What do Pete/John see in Bevell to keep him?

[AgentDib]

This. There seems to be a blind spot or an undying loyalty where it comes to Bevell. Interestingly, Pete didn't hesitate to replace his/our last OC.

Or Pete may have more information than you do. One of those options is the simpler explanation and would also fit with the Bates firing.

 

[Sealake80]

Watch Brock Huards last two chalk talks for an idea of maybe why. He puts our guys in a position to win. Not saying he's necessarily the greatest at all times for all time or anything, but have you seen the last two chalk talks?

I'll take these woes over the rest of the leagues any day. We've been at two super bowls in two years. Our winning percentage is through the roof. Woes?

 

[hawk45]

There are literally dozens of coordinators around the league that either never get a head coaching job, or fail miserably once they did and go back to coordinating. Doesn't mean they're a bad coordinator, so implying that he's a bad coordinator just because he hasn't gotten a HC gig yet isn't fair.

I guess it depends on how we define quality OC. If quality OC is average or slightly above average, then yes, it's unfair to say Bevell isn't quality because he hasn't gotten an HC gig.

If we define quality closer to "top-tier" then Implying he's not regarded as top-tier league-wide is absolutely fair. Coordinators on either side of the ball that are top-tier get job offers regularly.

I don't see Bevell as a dumpster fire but I don't see a top-tier OC and neither does the rest of the NFL so far. Attributing Russell's development to him, the rushing attack success (of the past), is just as much conflating issues as it is to say Bevell is responsible for us not scoring a lot of points vs the Rams.

 

[DavidSeven]

Fair enough.

David what is your take? If I missed it just say so and I'll look back through the thread. Do you consider him an above average OC? A great OC? I'm not saying this in a sarcastic tone, curious. I think he's middle of the pack. He has done some really good things with the read option and helping with the running game but I really struggle with his initial game plans, predictability at times and calls in the red zone.

Let me start with this: I think the last call in the last SB was his mistake. Not the decision to pass, which was Carroll's fault, but the call itself. Not a completely bone-headed or unforgivable mistake, as some would claim, but I wish he called something else that I know is in their playbook. But that's my Monday Morning QB. If it worked, which it had a reasonable chance of doing, I wouldn't care.

Now: to me, given Seattle's unique system of control, it is difficult to quantify what is a good and bad OC. This is Pete's show, and he's so confident in what he's doing fundamentally that he'll let a couple party kids (Sark and Kiffin) call plays for him in college. Maybe we're better with someone else; maybe we're worse. I don't know. All I know is that the results thus far have been good.

To try to isolate what's coming from Bevell, Carroll, Cable, or Wilson is pretty difficult, if not impossible. That's why I find it hard to dealing with the witch-hunt for a single scapegoat that occurs after every game, every play. I've watched videos of the 2009 Vikings. That looks like a different team -- similar concepts, but they utilized the middle of the field, threw ballsy passes to Sidney Rice and made Percy Harvin look like a real receiver. Maybe that was all Favre, but aren't we claiming our guy is elite too? Whose fault is it then if we put in the same skill players and the same playcaller, but for some reason it looks different? The fact is that we different system going here, and that is accounted for by QB execution, OL execution, HC philosophy, GM decisions, and inputs from any number of assistant coaches. To try to pin every negative on one guy, especially when our offense has actually be highly successful by all logical metrics, is just missing the boat to me. There are more interesting discussions to be had than guessing who made the decision to check to an empty set or change a pre-snap read.

 

[kearly]

Last year, Seattle tried to evolve into a more complex offense. It backfired. They got the ship righted when they reverted to a simple offense in the second half.

This year, they are again trying to evolve into a more complex offense yet again. It's not working so far. But this time, we probably don't have the running game we need to simply revert to basics and be okay.

What's worse is that even these attempts at complexity are still less nuanced in terms of route trees than pretty much any other NFL team. Bevell isn't just vanilla, he's simple. At this point I think it's fair to say that no other OC in the league is more challenged by complexity. Seattle has the ingredients to be a scary good multi-dimensional offense.

There's a reason why our offense looks so much better in the 2 minute drill or when Wilson is running the offense. The more simple the offense becomes, the more success it has. This is partly a credit to Wilson's magic, but also a testament to Bevell's inability to effectively install complexity into the offense.

I think part of the problem too is that there has long been an issue with the offense being less than the sum of its parts, while the defense has been the opposite. Seattle spends most of their high picks on offense, and has brought in several big names on the offensive side of the ball. But with the lone exception of Lynch, none of those big names have fit our offense the way we had hoped.

There's also a now well documented issue with Bevell making bad situational playcalls and play designs because he thinks defensive coordinators won't see it coming. The element of surprise is Bevell at his core, and that's not a way to build a proper offense, IMO.

I think Bevell still has a job here mainly because Pete takes a 'buck stops here' mentality to accountability. He does not believe in scapegoating, even when merited. I think Pete views his players and fellow coaches as family. I think to Pete, firing Bevell would be like firing a close relative.

 

[AgentDib]

Interesting.....So, you're saying that Bevell isn't responsible for ANY share of the mistakes, and that all the woes are on Poor Execution, HC, QB, WR, OL, TE, assistant HC?

I haven't seen a single person claim that. Bevell shares responsibility for both the ups and the downs, and I bet we could list 25 individuals who had a major impact on our offense without breaking too much of a sweat. We could probably agree that Bevell shares more responsibility than some (Lockette), less responsibility than some (Wilson), and there's a middle range that's hard to estimate from the outside (Cable).

Putting him in the middle of an even distribution would give him 4% of the responsibility for both the good and the bad. If you feel that he is a major problem than you probably would estimate it a bit higher than that. I'm quite certain it isn't 100%, 50%, or even 25%, and not a word in this post would change if this was a mirror universe where our record was flipped and everybody was attributing that mostly to Bevell.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Some of the blame, er reason why Bevell is still here, etc....has been put on RW and various members of the offense for bad play execution and poor decision making. Essentially, that is what PC said was the case for the RW int. play in XLIX. We didn't execute the play well, and the other team made the play.

And the Patriots said that they made the play because they recognized it from film as one of the very few goalline concepts the Seahawks had been running all year. The Super Bowl is not the time to stay simple on offense, with Lynch, without any big receiving targets, against one of the league's defensive minds.

Bevell might simply be around because of

a) the desire for consistency, an important consideration at all times;

b) the right replacement hasn't come along;

c) because our personnel are still so underdeveloped that Pete just doesn't see Bevell as the main problem;

d) still scarred over the Jeremy Bates thing (fought with the other coaches, didn't use Lynch);

e) some of all the above.

I want to call attention to this. Brilliant post. The dialog surrounding anything on this board tends to a binary opposition: Bevell sucks vs. He's not the problem at all.

The truth could be somewhere in the middle, like Montana notes. It could be that Pete does have issues with Bevell, but there's a lot more to this situation than most people want to acknowledge.

Plus one to your plus one.

Another ditto from me. GREAT post Montana!

 

[Ozzy]

Fair enough.

David what is your take? If I missed it just say so and I'll look back through the thread. Do you consider him an above average OC? A great OC? I'm not saying this in a sarcastic tone, curious. I think he's middle of the pack. He has done some really good things with the read option and helping with the running game but I really struggle with his initial game plans, predictability at times and calls in the red zone.

Let me start with this: I think the last call in the last SB was his mistake. Not the decision to pass, which was Carroll's fault, but the call itself. Not a completely bone-headed or unforgivable mistake, as some would claim, but I wish he called something else that I know is in their playbook. But that's my Monday Morning QB. If it worked, which it had a reasonable chance of doing, I wouldn't care.

Now: to me, given Seattle's unique system of control, it is difficult to quantify what is a good and bad OC. This is Pete's show, and he's so confident in what he's doing fundamentally that he'll let a couple party kids (Sark and Kiffin) call plays for him in college. Maybe we're better with someone else; maybe we're worse. I don't know. All I know is that the results thus far have been good.

To try to isolate what's coming from Bevell, Carroll, Cable, or Wilson is pretty difficult, if not impossible. That's why I find it hard to dealing with the witch-hunt for a single scapegoat that occurs after every game, every play. I've watched videos of the 2009 Vikings. That looks like a different team -- similar concepts, but they utilized the middle of the field, threw ballsy passes to Sidney Rice and made Percy Harvin look like a real receiver. Maybe that was all Favre, but aren't we claiming our guy is elite too? Whose fault is it then if we put in the same skill players and the same playcaller, but for some reason it looks different? The fact is that we different system going here, and that is accounted for by QB execution, OL execution, HC philosophy, GM decisions, and inputs from any number of assistant coaches. To try to pin every negative on one guy, especially when our offense has actually be highly successful by all logical metrics, is just missing the boat to me. There are more interesting discussions to be had than guessing who made the decision to check to an empty set or change a pre-snap read.

Thanks for the well thought out response. Not much to disagree with honestly. Good stuff.

 

[bmorepunk]

Last year, Seattle tried to evolve into a more complex offense. It backfired. They got the ship righted when they reverted to a simple offense in the second half.

This year, they are again trying to evolve into a more complex offense yet again. It's not working so far. But this time, we probably don't have the running game we need to simply revert to basics and be okay.

What's worse is that even these attempts at complexity are still less nuanced in terms of route trees than pretty much any other NFL team. Bevell isn't just vanilla, he's simple. At this point I think it's fair to say that no other OC in the league is more challenged by complexity. Seattle has the ingredients to be a scary good multi-dimensional offense.

There's a reason why our offense looks so much better in the 2 minute drill or when Wilson is running the offense. The more simple the offense becomes, the more success it has. This is partly a credit to Wilson's magic, but also a testament to Bevell's inability to effectively install complexity into the offense.

I think part of the problem too is that there has long been an issue with the offense being less than the sum of its parts, while the defense has been the opposite. Seattle spends most of their high picks on offense, and has brought in several big names on the offensive side of the ball. But with the lone exception of Lynch, none of those big names have fit our offense the way we had hoped.

There's also a now well documented issue with Bevell making bad situational playcalls and play designs because he thinks defensive coordinators won't see it coming. The element of surprise is Bevell at his core, and that's not a way to build a proper offense, IMO.

I think Bevell still has a job here mainly because Pete takes a 'buck stops here' mentality to accountability. He does not believe in scapegoating, even when merited. I think Pete views his players and fellow coaches as family. I think to Pete, firing Bevell would be like firing a close relative.

Kearly, are you really that well versed in the other 31 OCs that you can definitely say "no other OC in the league is more challenged by complexity"?

And on Austin's question, I don't see too many defending Bevell (yeah there are a few), but I think a lot of us just recognize that it's not automatic that you're going to find someone better to put on this team and follow the organization's way.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I don't see Bevell as a dumpster fire but I don't see a top-tier OC and neither does the rest of the NFL so far. Attributing Russell's development to him, the rushing attack success (of the past), is just as much conflating issues as it is to say Bevell is responsible for us not scoring a lot of points vs the Rams.

So who are the best offensive coordinators in the league? Here's a list the NFL network did this past winter;

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap300000 ... ho-is-no-1

Josh McDaniels? Huge failure at both Denver and St. Louis. Dude all of a sudden is a genius again once he's paired up with Brady and Belichick. But wait, isn't it ALL his success when the Pats score?

Norv Turner? For almost 30 years Turner's been run out of every town he's been in, as a head coach and coordinator. All of a sudden with Bridgewater and AP he's a genius again? My bet is Vikings fans weren't saying that after week 1.

Todd Haley? Ran out of Chicago, ran out of Dallas, ran out of Kansas City......and now is suddenly a genius because he's got arguably the best offensive weapons in the entire league in Bell, Rapelessberger and Brown.

Hue Jackson? Lasted one season in Oakland as HC and is raked over the coals on a yearly basis for the failure of the Bengals not winning a playoff game.

See a pattern here? They're all bums to their fans once the losing starts. Everyone says the same things we say about Bevell. Unimaginative, bad play caller, doesn't make good adjustments, on and on.

You guys think this is unique to Seattle.............like there are so many other better options out there than Bevell. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news people, but there's not.

 

[hawk45]

The argument would be that with Russ being so multiple and the good rushing attack bevell is set up talent wise to look more like a genius than he does. That we have the weapons Minnesota has and Brady has yet he is still not well thought of like mcdaniels.
I'm not disputing that fans can lay too much at the feet of an OC but you seem to completely dismiss Bevell's flaws in response. That seems an overreaction to an overreaction.
I will say that at this point with Pete picking the groceries and sticking with Bevell I think it likely a chosen replacement would be cut from the same cloth. So I don't assume any change would be a good one.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

It's an endless discussion. If Bevell is unarguably a big enough problem to warrant his removal, the question becomes one about who it is we should get to replace him. Our answers will tend to be slanted towards more widely known applicants, like Josh McDaniels in the past, or college coordinators with no track record of success in the NFL yet. We'll argue about how we will or won't be able to land the big name. We'll argue about how if we do land the big name, we'll only have them for a season before they leave for a HCing gig like Kubiak and Caldwell did in Baltimore. If not, we'll argue about how so-and-so's college successes won't translate into the NFL because he lacks the track record we can all so easily overvalue. There's likely not going to be a consensus and if there somehow is, it's going to be a consensus because it's a popular idea and not because of how truthful the idea may be. As fans, we don't know nearly enough to support our ideas. It's all mostly debate for the sake of debate. We don't argue for the sake of the team. We argue for the sake of attempting to convey something about ourselves to others.

How do I know this? I know this because the most important question in regard to Bevell is one we aren't asking. It's not about whether or not Bevell is a great, good, okay, or simply terrible OC. If he's terrible, he would have been fired like Bates was before him. If he was amazing, he would have been hired as a HC for another team. He's between the absolutes and thus, the key question is whether or not he is learning from his mistakes. We don't ask this because as fans, we have almost no idea. We don't get to see how he reacts to set backs, questions himself, or defines his own internal process of trial and error. We only get to witness the outcomes of a team effort in the small sample size of the NFL's games. Ultimately, Bevell is just a pawn in our game of self-expression, and it's a game that can't ever be truly won with how we tend to play.

 

[HuskerHawk]

Pretty cut-and-dry really. How would it look firing a guy in a major position whose been part of three playoff runs and two SB appearances in three years? Aint gonna happen. The only way Bevell leaves is if the O struggles or does very well.

 

[hawk45]

This. There seems to be a blind spot or an undying loyalty where it comes to Bevell. Interestingly, Pete didn't hesitate to replace his/our last OC.

Or Pete may have more information than you do. One of those options is the simpler explanation and would also fit with the Bates firing.

I don't know it's as much about information as it is that Pete wants the style of offense he has, and Bates wasn't it. Which is a point you've made before I think.

The more I think about it, the more I think the slow first halves are what Pete wants. He has an all-world defense, he wants the least risk possible in the first half, take the minimum chances, and delay any risks until he absolutely must take them in the 2nd half to win ball games.

There are risks to that as well, such as the risk that you end up having to take even more risks in the 2nd half if you haven't been productive offensively and you don't have another half to make up for mistakes.

This is just going to be one of the things that drive some nuts about Pete's football teams, similar to how Holmgren drove us nuts not playing youth. And this style won't work when the defense drops off even a little, or when Lynch retires, but it hasn't yet except when key players are out.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

The argument would be that with Russ being so multiple and the good rushing attack bevell is set up talent wise to look more like a genius than he does. That we have the weapons Minnesota has and Brady has yet he is still not well thought of like mcdaniels.
I'm not disputing that fans can lay too much at the feet of an OC but you seem to completely dismiss Bevell's flaws in response. That seems an overreaction to an overreaction.
I will say that at this point with Pete picking the groceries and sticking with Bevell I think it likely a chosen replacement would be cut from the same cloth. So I don't assume any change would be a good one.

I'm not dismissing Bevell's culpability when it comes to the offense, I'm trying to get across that it's a group effort.

So when a play fails, or we lose and the offense played poorly? Why aren't there 20 threads about firing Pete, Cable and benching Russell, the WR's and O-lineman? Why is it 99% fire Bevell?

You guys are assigning blame to a complicated problem with a simplistic solution based on I don't even know what.

 

[scutterhawk]

Interesting.....So, you're saying that Bevell isn't responsible for ANY share of the mistakes, and that all the woes are on Poor Execution, HC, QB, WR, OL, TE, assistant HC?

I haven't seen a single person claim that. Bevell shares responsibility for both the ups and the downs, and I bet we could list 25 individuals who had a major impact on our offense without breaking too much of a sweat. We could probably agree that Bevell shares more responsibility than some (Lockette), less responsibility than some (Wilson), and there's a middle range that's hard to estimate from the outside (Cable).

Putting him in the middle of an even distribution would give him 4% of the responsibility for both the good and the bad. If you feel that he is a major problem than you probably would estimate it a bit higher than that. I'm quite certain it isn't 100%, 50%, or even 25%, and not a word in this post would change if this was a mirror universe where our record was flipped and everybody was attributing that mostly to Bevell.

I was responding to English, as it was his words not mine that I called into question.
I believe that we need for the Offensive Line to get with it, and right now wouldn't be too soon.
The Seahawks also need to pick up the pace to start the games, our Opponents ( thus far) have intensified right out of the chute, and therefor set the pace, and disrupted the rhythm that we have attempted to get up and running.
If there is a collaboration of Wilson, Carroll, Bevell and Cable, to drawing up the first 15 or so scripted plays, they need to turn up the get after it dial, or risk letting the Defenses dictate their success or failure.
Other Defensive minds that we will be facing, have undoubtedly watched game film and will try and follow suit with what the other Victors have formulated that worked for them.
Time for Bevell to quit throwing sliders, and start to throw a few curve balls in the mix.
So far this Season, we've been watching them try and force the ball against Defenses while using Same old "Not Fooling Anyone" Vanilla plays.
If a bunch of us nobody fans can diagnose a play before it happens?

 

[c_hawkbob]

Yes I'm aware we have been to 2 straight bowls however I think some of it was in spite of Bevell not because of him. I just can't understand what they see in this guy to keep him around. People have mentioned that he is trying to target Graham. IMO he may be targeting him but what he is scheming is not working. It goes on and on with his play calling. I was so excited when we had Jeremy Bates as our OC and feel the exact opposite with Bevell. I can't ever recall a more maligned OC in the league. No wonder Wisconsin didn't want him as their HC.

Can someone tell me why he is on this team?

First, why did you include John in the question? He's got nothing to do with hiring and firing Pete's staff.

The reason Bevell is still here is because he's doing things the way Pete is asking him to. It's really not complicated. I think he tries to get too cute at all the wrong times, but he maintains the run/pass ratios that Pete wants and I think Pete even likes that he zigs when the whole world thinks he should be zagging. Pete likely sees the failure of such strategies more as execution issues than strategic issues.

 

[chet380]

Yes I'm aware we have been to 2 straight bowls however I think some of it was in spite of Bevell not because of him.

Do you have any rational basis or empirical data for your belief or is it a "gut feeling" (and therefore useless).

 

[Spin Doctor]

Bevell is kept around because he plays nice with the other kids, he is a yes man. Bates did not play nice with the other kids, and got axed. Does that make him a good playcaller? No, not at all.

I do not care how simple an offense is as long as the playcaller meets a few criteria. The play caller needs to have situational awareness, and he needs to be able to adjust to what the defense is trying to do to him. I see none of these qualities in Mr. Bevell. His situational awareness is dismal to say the least. Last year on third and short I saw far too many instances of empty set formations, that ended up in a sack, or punt. Against the Rams, just last week we saw too many examples of the same thing. We ran empty sets for approximately 1/3rd of Wilson's passing attempts. This was against one of the best defensive lines in football. Not only that, but we had two players that were completely new to their respective positions on the line, and that same line looked like minced meat in preseason.

Bevell outsmarts himself too much for my liking, he ignores conventional wisdom far too often, and it takes him to long to adjust to what teams are trying to throw at him.

Another disturbing trend is what players did before they came to the Seahawks, and after they came to the Seahawks. Tate for example is used in a completely different manner in the Lions. He'll take a simple slant pass and turn it into 10-12 yards with boring consistency due to his YAC ability. They find ways aside from bubble screens to get him into space, and do his thing. I didn't see that with Tate on the Seahawks, this is also something that they did at Notre Dame. Miller was one of the league's best pass catching TE's, on the Seahawks offense he was turned into a glorified tackle, and marginalized. Graham is now the latest saga in under-utilized talent. He spends most of his time playing in-line, the ways they are using him almost remind me of how they used Miller. In NO, he was split wide just as often as he was in-line. They would put him in the slot, and have him run posts, he was money on the fades, and he would win almost every jump ball situation. They would move him around, and keep the defense guessing. I do not see this from Bevell.

 

[Fade]

This is sad and pathetic at this point and really exposes people trapped in their little Seahawks bubble.

Jimmy Graham only getting 2 targets is just another example of incompetence displayed by an OC, that has routinely made asinine decisions, the Super Bowl play is so apropos, it's Bevell in a nut shell, and fittingly what he will always be remembered for, but his deficiencies go beyond 1 play.

I know the response will be well it's Russell Wilson's fault for not throwing him the ball.

Look If I'm the OC I tell Russell Wilson point blank, after I see the first 2 offensive series if Jimmy Graham is 1 on 1 throw him the mf'n ball. That is called coaching, instructing the players to do things that make the team more effective, instead the opposite happens every week on offense. I wonder why? You don't just call plays and hope the players do what you want, you demand it and hold them accountable, and that's what the players do, they do as Darrell Bevell instructs, unfortunately what he instructs isn't very effective.

Pete Carroll has a documented history of keeping incompetent coordinators around, as long as you are not outright insubordinate (Jeremy Bates) you keep your job on his staff.

I heard on the radio (I would love someone to confirm this) that Jimmy Graham has been blocking on 64% of his snaps, and has run routes only 36% of the time. WTF. If that isn't misutilizing personnel then I don't know what is.

PS I caught a 3rd and 10 where Jimmy was left in to block against the Pack. -epic fail.