All Kidding Aside...Would You Fire Bevell?

[jdemps]

Bevell's playcalling definitely included:
3 OPIs
a Jimmy Graham false start
holding
Baldwin, Locket and Rawls getting
avg starting field position of the 17 yard line
Kearse getting ZERO separation all game
Oh, did I mention the fantastic play of the O-line.

How many of these things can bevell's play calling effect? Maybe 2. Maybe you can get Kearse open with playcalling but he's usually a guy who specializes in winning 50-50 deep balls, not quick routes. The O-line can and was helped by play calling. We didn't call hardly any long developing plays... mostly quick strikes and some play action, which looked good. The run game didn't work early bc the Rams broke it up. So we changed our attack and the running game got more on track in the second half. The moral of the story is that, for once, this wasn't on Bevell. This game was lost by penalties, O-line play, field position, injuries, and overall execution.

TBH, I'm tired of these Bevell threads. I've been on his case in the past, but this is ridiculous.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Well, I disagree with your disagreement -- my view of that pass play is that Lockette should have anticipated defensive pressure and used his greater size to knock the smaller DB off the ball.

Never said otherwise. I said many people, myself included think Bevell threw Lockette under the bus rather than fall on the sword as many people think he should have done.

He answered the question. It was the right answer. I didn't realize he was acting in a Shakespearen tragedy.

Many people think not handing the ball to Lynch was a tragedy of proportions well beyond anything Shakespeare ever wrote. And I don't believe it was the right answer just as I don't believe a supervisor should ever reprimand an employee in front of other employees.

The decision to even call a pass to Ricardo Lockette in that situation is the real crime here. Not only was it one of the worst calls ever, the call had the pass going to a special teams pundit who was probably the worst receiver on the team. There was nothing right or good about that play or the call. Bevell took absolutely no credit for its failure either.

He didn't need to. The throw was 6 inches away from being a touchdown.

 

[Anonymous]

Look, I get it. No one is more frustrated than me when we suck the whole game and we see them trot Collins in and run the same basic play twice with the same results. And where the hell was Luke Willson yesterday?

Part of me wants to agree with the Bevell outers. I do. Really. But something in the back of my mind says there is something we are missing. While that feeling festers, I'll hold my cards a bit. I just can't shake the feeling that the situation can't be changed by changing the coordinator. It's bigger than that.

We can all agree that O-line play is a huge part. I think it would be relatively safe to say that Russell not being mobile Russell is also an issue. That out of the way, I can think of only one other thing:

Our running backs don't scare anybody.

With Lynch in there and a healthy Russ, teams were looking for that read option situation. Now we can't run that and we can't scare anyone with the backs so about half our options are gone. Literally.

We need to be able to scare defenses and we just can't do that right now. Everything we CAN do they know how to defend. So, it's either figure out something else or just pray a defense has a couple newbs we can exploit or isolate some linebackers on some wideouts.

And where is the tight end play!

 

[Russ Willstrong]

Yes. Bevell needs to stop watching ROCKY II for inspiration.
Before he came to Seattle he was with the Vikings and a great collection of talent. The vikings offense struggled early in games because they were playcalling a predictable run-first play-action offense. Favre eventually changed plays much the same as what Wilson did in the Miami game to pull out a win.

Favre audibled. Big difference. An audible is the play within a play that Favre switched to because he spotted a tell in the defense.

I understand audibles Sioux. Favre was not just audibling early in that 2009 season.
Childress and Bevell worked on plays and scripted drives early in games. They wanted Favre to stick with plays called as the Vikings featured AP and play-action off the run game. Keep in mind that vikings offense was a new system for Favre to master early on which was a concern. So he made some backyard plays at times--changing plays (i.e. adding folds to a passing play). And yes Favre did audible out of run plays too. It frustrated Childress enough that he even tried to pull Favre from a game. After that drama Favre was allowed to audible at will. But Favre had a penchant for backyard football and adding wrinkles to plays. He even did this in green bay.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Yes. Bevell needs to stop watching ROCKY II for inspiration.
Before he came to Seattle he was with the Vikings and a great collection of talent. The vikings offense struggled early in games because they were playcalling a predictable run-first play-action offense. Favre eventually changed plays much the same as what Wilson did in the Miami game to pull out a win.

Favre audibled. Big difference. An audible is the play within a play that Favre switched to because he spotted a tell in the defense.

I understand audibles Sioux. Favre was not just audibling early in that 2009 season.
Childress and Bevell worked on plays and scripted drives early in games. They wanted Favre to stick with plays called as the Vikings featured AP and play-action off the run game. Keep in mind that vikings offense was a new system for Favre to master early on which was a concern. So he made some backyard plays at times--changing plays (i.e. adding folds to a passing play). And yes Favre did audible out of run plays too. It frustrated Childress enough that he even tried to pull Favre from a game. After that drama Favre was allowed to audible at will. But Favre had a penchant for backyard football and adding wrinkles to plays. He even did this in green bay.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. Favre wasn't out there drawing plays in the dirt. As a future Hall of Famer, he was given a loose rein on the offense and even encouraged to audible when he detected something to exploit in the defense. But those check-outs were still within the framework of the offense. Favre always wanted to throw, so that's what probably miffed Chili, who preferred a ground game.

 

[BeerHawker]

A dominant defence can protect a crappy offence, or in this case a crappy OC for a long time.

Our D is still outstanding. Other teams will score 9 or 10 points against the best D's in the league when they have the ball for 35 minutes. We need not look at our defence.

In our passing game, Bevell protects the ball at all costs. That is a mistake. You test your QB and receivers by throwing to receivers in coverage until you understand where the receptions stop and INTs happen. RW, when 10 points down (half his games) throws to receivers who are covered when desperate. He does this well.

No matter, the game plan is that he is expected to eat the ball or throw it away if the receiver is not 2 yards clear of a defender. This is why plays take so long to develop. You need that long to zig and zag your way into the clear.

Jimmy Graham can catch the ball with a man hanging on him. He cannot run himself 2 yards clear on a straight line 12 yard run down the middle, his signature route. So he does not get thrown to much. When he does, he catches it.

We need a whole different philosophy for our passing game. Run at the defender, cut away from the direction he is favouring while back peddling and throw the ball "into coverage". See who can catch and who cannot.

Every team saves money on the cap somewhere. O line is no better or worse a place to do it than anywhere else. But when the o line sucks, you cannot draw up 4 steamboat pass routes. We need to run at the defender, and the cut and throw need to be simultaneous. This NEVER happens on purpose with our passing game.

Bevell is a total fail. Watching RW create magic out of Bevell's horseshit passing scheme belongs on America's Got Talent. But Bevell is going to RGIII cripple RW at some point unless he is tossed.

Having said that, in a passing league, I like his running game now and then, apart from his blind panic moments.
Like PC, he is not a really good game day coach. He makes poor in game decisions, overreacts and under reacts at random.

So I voted "You're fired". How about Trump doing it for a half-time show?

 

[chris98251]

Yes. Bevell needs to stop watching ROCKY II for inspiration.
Before he came to Seattle he was with the Vikings and a great collection of talent. The vikings offense struggled early in games because they were playcalling a predictable run-first play-action offense. Favre eventually changed plays much the same as what Wilson did in the Miami game to pull out a win.

Favre audibled. Big difference. An audible is the play within a play that Favre switched to because he spotted a tell in the defense.

I understand audibles Sioux. Favre was not just audibling early in that 2009 season.
Childress and Bevell worked on plays and scripted drives early in games. They wanted Favre to stick with plays called as the Vikings featured AP and play-action off the run game. Keep in mind that vikings offense was a new system for Favre to master early on which was a concern. So he made some backyard plays at times--changing plays (i.e. adding folds to a passing play). And yes Favre did audible out of run plays too. It frustrated Childress enough that he even tried to pull Favre from a game. After that drama Favre was allowed to audible at will. But Favre had a penchant for backyard football and adding wrinkles to plays. He even did this in green bay.

Sorry, but I don't agree with this. Favre wasn't out there drawing plays in the dirt. As a future Hall of Famer, he was given a loose rein on the offense and even encouraged to audible when he detected something to exploit in the defense. But those check-outs were still within the framework of the offense. Favre always wanted to throw, so that's what probably miffed Chili, who preferred a ground game.

I think this sums it up well.

http://www.acmepackingcompany.com/2...e-caused-the-seahawks-to-lose-super-bowl-xlix

 

[Seafan]

Many of us said the season would be predicated on the play calling. Things aren't going so well.

 

[vin.couve12]

You'd have to do something like that in the offseason, just after a playoff or superbowl exit. Asking for that right now is not even applicable. The learning curve alone would be responsible for 4 losses easily.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

In our passing game, Bevell protects the ball at all costs. That is a mistake.

We need a whole different philosophy for our passing game.

Bevell is a total fail. Watching RW create magic out of Bevell's horseshit passing scheme belongs on America's Got Talent. But Bevell is going to RGIII cripple RW at some point unless he is tossed.

Having said that, in a passing league, I like his running game now and then, apart from his blind panic moments.
Like PC, he is not a really good game day coach. He makes poor in game decisions, overreacts and under reacts at random.

Pete Carroll preaches 'it's all about the ball'.

It's Pete Carroll's philosophy for the whole team, this isn't 'Pete Carroll's defense and special teams and Bevell's offense'.

PC not a good game day coach? Funny, I seem to remember all those epic in-game adjustments over the years and amazing comeback wins.

And apparently he overreacts and under reacts in equal measure.

Is it Sunday yet so we can JUST STOP THIS?

 

[Ozzy]

Look, I get it. No one is more frustrated than me when we suck the whole game and we see them trot Collins in and run the same basic play twice with the same results. And where the hell was Luke Willson yesterday?

Part of me wants to agree with the Bevell outers. I do. Really. But something in the back of my mind says there is something we are missing. While that feeling festers, I'll hold my cards a bit. I just can't shake the feeling that the situation can't be changed by changing the coordinator. It's bigger than that.

We can all agree that O-line play is a huge part. I think it would be relatively safe to say that Russell not being mobile Russell is also an issue. That out of the way, I can think of only one other thing:

Our running backs don't scare anybody.

With Lynch in there and a healthy Russ, teams were looking for that read option situation. Now we can't run that and we can't scare anyone with the backs so about half our options are gone. Literally.

We need to be able to scare defenses and we just can't do that right now. Everything we CAN do they know how to defend. So, it's either figure out something else or just pray a defense has a couple newbs we can exploit or isolate some linebackers on some wideouts.

And where is the tight end play!

Great post and I've enjoyed your level headed approach the last couple of days. I know I'm in the minority but I disagree on Michael, I think teams do view him as a difference maker even if our fan base doesn't. The guy has played better than we realize and has made some runs that very few other running backs would make. His ability to cut back and avoid pressure has made our line look better than it really was at times. I don't expect many to agree but I think we as a fan base undersell Michael quite a bit.

 

[Anonymous]

Look, I get it. No one is more frustrated than me when we suck the whole game and we see them trot Collins in and run the same basic play twice with the same results. And where the hell was Luke Willson yesterday?

Part of me wants to agree with the Bevell outers. I do. Really. But something in the back of my mind says there is something we are missing. While that feeling festers, I'll hold my cards a bit. I just can't shake the feeling that the situation can't be changed by changing the coordinator. It's bigger than that.

We can all agree that O-line play is a huge part. I think it would be relatively safe to say that Russell not being mobile Russell is also an issue. That out of the way, I can think of only one other thing:

Our running backs don't scare anybody.

With Lynch in there and a healthy Russ, teams were looking for that read option situation. Now we can't run that and we can't scare anyone with the backs so about half our options are gone. Literally.

We need to be able to scare defenses and we just can't do that right now. Everything we CAN do they know how to defend. So, it's either figure out something else or just pray a defense has a couple newbs we can exploit or isolate some linebackers on some wideouts.

And where is the tight end play!

Great post and I've enjoyed your level headed approach the last couple of days. I know I'm in the minority but I disagree on Michael, I think teams do view him as a difference maker even if our fan base doesn't. The guy has played better than we realize and has made some runs that very few other running backs would make. His ability to cut back and avoid pressure has made our line look better than it really was at times. I don't expect many to agree but I think we as a fan base undersell Michael quite a bit.

Austin, I love ya, and you have a valid point. However, Michael has yet to establish a stat line that proves your assertion has any measurable affect from which to call upon.

I will remain attentive to your thought process, as it has basis enough to warrant an eyeball or two moving forward.

 

[Zorn76]

Yes.

In the same way that Bradley, Quinn, and now Richard have all coached top Seahawk defenses, we could find another OC who would be able to match - in not exceed - Bevell statistically.

More importantly, though, would be the timing of certain calls, along with implementing a game plan not named vanilla for any given opponent.