Would being in the booth help?

Bevell is on the field, right? But a lot of OC's call the game from the booth. Would this help him? Is he not able see what the defenses are doing well enough from the field? Or is he not disconnected enough from the game to call a good game? (and yes, I know, not even in the stadium is probably where he could do the most good!).

I say yes. Was he ever or has he always been field level?. Being away from the field disconnects you from the emotion of the players imo, and Bevell terrible situational playcalling has got to be able to be explained somehow.

How many third and shorts or manageable were stupid slow developing dropback passes?. I was losing my mind.

Maybe from a box he can see how much bigger Jimmy is than the defensive secondary. Isolate him out wide!!!

Well hell you might have the answer,I wish they would throw his ass up there and the DC also if he isn't .

I have always thought the same thing. Seems like some of the more successful Offenses have a guy up in the booth. Same goes for the Defensive guys. Quinn would sit up in the booth, right? So Bradley was on the field, and Richard is on the field...and the Defenses seem to be having the same type of late collapses. Maybe they just can't see what Offenses are doing and adjust in-game as well. Quinn didn't seem to have these types of late-game struggles outside of the Super Bowl (which seemed more injury related than anything).

Obviously where a coach is during the game not the only factor, but it is interesting for sure.

It depends on what kind of coach you are. The Seahawks coaches are almost exclusively teachers and developers, rather than strategist types. Those types of guys need to be on the field to develop and teach.

It's a philosophical thing. One might suggest, though, that they focus the teaching on practice and start focusing more on in game strategy. It's always been a weakness of this coaching staff, but it's hard to complain about the results. Do the Seahawks suffer some strategic weaknesses? Yeah. But they also develop their talent better than any organization in football.

HawkGA":2blvn9zx said:

Bevell is on the field, right? But a lot of OC's call the game from the booth. Would this help him? Is he not able see what the defenses are doing well enough from the field? Or is he not disconnected enough from the game to call a good game? (and yes, I know, not even in the stadium is probably where he could do the most good!).

Click to expand...

I think this is a fantastic idea! One I have been pondering for 2 years now. Maybe a change of perspective would really help.

That way he would see that the opponent stacked the box....

Mojambo":2n67rlui said:

It depends on what kind of coach you are. The Seahawks coaches are almost exclusively teachers and developers, rather than strategist types. Those types of guys need to be on the field to develop and teach.

It's a philosophical thing. One might suggest, though, that they focus the teaching on practice and start focusing more on in game strategy. It's always been a weakness of this coaching staff, but it's hard to complain about the results. Do the Seahawks suffer some strategic weaknesses? Yeah. But they also develop their talent better than any organization in football.

Click to expand...

I want a schemer getting the rock to Jimmy on third down. I'm convinced Bevell can't see the opportunity for mismatches from the sidelines. Can't teaching and developing happen thru a headset at this point for the sake of better situational playcalling?

The super bowl loss taught me that micro football can have larger impact than macro football, and it's all a balancing act. Time for a complete change in offensive philosophy imo.

Bevell is the OC, we have Cable as the O line coach, Sherman as RB's, we have a TE's and WR's coach, they all teach, Bevell doesn't teach any positions as far as my recollection goes. Also we can have situational communication problems then going to the field if we don't see an improvement.