Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Fieldgulls: More to Seahawks’ pressure problem than just OL

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13

  • Good read, thanks.

    Seems like teams show their hand early on and don't need to adjust.
    User avatar
    mistaowen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3496
    Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:54 pm


  • It doesn't make sense because I heard Bevell and Cable are fabulous.
    This is my favourite part:
    "And that’s not even an exhaustive list. In short, many of the offensive formations the Hawks have used this season have been minimal protection alignments that place the maximum amount of pressure on the offensive line. While the line has had struggles at times, it has also shown substantial improvement from the start of the season until today. Further, a good portion of the stress placed on the offensive line has come as a direct result of the offensive playcalling and scheming the team has used. I’m not going to posit why the team would utilize a system that would place as much stress as possible on the unit of the team that most pundits feel is the team’s weak link, so you can formulate your own hypotheses on that."
    User avatar
    iigakusei
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1464
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 6:14 am


  • iigakusei wrote:It doesn't make sense because I heard Bevell and Cable are fabulous.
    This is my favourite part:
    "And that’s not even an exhaustive list. In short, many of the offensive formations the Hawks have used this season have been minimal protection alignments that place the maximum amount of pressure on the offensive line. While the line has had struggles at times, it has also shown substantial improvement from the start of the season until today. Further, a good portion of the stress placed on the offensive line has come as a direct result of the offensive playcalling and scheming the team has used. I’m not going to posit why the team would utilize a system that would place as much stress as possible on the unit of the team that most pundits feel is the team’s weak link, so you can formulate your own hypotheses on that."


    Your only other option is to go into max protect...........and then what? Run the ball? Woo, good one!

    Any offensive formation is a trade off with protection. It's obvious that Pete and Bevell are calling plays in hopes that Russell's athleticism and elusiveness can make up for the crappy protection. Rather than cut the playbook in half and run max protect plays, which take all of your 3 and 4 WR sets out of the playbook.

    Bottom line, there is no GOOD way to playcall when your line stinks. You're going to have issues no matter which way you go.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12441
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • This was a great read.

    So in short, it sounds like the play calling has been a major part of what has been plaguing the o-line?

    If this is the case, why haven't we adjusted to the way teams have been playing us?
    "Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!"
    User avatar
    Ace_Rimmer
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 709
    Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2014 7:59 am
    Location: Vancouver, BC


  • Max protection is not the only answer to this issue. Running the ball would be one, but we know we straight up can't do that, so that's a no. Screens are another option, but we don't run those much or well. Quick routes for the WRs like slants, hitches, outs, spots, etc. would be great but we seem to want to hit big plays against blitzes we can't block. Also, hot routes from the TE or RB, but we either rarely use those ore they go for 2 yards or less.

    How about shifting protections? Keep a TE in to block or chip/release based on whether the DE rushes or drops into coverage. This allows the OT to keep an eye on the LB to see if he blitzes and pick him up if he does or block the DE after the TE releases if the LB drops back into coverage. Maybe diversify offensive alignments? There are ways to combat this, if there weren't then we wouldn't have good pass protection in this league.
    adeltaY
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 906
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:https://www.fieldgulls.com/2017/11/14/16643654/seahawks-offensive-line-duane-brown-pocic-britt-aboushi-ifedi-rawls-lacy-clayborn-russell-wilson

    Good X's and O's read. Makes the point that a lot of pressures on Wilson come from blitzes, which fall on the play design (in part) to help ameliorate. Washington blitzed all day without answer.


    Great read but sometimes I wonder about over complicating things.

    Haven't hundreds of people been befuddled on this very website by how we fail to do something about blitzes? Arizona has hit us with the blitzes over and over and over again yet every single game it is the same story. I mean we have not efficiently moved the ball on Arizona, in a game that means something, in a very long time.........

    They blitz and we don't have hot routes, outlet passes, screen passes, quick passes nor do we move players around or audible out of it. Again and again
    mikeak
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6834
    Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
    Location: Anchorage, AK


  • adeltaY wrote:Max protection is not the only answer to this issue. Running the ball would be one, but we know we straight up can't do that, so that's a no. Screens are another option, but we don't run those much or well. Quick routes for the WRs like slants, hitches, outs, spots, etc. would be great but we seem to want to hit big plays against blitzes we can't block. Also, hot routes from the TE or RB, but we either rarely use those ore they go for 2 yards or less.

    How about shifting protections? Keep a TE in to block or chip/release based on whether the DE rushes or drops into coverage. This allows the OT to keep an eye on the LB to see if he blitzes and pick him up if he does or block the DE after the TE releases if the LB drops back into coverage. Maybe diversify offensive alignments? There are ways to combat this, if there weren't then we wouldn't have good pass protection in this league.


    I definitely agree on the screens, but you have to have a back that knows how to run them and you're comfortable with. Prosise is our best screen back, and well, yeah.............

    Rawls likes to fumble his screens, and maybe McKissic? Idk, not really an i-back RB.

    But overall I agree with "mo screens."
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12441
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:Max protection is not the only answer to this issue. Running the ball would be one, but we know we straight up can't do that, so that's a no. Screens are another option, but we don't run those much or well. Quick routes for the WRs like slants, hitches, outs, spots, etc. would be great but we seem to want to hit big plays against blitzes we can't block. Also, hot routes from the TE or RB, but we either rarely use those ore they go for 2 yards or less.

    How about shifting protections? Keep a TE in to block or chip/release based on whether the DE rushes or drops into coverage. This allows the OT to keep an eye on the LB to see if he blitzes and pick him up if he does or block the DE after the TE releases if the LB drops back into coverage. Maybe diversify offensive alignments? There are ways to combat this, if there weren't then we wouldn't have good pass protection in this league.


    I definitely agree on the screens, but you have to have a back that knows how to run them and you're comfortable with. Prosise is our best screen back, and well, yeah.............

    Rawls likes to fumble his screens, and maybe McKissic? Idk, not really an i-back RB.

    But overall I agree with "mo screens."


    The irony here (and it dovetails with your max protect comment above) is that the offense is so much better operating out of shotgun instead of under center. Don't know if you have access to the stats on Football Outsiders but that's my source on that.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3266
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • Funny they chose to do that on pass blocking when that is not even our lines biggest weakness. That would be run blocking.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3187
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:Bottom line, there is no GOOD way to playcall when your line stinks. You're going to have issues no matter which way you go.


    Unless you install alert routes and dumpoff options that let the QB make predetermined throws or quick decisions that negate the pressure. In the first half, it would seem, it's alllll four-verts and deep crossers.

    At least that's my impression. I wish I could afford All-22.

    Oh, and by the way...and I know nobody wants to hear this, but it's true anyway and relevant...

    Bubble screens are screens. :stirthepot:
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16198
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:Bottom line, there is no GOOD way to playcall when your line stinks. You're going to have issues no matter which way you go.


    Unless you install alert routes and dumpoff options that let the QB make predetermined throws or quick decisions that negate the pressure. In the first half, it would seem, it's alllll four-verts and deep crossers.
    :


    True, but some of that is on Russell. He falls in love with his own arm and taking shots downfield............when he has checkdowns and shorter routes open. Which if you follow guys like Hsu on Twitter you'll see how often those are open, and instead Russell chucks it downfield for a jump ball.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12441
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:Bottom line, there is no GOOD way to playcall when your line stinks. You're going to have issues no matter which way you go.


    Unless you install alert routes and dumpoff options that let the QB make predetermined throws or quick decisions that negate the pressure. In the first half, it would seem, it's alllll four-verts and deep crossers.
    :


    True, but some of that is on Russell. He falls in love with his own arm and taking shots downfield............when he has checkdowns and shorter routes open. Which if you follow guys like Hsu on Twitter you'll see how often those are open, and instead Russell chucks it downfield for a jump ball.


    That's also happening, yep. So it's a lot of things going wrong.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16198
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    iigakusei wrote:It doesn't make sense because I heard Bevell and Cable are fabulous.
    This is my favourite part:
    "And that’s not even an exhaustive list. In short, many of the offensive formations the Hawks have used this season have been minimal protection alignments that place the maximum amount of pressure on the offensive line. While the line has had struggles at times, it has also shown substantial improvement from the start of the season until today. Further, a good portion of the stress placed on the offensive line has come as a direct result of the offensive playcalling and scheming the team has used. I’m not going to posit why the team would utilize a system that would place as much stress as possible on the unit of the team that most pundits feel is the team’s weak link, so you can formulate your own hypotheses on that."


    Your only other option is to go into max protect...........and then what? Run the ball? Woo, good one!

    Any offensive formation is a trade off with protection. It's obvious that Pete and Bevell are calling plays in hopes that Russell's athleticism and elusiveness can make up for the crappy protection. Rather than cut the playbook in half and run max protect plays, which take all of your 3 and 4 WR sets out of the playbook.

    Bottom line, there is no GOOD way to playcall when your line stinks. You're going to have issues no matter which way you go.

    Yep, The Deadskins applied very little pressure on the O-Line's BEST BLOCKER, Center Justin Britt, reserving their attack for pounding on the weakness of the other four O-Linemen.
    The inept & shitty Referees letting the Skins Secondary tee off on our Receivers was icing on the Redskins cake.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6299
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:Bottom line, there is no GOOD way to playcall when your line stinks. You're going to have issues no matter which way you go.


    Unless you install alert routes and dumpoff options that let the QB make predetermined throws or quick decisions that negate the pressure. In the first half, it would seem, it's alllll four-verts and deep crossers.
    :


    True, but some of that is on Russell. He falls in love with his own arm and taking shots downfield............when he has checkdowns and shorter routes open. Which if you follow guys like Hsu on Twitter you'll see how often those are open, and instead Russell chucks it downfield for a jump ball.


    I don't think Wilson is perfect by any measure, but the coaches need to be drilling in his head to take what the defense gives you. The eye test, from the tv broadcast, tells me we quit often don't have the hot rout options available or run way too fee 3-5 step plays.
    cymatica
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1034
    Joined: Thu Dec 25, 2014 7:40 am


  • cymatica wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:Bottom line, there is no GOOD way to playcall when your line stinks. You're going to have issues no matter which way you go.


    Unless you install alert routes and dumpoff options that let the QB make predetermined throws or quick decisions that negate the pressure. In the first half, it would seem, it's alllll four-verts and deep crossers.
    :


    True, but some of that is on Russell. He falls in love with his own arm and taking shots downfield............when he has checkdowns and shorter routes open. Which if you follow guys like Hsu on Twitter you'll see how often those are open, and instead Russell chucks it downfield for a jump ball.


    I don't think Wilson is perfect by any measure, but the coaches need to be drilling in his head to take what the defense gives you. The eye test, from the tv broadcast, tells me we quit often don't have the hot rout options available or run way too fee 3-5 step plays.

    The coaches are part of the problem here. In the last few games we have been using little in the way of outlet routes, and our offense has paid. With the plays that are being called, the only thing Wilson can do is make something happen with his improv skills. The thing that is disconcerting to me is the fact that Washington, and even Arizona didn't even bother hiding the fact that they were blitzing. You knew who was going to blitz, and roughly where they were going to go pre-snap. That kind of audacity is the biggest diss that you can give an offense. Arizona followed the same game plan as Washington. Have their corners play off of our receivers, have a LB spy Wilson, and send 5 or more people. We continued to run the same long, developing plays against a team that was blitzing on almost every play. Even if every member of our line were pro-bowlers they would still struggle with this kind of playcalling. Our offensive coaching and philosophy is a huge liability at the moment.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2107
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • I don't care what Bevell calls if the defense shows a blitz and Russell doesn't change the play or the protection then it's on Russell in my opinion. Should Bevell call every play anticipating a blitz? Not trying to give Bevell a pass but you always see Rodgers, Brady, Brees and any other elite QB come to the line access the defense and then get there team in the right play if needed. If anyone is capable of reading a defense and adjusting it's Russ yet we rarely see him do it. Why is that?
    getnasty
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2183
    Joined: Sun Nov 07, 2010 8:22 pm



  • Yet another soul wondering why this team makes no offensive adjustments. There seems to be a pattern here. Clearly, opposing defenses see a pattern.
    Send Lawyers, Guns and Money!
    GO 'HAWKS!!
    User avatar
    WmHBonney
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1129
    Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 6:11 pm


  • Current Seahawks are easy to defensive gameplan against. Pressure up the middle. RW can't handle it. It disrupts everything, run game included. This is not a Cable OL. They've put together a decent pass blocking line that has no push in the running game. Protecting RW is commendable but they have destroyed the offense. If you are going to a college line then you need to run a college offense.
    Thomas Paine: To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead
    User avatar
    Seafan
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 5950
    Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 2:30 pm
    Location: Helotes, TX


  • Seafan wrote:Current Seahawks are easy to defensive gameplan against. Pressure up the middle. RW can't handle it. It disrupts everything, run game included. This is not a Cable OL. They've put together a decent pass blocking line that has no push in the running game. Protecting RW is commendable but they have destroyed the offense. If you are going to a college line then you need to run a college offense.

    Pressure up the middle is the least of our problems on offense. Russ is probably the best QB in the NFL at avoiding the pass rush up the middle. He makes so many people miss. Procic we havent really seen much pressure up the middle either, at least on the left side. Our issue is that for whatever reason we are calling a one dimensional game on offense. Literally it is all streaks, and post routes. It doesn't matter what the opposing defense shows us, we keep doing the same thing. Our answer is to run the same plays in max protect. Even a 15 year old playing madden knows that in order to beat the blitz you have to either run a misdirection play or have a hot route. We have neither. Bevell, and Cable are absolute morons, and Pete Carroll isn't any better when it comes to the offensive side of the ball.

    My question is; why do they keep running the same concepts expecting different results? Our initial game plans are poor, and on the offensive side we're not adjusting to what the defense is doing. If you wonder why Bevell hasn't gotten a head coaching job, this is why. I'm sick and tired of this.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2107
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • Man, it feels like 2013 & 2014 when I ranted pretty regularly about our stupidly simplistic offensive formations. It's almost like...defenses can predict what we're going to do.

    HOLY CHRIST, WHAT A REVELATION! Why did nobody discover this (aside from every opposing defense) before now?!
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 31065
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Bothell, WA


  • RolandDeschain wrote:Man, it feels like 2013 & 2014 when I ranted pretty regularly about our stupidly simplistic offensive formations. It's almost like...defenses can predict what we're going to do.

    HOLY CHRIST, WHAT A REVELATION! Why did nobody discover this (aside from every opposing defense) before now?!

    The guys over at the NFL network have also made this comment before.
    Spin Doctor
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2107
    Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 1:31 am


  • So the person running the offense is a stubborn idiot. Cool. Glad we keep finding new ways to quantify the same problem.
    User avatar
    WindCityHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2314
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:51 pm


  • RolandDeschain wrote:Man, it feels like 2013 & 2014 when I ranted pretty regularly about our stupidly simplistic offensive formations. It's almost like...defenses can predict what we're going to do.

    HOLY CHRIST, WHAT A REVELATION! Why did nobody discover this (aside from every opposing defense) before now?!


    This goes deeper than that.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3266
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    RolandDeschain wrote:Man, it feels like 2013 & 2014 when I ranted pretty regularly about our stupidly simplistic offensive formations. It's almost like...defenses can predict what we're going to do.

    HOLY CHRIST, WHAT A REVELATION! Why did nobody discover this (aside from every opposing defense) before now?!


    This goes deeper than that.


    True about 40 to 50 yds typically.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 22463
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • A solid run game kills this discussion.
    User avatar
    LudwigsDrummer
    US Navy Air VP 56 `74-`78
     
    Posts: 1727
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 3:44 pm
    Location: Smokey Point


  • At this point all I can say is this.

    Bevell is bad for Cable

    And

    Cable is bad for Bevell

    At the minimum one has to go.
    User avatar
    sdog1981
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1592
    Joined: Fri Oct 16, 2009 5:54 am


  • LudwigsDrummer wrote:A solid run game kills this discussion.

    See, that's exactly the wrong mindset. Even if you have an amazing back like Marshawn and your run game is successful because of that, it doesn't mean you should stick with stupidly simple formations and schemes that college defenders can read and predict.

    I hate the "success means everything is fantastic" mentality. It's illogical. I bet you anything Bill Belichick doesn't look at success that way, and it's gotta be a huge part of why he has been so successful for so long.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    * Spelling High Lord *
     
    Posts: 31065
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Bothell, WA


  • sdog1981 wrote:At this point all I can say is this.

    Bevell is bad for Cable

    And

    Cable is bad for Bevell

    At the minimum one has to go.


    that's a good way to put it

    lel
    ImageImageImageImageImage
    WhyDidntWeRun.jpg
    User avatar
    Crizilla
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2338
    Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2012 6:52 pm
    Location: Kirkland


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    LudwigsDrummer wrote:A solid run game kills this discussion.

    See, that's exactly the wrong mindset. Even if you have an amazing back like Marshawn and your run game is successful because of that, it doesn't mean you should stick with stupidly simple formations and schemes that college defenders can read and predict.

    I hate the "success means everything is fantastic" mentality. It's illogical. I bet you anything Bill Belichick doesn't look at success that way, and it's gotta be a huge part of why he has been so successful for so long.


    BUT it's not entirely wrong since more efficient running wouldn't make passing be as high leverage as it currently is and also legit gain first downs and TDs would be awesome. Yes just saying that one simple trick would flip a switch Isnt a great mentality but an obvious deficiency is obvious and would help to improve upon
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3266
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    LudwigsDrummer wrote:A solid run game kills this discussion.

    See, that's exactly the wrong mindset. Even if you have an amazing back like Marshawn and your run game is successful because of that, it doesn't mean you should stick with stupidly simple formations and schemes that college defenders can read and predict.

    I hate the "success means everything is fantastic" mentality. It's illogical. I bet you anything Bill Belichick doesn't look at success that way, and it's gotta be a huge part of why he has been so successful for so long.


    Marshawn was successful before he came here, just pissed off the Coaches with him being Lynch in Buffalo, imagine if he was able to actually have holes to run through and could attack the second level regularly. The level of success he had here is a testament to how good he really was.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 22463
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


  • I honestly came here looking for a Sioux explanation and defense of the offensive playcalling. Baldinger, Dungy and plenty of others have been critical of our offensive playcalling and failure to adjust. I would love to be inside the building but its strange to me that there isn't a voice of reason somewhere that is screaming for a change whether its a player, assistant coach, equipment manager etc. someone. I am possible the biggest Wilson fan(including Anthony!) and its one thing I wish he would do, is to demand better. I think some of the greats had this ability and its one area he struggles in. He is such a team guy, trusts his coaches, teammates etc that he refuses to believe they can't execute that he stays silent.....at least that's my theory.

    Lynch was good, not great before coming here. Wilson and the threat of the read option and his ability to scramble helped Lynch immensely in the running game. that's not to say Lynch didn't help Wilson but I think its understated how much effect Wilson had on the running game.

    Whoever posted above about Bevell not being good for Cable and Cable not being good for Bevell nailed it. It's possible both are good coaches but they can't get out of each others way.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6377
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


  • LudwigsDrummer wrote:A solid run game kills this discussion.


    If your coordinator is only good when he has a Hall of Fame running back, your coordinator is not good.

    Good coaches make the most with what they have. They don't sit back and say, "Oh if only the players executed perfectly this would work." (See also: Bevell's comments about Lockette after XLIX).

    After years of drafts and camps and cuts, we have the roster we have, and if Bevell can't work with these 53 pieces, then he shouldn't be part of this team. The same goes for Cable (though to Cable's credit, I think he's doing more with what he's been given).
    User avatar
    WindCityHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2314
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:51 pm


  • austinslater25 wrote:Whoever posted above about Bevell not being good for Cable and Cable not being good for Bevell nailed it. It's possible both are good coaches but they can't get out of each others way.


    Still not sure why Pete is always absolved from blame when we're bashing Cable and Bevell.

    Seven years ago when Pete was hired he wanted a physical ball control zone blocking punishing run first style of offense, so he hired Cable, and he wanted an O-Coordinator that could run that layered progression run first to open up play action style of offense..............so he hired Bevell.

    The rest is history. If I'm handing out blame for our offensive issues, Pete's at the top of my list. He's the stubborn coach still clinging to a system that hasn't been effective or productive in almost three years now.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12441
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • I've been guilty of this as well and its a completely valid point. If its truly a scheming issue that isn't up to par for today's NFL then its Pete's fault and really his fault alone. We can complain about Bevell, Cable but its up to Pete to fix it and he hasn't.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6377
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    austinslater25 wrote:Whoever posted above about Bevell not being good for Cable and Cable not being good for Bevell nailed it. It's possible both are good coaches but they can't get out of each others way.


    Still not sure why Pete is always absolved from blame when we're bashing Cable and Bevell.


    Because he's harder to replace. There's always a direct relationship between the perceived ease of a fix and fans' receptivity to that fix.

    But Pete is exactly where I land with my blame as well. If he can't adapt to the situation our injuries have left us when we have the tools to adapt, then he alone will be responsible for the outcome.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16198
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    austinslater25 wrote:Whoever posted above about Bevell not being good for Cable and Cable not being good for Bevell nailed it. It's possible both are good coaches but they can't get out of each others way.


    Still not sure why Pete is always absolved from blame when we're bashing Cable and Bevell.


    Because he's harder to replace. There's always a direct relationship between the perceived ease of a fix and fans' receptivity to that fix.

    But Pete is exactly where I land with my blame as well. If he can't adapt to the situation our injuries have left us when we have the tools to adapt, then he alone will be responsible for the outcome.


    I'm not asking for anyone to be replaced, I'm just making sure the people who ARE asking acknowledge and understand where the root of their problem extends from. Pete.

    Pete has total autonomy at any point in the pre-season and regular season to sit Bevell, Cable and Russell down and say "This isn't working, so we're going in a different direction with the offense, so this is what I want out of you scheme wise and playcall wise."

    But he hasn't, and he doesn't.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 12441
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    LudwigsDrummer wrote:A solid run game kills this discussion.

    See, that's exactly the wrong mindset. Even if you have an amazing back like Marshawn and your run game is successful because of that, it doesn't mean you should stick with stupidly simple formations and schemes that college defenders can read and predict.

    I hate the "success means everything is fantastic" mentality. It's illogical. I bet you anything Bill Belichick doesn't look at success that way, and it's gotta be a huge part of why he has been so successful for so long.

    Yah, :lol: Belichick likely threw that game last Season in NE, he probably felt sorry for Pete and his "Simple College Formations".
    Pete & Co. are just so LUCKY, LUCKY, LUCKY to have WON so many games since 2013, ESPECIALLY when it seems all they are able to do, is dial up (according to a bunch of Pro football Guru's here) Simplistic College Offensive Schemes.
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6299
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    austinslater25 wrote:Whoever posted above about Bevell not being good for Cable and Cable not being good for Bevell nailed it. It's possible both are good coaches but they can't get out of each others way.


    Still not sure why Pete is always absolved from blame when we're bashing Cable and Bevell.


    Because he's harder to replace. There's always a direct relationship between the perceived ease of a fix and fans' receptivity to that fix.

    But Pete is exactly where I land with my blame as well. If he can't adapt to the situation our injuries have left us when we have the tools to adapt, then he alone will be responsible for the outcome.


    See 95% of Bills fans in regards to Tyrod.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3266
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


  • mrt144 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    austinslater25 wrote:Whoever posted above about Bevell not being good for Cable and Cable not being good for Bevell nailed it. It's possible both are good coaches but they can't get out of each others way.


    Still not sure why Pete is always absolved from blame when we're bashing Cable and Bevell.


    Because he's harder to replace. There's always a direct relationship between the perceived ease of a fix and fans' receptivity to that fix.

    But Pete is exactly where I land with my blame as well. If he can't adapt to the situation our injuries have left us when we have the tools to adapt, then he alone will be responsible for the outcome.


    See 95% of Bills fans in regards to Tyrod.


    Or 95% of Seahawks fans in regards to being willing to even criticize Russell Wilson.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 16198
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    Still not sure why Pete is always absolved from blame when we're bashing Cable and Bevell.


    Because he's harder to replace. There's always a direct relationship between the perceived ease of a fix and fans' receptivity to that fix.

    But Pete is exactly where I land with my blame as well. If he can't adapt to the situation our injuries have left us when we have the tools to adapt, then he alone will be responsible for the outcome.


    See 95% of Bills fans in regards to Tyrod.


    Or 95% of Seahawks fans in regards to being willing to even criticize Russell Wilson.

    Criticize away, but Y'all have to accept the counter arguments for a guy that has CRAP for protection, and even while toughing it out and playing with injuries, takes SEVERAL broken plays and turning them into sensational WINS.
    No one is saying that he plays mistake free Football, but if you're going to claim honesty, there isn't a poster in here that is "Mistake Free" in their assessments.
    This thread is pretty much turning into ANOTHER Pete Carroll, Tom Cable & Darryl Bevell dog pile....... again.SMH
    scutterhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6299
    Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 8:48 pm




It is currently Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:44 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information