Bevell Haters Unite!

[Sarlacc83]

Nope. I just know that "no" blitz beaters is a polarizing way to say it, and easy to refute. I know what you meant though. Not much that targets the weakness the d just gift wrapped for you.

One real question I have is: does the sudden effectiveness against the blitz stem from Bevell or from Richardson stepping up. Because it seems to me like maybe he's good enough to do what needed to be done all along, and Kearse wasn't. Anybody taken a look at it?

 

[RolandDeschain]

So, since "Bevell" rhymes with "Devil"...

Well, I know that's why I don't like Bevell, and have been on record around here for three years now about it. :roll:

 

[McGruff]

Well, let's play this thought process through then, shall we? The Seahawks offensive line is above criticisms then, I mean, the trend for the offense is going up, right? The numbers and data should exclude criticisms of the offensive line using this same measure. We're foolish to criticize anyone on the offense using your premise.

I just can't stand generalizing members comments as vague and uneducated. For 16 weeks, a lot of good threads have discussed specifics.

On Cincy, I'm fully capable of determining what's talent and whats schematics. IMO, Dalton had the 2nd easiest QB job in the NFL his first 3 years. Still doesn't mean I cant see the obvious that Hue and Gruden are dynamo's.

I liked Bates. I liked the dude who got fired in Jax. I liked the old SF OC that coordinated a historically bad offense in SF before talking over in GB. Doesn’t mean I'm right about Bevell, but it does mean I'm not some mouth breather spewing rube takes.

I think criticism of specific plays and even games is fine. But keep it within context. THe overall picture of the offense under Bevell is rosy. Sure, there are specifics that warrant scrutiny, and as fans we have the freedom to do just that. The problem is when those specific plays become a chant to "fire Bevell" when the bulk of his work is successful.

One of the things this particular post betrays is a bias for a certain kind of playcalling. Specifically a WCO type of playcalling. Which is machine like when it works (see 2005 Seahawks), but it also highly predictable. And frankly, doesn't fit our personnel at all. A True WCO requires savvy WR's who create separation early in their routes and an OL built to pass block. That's not who we are.

I think this is where a lot of frustration comes from. Many fans want a methodical offense. A Holmgren/Martz style that gets yards in 5-10 yard chunks and grinds the clock. The irony is that's Bevell's background. That's what he was in Minnesota. But that's not what Pete wants. He wants explosive plays. And so what we get is barely controlled chaos that struggles for 50 plays a game but gains 300 yards on 15 specific plays to make up for it.

This offense is intentionally improvisational, and that leads to uneven performances. But it also leads to big plays, and over the course of a game and a season a top 5-10 overall offense. Its not traditional, but it is effective.

 

[pehawk]

Well, let's play this thought process through then, shall we? The Seahawks offensive line is above criticisms then, I mean, the trend for the offense is going up, right? The numbers and data should exclude criticisms of the offensive line using this same measure. We're foolish to criticize anyone on the offense using your premise.

I just can't stand generalizing members comments as vague and uneducated. For 16 weeks, a lot of good threads have discussed specifics.

On Cincy, I'm fully capable of determining what's talent and whats schematics. IMO, Dalton had the 2nd easiest QB job in the NFL his first 3 years. Still doesn't mean I cant see the obvious that Hue and Gruden are dynamo's.

I liked Bates. I liked the dude who got fired in Jax. I liked the old SF OC that coordinated a historically bad offense in SF before talking over in GB. Doesn’t mean I'm right about Bevell, but it does mean I'm not some mouth breather spewing rube takes.

I think criticism of specific plays and even games is fine. But keep it within context. THe overall picture of the offense under Bevell is rosy. Sure, there are specifics that warrant scrutiny, and as fans we have the freedom to do just that. The problem is when those specific plays become a chant to "fire Bevell" when the bulk of his work is successful.

One of the things this particular post betrays is a bias for a certain kind of playcalling. Specifically a WCO type of playcalling. Which is machine like when it works (see 2005 Seahawks), but it also highly predictable. And frankly, doesn't fit our personnel at all. A True WCO requires savvy WR's who create separation early in their routes and an OL built to pass block. That's not who we are.

I think this is where a lot of frustration comes from. Many fans want a methodical offense. A Holmgren/Martz style that gets yards in 5-10 yard chunks and grinds the clock. The irony is that's Bevell's background. That's what he was in Minnesota. But that's not what Pete wants. He wants explosive plays. And so what we get is barely controlled chaos that struggles for 50 plays a game but gains 300 yards on 15 specific plays to make up for it.

This offense is intentionally improvisational, and that leads to uneven performances. But it also leads to big plays, and over the course of a game and a season a top 5-10 overall offense. Its not traditional, but it is effective.

Wow, you couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. I loathe the WCO offense. I think the WCO actually hindered Hass and reduced his overall effect (I think he would've thrived in a more play action type offense). I hate offenses that make the QB a robot, generally speaking.

So, the offense is improvisational under Bevell? You think credit for players improvising should be evenly distributed amongst the play-caller and the players themselves? Huh?

 

[McGruff]

Let's be honest. This thread wasn't started with honest debate in mind. It we started with the premise that if you disagree with Doug you are a shitty fan. It was a toxic envronment for healthy debate from the first keystroke.

The whole base of Pete's program is competition. As the season went on the offense got better at it, but not the way they hoped. It was a reset to putting offense on the legs of lynch the ability to stretch a d through pure attrition due to length of play. If Baldwin wantted to give credit where credit was due, it was Cable's o line being able to run out ass kicker backups that initiated the run game, and saved a season. Coincidentally, guys who pass block like toreadors.

Somebody referenced the Phoenix blitz beating routes. They were awesome. They were also not the norm, we were half as effective vs blitzes this year as last before that. Literally 8 ypa in 2013, under 4 in 2014. Pe isn't wrong about a lack of blitz beaters. Saying there are no blitz beaters is off base, but contains truth. We have generally done a bad job of targeting areas vacated by blitzers. A flare route by the TE or the rb that will gain 3 on 3rd and 7 is more common as a blitz beater in our scheme. SF doesn't like blitzing, but vs us they blitz more than vs pretty much anyone else. It isn't because we are awesome at killing it.

I loved the Phoenix game. Polar opposite of the Dallas game in philosophy. Bevell took advantage of vacated blitz zones like we had not seen since last season. It was a huge jump in identity. The Dallas game and the San Diego games were the other end of the spectrum, with clock management and Percy centric play calling leaving our core philosophy behind.

Does Bevell deserve credit or blame? I tend to think of Bevell as a play caller only, so neither. I am sure he has input on game plans, but play calling is the only thing he visibly controls. At which he seems to me to be kind of replaceable.

Actually, I probably should have showed more discretion in my original quote. I quoted Doug because his comments were interesting and refreshingly candid.

However, the more interesting part of the article is the historical success of this season's offense. We have this perception that we have struggled offensively, when in reality we have had one of the best offensive seasons in team history. I find that dichotomy interesting, the juxtaposition between perception and reality, and perhaps a better question would be why does that contrast exist?

Why do we perceive ineffectiveness on offense when the numbers show something different, and I guess I would suggest it is because we, like many fans and media members, are still stuck in a traditional West Coast passing offense mentality. We suffer from the same bias that causes many to say Russell Wilson is not a good QB because he's not a traditional drop back passer. Our offense isn't traditional and that's going to frustrate many of us. But it has proven effective, especially given the tools we have to work with.

 

[McGruff]

Let's be honest. This thread wasn't started with honest debate in mind. It we started with the premise that if you disagree with Doug you are a shitty fan. It was a toxic envronment for healthy debate from the first keystroke.

BTW that was not my motivation at all . . . it also wasn't my motivation to be crude in the thread title, and I sincerely apologize for coming off that way.

I found the statistic interesting, and Baldwin's comments offered an interpretation from a players perspective on those statistics.

It was started to foster discussion. It was not started to paint people's fandom in a particular light. I do somewhat resent my motivations being questioned, but given how quickly the thread went this direction, I guess I can see where I may have thrown a rock into the wrong pond.

The sad thing to me is I left this place 5 years ago because I got tired of the drama. I have returned but mostly lurked for the last year because I didn't want to be part of the problem. But I guess that is unavoidable.

 

[Largent80]

Regardless of whether Bevell screwed the pooch in losses this year, I believe that he has done well with what he has had to work with. I'm not defending him.... however, you can't just say the defense is the reason we were 13-3 last year and 12-4 this year with the #1 seed in both of those years.

 

[McGruff]

Well, let's play this thought process through then, shall we? The Seahawks offensive line is above criticisms then, I mean, the trend for the offense is going up, right? The numbers and data should exclude criticisms of the offensive line using this same measure. We're foolish to criticize anyone on the offense using your premise.

I just can't stand generalizing members comments as vague and uneducated. For 16 weeks, a lot of good threads have discussed specifics.

On Cincy, I'm fully capable of determining what's talent and whats schematics. IMO, Dalton had the 2nd easiest QB job in the NFL his first 3 years. Still doesn't mean I cant see the obvious that Hue and Gruden are dynamo's.

I liked Bates. I liked the dude who got fired in Jax. I liked the old SF OC that coordinated a historically bad offense in SF before talking over in GB. Doesn’t mean I'm right about Bevell, but it does mean I'm not some mouth breather spewing rube takes.

I think criticism of specific plays and even games is fine. But keep it within context. THe overall picture of the offense under Bevell is rosy. Sure, there are specifics that warrant scrutiny, and as fans we have the freedom to do just that. The problem is when those specific plays become a chant to "fire Bevell" when the bulk of his work is successful.

One of the things this particular post betrays is a bias for a certain kind of playcalling. Specifically a WCO type of playcalling. Which is machine like when it works (see 2005 Seahawks), but it also highly predictable. And frankly, doesn't fit our personnel at all. A True WCO requires savvy WR's who create separation early in their routes and an OL built to pass block. That's not who we are.

I think this is where a lot of frustration comes from. Many fans want a methodical offense. A Holmgren/Martz style that gets yards in 5-10 yard chunks and grinds the clock. The irony is that's Bevell's background. That's what he was in Minnesota. But that's not what Pete wants. He wants explosive plays. And so what we get is barely controlled chaos that struggles for 50 plays a game but gains 300 yards on 15 specific plays to make up for it.

This offense is intentionally improvisational, and that leads to uneven performances. But it also leads to big plays, and over the course of a game and a season a top 5-10 overall offense. Its not traditional, but it is effective.

Wow, you couldn't be more incorrect if you tried. I loathe the WCO offense. I think the WCO actually hindered Hass and reduced his overall effect (I think he would've thrived in a more play action type offense). I hate offenses that make the QB a robot, generally speaking.

So, the offense is improvisational under Bevell? You think credit for players improvising should be evenly distributed amongst the play-caller and the players themselves? Huh?

I think both players and playcallers deserve credit and blame.

As far as WCO, I merely mention it because Bates is a WCO guy. Jef Fisch (Jax) is a WCO offense guy. Mike McCarthy is a WCO guy. All three coaches you mentioned run variations of the WCO. All three run traditional, pro-style, drop back, quick throw passing offenses.

 

[pehawk]

If I we're the GM I'd probably lean more towards a Kubiak or lil Tannohan in Cleveland. I brought up those specific WCO type names to highlight the point - I don't just look for the best stats in OC's.

 

[McGruff]

Kubiak and Shannahan are also traditional WCO guys.

We all need to step back and admit that because of a combination of QB skill set, bad pass blocking, and lack of immediate separation by the receivers, Pete, Darrell and Tom have crafted a unique offense built around tough running and boom or bust passing. Its different, and is a result of circumstance as much as forethought. They have adjusted to what they have, and it has worked, and I think that needs to be recognized.

 

[pehawk]

Kubiak and Shannahan are also traditional WCO guys.

We all need to step back and admit that because of a combination of QB skill set, bad pass blocking, and lack of immediate separation by the receivers, Pete, Darrell and Tom have crafted a unique offense built around tough running and boom or bust passing. Its different, and is a result of circumstance as much as forethought. They have adjusted to what they have, and it has worked, and I think that needs to be recognized.

I wouldn't call them traditional. They run a hybrid version Tannohan crafted in Denver. It's not as rigid and prohibitive to improvisation as, lets say, Holmgren's WCO (Holmgren's version is what I envision when someone says WCO).

I don't think anyone is denying the Seahawks offense is successful. Some just believe Bevell has less to do with that than the others.

 

[grizbob]

Kubiak and Shannahan are also traditional WCO guys.

We all need to step back and admit that because of a combination of QB skill set, bad pass blocking, and lack of immediate separation by the receivers, Pete, Darrell and Tom have crafted a unique offense built around tough running and boom or bust passing. Its different, and is a result of circumstance as much as forethought. They have adjusted to what they have, and it has worked, and I think that needs to be recognized.

Yabut, two of those guys are sub par at best and Pete's too stupid to know it :sarcasm_off:

In other words :th2thumbs:

 

[Sarlacc83]

Kubiak and Shannahan are also traditional WCO guys.

We all need to step back and admit that because of a combination of QB skill set, bad pass blocking, and lack of immediate separation by the receivers, Pete, Darrell and Tom have crafted a unique offense built around tough running and boom or bust passing. Its different, and is a result of circumstance as much as forethought. They have adjusted to what they have, and it has worked, and I think that needs to be recognized.

I wouldn't call them traditional. They run a hybrid version Tannohan crafted in Denver. It's not as rigid and prohibitive to improvisation as, lets say, Holmgren's WCO (Holmgren's version is what I envision when someone says WCO).

I don't think anyone is denying the Seahawks offense is successful. Some just believe Bevell has less to do with that than the others.

In a sense, your last comment is right but for a different and better reason than you suppose. Carroll wants simplification so that players can go out and play. The defense is not complex, either. They just straight up beat the other team. Just like our offense is prone to do. Bevell is doing what Carroll wants - a point I have made previously to no avail. Change OCs, see the same concepts. It's very much dependent on the player ability and development. Which is why I mentioned Richardson in a previous post. ( which has gone unnoticed despite its 'nerdy' content. )

I would have loved Kubiak here. He has knowledge of the zone blocking scheme, he commits to the run, and he utilizes TEs well. But I doubt he would have been allowed to maintain complexity. You can see that in the Bates firing - I think - and you can see the same philosophy in action down in Jax.

 

[McGruff]

Kubiak and Shannahan are also traditional WCO guys.

We all need to step back and admit that because of a combination of QB skill set, bad pass blocking, and lack of immediate separation by the receivers, Pete, Darrell and Tom have crafted a unique offense built around tough running and boom or bust passing. Its different, and is a result of circumstance as much as forethought. They have adjusted to what they have, and it has worked, and I think that needs to be recognized.

I wouldn't call them traditional. They run a hybrid version Tannohan crafted in Denver. It's not as rigid and prohibitive to improvisation as, lets say, Holmgren's WCO (Holmgren's version is what I envision when someone says WCO).

I don't think anyone is denying the Seahawks offense is successful. Some just believe Bevell has less to do with that than the others.

Sure there are lots of variations within the WCO family, some more regimented than others, and Mike's was among the most stubbornly related to Bill Walsh's scheme. In contrast, a guy like Martz is also a WCO, but more downfield and less timing based. But the route concepts and overall thought process was the same.

What I know about Bevell and find remarkable is that his reputation in Minnesota was that of a stubborn WCO traditionalist. Very conservative, very safe. Fans hated him for it. But he's come here and adapted to fit our personnel (both positive and negative). He's shown a ton of flexibility, and that's why I suspect he should get more credit than he is getting. He could have tried to fit Wilson, our OL and targets into his old WCO scheme and we would've been killed. It wouldn't have worked. It would've been similar to San Fransisco trying to stubbornly make Kaepernick a pocket passer.

But he wasn't stubborn. He adapted, and that adaptation is a substantial part of why this offense is succeeding beyond (I believe) its lack of talent outside of Lynch and Wilson.

 

[McGruff]

In a sense, your last comment is right but for a different and better reason than you suppose. Carroll wants simplification so that players can go out and play. The defense is not complex, either. They just straight up beat the other team. Just like our offense is prone to do. Bevell is doing what Carroll wants - a point I have made previously to no avail. Change OCs, see the same concepts. It's very much dependent on the player ability and development. Which is why I mentioned Richardson in a previous post. ( which has gone unnoticed despite its 'nerdy' content. )

I would have loved Kubiak here. He has knowledge of the zone blocking scheme, he commits to the run, and he utilizes TEs well. But I doubt he would have been allowed to maintain complexity. You can see that in the Bates firing - I think - and you can see the same philosophy in action down in Jax.

Excellent points.

BTW, I have noticed that Richardson seems to be excelling at getting open quickly lately. Its something our other WR often struggle to do.

 

[pehawk]

Kubiak and Shannahan are also traditional WCO guys.

We all need to step back and admit that because of a combination of QB skill set, bad pass blocking, and lack of immediate separation by the receivers, Pete, Darrell and Tom have crafted a unique offense built around tough running and boom or bust passing. Its different, and is a result of circumstance as much as forethought. They have adjusted to what they have, and it has worked, and I think that needs to be recognized.

I wouldn't call them traditional. They run a hybrid version Tannohan crafted in Denver. It's not as rigid and prohibitive to improvisation as, lets say, Holmgren's WCO (Holmgren's version is what I envision when someone says WCO).

I don't think anyone is denying the Seahawks offense is successful. Some just believe Bevell has less to do with that than the others.

In a sense, your last comment is right but for a different and better reason than you suppose. Carroll wants simplification so that players can go out and play. The defense is not complex, either. They just straight up beat the other team. Just like our offense is prone to do. Bevell is doing what Carroll wants - a point I have made previously to no avail. Change OCs, see the same concepts.

I would have loved Kubiak here. He has knowledge of the zone blocking scheme, he commits to the run, and he utilizes TEs well. But I doubt he would have been allowed to maintain complexity. You can see that in the Bates firing - I think - and you can see the same philosophy in action down in Jax.

Funny about Fisch in Jax; I've mentioned to a few of my friends how much I like him. The response was always "why"?

Bevell spent the first half of this season routinely getting away from the "just let them beat their man" philosophy. Something changed.

 

[McGruff]

Kubiak and Shannahan are also traditional WCO guys.

We all need to step back and admit that because of a combination of QB skill set, bad pass blocking, and lack of immediate separation by the receivers, Pete, Darrell and Tom have crafted a unique offense built around tough running and boom or bust passing. Its different, and is a result of circumstance as much as forethought. They have adjusted to what they have, and it has worked, and I think that needs to be recognized.

I wouldn't call them traditional. They run a hybrid version Tannohan crafted in Denver. It's not as rigid and prohibitive to improvisation as, lets say, Holmgren's WCO (Holmgren's version is what I envision when someone says WCO).

I don't think anyone is denying the Seahawks offense is successful. Some just believe Bevell has less to do with that than the others.

In a sense, your last comment is right but for a different and better reason than you suppose. Carroll wants simplification so that players can go out and play. The defense is not complex, either. They just straight up beat the other team. Just like our offense is prone to do. Bevell is doing what Carroll wants - a point I have made previously to no avail. Change OCs, see the same concepts.

I would have loved Kubiak here. He has knowledge of the zone blocking scheme, he commits to the run, and he utilizes TEs well. But I doubt he would have been allowed to maintain complexity. You can see that in the Bates firing - I think - and you can see the same philosophy in action down in Jax.

Funny about Fisch in Jax; I've mentioned to a few of my friends how much I like him. The response was always "why"?

Bevell spent the first half of this season routinely getting away from the "just let them beat their man" philosophy. Something changed.

Percy Harvin changed. I really think it was that simple. Mutliple sources inside and outside them team have indicated that they felt the need to feed Percy early in the season and that got them away from their offensive identity. Was that Bevell or Pete? Who knows, but things changed radically after Percy left.

Fisch was Hass' QB coach here, right? Always thought he'd make a good OC somewhere, but he is more of a Holmgren guy. Complexity is his thing, not simplicity. Like Mike he asks a lot of his QB, and that's hard to do with a rookie like Bortles.

 

[pehawk]

Percy definitely contributed to dysfunction.

I'm not saying I'd want Fisch here. It wouldn't work. I just like the dudes passing attacks. Loved Bates' as well.

 

[McGruff]

Percy definitely contributed to dysfunction.

I'm not saying I'd want Fisch here. It wouldn't work. I just like the dudes passing attacks. Loved Bates' as well.

I can totally understand how if you like Bates (more of a downfield WCO) and Fisch you wouldn't like what the Seahawks are doing. Its about as far from them as you can get. They are about rhythm passing and long drives. OUr offense is all tough running and big plays.

Where is Jeremy Bates now? Since leaving Denver he lasted one season in Seattle as OC and one season in Chicago as QB coach. Is he coaching presently?

 

[Sarlacc83]

One other thing I do want to comment on is that I think the overall philosophy of the offense could use some tweaking in that Bevell could stand to integrate some read-option concepts into the receiver routes (there was a really good article on how Marrone does it; I wish I hadn't read it back in August). However, I also wonder if Pete would nix the idea based on the fact that it can create receiver/QB confusion, thus leading to turnovers. In the same way, I would like to see Russell have a choice of 3 plays to run based on the defense he sees. (Which is apparently one of things which got Fisch fired in Jacksonville.) The OC can't obviously see every potential defensive alignment beforehand, so he has to make educated guesses, and if the QB has an extra play to run, it increases the odds of mismatch. Perhaps this is something which is finally coming to fruition based on personnel being to run that added layer of complexity. (Because again, someone doesn't get the memo on the line or on the hashes, it's a sack or turnover.) I don't know that I have ever heard Carroll, Bevell, or Cable make mention of it, so I don't have any clue what the case is for that particular instance. It seems unlikely based on the parenthetical comment about Fisch, but I am genuinely curious.

Edit: This isn't the original article I mentioned (which dealt with the NFL) but I think it explains what I meant : http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... s-diagrams