Review of O play calling and line play.

[seahawk12thman]

Ok after reviewing the game I was wrong in who is to blame the O line or Bevell.

Bevell called a good game.

He had a misdirection or quick slant / screen in almost every series. In some series he had 2 or 3. We had a few running plays with a fake end around while running the ball to the left. We ran the ball 15 times with 3 fake end arounds, 1 counter, and a 2 naked boots. We ran the ball once every series except for the end of the half and the Long TD. The majority of the series had 2 to 3 runs. We did run at them with 9 in the box and gained yards. There were 11 called screens and slants. There were 2 roll outs and 1 pocket shift. We rolled out and shifted exclusively to the right and naked to the right.

The line had mistakes all game. Wilson missed on a couple of throws and took a sack or two to eat it and not turn the ball over.

Mc Q was beaten like a drum almost all passing plays and most running plays. He struggled on his reach blocks and allowed the man to get across his helmet on runs to the left. 6 times I have written down: Mc Q beat badly, abused, or allowed penetration. Nothing really good to say about his game.

Zach Miller was horrible blocking in line and outside in space. He blew it on a screen to Tate. He also had assignment issues with Bowie. The goal line RO was a good play that was foiled by bad blocking by miller. Had two nice catches.

Sweazy and Bowie had assignment issues. I think a few were with the protection as a whole. Miller releasing when Sweazy and Bowie had men over them. This lead to two times and end rusher coming free. I think this has to do with protection calls, inexperience at QB and RG, RT.

Carpenter was beat once on a run to the inside, he was reach blocking. He did a good job cutting, run blocking and pass protecting all game.

Unger missed his man on the first series and the last series both on a run which doomed the drives. He also missed on a stunt which resulted in the half ending sack.

Beside assignment/protection issues Bowie was beat one time and it was a sack late in the game. I have 3 times bowie putting his man to the ground in pass pro. He pushed his guy around in run pro, but still looked average to above average in cutting. He did better on the LB's this game.

Sweazy looked good except for the assignment issues with Bowie. Really good game for him. He did have the two penalties.

I think Wilson needs to learn the RO better. He had a few times he should have kept it but instead gave it up. He had one drive killing pass on 3rd and short to Miller. He missed that throw badly. Then on the TD throw he missed that throw REALLY BADLY. Tate had the red line, was behind the CB and the Safety was no where to be seen. Wilson really under threw this ball.The play before also was a duck of a ball to Kearse on a one on one. Even if he was throwing it away it looked bad.

Tate dropped a really good ball at the end of the half that doomed us from getting 3. Re-watching the TD catch made me appreciate how good Tate is redirecting and going after the ball in the air. He also had a great block on Baldwin's screen that allowed Baldwin to get the yards. No question we sign him long term, he is a complete player.

At the end there was a lot of good from the young guys, horrible from Mc Q and Miller. Really nice to see Carpenter playing really well.

What was your overall analysis of Max Unger?

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Bevell called a good game??? Um..........ok

 

[seahawk12thman]

Bevell called a good game??? Um..........ok

What really irritated me is why they didn't use Kellen Davis to block more..

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Even the announcers kept talking about it over and over again, the lack of help etc.
Calling a pass play from your own end zone, yet again, and getting sacked, was maddening.
Against Zona, it cost them 10 points.

 

[Tical21]

I really liked the analysis, except for the closing line that it is a no-brainer to sign Tate long term. Would you sign him over Okung, maybe even Earl? We're going to need a taller receiver. Would you rather pay Tate than a taller receiver? Signing Tate could very possibly limit you from signing Earl/Sherm. I'd love to keep Golden, but I don't know that we're going to have that luxury.

 

[mikeak]

So we had 11 drives

If I remember correctly Sweezy killed two with bad penalties and Tate and Kearse dropped a first down pass on 3rd down. So that makes key mistakes killing four drives.

That doesn't help the OC......

On the "underthrown" pass to Tate - guess you have to take into account that it was a pretty dang long pass. At some point it is no longer underthrown just can't be thrown much further.......

I did disagree with commentators on that one. It was not a simple interception - Tate did a great job coming back and would have fought for it regardless of how the defender played it. He did do a marvelous job on that one

 

[3Girls'HawkDad]

Zack Miller is more overpayed than Sidney Rice.

Ponder that for a moment.

Also, fart.

Also, Miller sucks.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I have to assume you're kidding when you say Miller sucks.

 

[Happypuppy]

Look at the first game with miller and the rookie RT. There was a lot of confusion , and they finally left miller on the left. I think the rookie is still in brain overload and the help hinders as he does not know what to do.

 

[ivotuk]

Bevell called a good game??? Um..........ok

Great analysis SFHawk.

Fudswamper, thank you. Like BFS I too learn a lot from you and others taking the time to review these games and for having the chutzpah to put your views out there knowing that some people are going to try to tear it down with out offering anything in return.

I was surprised at how the play calling broke down because I never would have thought that from watching the game. I tried to rewatch it last night but got pissed and shut it off.

I agree we have to keep Tate, he is the ONLY good receiver we have and there's no telling if Percy will hold up with the way he plays. I love Baldwin and Kearse has potential but that's it.

I think Miller got a really bad concussion 2 weeks ago and never said anything. I think that's why his play is off and he needs to be evaluated. After a play 2 weeks ago, he got up wobbly, was kind of patting his hand to his chest then was looking around like he had no idea what was going on. Then he kind of wandered to the huddle and looked befuddled.

The missed blocks and assignments were bad and no matter what kind of play calling there is, nobody can succeed when there is zero time to collision.

Listening to the radio and Marv Albert said that he and his crew were not surprised how the game turned out. He said Jeff Fisher is a very good coach and that St Louis has played Seattle and San Francisco better than anyone. Looking back at last year, no one should be surprised about the game Monday.

I still wish they would have run the ball more just to protect Russell. Even if we had lost at least Russell wouldn't have got the crap beat out of him and come out with PTSD. Protect our most important asset AT ALL COSTS. Even if it cost a W.

Glad to hear Carp played good and Sweezy played decent. When we get Breno and Okung back, I hope they keep Carp at LG, dude is a load.

I've got all 22 but have been too lazy but now you've inspired me to go back and look at it. And with the reviews that you, Kearly, Scotte and others have done, it will be much easier for me to understand what I am seeing.

 

[Tical21]

Just a quick note. We ran 40 plays. Lynch got 8 carries, Turbin got what,3? It isn't like Wilson dropped back 40 times. The discrepancy isn't nearly as bad as I thought it was, we just didn't run enough plays for Lynch to get any load.

 

[sutz]

Whether it be mojo or Kearly or yourself or whomever, I always try to read these breakdowns and invariably come away with new information that aids in my understanding of what is happening with our team.

And, it appears you do as well. Bravo to you for reversing your position on Bevell's play-calling. I say that NOT because it affirms my position. No, sir. I say Bravo to you because you challenged your own assumptions. That is called integrity.

:13: What he said.

Thanks a bunch for the write up!

 

[AgentDib]

Listening to the radio and Marv Albert said that he and his crew were not surprised how the game turned out. He said Jeff Fisher is a very good coach and that St Louis has played Seattle and San Francisco better than anyone. Looking back at last year, no one should be surprised about the game Monday.

As fans we tend to have intentional blind spots towards our division rivals. After all, most of the fun is bringing our biases into play when it comes to trash talk, and it is easy to let that subtly influence our thought processes. I contend that most Hawk fans would be stunned to learn that our division rivals ranked #2 (SF), #6 (ARI) and #7 (STL) overall last year in defensive DVOA. STL improved further this off-season on paper, but of course it's more fun to write them off as floor mats; I would have taken the over on Monday night's game as well.

 

[nanomoz]

Thanks, Fud. To echo what BFS said, posts like these make me a better and more knowledgeable fan.

Specifically, your observations about Bowie contradict my armchair-self-proclaimed-genius bullshit--and I appreciate that.

BFS: when did you become such a likeable guy? Are you producing less testosterone these days, by chance?

 

[bestfightstory]

BFS: when did you become such a likeable guy? Are you producing less testosterone these days, by chance?

I don't think that's it, moreso I may be consciously trying to contradict your armchair-self-proclaimed-genius bullshit beliefs about who I am.

hahaha. Thanks for the compliment, :th2thumbs: I think.

And see you in Vegas!

:thirishdrinkers:

 

[seahawks08]

It was just an off day where everything that could go wrong went wrong. Our team has not practiced enough with short quick plays except for Golden, thats why he shined in that situation in my opinion. When a team is not used to playing a certain way, no matter what the game plan, it is going to be off when the line has to react a certain way and the receivers has to beat the initial stuffing and break free. Our field position was also not great for us most of the game and we were playing close to the goal line most of the night. That limits your playbook more. This was a game where I think instead of Seahawks frustrating the Rams, it was the other way round. When it gets under your skin, you are bound to make mistakes. All day long that was the case and we never got into a rhythm. Yes, we should have run more and more when nothing else works, at least played the field position. I think if not anything, the team now understands better what it takes to play in adversity and sometimes it takes a game like this to change your season for the better.

 

[DavidSeven]

I basically agree with the OP. I didn't see a huge play-calling issue. I saw an execution issue. Obviously, there were missed assignments all night on the O-line. That could be part-scheme, part-communication and part a flat-out lack-of-talent. The big thing is that we couldn't execute on plays to extend drives. Key drops on the slants that everyone seems to be screaming for and two drive killing penalties early on.

I feel like people who keep harping on Lynch's "8 carries" are refusing to try to understand what really happened in this game. We ran approximately 40 offensive plays. We had like 70 a week earlier in AZ and the week before that vs. TEN. They dominated the ball because we couldn't stop the run, and because we couldn't execute on offensive plays to extend drives -- missed blocking assignments by linemen and TEs, badly timed penalties, drops by WRs, mis-reads by Wilson on RO. If we extend even half of these drives, Lynch's carries go way up. These aren't play-calling issues, at least not 100%. Finally, St. Louis just matches up really well and allowed the Seahawks very little room for error. They have athletic freaks at both ends who can handle outside contain and get to the QB. Drops and penalties will kill you in this sort of match-up, and they did.

 

[formido]

I basically agree with the OP. I didn't see a huge play-calling issue. I saw an execution issue. Obviously, there were missed assignments all night on the O-line. That could be part-scheme, part-communication and part a flat-out lack-of-talent. The big thing is that we couldn't execute on plays to extend drives. Key drops on the slants that everyone seems to be screaming for and two drive killing penalties early on.

I feel like people who keep harping on Lynch's "8 carries" are refusing to try to understand what really happened in this game. We ran approximately 40 offensive plays. We had like 70 a week earlier in AZ and the week before that vs. TEN. They dominated the ball because we couldn't stop the run, and because we couldn't execute on offensive plays to extend drives -- missed blocking assignments by linemen and TEs, badly timed penalties, drops by WRs, mis-reads by Wilson on RO. If we extend even half of these drives, Lynch's carries go way up. These aren't play-calling issues, at least not 100%. Finally, St. Louis just matches up really well and allowed the Seahawks very little room for error. They have athletic freaks at both ends who can handle outside contain and get to the QB. Drops and penalties will kill you in this sort of match-up, and they did.

Here's a sequence at the start of the second quarter:

2nd and 17 at SEA 22 (Shotgun) R.Wilson pass short right to R.Turbin to SEA 38 for 16 yards (D.Stewart).
3rd and 1 at SEA 38 (Shotgun) R.Wilson pass short left to G.Tate to SEA 42 for 4 yards (J.Jenkins).
1st and 10 at SEA 42 R.Turbin up the middle to SEA 44 for 2 yards (K.Langford; E.Sims).
2nd and 8 at SEA 44 (Shotgun) R.Turbin left end to SEA 47 for 3 yards (W.Hayes).

This is not normal. Lynch had not been overworked in the first quarter. He had 2 rushes to this point. Lynch's few carries are not only a matter of game circumstances.

 

[DavidSeven]

I basically agree with the OP. I didn't see a huge play-calling issue. I saw an execution issue. Obviously, there were missed assignments all night on the O-line. That could be part-scheme, part-communication and part a flat-out lack-of-talent. The big thing is that we couldn't execute on plays to extend drives. Key drops on the slants that everyone seems to be screaming for and two drive killing penalties early on.

I feel like people who keep harping on Lynch's "8 carries" are refusing to try to understand what really happened in this game. We ran approximately 40 offensive plays. We had like 70 a week earlier in AZ and the week before that vs. TEN. They dominated the ball because we couldn't stop the run, and because we couldn't execute on offensive plays to extend drives -- missed blocking assignments by linemen and TEs, badly timed penalties, drops by WRs, mis-reads by Wilson on RO. If we extend even half of these drives, Lynch's carries go way up. These aren't play-calling issues, at least not 100%. Finally, St. Louis just matches up really well and allowed the Seahawks very little room for error. They have athletic freaks at both ends who can handle outside contain and get to the QB. Drops and penalties will kill you in this sort of match-up, and they did.

Here's a sequence at the start of the second quarter:

2nd and 17 at SEA 22 (Shotgun) R.Wilson pass short right to R.Turbin to SEA 38 for 16 yards (D.Stewart).
3rd and 1 at SEA 38 (Shotgun) R.Wilson pass short left to G.Tate to SEA 42 for 4 yards (J.Jenkins).
1st and 10 at SEA 42 R.Turbin up the middle to SEA 44 for 2 yards (K.Langford; E.Sims).
2nd and 8 at SEA 44 (Shotgun) R.Turbin left end to SEA 47 for 3 yards (W.Hayes).

This is not normal. Lynch had not been overworked in the first quarter. He had 2 rushes to this point. Lynch's few carries are not only a matter of game circumstances.

I actually deleted a portion of my post that said the biggest questionable call was the decision to use Turbin for an entire series. I'm not sure if Lynch was hurt or if Bevell was trying to force a different look from St. Louis. So yes, I agree that sequence was a bit of a head-scratcher.

 

[plyka]

Ok after reviewing the game I was wrong in who is to blame the O line or Bevell.

Bevell called a good game.

He had a misdirection or quick slant / screen in almost every series. In some series he had 2 or 3. We had a few running plays with a fake end around while running the ball to the left. We ran the ball 15 times with 3 fake end arounds, 1 counter, and a 2 naked boots. We ran the ball once every series except for the end of the half and the Long TD. The majority of the series had 2 to 3 runs. We did run at them with 9 in the box and gained yards. There were 11 called screens and slants. There were 2 roll outs and 1 pocket shift. We rolled out and shifted exclusively to the right and naked to the right.

The line had mistakes all game. Wilson missed on a couple of throws and took a sack or two to eat it and not turn the ball over.

Mc Q was beaten like a drum almost all passing plays and most running plays. He struggled on his reach blocks and allowed the man to get across his helmet on runs to the left. 6 times I have written down: Mc Q beat badly, abused, or allowed penetration. Nothing really good to say about his game.

Zach Miller was horrible blocking in line and outside in space. He blew it on a screen to Tate. He also had assignment issues with Bowie. The goal line RO was a good play that was foiled by bad blocking by miller. Had two nice catches.

Sweazy and Bowie had assignment issues. I think a few were with the protection as a whole. Miller releasing when Sweazy and Bowie had men over them. This lead to two times and end rusher coming free. I think this has to do with protection calls, inexperience at QB and RG, RT.

Carpenter was beat once on a run to the inside, he was reach blocking. He did a good job cutting, run blocking and pass protecting all game.

Unger missed his man on the first series and the last series both on a run which doomed the drives. He also missed on a stunt which resulted in the half ending sack.

Beside assignment/protection issues Bowie was beat one time and it was a sack late in the game. I have 3 times bowie putting his man to the ground in pass pro. He pushed his guy around in run pro, but still looked average to above average in cutting. He did better on the LB's this game.

Sweazy looked good except for the assignment issues with Bowie. Really good game for him. He did have the two penalties.

I think Wilson needs to learn the RO better. He had a few times he should have kept it but instead gave it up. He had one drive killing pass on 3rd and short to Miller. He missed that throw badly. Then on the TD throw he missed that throw REALLY BADLY. Tate had the red line, was behind the CB and the Safety was no where to be seen. Wilson really under threw this ball.The play before also was a duck of a ball to Kearse on a one on one. Even if he was throwing it away it looked bad.

Tate dropped a really good ball at the end of the half that doomed us from getting 3. Re-watching the TD catch made me appreciate how good Tate is redirecting and going after the ball in the air. He also had a great block on Baldwin's screen that allowed Baldwin to get the yards. No question we sign him long term, he is a complete player.

At the end there was a lot of good from the young guys, horrible from Mc Q and Miller. Really nice to see Carpenter playing really well.

How many times did Bevell have a back, TE or WR chip the edge rushers?

Also you claimed that Bevell called a GOOD GAME, lol...the question was never did the oline or Bevell do good, it was always which one was WORSE. You rarely if even have an OC call a "good game" when the team gets 150 yards today, 80 of them one 1 play. It's always a horrible game plan, the question is, was it more horrible than the oline play.