bjornanderson21":o1sqx2kt said:
I dont know why anyone considers bevell our best option or even a good option. Bevell deserves ZERO CREDIT for our success, and tons of blame for our failures.
1. We are a run-first team with an OL that sucks balls at pass pro but does well enough in the run game for our unique RB who bulldozes people and breaks tackles like no one else. Bevell deserves zero credit for this.
2. Our passing game is dependent on our run game and our unique QB who runs for big yards and scrambles and makes plays out of nothing. Bevell does not deserve any credit for this. With a "typical" QB our passing game would be absolute garbage.
With Lynch and Wilson we have our unique offense players that allow us to score enough points DESPITE having an absolute moron for an OC.
Why are so many people afraid of moving on? One of the reasons a ROOKIE was able to intercept that pass is because our offense is so predictable and we run so few plays from the playbook.
An OC who knows how to mix up the playcalling a bit more and doesnt forget what our offense relies on (hard-nosed running) would have brought us back-to-back Lombardis and we would be on our way to #3 next year.
We don't need a genius at OC, but we can't afford to keep an idiot. Bevell needs to go and we don't deserve another Lombardi until we have fixed that mistake.
Bevell going won't happen. Apparently, the "always compete" mantra goes strictly for players. because when you add up our first half points in both NFCCG's and come up with 3, houston, we have a problem. likewise, our super bowl first half would have been an absolute disaster if a foot locker employee didn't bail bevell out. Why does our opening series tend to be such a predictable, disgusting display of feeling our opponent out like meek little lingerie football players? the way the patriots came out and drove down the field all over the first quarter brought the same kind of envy denver felt last year watching our defense play---look at what you can't have! we are purely incapable of having an offensive gameplan in huge games that strikes first and forces the opponent to play from behind, which plays to the strength of our defense.
And for the record, which "one guy" would be more responsible for the offensive tone than bevell, as another reply suggested? Pete? meh, he's more a company man IMO who strikes giant overtones and tremendous fine tuning into the offense but i find it hard to believe he's more the 'conductor' than bevell. likewise, i am positive Pete wouldn't strike down innovation. I mean what seemed to be bevells brainchild since about week 14 or so?- the set of twin receivers spread all the way to the sidelines on each side of the ball with russ and marshawn in a pistol IIRC. ok, well, it hasn't been too bad, but that's because it has always been called either in our own territory or midfield. so when does bevell bust it out in the super bowl? 3rd down in the red zone. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME? this formation has no business in that situation and to me that was the second biggest terrible call of the game, as NE had been locking down our receivers man to man all day, so what sense does the philosophy of this formation make? zero. it hinges on the threat of possibly busting man to man, but with no threat of that, and in a compressed red zone area, NE just stacked the box. Dumb.
Do we have the personnel to change if we had the best coordinator in the history of the world? Now that's debatable. Bevell being "very good" or non-negligent due to the misfortune of a big machine with moving parts is no excuse for the end product. likewise, the Seahawks reaching 2 super bowls and bevells personal performance is apples to oranges. you could say with bevell this has happened, i say with a different coordinator it would have been more efficient, less "come from behind" "halftime adjustment oriented" and played more to our strengths. oh well, as long as we stick with bevell we have Russ to bail him out. seems to be working so far. If it ain't broke don't fix it? or more like, it's broke, but we're not gonna fix it cause it's working....if you ask me.
and just to add to the insanity of this week, everyone and their brother on here just shakes their head and pounds it on the nearest wall everytime bevell called a maligned bubble screen, but here's the funniest thing to me: a bubble instead of a slant by lockette is almost infinitely safer and he would be going 1 on 1 with the defender at the 1 inch line. guess it's too much to ask bevell to realize a slant is extremely difficult on the 1 yd line. even on the 2 a slant could be set up way better. on the 1 this should not be on the play sheet. Using this formation with lockette and just half step in and bubble out, well, watch and see for yourself. browner is locked up, completely out of the play by being locked on kearse. lockette takes even a small motion inward forces butler to rocket inside as well. turn that into a miniature whirl route like what edelman burned the pants off simon on, and well, we win. but that would take bevell getting out of the box.
