huge way to be on some sort of "do not touch" list Carroll might have, which frankly would go against his whole entire philosophy in the first place. I find it unlikely.

As for the rest of the other teams. None of those teams have any single weakness as deficient as ours against press man and press man blitzes. We have a unique blend of subpar pass blocking, a QB whose instinct is to hold it a bit, and a WR core that can't get open against physical press coverage.

Screens, sure. We tried one to Marshawn and it got blown up. We should try more, I agree. Marshawn to me doesn't scream screen receiver, but I agree we should try when nothing else is working.

We could try to get cute with formations and pick plays to try and squeeze a little space underneath. I just hate that philosophy though. It just puts band-aids on the fact that you can't run a slant. The competitor in me would keep running the slant until we get it right. It is a freaking slant, shouldn't be that difficult.

I'd like to see some screens to Michael, see how they work out. Marshawn may not be the optimal RB for screens, but he has had a pretty good success rate over the past couple of years with them when we have run them, which is not very often. I completely agree with you about the slant. We NEED to be able to use it regularly in certain games, against certain defenses. No sort of remotely reliable short passing game is killing us and getting us exposed in a big way. Especially when defenses know we completely ignore the middle of the field. Bottom line is, we cannot be as bland and predictable as we have been. We simply can't keep being that boring. In a way, I'm glad we're caught with our pants down now because hopefully this can be improved for the playoffs, and get us to the big game.

I do want to point out that we had some guys semi-open down the field quite a few times. We just hit one or two of those, it is a different game, and maybe it is enough to scare them out of the coverage. They were begging us to beat them downfield, and we were never able to take advantage.

I'd have to watch the all-22 to see how often we had someone open down the field, but I'll take your word for it. (I was at my brother-in-law's restaurant drinking and chatting while watching the game, so I did not pay very close attention to this one.) You're completely right that if we could have connected on even one deep pass, (and by 'deep' I mean 30+ yards in the air; a bomb) it'd have changed how Arizona defended us a bit and helped in numerous small ways. It's funny how literally one pass early on could have changed the ENTIRE game. It makes me sad to think about, to be honest. It also makes a point about how we shouldn't rely on completing deep passes no matter how good we tend to be at them overall.

Think about it. You're the QB. When you line up, you see press man all over the field, and a single high safety. In essence, this signifies that the defense is laughing at you. You're licking your chops, right? You know you have to get rid of it quick, but all you have to do is lob it up. If your guys can get off the ball at all, you've got free deep passes. Well, our guys couldn't get off their defender, and when they did, Russell missed them. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but you've got to keep at it. And just about every coordinator college or pro would have done the same thing. This is exactly why we desperately needed Percy and/or Rice, and why I woudn't pay Tate big money.

I agree, interception likelihood be damned, we should have kept trying to go deep. Frankly, we should have changed practically everything else we were trying to do on offense except for that, IMO. Also, I'd be curious on your thoughts about how we use Tate. The more time that passes, the more I think we might be misusing him. I wonder what he'd look like if we lined him up in the slot more, used him over the middle regularly, and also tried to get him the ball in the back field with some space more?

 

[getnasty]

Watching the Atlanta playoff game from last year, its amazing how many more formations and how creative our offense was in that game. I also thought the same thing to a lesser extent in the NO game this year. This makes me think were holding a lot back on offense. I also realize that those teams have different defenese then the one we struggle agaisnt, but wow the difference is night and day. At least we know that Bevell is capable of different thing, I just hope Pete isn't holding him back to much.