Bevell has taken me to the point where I just flat out am annoyed watching. Russell is doing amazing things with what I'd call some seriously boneheaded playcalls. Could you imagine if they actually had called the Miami game to their strengths vs Miami's weaknesses? I mean come the hell on...


Russell wilson to Golden tate deep... Russell wilson to Sydney rice deep... These are two connections that have been forged over the length of the season and you mash Lynch up the middle into a brick wall all game? WTFF!

Galen96 wrote:Bevell has taken me to the point where I just flat out am annoyed watching. Russell is doing amazing things with what I'd call some seriously boneheaded playcalls. Could you imagine if they actually had called the Miami game to their strengths vs Miami's weaknesses? I mean come the hell on...


Russell wilson to Golden tate deep... Russell wilson to Sydney rice deep... These are two connections that have been forged over the length of the season and you mash Lynch up the middle into a brick wall all game? WTFF!

Bevel called those plays like he wanted to lose.
It actually looked like Bevel had given a copy of his play book to the Phins.
Pathetic move to go against what was working, and try'n impose your dumb will on a team that quite obviously game-planned for that exact scenario, but to continue screwing up by staying the course?, I hope Pete reams Bevel a new a$$.

Then again wilson and receivers arent always going to connect and then you'll be calling for bevells head for not mashing up the middle with Lynch

must suck being a scapegoat

I have actually been happy with Bevell a lot of times that most weren't. But I have to agree completely this time... I have never seen essentially the exact same play called and failed the same way to many times in one game. Some variation of lynch up the middle was probably called at least 15 times. You have to be able to adjust to the conditions of the specific game and it seems like he stubbornly adhered to the game plan.

Clearly, Miami was ready for Lynch so change the plan! I don't get it.

For the record, this was the first time all year that the Seahawks stubbornly stuck with the running game and the defense didn't wear down at the end of the game. Unless you watched the All 22 and saw virtually no deep routes called, how can you make the criticism? Why are we always so quick to blame Bevell when Miami just flat out played with more intensity and executed better?

I'm also willing to bet that the insistance on running the football stemmed at least partially from playing in South Florida heat and they wanted to keep the defense fresh.

You could blame the play call or you could blame Unger for being driven 4 yrds into the backfield before the play even develops,or you could blame Carp for allowing the backside DE running untouched right in front of him to tackle Lynch from behind,same with Breno allowing his guy making backside plays for no gain..untouched,maybe blame Robinson for running right by the LB filling the gap allowing him to make a tackle for no gain.
The dolphins played a tough game but this Oline consistently failed at getting any push at the point of attack rarely getting helmets on the lbs. or backside DEs allowing them to fly around and make plays.
Carp played soft slow and stupid.I don't know if he is still hurt but he can't cut block for s**t,just seems to lean on players and gets caught standing around too often.Breno isn't the answer at RT and RGs weren't much better.I know people don't want to draft Olineman again but this unit needs help.They are not the tough physical oline people make them out to be.The Oline and Oline coach were the root of the problem Sunday not the playcalls.

In dunno, I just think it's dumb to try to 'out smashmouth' a team that's better at it. The offensive game plan should have been more opened up from the beginning. Every time the coaches have put the game in RW's hands, he produces, but all too often it's a 'day late and dollar short,' because they only do it when they're forced to.

I firmily believe we could have been ahead by couple of TDs all game long if this game was played right. That goes for a few other road games as well. I hope Pete wakes up soon. He can't just play keep away and favor putting the game in the hands of a D that has continually regressed since the first half of the season. That's the glaring difference between Carroll and Belichik.

Bill is honest with himself about his team's strenghts/weaknesses. Accordingly, he finds the other teams weakness and starts attacking what he knows HIS players can capitalize on from the very beginning. Pete is stubbornly sticking with a plan that isn't suiting the current state of his team. He gives RW accolades during press conferences, yet he still acts like a frightened girl about putting the ball in his hands more often. I loathe this whole idea about playing aggressively on D, but being so timid with the passing game...especially when the D is not doing very well.

If anything, our road losses tell us we had better go into the 4th quarter with a substantial lead and maintain it, but Pete still prefers to grind it out...unless, of course, the D produces the point cushion...which he seens to think has a much higher probabilty of happening than most people would give it.

I don't think the Hawks are timid in the passing game at all. This team takes more shots downfield than any Seahawks team since 1997.

The offensive line got manhandled, made a lot of good play calls look bad. A lot of this criticism is hindsight, I rarely see threads on this board the week leading up to a game advocating a certain type of game plan.

All year the recipe for Seahawks victories has involved sticking with the running game. When they pound the ball, they win. Sunday was the exception, not the rule. I think its asinine that we want to start chucking the ball all over the place cause we struggled to run the ball for one game. You want your defense to wear down even more in the fourth quarter? Become a pass first offense.

BTW, we aren't having this conversation if when it was 14-7 Wilson doesn't miss Sydney Rice who was wide open on a shallow cross on 3rd and 4 and instead chose to throw a low percentage go route on the sideline. Tate was the clear out route, Rice should've been the read there, and Wilson knew he missed it when he got to the sideline. He makes that play I really don't think we are having this conversation right now. Luckily, Wilson recognizes and fixes his errors quickly.

HawKnPeppa wrote:In dunno, I just think it's dumb to try to 'out smashmouth' a team that's better at it. The offensive game plan should have been more opened up from the beginning. Every time the coaches have put the game in RW's hands, he produces, but all too often it's a 'day late and dollar short,' because they only do it when they're forced to.

I firmily believe we could have been ahead by couple of TDs all game long if this game was played right. That goes for a few other road games as well. I hope Pete wakes up soon. He can't just play keep away and favor putting the game in the hands of a D that has continually regressed since the first half of the season. That's the glaring difference between Carroll and Belichik.

Bill is honest with himself about his team's strenghts/weaknesses. Accordingly, he finds the other teams weakness and starts attacking what he knows HIS players can capitalize on from the very beginning. Pete is stubbornly sticking with a plan that isn't suiting the current state of his team. He gives RW accolades during press conferences, yet he still acts like a frightened girl about putting the ball in his hands more often. I loathe this whole idea about playing aggressively on D, but being so timid with the passing game...especially when the D is not doing very well.

If anything, our road losses tell us we had better go into the 4th quarter with a substantial lead and maintain it, but Pete still prefers to grind it out...unless, of course, the D produces the point cushion...which he seens to think has a much higher probabilty of happening than most people would give it.

They did put the game in Wilsons hands.We had 32 pass plays vs 21 run plays.the run was starting to work better in the 4th Qtr, a 16 yrd run a couple of 5 yrd runs.the last drive they were running the 5 min offense trying to burn up some clock but the game ended up in Wilsons hands.He should have grounded that messed up screen pass and it looked like he bailed out of the pocket early on that last play.There was a pocket.

The problem is them KNOWING Miami is prone to giving up big plays through the air, yet were stubborn about sticking to "their game." Take the opportunities you're given and light em up. It would've opened up the run far more if they had.

Seriously, if a team lights you up deep, you start dropping your LBs deep to help, thus creating a 4 man front to run again. They were stacking the box the whole game yet.... run up the middle for loss, run up the middle for loss, pass deep for 1st down, run up the middle for no gain, short pass for 7 yds.. run up the middle for a 2 yd gain, punt.

RW was on fire this game and it's fair to assume he could've put a few more down the seam if he got that call from the sideline.

Doesn't Cable handle the rungame calls? He does? Uh-oh.

seahawk2k wrote:I don't think the Hawks are timid in the passing game at all. This team takes more shots downfield than any Seahawks team since 1997.

The offensive line got manhandled, made a lot of good play calls look bad. A lot of this criticism is hindsight, I rarely see threads on this board the week leading up to a game advocating a certain type of game plan.

All year the recipe for Seahawks victories has involved sticking with the running game. When they pound the ball, they win. Sunday was the exception, not the rule. I think its asinine that we want to start chucking the ball all over the place cause we struggled to run the ball for one game. You want your defense to wear down even more in the fourth quarter? Become a pass first offense.

BTW, we aren't having this conversation if when it was 14-7 Wilson doesn't miss Sydney Rice who was wide open on a shallow cross on 3rd and 4 and instead chose to throw a low percentage go route on the sideline. Tate was the clear out route, Rice should've been the read there, and Wilson knew he missed it when he got to the sideline. He makes that play I really don't think we are having this conversation right now. Luckily, Wilson recognizes and fixes his errors quickly.

Last week there were two threads about the Dolphins strengths and weaknesses, one by myself and one by Hawkscanner. Both were clear that the Phins run defense was no joke, their front 7 are very good at stopping the run, and their secondary was the weak link and gives up big plays and lots of midrange plays.

I am not calling for Bevell's job, but go watch the game. I saw Miami with 8 and nine in run support on just about every first down, and when Seattle went jumbo a couple of times in the second half, Miami countered with ten players in position to runs stop. And Seattle still ran. And lost yards on the run. Watch the game again. How many 2nd and long situations were we in because of ineffectual 1st down runs? How many second and longs were we in because of incomplete passes? Look it up, you will see just how stubborn the game plan was.

I don't think many on this board want Seattle to lose their identity as a physical team. But did the Niners lose their identity as a physical team when they opened the Chicago game by throwing the ball all over the place? No, they didn't. But they did get an early lead by taking advantage of Chicago's weaknesses.

Carroll is the one masterminding this offense, not Bevell. Things will be no different with anyone else.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Carroll is the one masterminding this offense, not Bevell. Things will be no different with anyone else.

Which is why I am not calling for the OC's head. It was a flawed gameplan. The calls at the end of the game were atrocious, though.

he may be masterminding it, but he's not the one calling the plays... game planning is game planning.. calling plays within the gameplan and making adjustments is on bevell, line coaches , db coach and so on.. from my experience anyways

I'm glad we have someone to post this thread. You are the very first to put such a brave statement on paper. Bravo.

Sarlacc83 wrote:I'm glad we have someone to post this thread. You are the very first to put such a brave statement on paper. Bravo.

You hit CTRL-P for his post? That is an epic post.

Scottemojo wrote:

Sarlacc83 wrote:I'm glad we have someone to post this thread. You are the very first to put such a brave statement on paper. Bravo.

You hit CTRL-P for his post? That is an epic post.

I figured it needed framing for posterity. Due to the paradigm-shifting rebellion and all.

I don't know what people expect.It was almost a 60/40 split with pass vs run plays.
Wilson shouldnt have completed that screen and he left the pocket with a 3 man rush on the last play.
Our oline got manhandled, the team committed stupid penalties that hamstrung drives and they didnt play physical at all.If you want to fire coaches for a soft oline or a team that plays stupid undisciplined ball then its a different argument.
The only thing physical about our offense is Lynch.
As far as 8 or 9 man fronts I wonder how much leeway Wilson has to audible.Once he gets more experience and freedom he will be able to get us into different plays that would have a better chance to beat the D that he is facing on any given play.

justafan wrote:You could blame the play call or you could blame Unger for being driven 4 yrds into the backfield before the play even develops,or you could blame Carp for allowing the backside DE running untouched right in front of him to tackle Lynch from behind,same with Breno allowing his guy making backside plays for no gain..untouched,maybe blame Robinson for running right by the LB filling the gap allowing him to make a tackle for no gain.
.

I am sorry but did this just happen on the last play or throughout the game?.......that is what I thought - so WHY WASN'T THE PLAYCALLING CHANGED BASED ON HOW THESE GUYS WERE DOMINATED?

justafan wrote:They are not the tough physical oline people make them out to be.The Oline and Oline coach were the root of the problem Sunday not the playcalls.

And Bevell should have adjusted the playcalling accordingly first BEFORE the game based on film and expecting to be dominated and secondly during the game............ That last drive kept putting Wilson in third and long over and over again until we couldn't convert.

Scottemojo wrote:I don't think many on this board want Seattle to lose their identity as a physical team. But did the Niners lose their identity as a physical team when they opened the Chicago game by throwing the ball all over the place? No, they didn't. But they did get an early lead by taking advantage of Chicago's weaknesses.

Your post was great and to tie in to the end here. So your statement is that we should do the same against Chicago as you said we should do against Miami (I completely agree)

Watch us come out and run straight up the middle against Chicago.........over and over and over and over and over and over and over again..........

People in hell want ice water...

mikeak wrote:

Scottemojo wrote:I don't think many on this board want Seattle to lose their identity as a physical team. But did the Niners lose their identity as a physical team when they opened the Chicago game by throwing the ball all over the place? No, they didn't. But they did get an early lead by taking advantage of Chicago's weaknesses.

Your post was great and to tie in to the end here. So your statement is that we should do the same against Chicago as you said we should do against Miami (I completely agree)

Watch us come out and run straight up the middle against Chicago.........over and over and over and over and over and over and over again..........

I have not watched Chicago as much as I have Miami, so I don't know that. I do know that Chicago has not been easy to pass on this year. I also know they are a little banged up in the front 7.

I don't think having a game plan biased one way or the other is the answer. I like being multiple. Kaepernick was making call changes in his first start based on the looks the Chicago D was giving him. If Chicago had not shown defensively such a commitment to run stopping, I don't doubt that we would have seen the Niners run a lot more to start that game. That is what I mean by multiple. Their personnel groups said run, and they could have, but they had pass options out of all those run sets, and they used those options when the Bears responded with obvious run biased defense.

Pete has said more than once that he does not want to see his quarterback throw the ball 40 times a game. Pete has said more than once he values controlling the clock. He says repeatedly that good execution is the key on offense. He also says he wants a "multiple" offense. Those first three statements feel at odds to me with the last one. The statements about executing the plays being the key to offense are kinda bullshit anyway, because they ignore that there are some mismatches on the field you can't defeat purely through execution (see Paul Soliei and Randy Starks in the Miami game). Those guys get paid too, and their job is to mess up your execution. Execution has to come with exploiting matchups, and continuous running into the middle of Miami's D was ignoring several matchup problems. And failed to exploit some pretty easy passing matchup wins, particularly on first down.
So yeah, the play calling was bad, but the game plan was worse, because it was predicated on our defense winning the day.

It's a conservative-based offense, designed to control the clock and limit turnovers.

And it's not going to change.

As always, it comes down to a few plays - even when the play calling is suspect. We are losing games by very narrow margins. Going backwards on our last possession was a death knell. Baldwin not making that catch hurt.

mikeak wrote:

justafan wrote:You could blame the play call or you could blame Unger for being driven 4 yrds into the backfield before the play even develops,or you could blame Carp for allowing the backside DE running untouched right in front of him to tackle Lynch from behind,same with Breno allowing his guy making backside plays for no gain..untouched,maybe blame Robinson for running right by the LB filling the gap allowing him to make a tackle for no gain.
.

I am sorry but did this just happen on the last play or throughout the game?.......that is what I thought - so WHY WASN'T THE PLAYCALLING CHANGED BASED ON HOW THESE GUYS WERE DOMINATED?

justafan wrote:They are not the tough physical oline people make them out to be.The Oline and Oline coach were the root of the problem Sunday not the playcalls.

And Bevell should have adjusted the playcalling accordingly first BEFORE the game based on film and expecting to be dominated and secondly during the game............ That last drive kept putting Wilson in third and long over and over again until we couldn't convert.

Like I said before they passed almost 60% of the time.I doubt that was the plan going in.I guess he needed to call plays that gain yardage with poor blocking or that overcome stupid penalties.The last play Wilson got sacked by a 3 man rush.I wonder which play he should have called there.
What film?The film of Tenn,Buff. and Indy who all ran the ball and beat Miami?.The film of the Rams hanging 162 yards rushing on them?
There was no reason for the coaches to believe we couldnt run on them unless you think these teams are better than the Hawks are.
That last drive was supposed to eat up time.And it was doing just that.They had a 3rd and 4 and a 3rd and 5.Any good QB should like those situations.Lynch had a couple 5 yrd runs and was looking good.
Those last 2 plays had nothing to do with running the ball to often.It was sad execution on the 2 pass plays.

If Bevell gets canned, there are going to be some interesting offensive coordinator candidates available.

- Tom Cable (currently on staff, not totally sold on him as a full time OC though)
- Norv Turner (GREAT OC.. awful head coach)
- Andy Reid (would he subject himself to a year of OC though? not sure)
- Ken Whisenhunt (as the Cardinals continue to freefall, his seat gets hotter)
- Rob Chudzinski (If Rivera is canned, the whole staff is likely going with him.. Chudzinski is not a bad coordinator though)

Of these.. the idea of Norv Turner having full control of the offense has me the most excited. Especially with a young QB.

@justafan. I watched all three of those Miami games you reference. They all passed the ball with success on Miami before they ran it well, and in the case of Tennessee, Locker ran for a large chunk of those yards in the first quarter while scrambling. All three of those teams opened with a lot of first down passing.

Also, those last two bad plays before the third down sack were as much about Miami knowing they only had to defend 6 yards of field to keep us out of field goal range. That was abundantly clear by then. And the last pass play? What do you think the success rate on third and 16 is in the NFL? It is less than 20%.

Hasselbeck wrote:If Bevell gets canned, there are going to be some interesting offensive coordinator candidates available.

- Tom Cable (currently on staff, not totally sold on him as a full time OC though)
- Norv Turner (GREAT OC.. awful head coach)
- Andy Reid (would he subject himself to a year of OC though? not sure)
- Ken Whisenhunt (as the Cardinals continue to freefall, his seat gets hotter)
- Rob Chudzinski (If Rivera is canned, the whole staff is likely going with him.. Chudzinski is not a bad coordinator though)

Of these.. the idea of Norv Turner having full control of the offense has me the most excited. Especially with a young QB.

Which of those guys can you see Pete actually wanting? Maybe Chud, but none of the rest, with the obvious exception of Cable.

seahawk2k wrote:I don't think the Hawks are timid in the passing game at all. This team takes more shots downfield than any Seahawks team since 1997.

The offensive line got manhandled, made a lot of good play calls look bad. A lot of this criticism is hindsight, I rarely see threads on this board the week leading up to a game advocating a certain type of game plan.

All year the recipe for Seahawks victories has involved sticking with the running game. When they pound the ball, they win. Sunday was the exception, not the rule. I think its asinine that we want to start chucking the ball all over the place cause we struggled to run the ball for one game. You want your defense to wear down even more in the fourth quarter? Become a pass first offense.

BTW, we aren't having this conversation if when it was 14-7 Wilson doesn't miss Sydney Rice who was wide open on a shallow cross on 3rd and 4 and instead chose to throw a low percentage go route on the sideline. Tate was the clear out route, Rice should've been the read there, and Wilson knew he missed it when he got to the sideline. He makes that play I really don't think we are having this conversation right now. Luckily, Wilson recognizes and fixes his errors quickly.

I am still playing that over in my mind....

Does anyone remember in "Flash Gordon" back in the 80's, the football fight, queen is jamming...you are just pumped up...and that dip shit hits him in the head with the egg?

16-16...woo...record setting! There Warren Moon on the radio!!

FLUNKing BAM...metal egg in the head. Drive stalls...game over essentially

We did throw the ball with success prior to that drive.I am just not in the blame the playcall camp.I think most plays fail because of execution.If it is a matchup problem the QB has some responsibility to get us into a better play.
I just get tired of people blaming playcalls on both sides of the ball when we lose.It doesn't matter who the coordinaters are people will want them fired.Its always been that way and always will be.
I wish we had more info on what freedom Wilson has with audibles.I think with time he will get us into different plays when its called for.

Pstark3 wrote:Then again wilson and receivers arent always going to connect and then you'll be calling for bevells head for not mashing up the middle with Lynch

must suck being a scapegoat

Oh, give me a break; trying to run as much as we did in the 4th quarter after having horrible results trying to run for the first three is squarely the fault of the offensive coordinator calling the plays. If we had tried in the first half a lot like we did, and then tried a lot less in the second half, THAT would be the sign of an intelligent play-caller. Instead, we kept bashing our head against a brick wall until the final whistle blew. Hell, on the last running play of the game, Bevell was probably thinking "Their defense has to get tired enough to allow good runs at SOME point, we can still do this!"

...

justafan wrote:We did throw the ball with success prior to that drive.I am just not in the blame the playcall camp.I think most plays fail because of execution.If it is a matchup problem the QB has some responsibility to get us into a better play.
I just get tired of people blaming playcalls on both sides of the ball when we lose.It doesn't matter who the coordinaters are people will want them fired.Its always been that way and always will be.
I wish we had more info on what freedom Wilson has with audibles.I think with time he will get us into different plays when its called for.

I don't want anybody fired.
There is plenty of blame to go around on both play calls and execution. For example, in what world can Leroy Hill cover Devone Bess on a crossing route, even if he executes perfectly? A mismatch is a mismatch, and not exploiting them can fall at the feet of playcalling.

Pete has blamed playcalling in the past. Just ask Mr. Bates.

I'm not really worried about the playcalls so much as the the type of call. We base most of our passing game off of the threat of the run. Even if the run game isn't working, sticking with it will keep defenses honest, and give our WRs an easier time getting separation. And, like stated above, this was the first time we didn't start to maul a defense in the 4th quarter. Every defense, even SF's started to wilt under our rush attack in the 4th.

My problem with the run calls were that we ran right at the strength of the Dolphin's defense, who are 2 DT's that go 355 lbs, and 305 lbs. Instead of running right at them, why not run off Tackle ? Get the big guys running sideline to sideline. If you can't wear them out going right at them, make the fat asses run. Hell, it works against us. I also would've liked to see us run a lot of 2 TE sets, where we run out of one set, then pass out of the same formation. Also, quicken the tempo so they can't get their big guys off the field. Do this at the beginning of the game, make those guys play more snaps than they like to, and get them in personnel groupings they don't want to be in. This was something I did mention before we played the game as well. We've been hearing about our awesome 2 TE sets since we had Miller and Carlson, but I haven't seen it all that much.

Miami also got us that way a lot. You saw a lot of plass plays with Mebane, Branch, and Bryant in there, with only Clemmons getting any sort of pass rush. This is one reason our pass rush suffered, and why our big guys wore down. I know we play a ball control offense, but I'd really like to see us mix it up a bit with some uptempo stuff, ala the Patriots.

Scottemojo wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:Carroll is the one masterminding this offense, not Bevell. Things will be no different with anyone else.

Which is why I am not calling for the OC's head. It was a flawed gameplan. The calls at the end of the game were atrocious, though.

The beginning was worse

The throw to lynch on the screen was a rookie mistake...decent gall, bad execution. We would still have been ok for another play after that if not 3rd an forever

I don't blame the offense much in this game. The defense allowed long drives to end the game that absolutely killed us.

Leon gave us the lead, then we gave it right back. They went head to head with us and beat our defense down when it mattered. This was not a great offense we yielded 180 plus yards on the ground to.

That is the troubling issue.

Tech Worlds wrote:I don't blame the offense much in this game. The defense allowed long drives to end the game that absolutely killed us.

Leon gave us the lead, then we gave it right back. They went head to head with us and beat our defense down when it mattered. This was not a great offense we yielded 180 plus yards on the ground to.

That is the troubling issue.

Truth.

justafan wrote:

mikeak wrote:
Like I said before they passed almost 60% of the time.I doubt that was the plan going in.I guess he needed to call plays that gain yardage with poor blocking or that overcome stupid penalties.The last play Wilson got sacked by a 3 man rush.I wonder which play he should have called there.
What film?The film of Tenn,Buff. and Indy who all ran the ball and beat Miami?.The film of the Rams hanging 162 yards rushing on them?
There was no reason for the coaches to believe we couldnt run on them unless you think these teams are better than the Hawks are.
That last drive was supposed to eat up time.And it was doing just that.They had a 3rd and 4 and a 3rd and 5.Any good QB should like those situations.Lynch had a couple 5 yrd runs and was looking good.
Those last 2 plays had nothing to do with running the ball to often.It was sad execution on the 2 pass plays.

Please check your stats. They ran 56 actual plays: passed it 27 times and ran it 27 times. I don't get how you arrived at 60%. Russ Wilson was sacked twice and and scrambled a few times but the option plays that were obvious run plays. We had more than 21 run plays and fewer than 32 pass plays that you stated we had.

I have not re-watched the game, so this is just a feeling, maybe the X & O watchers can confirm or disconfirm. It felt like we threw an overabundance of passes near or behind the line of scrimmage. It seemed those bubble screens and read-options worked in games previously because they were change-of-pace and targeted specific weaknesses or tendencies of the defenses we were facing. In the Dolphin game it felt like we were trying to force those because they had 'become part of our offense' and worked previously. It's possible I came away with this impression just because they didn't work at crucial moments, I dunno. Any evidence either way on this?

Russ Willstrong wrote:

justafan wrote:

mikeak wrote:
Like I said before they passed almost 60% of the time.I doubt that was the plan going in.I guess he needed to call plays that gain yardage with poor blocking or that overcome stupid penalties.The last play Wilson got sacked by a 3 man rush.I wonder which play he should have called there.
What film?The film of Tenn,Buff. and Indy who all ran the ball and beat Miami?.The film of the Rams hanging 162 yards rushing on them?
There was no reason for the coaches to believe we couldnt run on them unless you think these teams are better than the Hawks are.
That last drive was supposed to eat up time.And it was doing just that.They had a 3rd and 4 and a 3rd and 5.Any good QB should like those situations.Lynch had a couple 5 yrd runs and was looking good.
Those last 2 plays had nothing to do with running the ball to often.It was sad execution on the 2 pass plays.

Please check your stats. They ran 56 actual plays: passed it 27 times and ran it 27 times. I don't get how you arrived at 60%. Russ Wilson was sacked twice and and scrambled a few times but the option plays that were obvious run plays. We had more than 21 run plays and fewer than 32 pass plays that you stated we had.

Lynch ran 19 times and Turbin ran it 2, and rice 1.Wilson dropped back 34 times passing 27 , running 5 times and 2 sacks.Lets say 32 pass plays.I will give you 2 options that i dont remember.That is somewhere around .5714285714% of the 56 plays called...almost 60%

Yea it's easy to take the 5 Wilson 'run' plays and assume they were qb scrambles on passing plays--just not the case. Lynch+Turbin's+Rice's carries > 21 runs you stated earlier. And that's nowhere near the 60/40% ratio you seem to think we had.

I find it deceptive when you say we PASSED IT 32 times when we actually didn't. Then this thing about rounding up. LOL!

seahawk2k wrote:For the record, this was the first time all year that the Seahawks stubbornly stuck with the running game and the defense didn't wear down at the end of the game. Unless you watched the All 22 and saw virtually no deep routes called, how can you make the criticism? Why are we always so quick to blame Bevell when Miami just flat out played with more intensity and executed better?

I'm also willing to bet that the insistance on running the football stemmed at least partially from playing in South Florida heat and they wanted to keep the defense fresh.

The defense wasn't very fresh at the end of the game.Ihad to dvr the game Sunday because I was at work and finally got around to watching last night.A lot of little things stuck out to me but the one that I can't get out of my mind is Mr Trufant on
Miami's game winning drive.We had a shitty rookie qb pinned on his own 10 yard line with a little over 1 minute to go ....

Shouldn't be a problem.

Enter #23. Poor guy, I've always been a fan of his. Hell, I even have his jersey. But #15 for the Dolphins ripped him a new one for two huuuuuuge gains and it was game over. I hate to say this but I think Trufant is the weak link.

Yep, the game stats still say WE HAD 27 PASSING ATTEMPTS. Total runs including Wilson's were 27. You can count drop backs plays all you want but an option read IS NOT a drop back.

Mitch in the morning had a pretty ridiculous stat but I don't remember it exactly. It was something like an average of 2.1 ypc on first down runs in the Miami game. Take out one 16 yard run we got with a blatant hold, and the average was like 1.5 ypc on first down runs. And Bevell kept calling them. Gonna get ugly on sunday if he makes the same calls.

Sorry about the imperfect memory

Scottemojo wrote:

Hasselbeck wrote:If Bevell gets canned, there are going to be some interesting offensive coordinator candidates available.

- Tom Cable (currently on staff, not totally sold on him as a full time OC though)
- Norv Turner (GREAT OC.. awful head coach)
- Andy Reid (would he subject himself to a year of OC though? not sure)
- Ken Whisenhunt (as the Cardinals continue to freefall, his seat gets hotter)
- Rob Chudzinski (If Rivera is canned, the whole staff is likely going with him.. Chudzinski is not a bad coordinator though)

Of these.. the idea of Norv Turner having full control of the offense has me the most excited. Especially with a young QB.

Which of those guys can you see Pete actually wanting? Maybe Chud, but none of the rest, with the obvious exception of Cable.

I can see him wanting any of them provided they help him keep his HC job.

Hiring a Turner or Whiz makes a lot of sense.

Russ Willstrong wrote:Yep, the game stats still say WE HAD 27 PASSING ATTEMPTS. Total runs including Wilson's were 27. You can count drop backs plays all you want but an option read IS NOT a drop back.

You are right.The zone read was called. 1 play may have been a QB draw but the rest were scrambles or sacks which are called pass plays.i never counted those 2 as passes.Just because pass plays break down doesnt mean they weren't pass plays.Should we not count some of the run plays actual run plays because the oline didnt block.If you want to argue about 2 percent and change knock yourself out.If you want to call me dishonest for rounding up enjoy yourself.
How about this.People thought we ran too many plays with Lynch and Turbin.Thats 21 time which is .375% I rounded that up to 40 in an earlier post.I lied on that one also

Tech Worlds wrote:I don't blame the offense much in this game. The defense allowed long drives to end the game that absolutely killed us.

Leon gave us the lead, then we gave it right back. They went head to head with us and beat our defense down when it mattered. This was not a great offense we yielded 180 plus yards on the ground to.

That is the troubling issue.

Good point. As bad as the offensive play calling may or may not have been, the defense had multiple opportunities to put this game away, and they couldn't do it. It'd make more sense to be concerned with defensive play calling at this point.

justafan wrote:

Russ Willstrong wrote:Yep, the game stats still say WE HAD 27 PASSING ATTEMPTS. Total runs including Wilson's were 27. You can count drop backs plays all you want but an option read IS NOT a drop back.

You are right.The zone read was called. 1 play may have been a QB draw but the rest were scrambles or sacks which are called pass plays.i never counted those 2 as passes.Just because pass plays break down doesnt mean they weren't pass plays.Should we not count some of the run plays actual run plays because the oline didnt block.If you want to argue about 2 percent and change knock yourself out.If you want to call me dishonest for rounding up enjoy yourself.
How about this.People thought we ran too many plays with Lynch and Turbin.Thats 21 time which is .375% I rounded that up to 40 in an earlier post.I lied on that one also

Calm down dude. Just correcting you that we PASSED 27 times is all. Not going to spend any time debating with you about what is a pass play so spin it how you please if it helps you get over the loss and the regressed playcalling.

justafan wrote:They did put the game in Wilsons hands.We had 32 pass plays vs 21 run plays.the run was starting to work better in the 4th Qtr, a 16 yrd run a couple of 5 yrd runs.the last drive they were running the 5 min offense trying to burn up some clock but the game ended up in Wilsons hands.He should have grounded that messed up screen pass and it looked like he bailed out of the pocket early on that last play.There was a pocket.

Grounding the screen pass still puts us in 3rd and long and allows the Dolphins defense to play the pass just like they did. Maybe Wilson could have stayed in the pocket a bit longer, but who knows if it would have made a difference. Bevell went conservative when we still needed a first down to get into field goal range. The running game and screen game had not been working all game, there was NO reason to call those on first and second down when their defense might be playing for those. Let Wilson throw the ball on 1st and 2nd down, and not some little screen pass. Do what had been working the entire second half!

Bevell (or Carroll, or whoever the fuck is calling the plays) blew that drive, not Wilson.

Watch the game again and tell me what you see.If you still have trouble understanding the % of pass plays and run plays called let me know.Math can be kinda tricky sometimes.