Bevell is at it again... bad plays against a weak Defense

[RolandDeschain]

but to completely dismiss yards per play as showing Bevell had an overall good game.. is a fallacy in my opinion.

*blink*

Who's doing that?

 

[bbsplitter]

but to completely dismiss yards per play as showing Bevell had an overall good game.. is a fallacy in my opinion.

*blink*

Who's doing that?

"Yards per play tells you NOTHING about efficiency. You could have a 25% completion percentage for a game, completing 10 of 40 pass attempts with five interceptions and average 10 yards per play. Stop confusing correlation and causation."

That would be you, completely dismissing yards per play. Hence the big bold all caps "tells you NOTHING".

 

[Nateruw]

After realizing that lynch wasn't in most of the first half, I thought that the plan was to pound them with beast in the second half while he was fresh. In retrospect we should have started that way and let THEM be the one on the field all day.

 

[RolandDeschain]

"Yards per play tells you NOTHING about efficiency. You could have a 25% completion percentage for a game, completing 10 of 40 pass attempts with five interceptions and average 10 yards per play. Stop confusing correlation and causation."

That would be you, completely dismissing yards per play. Hence the big bold all caps "tells you NOTHING".

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how that means "showing Bevell had an overall good game", is what I'm getting at.

 

[Timmahawk]

Yet in this game, we completed 68% of our passes and avg 8.1 y/a and 8.3 y/r. Is that not efficient? Do you want the O to be more or less efficient for the rest of the season? (Simple question you haven't answered)

Rapidly skewed by a bunch of quickly ended drives to preserve that stat. Of course I want our offensive to be more efficient the rest of the season - in terms of scoring points and maintaining drives. Efficiency cannot be determined by yards per play, is my point. Also, even completion percentage is of limited value for that.

Here's a relevant point: Robert Griffin the third won Rookie of the Year because he completed a lot of "easy" throws close to the line of scrimmage, and they got a lot of yards after the catch especially from Alfred Morris on that stuff in his rookie year.

You have to look at how things unfold, and how the conclusion of a game is reached. Most raw stats are of limited value.

Edit: I see your point, I don't see how it's relevant to this game.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

Seems to me we were equally bad on third down no matter what side of the ball we were on. It's okay to split the blame two ways here, folks.

 

[dumbrabbit]

We lost, move on.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Edit: I see your point, I don't see how it's relevant to this game.

I was just going on about the "value" of yards per play, is all.

 

[bbsplitter]

"Yards per play tells you NOTHING about efficiency. You could have a 25% completion percentage for a game, completing 10 of 40 pass attempts with five interceptions and average 10 yards per play. Stop confusing correlation and causation."

That would be you, completely dismissing yards per play. Hence the big bold all caps "tells you NOTHING".

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out how that means "showing Bevell had an overall good game", is what I'm getting at.

Um ok maybe I've been reading the wrong person posts then.. :sarcasm_off: Are you saying you think overall he had a good game but a few ill-advised decisions? Or are you saying this was a terrible game for him?

 

[Timmahawk]

Seems to me we were equally bad on third down no matter what side of the ball we were on. It's okay to split the blame two ways here, folks.

There were def some plays that were head scratchers. I just don't think it's fair to call out the offense that looked pretty damn good for the 17mins they were on the field.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Um ok maybe I've been reading the wrong person posts then.. Are you saying you think overall he had a good game but a few ill-advised decisions? Or are you saying this was a terrible game for him?

I think Bevell's decisions to not feed the Beast and to do almost nothing with Percy Harvin were mind-numbingly stupid. I also don't understand why we didn't try a few designed roll-outs for DangeRuss since our pass protection was garbage today. I saw Sailor or somebody say "but their ends were constantly crashing in on him" - yeah, how's that going to keep his pocket clean to pass from, again?

Really, though, I just can't fathom the choice to do almost nothing with our two best players on offense; and that is NOT a hindsight thing.

 

[bbsplitter]

Seems to me we were equally bad on third down no matter what side of the ball we were on. It's okay to split the blame two ways here, folks.

There were def some plays that were head scratchers. I just don't think it's fair to call out the offense that looked pretty damn good for the 17mins they were on the field.

I agree with the both of you, from the sample size I thought it was a fairly good showing. One week we are over working Harvin and adding too many years to Lynch... the next we aren't utilizing them enough.

 

[Timmahawk]

Edit: I see your point, I don't see how it's relevant to this game.

I was just going on about the "value" of yards per play, is all.

Well the 'skins were third in yards per play (6.0) that year and had us on the ropes early in the playoffs until RG3 became one dimensional.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I just don't think it's fair to call out the offense that looked pretty damn good for the 17mins they were on the field.

Our offense was given the ball the same number of times theirs was. We coughed it up on a fumble on special teams to give them an extra offensive possession, but one of their offensive possessions was just before halftime with a few seconds remaining where they took a knee.

So, we had as many opportunities as they did. This is why you can't truly gauge efficiency with yards per play or even completion percentage. Our offense had JUST as many opportunities to get crap done.

 

[Tokadub]

This thread is laughable. Truly. Where are the people calling for Dan Quinn's head? Why wasn't our defense ready for the heat and hurry up? How did we not account for Rivers scrambling on multiple occasions? Why weren't we bumping at the line? How did we let a 34 year old TE embarrass us?

This place is so unbalanced.

Our offense was fine but couldn't get a drive together when it mattered. That was my only issue with them. The last two drives were abysmal. Beyond that, they played better than our defense did today.

One of the very first things I said in the OP was that you wouldn't be wrong to say the Defense cost us the game, meaning our Offense played better than our Defense. I just think we could of won anyways if our Offense had called a better game.

It seemed to me that we severely underestimated them. It was as if we were trying to see if we could win without using Harvin AND Lynch. That sounds completely idiotic but that's really how it looked out there and we nearly pulled it off.

When was the last time Lynch had just 6 carries? I don't wanna look it up but I wouldn't be surprised if that's the lowest amount of carries he's ever had for us when healthy.

Why would we target Harvin just once in the passing game when we went to him 7 times last week and he caught it every single time?

I'm not calling for Quinn's head because I don't think there was much he could do in this game. Our pass rush isn't doing that great overall we only had 1 sack by Michael Bennett.

Rivers went 28/37 (75.7%) for 284 yards, 3 TD, 0 INT, and 124.2 Passer Rating.

So we clearly weren't putting enough pressure on Rivers. To be honest I think the Chargers just laid the blue print for how to pick apart our defense. They didn't do anything fancy, no trick plays or gimmicks.

The Chargers ran the ball 37 times for 101 yards which is a very weak 2.7 yards per carry.

Rivers simply picked us apart like any good QB should try to do. Green Bay was stupid for avoiding Sherman the entire game. The Chargers exploited our defense and made it look easy with a combination of good play calling (our defenders struggled to properly read those routes), and even dare I say it... PHYSICAL MISMATCHES?

I know they scored 2 Touchdowns on Sherman's side of the field with passes that made our Defense look mediocre... the strange thing was that Sherman WASN'T EVEN ON HIS SIDE OF THE FIELD?! On one of the touchdowns you could clearly see Sherman all the way on the opposite side of the end-zone where you would expect Maxwell to be.

It should of been a warning for us when Woodhead almost scored a touchdown on the right side of the field... Keep Sherman there! But Gates did it twice with Sherman nowhere to be seen, and then Gates did it one last time on the left side of field where for once Sherman wasn't there...

Just watched an ESPN video where they analyze the game and he said basically:

"a lot of man to man with Kam on Gates, he (Gates) really beat him (Kam) down. I saw the offensive formations really helped them out they would put Richard Sherman with the 3rd receiver on the left side so he's in unfamiliar territory. So they were able to utilize the right side of the field. They were able to utilize the entire field with their formations"

I personally don't remember ever seeing Sherman on the left side of the field, so if that was a coaching mistake for us to send him over there then maybe more of the blame should be on the defense. To me it kinda just looked like the Chargers figured out exactly how to exploit our defensive personnel.

They converted first downs effortlessly even while averaging 2.7 yards per carry... they still managed to run it 37 times and it payed off with their 42:15 time of possession.

Overall the Chargers offense looked very impressive, but I'm not sure if it was Dan Quinn's fault necessarily with his schemes, correct me if I'm wrong. It just looked like they executed their offensive game plan perfectly which is why they won.

We still had a chance to win but unlike the Chargers we did not execute our offensive game plan perfectly, or perhaps our offensive game plan was just bad to begin with which is the point of this thread.

It seems to me that our offense should be capable of scoring more than 14 points. The 51 yard Harvin run seems like it shouldn't have counted unless he was on his tippy toes with his heel above the ground... I think we caught a break there. Without that one play our entire offense would of had about 240 yards.

Any time that you could subtract just 1 play and we have like 14 points and 240 total yards... yeah I have a problem with our offense. When you factor in we had just 6 carries for Lynch... sure didn't help keep our Defense off the field in the 100 degree weather...

The whole game was a real fiasco when you consider how talented we are as a whole. As badly as our Defense got spanked out there I still think we could of easily won with better Offensive Play Calling.

 

[Russ Willstrong]

If Russell made that fist down we score on that drive.. That is frustrating.. he was a 1 and 1/2 short...

so your blaming Wilson? Really. Wow

Well he did have a total QBR of 29 per ESPN.

 

[LymonHawk]

Well sure, the defense most definitely has its share of the blame. But let's not pretend Bevell got more than three drives to score any points here. Lotta fault to go around this game.

And let's not forget our Special Teams. Usually one of our bigger strengths; today the STs stunk up the joint...both punting and returning.

To those of you who think we should have gone for it on fourth and two.......hindsight is a wonderful thing. IF we had scored on our final drive; would you still be singing the same tune? :les:

 

[LymonHawk]

Well sure, the defense most definitely has its share of the blame. But let's not pretend Bevell got more than three drives to score any points here. Lotta fault to go around this game.

And let's not forget our Special Teams. Usually one of our bigger strengths; today the STs stunk up the joint...both punting and returning.

To those of you who think we should have gone for it on fourth and two.......hindsight is a wonderful thing. IF we had scored on our final drive; would you still be singing the same tune? :les: What's with all the blown tackles? Damn, we made Rivers look like Fran Tarkington! (For those of you who remember, 'Fran the Scram.')/quote]

 

[RolandDeschain]

To those of you who think we should have gone for it on fourth and two.......hindsight is a wonderful thing. IF we had scored on our final drive; would you still be singing the same tune? :les:

You have no reason to believe me, but yes, I would be. When your defense isn't stopping anything ALL DAY LONG and you're at midfield on 4th & two, (really 1.5) down by six, with eight minutes remaining...You go for it in that situation. Always. In my opinion. If our defense was playing its usual very good self, different situation; but are you honestly going to tell me, Lymon, that you expected our defense to get a stop as we were preparing to punt? It sure wasn't likely, that's for certain.

 

[LymonHawk]

To those of you who think we should have gone for it on fourth and two.......hindsight is a wonderful thing. IF we had scored on our final drive; would you still be singing the same tune? :les:

You have no reason to believe me, but yes, I would be. When your defense isn't stopping anything ALL DAY LONG and you're at midfield on 4th & two, (really 1.5) down by six, with eight minutes remaining...You go for it in that situation. Always. In my opinion. If our defense was playing its usual very good self, different situation; but are you honestly going to tell me, Lymon, that you expected our defense to get a stop as we were preparing to punt? It sure wasn't likely, that's for certain.

We weren't at midfield. But our defense did stop them! Obviously, you and others do not have the faith our coaching staff has.

And if as you think, we couldn't stop SD from scoring at will, what difference would our scoring at the time make? Unless it took us 8:00 to score?

BTW: Anyone else think Okung had a bad day?