Bevell was better, still it pains me

[chiltech500]

Our line is the primary problem. Watching from the end zone yesterday, I was amazed again at how bad they are. We need SERIOUS upgrade there.
.

Seems like protection is no better with healthy regulars than the mid-season fill ins. I've taken to noticing how unsuccessful we are at running against good front 7 defenses. I like to blame our lack of good play-calling on Bevell but maybe it is Pete.

Whatever, I sat there for almost the first half shaking my head saying this is a Super Bowl team? How many offensive touchdowns did we score in the last 4 games?

 

[RolandDeschain]

Ah. So since we're just wasting each other's time at this point, can I lodge my own prediction that I'll remind you that we went (at least) 33-19 and reached the playoffs twice under Bevell?

Go ahead. It's practically irrelevant because our defense has been the biggest reason for our success. Give us a mediocre defense and that 33-19 number's probably reversed, or even worse than that. You can think whatever you want.

It's always entertaining to see correlation and causation incorrectly mixed up.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Ah. So since we're just wasting each other's time at this point, can I lodge my own prediction that I'll remind you that we went (at least) 33-19 and reached the playoffs twice under Bevell?

Go ahead. It's practically irrelevant because our defense has been the biggest reason for our success. Give us a mediocre defense and that 33-19 number's probably reversed, or even worse than that. You can think whatever you want.

It's always entertaining to see correlation and causation incorrectly mixed up.

150 points over 3 games and a top 5 offense last year per DVOA. Remember?

But yeah, the defense is definitely the biggest reason for Seattle's success. (Also, since you've made mention of how we upgraded significantly over Bradley, it's quite amusing to hear you now crediting the defense for being the linchpin.)

 

[RolandDeschain]

I've never said we upgraded "significantly" by going from Bradley to Quinn. Definitely upgraded, but not significantly. Also, yes, I completely remember, Sarlacc. Your 3-game sample size is also a beautiful story to prop the offense up by. You can remember that all you want, I remember the 8+ games we did ****-all in the first halves because of predictable play calling that my dead grandmother could see coming.

I don't care to get into this again. Everyone has their own opinions, and that's fine. I'm just staking my prediction/claim that our offense will be better next year if someone other than Bevell is our OC. Just placing my bet, you might say.

 

[themunn]

Sorry, was there an actual argument in there somewhere?

Not at all, just want you to remember my prediction if we replace Bevell.

and I'll predict that when we draft heavily on offense, don't lose our tackles for half the season and have Harvin back to play more than 1 game - and possibly Rice too - that our offense improves regardless of who the OC is.



I didn't see any great deviation in the playcalling between last week and this week. I think we called 2 screens to the 1 we tried last week, which, like last week's, failed because AZ and STL play a lot of press man coverage leading to instant engagement of our blockers and no room to go anywhere

 

[DavidSeven]

FYI, Pete said on his radio show this morning that he told Bev to call a conservative game as soon as they were up in score. "Play to the defense" were his exact words. The Rams O couldn't do anything yesterday. The only way they were going to win that game was by fluke turnovers.

 

[RolandDeschain]

and I'll predict that when we draft heavily on offense, don't lose our tackles for half the season and have Harvin back to play more than 1 game - and possibly Rice too - that our offense improves regardless of who the OC is.



I didn't see any great deviation in the playcalling between last week and this week. I think we called 2 screens to the 1 we tried last week, which, like last week's, failed because AZ and STL play a lot of press man coverage leading to instant engagement of our blockers and no room to go anywhere

You do realize that if a good defense can reliably guess what you're going to do most of the time, no amount of skill on your O-line or with your receivers can reliably overcome that, right?

You know, like us passing nearly ALL of the time when we line up in a no-back formation?

SMH. You're just setting yourself up to be right no matter what happens or how it comes to be. O-line injuries definitely hurt us, but where was our ADJUSTMENT to that? The short quick passing game has still been basically missing in action the entire year. We still tried to run the way we normally do with three starters out on the O-line as compared to when we have all five starters, etc.

I give up for now, lol.

 

[DavidSeven]

You know, like us passing nearly ALL of the time when we line up in a no-back formation?

What else are you hoping they do in no-back sets? More QB sneaks?

 

[RolandDeschain]

You know, like us passing nearly ALL of the time when we line up in a no-back formation?

What else are you hoping they do in no-back sets? More QB sneaks?

Put Marshawn back there with Wilson on a fair number of passing downs! Have him chip anybody that comes in then run a few yards for a quick pass, or just have him flat-out block once in a while, or do other things besides RUN in an I formation once in a while, etc.

Come on. You really needed to ask that question?

MIX IT UP is the best way to summarize what I mean. You can't just let defenses spend an entire game KNOWING if you line up in a no-back formation that you're going to pass. It's an automatic considerable reduction in the likelihood of a successful passing play if the defense doesn't have to be honest on a snap where they know it's going to be a pass.

 

[DavidSeven]

You know, like us passing nearly ALL of the time when we line up in a no-back formation?

What else are you hoping they do in no-back sets? More QB sneaks?

Put Marshawn back there with Wilson on a fair number of passing downs! Have him chip anybody that comes in then run a few yards for a quick pass, or just have him flat-out block once in a while, or do other things besides RUN in an I formation once in a while, etc.

Come on. You really needed to ask that question?

MIX IT UP is the best way to summarize what I mean. You can't just let defenses spend an entire game KNOWING if you line up in a no-back formation that you're going to pass. It's an automatic considerable reduction in the likelihood of a successful passing play if the defense doesn't have to be honest on a snap where they know it's going to be a pass.

I guess I was confused on your wording. When you said no-back formation, I assume you meant five-wide (empty backfield). If Marshawn lines up by Wilson, then it's not really a "no back" set anymore. Are you suggesting that they eliminate the empty-backfield formation from the playbook?

 

[HawkFan72]

Would anyone be surprised to see him as the HC of the Vikings?

Fans would riot. They hated Bevell as their OC.

 

[DavidSeven]

Would anyone be surprised to see him as the HC of the Vikings?

Fans would riot. They hated Bevell as their OC.

That's incorrect. They hated Childress, not Bevell. Do a search on Twitter. Plenty of Viking fans intrigued by the idea of bringing back Bevell.

 

[HawkFan72]

Would anyone be surprised to see him as the HC of the Vikings?

Fans would riot. They hated Bevell as their OC.

That's incorrect. They hated Childress, not Bevell. Do a search on Twitter. Plenty of Viking fans intrigued by the idea of bringing back Bevell.

Well then they have changed their tune. There were a lot of Vikings fans that were laughing at us when we hired Bevell as our OC.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Are you suggesting that they eliminate the empty-backfield formation from the playbook?

Not at all. Just include a back lined up next to, or behind, Wilson on say, 25% of passing downs, maybe more. That way, the defense can't "KNOW" you're going to pass. It's a basic tactic. It's even more commonly used when your O-line's getting the crap kicked out of it all the time; or having your tight end chip someone a lot.

 

[plyka]

What difference did we see this week? Well, the long bomb was only used strategically, not on every 3rd down and 3 play. Good Bevell, good.

There were tons of intermediate and short routes. Good again Bevell. But my question is, why can't you make these changes when it is OBVIOUS that the long bomb is not working? Like last week, why not make in game adjustmejnts?

Bevell saw what 75% of this board saw over the week. The team against Arizona was too stuck on run or long bomb. There was no situational awareness, as on 3rd and 2 they would call plays where 3 WRs would run go routes and Wilson would throw a 50 yard bomb. This game there was much better awareness. On 3rd and 5, they would throw high percentage plays. Good Bevell, now try to see your weakness in game, or even BEFORE THE GAME..

The fatal flaw in your logic is not placing the blame for all this stuff on Russell, the O-Line and the WR's, because they're the ones that determine what happens on each passing play.

When Russell comes to the line, he has 2-3 plays given to him by Bevell to run depending on what the defense is showing. Russell then stays with the play, or changes it. So when the balls hiked it's all on Russell and the WR's, TE's, etc to either throw short, intermediate, long, check down, whatever.

So to chastise Bevell over the playcalling is dumb.

So you think: "to chastise Bevell over the playcalling is dumb"

So to blame the OC for the plays being called is stupid? Ok...whatever you say.

 

[plyka]

Is it Bevell's fault Luke Willson drops a wide open pass that would've been a big play? Is it Bevell's fault that Wilson threw the next pass into the dirt on a throw to A wide open miller that would've been a first down? Is it Bevell's fault that Okung holds on a TD play or that a beautiful pass and catch by Willson and Wilson is nuillified by a Rams penalty?

Players execute, and the difference between a game like this week, a game like last week, and a game like the Siants is usually found in execution, not play calling.

Then according to your logic coaching plays no roll in anything. Why not save the money and have me be the OC?

I swear some people think we should be winning every game 50-0. EVERY team has flaws. Could our playcalling be better on offense? Maybe. You think San Fran isnt crapping their pants bout their secondary? Carolina's offense is shaky at best. Green Bay's defense is putrid. New Orleans look amazing at home and garbage on the road. Philly who knows? Worry about this kind of stuff in the off-season.

Yes, they all have problems as well. But if they are smart they are working on their issues. And remember, the point is not to be one of the best 4-5 teams in the NFC, or one of the top 10 teams in the NFL. It's about winning the superbowl, and only one team wins the superbowl.

When Wilson overthrows a wide open Baldwin on the first drive of the game, how is that Bevells fault?

This line of reasoning is very childish. When there are a thousand plays in a year, 1 play is almost meaningless. I could bring up one play where Lynch gained 15 yards on the ground, and then say look how good our running game is, they average 15 yards per rush. It would be quite meaningless.

Holmgren just talked about the playcalling on his weekly segment this morning. He said it's very obvious that Pete is just fine with playing conservative offense and letting the defense win the game. So when you're blaming Bevell for the conservative playcalling, make sure to take a swing at Pete, because the buck stops with him with how this team schemes each and every week.

Stop passing the buck. You can still have a conservative offense that isn't stupidly predictable. See my comment above to Greg, and further up where I quoted the guy from Football Outsiders..

Predictable, Conservative, same thing to me.

I'm not arguing that I'd like to see the offense open up a little, but to say it's all on Bevell and not Pete is shortsighted. This is Pete's team, any and all offensive scheming come directly from him first.

I'm sure Pete is the problem as well. He doesn't seem to have confidence in the offense. His ideology is run run run, punt punt punt, do not make any mistakes and let your defense win the game for you. Shorten the number of possessions, play extra conservative. I don't know if you can win the superbowl playing this way. You need a 2000 Ravens defense. And while this Seattle defense is the best I've seen over the last 5 years, it doesn't even come close to that 2000 Ravens defense which was the best defense in NFL history in my opinion.

Also, I don't remember Pete's USC teams playing like this. I think i would switch Bevell with USC's current coach right now --Pete's old offensive coordinator. Or I'd like someone to take a trip to Norm Choi's house and wake him up. Pete needs an offensive mind at OC, someone who earns his respect. I think Pete is great HC and a great defensive mind. But offensively he is not up to par. He needs someone to take control away from him on the offensive side of the ball.

 

[Largent80]

Why not just enjoy us being where we are instead of blowin a friggin gasket about something that your blown gasket will have no bearing on?

 

[plyka]

Why not just enjoy us being where we are instead of blowin a friggin gasket about something that your blown gasket will have no bearing on?

No one is blowing a gasket. But we are on a message board where we throw around ideas. If we listened to your advice our posts would be composed of this:

guy #1: I'm enjoying it.

guy #2: me too

guy #1: I'm really enjoying it

guy #2: me too

guy #3: hey, I'm really enjoying it

guy #2: me too

guy #4: But i'm really really enjoying it

guy #2: me three

guy #1: did i say i was enjoying it>? I'm really enjoying it too or three.

rinse repeat

 

[Largent80]

So, enjoy it.

 

[chris98251]

As much as many hate the term we have an offense that plays not to lose and I think it is dictated by Pete. Bevell should have a larger deversity of plays to work from I would think though, if nothing else then to keep a defense honest and save wear and tear on the QB.