All-22 from the Fieldgulls guys: Seattle just didn't execute

[MontanaHawk05]

I appreciate these viewpoints because it's more than just looking for ONE factor to be fixed in order to improve everything. Basically, Arizona played a hell of a defensive game and Seattle dallied around too much on offense, left too many plays on the field. Plenty of good, plenty of bad, certainly not anyone being just utterly incompetent (because then you can just fire him and everything's all better!)

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-brea ... t-happened

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-brea ... the-all-22

Highlights:




I think Seattle bounces back and wins another pissed-off knuckle brawl next week vs the Rams. Football is a game of execution. When two talented teams are involved, the win usually comes down to tipping the scale of successful plays. The Seahawks just let one too many get away and left the scale tipped in favor of Arizona when the clock hit zero. Nine times out of ten, they still win this kind of game. It's just that this was the tenth.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I take away from this post that Bevell is perfect. Ok, moving on!

 

[MontanaHawk05]

I take away from this post that Bevell is perfect.

You're just trolling now. Read the articles.

 

[Pandion Haliaetus]

Sucks doesn't it.

 

[Mjolnir]

I personally agree with much of that analysis as it met my own "eye" test. Especially the offensive line which many on this board appear to believe were horrible during that game. I actually thought they did quite well, and especially Bowie.

To me, it felt like Russell actually had quite a bit of time back there. I disagree that he left the pocket too early though. I felt he left it just in time. To me, Russell was holding onto the ball too long...seemingly afraid to throw it. My personal theory is that he is really really concerned with turnovers and needs the receivers to have a bit more separation than necessary. Against a great defense, maybe that is the right thing to do.

For the run game, even though that 5.5 yards/att stat looks good, the overall game it really wasn't. Now, here is where I thought the offensive line was not very good.....so many times Lynch has to contend with defenders who simply get through our offensive line way too easily. But then again, to me it appears Lynch doesn't have very good run vision anymore, electing to take on defenders instead of bypassing them. Frustrating to me.

I'm sure many will say I'm blind. Probably.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I take away from this post that Bevell is perfect.

You're just trolling now. Read the articles.

In defense of iRo that's the jist I got from reading your title. That's the old coaches excuse/line when their gameplan failed. I loved Chuck Knox but he would always use that line when he had a crap game plan and it failed.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I take away from this post that Bevell is perfect.

You're just trolling now. Read the articles.

In defense of iRo that's the jist I got from reading your title. That's the old coaches excuse/line when their gameplan failed. I loved Chuck Knox but he would always use that line when he had a crap game plan and it failed.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Do not agree about the o-line. Thought they played poorly, especially in the 2nd half. No surprise Bevell didn't use the screen game. He seldom does.

 

[themunn]

Do not agree about the o-line. Thought they played poorly, especially in the 2nd half. No surprise Bevell didn't use the screen game. He seldom does.

Not with the players on our team anyway, I have never felt that our screen game is particularly effective - Tate has the ability to make people miss yes, but often if he doesn't we get bungled for a short loss.

We need a guy with breakaway speed to make those kind of plays effective. The kind of guy who can take a screen to the house like Jamaal Charles did a few weeks ago, or like Percy Harvin used to do when he was with the Vikings. Where is he now anyway?

 

[ImTheScientist]

So we shouldn't fire Bevell now?

 

[getnasty]

Great Read, and thanks for taking the time to post. I agree about the only OL playing a decent game, I think people see Russell scrambling around all of the time and just figure the OL isn't blocking. Most of those times he either can't find anyone or there just not open and then he starts to scramble around. I'd be interested to see how much longed per snap Russell takes to throw the ball then say Peyton Manning. I realize there different QB in different offenses but Peyton can make a OL great when there really average at best, could Russell make a average OL look bad at times? Everyone calm down I love RW and wouldn't trade him for anything.

 

[Scottemojo]

Well, I watched the all 22 myself and didn't agree completely with what was said.

The Cardinals love to show 6 and 7 rushers. That was pretty predictable. What was also predicatable was that not all of them would rush, there would be a guy dropping into middle coverage. Outside of the red zone, I don't recall a single shallow crosser to make that middle backer in coverage stay honest. A few times we countered with hot routes, but our hot routes ran right into this middle intermediate zone. Mostly, we countered blitzes with max protect, hoping to complete big shots. This is not the first time we have seen the bunker mentality game plan, we saw it vs Houston and the Rams when our line had replacement players too. Max protect, big shots, hope the D makes a mistake. Even a snippet on NFLN featured Cardinals players and coaches talking on th esidelines about how Seattle was playing conservative and hoping the Cards would a mistake deep.

Another game vs a NFC West opponent when I could watch the footage and pick out the guy assigned to spy Russell on pretty much every play. Early on, every read option handoff had Russell getting pushed around by Dansby. It's pretty clear by now that trying to get Russell out of the pocket to throw triggers the spy to rush the bootleg spot. In fact, there are plays where the Russell assigned player ignores Lynch completely on play action and just heads for the bootleg spot. Part of this is Seattle's insistense on running play action in odd situations. In this game, there was play action on 3rd and 12. This is a pattern that seems to pop up a bit more in games where we have replacement linemen. I have to assume this is because the blocking assignments are a tad easier when the play sets up initially as a zone block run look, like play action would. There isn't any other reason I can think of to run play action on third and 12. Whatever the reason, it didn't fool Arizona. Just like it didn't fool the Rams, Colts, or Niners running play action on long pass situations.

Before this turns into a Bevell referendum, I don't believe in run, run pass as any indicator of predictability. I knew they were going to run, so the OC sucks is weak sauce. However, it was clear that the Cards targeted play action passes and bootlegs, gave up the short middle knowing play action by its very design can't use it, and used max protection as a way to clog the middle. Rarely did we even try to make the players assigned to spy Russell also cover the short area. In effect, our game plan played to what they wanted to do.

Was there a lack of execution? Unger and Bowie didn't communicate on a screen that should have gone for big yards, both thought the other was going to get the guy. Russell did bail early, but like I said, max protect had a hell of a wall going in front of him. Russell missed Lynch leaking uncovered in a goal line situation, and he stuck with a pre snap read of Kearse that had him never even look left while Baldwin was wide open at the back line of the end zone, having broken their zone.

 

[getnasty]

To the guys that re-watch the games, how much freedom does Russell have when it comes to changing plays at the line of scrimmage, and how often does he do it? It seems to me that he rarely does it, but maybe i'm way off on that.

 

[seahawks08]

I think our game plan was go deep and burn them by using Kearse and then put TJ in once we are ahead. I don't think they had realized that if receivers dropped the ball what to do next. Happens with confidence. Its like this, during exams I knew just to cram and come out successfully, so never studied or put extra effort when you keep succeeding. Once you get beat, you wake up and start being diigent. As humans its only understandable that you think you have got the season under control because of all the hard work from the whole year. We will be fine Sunday.

 

[Scottemojo]

To the guys that re-watch the games, how much freedom does Russell have when it comes to changing plays at the line of scrimmage, and how often does he do it? It seems to me that he rarely does it, but maybe i'm way off on that.

Russell has plenty of freedom to change stuff. He doesn't always have time though.

 

[Seafan]

I personally agree with much of that analysis as it met my own "eye" test. Especially the offensive line which many on this board appear to believe were horrible during that game. I actually thought they did quite well, and especially Bowie.

To me, it felt like Russell actually had quite a bit of time back there. I disagree that he left the pocket too early though. I felt he left it just in time. To me, Russell was holding onto the ball too long...seemingly afraid to throw it. My personal theory is that he is really really concerned with turnovers and needs the receivers to have a bit more separation than necessary. Against a great defense, maybe that is the right thing to do.

For the run game, even though that 5.5 yards/att stat looks good, the overall game it really wasn't. Now, here is where I thought the offensive line was not very good.....so many times Lynch has to contend with defenders who simply get through our offensive line way too easily. But then again, to me it appears Lynch doesn't have very good run vision anymore, electing to take on defenders instead of bypassing them. Frustrating to me.

I'm sure many will say I'm blind. Probably.

I agree with this assessment. The Cards are a good team and the Hawks would have beaten them if they executed better and likely only one play would have made the difference. How about that stupid penalty on McDaniel? That one really burns me up. No one can dispute that Wilson had his worst game. He really needs to get out of the collapsing pocket instead of trying to make a play with his arm every time. He's too talented to let games get away like that.

 

[plyka]

I appreciate these viewpoints because it's more than just looking for ONE factor to be fixed in order to improve everything. Basically, Arizona played a hell of a defensive game and Seattle dallied around too much on offense, left too many plays on the field. Plenty of good, plenty of bad, certainly not anyone being just utterly incompetent (because then you can just fire him and everything's all better!)

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-brea ... t-happened

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-brea ... the-all-22

Highlights:




I think Seattle bounces back and wins another pissed-off knuckle brawl next week vs the Rams. Football is a game of execution. When two talented teams are involved, the win usually comes down to tipping the scale of successful plays. The Seahawks just let one too many get away and left the scale tipped in favor of Arizona when the clock hit zero. Nine times out of ten, they still win this kind of game. It's just that this was the tenth.

I was excited when I saw those two articles on fieldgulls --wow i said to myself, some views from the "all 22." After reading both, I was severely disappointed. The first one was barely legible. The 2nd one, although better written, said nothing. In fact, both of the articles were basically devoid of opinions. Whenever you use the "didn't execute" line, you know you're using a cop out and refusing to give your opinions. It's what coaches say when they don't want to say anything.

I think it is rather obvious, after watching the all 22 myself, that there is more to this than "didn't execute." Play calling is the number one disaster. Especially in the first 3 quarters when it seemed like the offense wasn't clicking, but they had opportunities to click. They had a lot of 3rd and shorts or 3rd and mediums. They failed at most of them. Why? 50 yard bombs are low percentage plays, they are fine and dandy on 1st and 2nd --even then only in moderation. But when you throw 7-8 bombs over 25 yards --out of how many passes--you're over using the bomb. On the 3rd downs they took more high percentage plays, the Lockette in route comes to mind, they had better success.

Some of the things I noticed was Arizona's defense. They weren't stacking the box THAT much. They were playing the WRs for long routes though. Even Paul Moyer on 710 this morning was talking about Arizona playing "off man." Meaning they were not bumb coverage, they were giving the WRs room because they were playing for DEEP ROUTES. Even if Percy is on the field, and the defense is giving them a 10 yard cushion, it's not like Percy is going to blaze right by them. What do you do when the defense is playing for deep routes? You take advantage and start running bubble screens, quick slants, ins, outs, etc. And when they work, double moves for the deep routes.

In my opinion, 90% of this game was on the playcalling. So predictable, playing right into Arizona's hands. When the defense knows what's coming, it's hard to win.

 

[formido]

The game plan was bad. It's trivially true that better execution could have still won the game. That's always true. But coaches can put players in much more efficient situations. Taking deep shot after deep shot with no set-up, in the rain with short receivers who rely on making circus catches, is not putting players in high leverage situations.

Seattle has demonstrated an ability ever since Tennessee to take advantage of short and intermediate passes. They should have adjusted to the game conditions and used more slants and hitches and etc where the first or second read was a quick play. Despite one of the linked article's claim that Wilson missed some shorter routes, these calls were not happening. Designed quick hitters are obvious.

There's no reason to prefer a multifactorial explanation versus a largely single factor explanation...and also not vice versa. The best thing to do is look at the facts. Is a one dimensional offense ever preferable? What about when that single dimension is "make short quick receivers somehow get separation on a slick field and/or win jump balls in the rain"?

After seeing Philadelphia, in one year, at the top of offensive efficiency metrics, we can reject that notion that game planning and play calling aren't substantial explanations for game outcomes.

 

[plyka]

The game plan was bad. It's trivially true that better execution could have still won the game. That's always true. But coaches can put players in much more efficient situations. Taking deep shot after deep shot with no set-up, in the rain with short receivers who rely on making circus catches, is not putting players in high leverage situations.

Seattle has demonstrated an ability ever since Tennessee to take advantage of short and intermediate passes. They should have adjusted to the game conditions and used more slants and hitches and etc where the first or second read was a quick play. Despite one of the linked article's claim that Wilson missed some shorter routes, these calls were not happening. Designed quick hitters are obvious.

There's no reason to prefer a multifactorial explanation versus a largely single factor explanation...and also not vice versa. The best thing to do is look at the facts. Is a one dimensional offense ever preferable? What about when that single dimension is "make short quick receivers somehow get separation on a slick field and/or win jump balls in the rain"?

After seeing Philadelphia, in one year, at the top of offensive efficiency metrics, we can reject that notion that game planning and play calling aren't substantial explanations for game outcomes.

Great post here. In my opinion coaching is the number one factor in great nfl teams. Just look at the seahawks with Pete Carroll. Ever since his arrival the hawks have been incredible on defense. This isn't luck. You brought up phili and their offense. Turning foles I.to manning. The talent level is so even coaching is of the utmost Importance. The hawks have defense figured out they now need a good OC.

 

[Hasselbeck]

I really think it boiled down to Russell Wilson being really off and just missed execution in key situations (Lynch cutting the wrong way, Lynch tripping at the 1, a couple of drops, etc)

If they score 6 before half, as they should have, I really think they win.