Good Sheil article on Bevell and his play-calling goals

[MontanaHawk05]

http://www.espn.com/blog/seattle-seahaw ... anthers-up

The Seahawks threw several wide receiver screens early in the game.

But in the second quarter, it was the look of a screen that led to another explosive play.

Baldwin set up for a wide receiver screen on a 2nd-and-11 play, and Wilson delivered a subtle pump-fake in his direction. That drew the attention of the Panthers linebacker and opened up all kinds of room for Vannett down the seam for a 21-yard gain.

"That's the goal of that play," Vannett said. "We want to sell that quick screen, bluff the defenders so they bite on it and open up the seam."

My views of Bevell have shifted this year. I see him more as Mike Martz than Greg Knapp. We all know he likes to get cute; what this article confirmed is my suspicion that much of it is done in the service of "setting things up" for later. It's one of his tendencies that makes him a double-edged sword.

Go back and think of two deep passes in Seahawks playoff history. One was the Greg Olsen catch in the Bears game following the Beastquake game. Olsen ran right past Lawyer Milloy and caught a deep seam throw for a TD; we blamed Milloy for being slow. The reality was, it was a deep shot on 3rd down and 2, and Milloy was caught flat-footed because he didn't expect the Bears to try something that low-percentage. Which is why it worked.

Sounds like Bevell, right? The other pass I'm referencing is Angry Doug's 35-yard reception vs the Packers in overtime during the 2014 NFCCG, right before Kearse's game-winner. Same thing. It's 3rd and short, and Baldwin gets the drop on Casey Heyward because Heyward isn't expecting something as ridiculous as a deep sideline throw when there are about a hundred higher-percentage route combos the 'Hawks could have run on that situation. The surprise factor got Baldwin the reception.

This article reveals a fascinating possibility. The bubble screens we constantly run, and which constantly drive us nuts? They're the same thing. They're an attempt to get deep shots open. Bubble screens might not be a weird fetish of Bevell's: they're an attempt to draw defenders close to the line and open things up down the seam. That's exactly how Nick Vannett got his big play against the Panthers - the Seahawks ran bubble screens earlier in the game and it got the Panthers biting on them, freeing up the seam for Nick. It makes me want to go back and examine how many other deep shots might have been enabled out of similar bubble-screen looks in our history. (Read the article for more info on this.)

It reminds me of another thing: as Scottemojo said a long time ago, "get the run game going" is really just code for play-action. Pete likes having the run game to wear down a defense, but he also knows that it creates opportunities for big plays. THIS IS REALLY ABOUT PETE'S LOVE FOR EXPLOSIVE PLAYS. He talked a lot earlier in his Seahawks tenure about how big plays are statistically valuable and demoralize a defense, and various advanced NFL stats have pointed out that a big play can be statistically equivalent even to a three-and-out. He wants 'em. And he's crafted a good portion of Seattle's play-calling philosophy around his lust for them.

Of course, when the setups don't work - when bubbles aren't working, when the run game is sucking and you try play-action anyway, when you take deep shots on 3rd and 2 and they don't connect - that's when both Martz and Bevell look stupid.

But maybe we just have to get used to it. Maybe it's just a byproduct of Seattle's goal of hitting the big plays.

Thoughts?

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Your red bold is what I've been yelling into the wind on here for years about Bevell.

The dude schemes and works WITH Pete, Cable and Russell to call plays within the confines of the type of offense Pete wants run, simple as that.

- Ball control punishing zone running
- protect the football
- play action and screen progressions setting up explosive plays

When our line is "on it" with a healthy Russell, WR's and RB then it's a thing of beauty..............when one or more of these things is broken, as with every other offense, we struggle.

 

[Year of The Hawk]

This is good insight. People go crazy and say "why did Bevell call a deep route when we only needed 1 yard" blah blah blah. This is why. Bevelll also tends to take what the defense is giving them. If they load the box with 8 then pass. If they are planing deep pass then run it. This is a good thing. The only problem with this method is we set up for a big play but one mistake (ex. our o-line whiffs on protection) and it ruins things. The gig is up then. No surprise for that play any more. There are also many "wasted" plays getting there. But it has worked well in the past so I am not against it.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

This is good insight. People go crazy and say "why did Bevell call a deep route when we only needed 1 yard" blah blah blah. This is why.

But the other side of the sword is, it's also lost us games. It lost us two or three games last year when all we needed to do was convert another third down to ice the game in the fourth quarter.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This is good insight. People go crazy and say "why did Bevell call a deep route when we only needed 1 yard" blah blah blah. This is why.

But the other side of the sword is, it's also lost us games. It lost us two or three games last year when all we needed to do was convert another third down to ice the game in the fourth quarter.

You do know that Russell is in control of what you're criticizing right?

Any short yardage pass play involves levels of options, short intermediate and long...................AND a check down option once the RB has chipped or pass pro'd his responsibility.

If it's 3rd and 2 and Russell tried to hit a seam or sideline route cause he saw one on one coverage and chance for an explosive play? That's not Bevell, that' Russell, he bypassed the first short yardage option or run play to try and hit the big one.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

This is good insight. People go crazy and say "why did Bevell call a deep route when we only needed 1 yard" blah blah blah. This is why.

But the other side of the sword is, it's also lost us games. It lost us two or three games last year when all we needed to do was convert another third down to ice the game in the fourth quarter.

You do know that Russell is in control of what you're criticizing right?

Any short yardage pass play involves levels of options, short intermediate and long...................AND a check down option once the RB has chipped or pass pro'd his responsibility.

If it's 3rd and 2 and Russell tried to hit a seam or sideline route cause he saw one on one coverage and chance for an explosive play? That's not Bevell, that' Russell, he bypassed the first short yardage option or run play to try and hit the big one.

I'll be happy to include Russell, Pete, RockHawk, and the waterboy in the criticism if if makes you feel better. It's not hard to conceive of people having reservations about this style no matter who's mostly to blame.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This is good insight. People go crazy and say "why did Bevell call a deep route when we only needed 1 yard" blah blah blah. This is why.

But the other side of the sword is, it's also lost us games. It lost us two or three games last year when all we needed to do was convert another third down to ice the game in the fourth quarter.

You do know that Russell is in control of what you're criticizing right?

Any short yardage pass play involves levels of options, short intermediate and long...................AND a check down option once the RB has chipped or pass pro'd his responsibility.

If it's 3rd and 2 and Russell tried to hit a seam or sideline route cause he saw one on one coverage and chance for an explosive play? That's not Bevell, that' Russell, he bypassed the first short yardage option or run play to try and hit the big one.

I'll be happy to include Russell, Pete, RockHawk, and the waterboy in the criticism if if makes you feel better. It's not hard to conceive of people having reservations about this style no matter who's mostly to blame.

LOL.........what I got from this is "I know Russell's mostly to blame, but I'd rather blame Bevell."

 

[Own The West]

No. Just no.

If you run a bubble screen five times for no gain it doesn't set up anything. Nobody adjusts for something that wasn't working to begin with.

 

[Alexander]

No. Just no.

If you run a bubble screen five times for no gain it doesn't set up anything. Nobody adjusts for something that wasn't working to begin with.

That depends on why it's not gaining any yards. If it's because the defense is biting hard, it's definitely opening up other plays. If it's because the execution is piss poor, then you're probably right.

It seems that people around here have been reflexively critical of the WR screen ever since the Percy Harvin debacle. To my eye, they've been pretty effective last year and this year. And if the defense insists on playing off the receivers (as they frequently do), it would be stupid not to go to that play once in a while.

 

[WindCityHawk]

Iiiiinteresting. That makes a lot of sense, in no small part because: I was never a fan of Martz either, for the side of the sword you already articulated. It does give some insight into whats going on in Bevell's mind, and confirms our own observantions that, man, the dude loves to look clever. It's great when it works, of course, but when it doesnt (and, as you said, they are low percentage plays), it's bafflingly stupid and stubborn, and costs you a Super Bowl.

It's also worth noting that Martz flopped without Kurt Warner, and was criticized in Chicago for forcing plays that did not account for their personnel (particularly long drops with a bad o-line).

 

[MontanaHawk05]

No. Just no.

If you run a bubble screen five times for no gain it doesn't set up anything. Nobody adjusts for something that wasn't working to begin with.

That depends on why it's not gaining any yards. If it's because the defense is biting hard, it's definitely opening up other plays. If it's because the execution is piss poor, then you're probably right.

It seems that people around here have been reflexively critical of the WR screen ever since the Percy Harvin debacle. To my eye, they've been pretty effective last year and this year. And if the defense insists on playing off the receivers (as they frequently do), it would be stupid not to go to that play once in a while.

This is a good point. The Seahawks have quietly become pretty good at the WR screen in the last two years. The speed of Lockett and the experience/willingness of Baldwin, Kearse, and our TE's go a long way towards helping in this area.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

No. Just no.

If you run a bubble screen five times for no gain it doesn't set up anything. Nobody adjusts for something that wasn't working to begin with.

Which bubble screens are you talking about, like the 2-3 to Lockett last game for a combined 50-60 yards?

Amazing the selective agenda driven memory people have on here to prove their point that's factually false. Here's the fact, we are one of the top teams in the league running the WR bubble screen, because we have 2-3 shifty quick WR's and more importantly WR's that are the best blocking WR corp in the league.

 

[Hawks46]

No. Just no.

If you run a bubble screen five times for no gain it doesn't set up anything. Nobody adjusts for something that wasn't working to begin with.

That depends on why it's not gaining any yards. If it's because the defense is biting hard, it's definitely opening up other plays. If it's because the execution is piss poor, then you're probably right.

It seems that people around here have been reflexively critical of the WR screen ever since the Percy Harvin debacle. To my eye, they've been pretty effective last year and this year. And if the defense insists on playing off the receivers (as they frequently do), it would be stupid not to go to that play once in a while.

This is a good point. The Seahawks have quietly become pretty good at the WR screen in the last two years. The speed of Lockett and the experience/willingness of Baldwin, Kearse, and our TE's go a long way towards helping in this area.

Well I noticed this year that our success in the screen game is due in a big part to playing to the strengths of our personnel. In watching some tape, you'll see that when we flex Jimmy out wide, many times it's to block for a screen. Some of our best screens were when Graham and Willson were on the same side; Jimmy flexed wide and Willson in the traditional Y spot for the TE. The ball is snapped and both players fly out there and block. Two TE's blocking CB's, safeties or LBers is usually overwhelming force. It works so well because Willson is fast enough to beat the LB to the spot. Graham is also athletic enough to block smaller quicker players in space. Kudos to Bevell to finally be calling plays tailored to his players' strengths.

It also makes it harder to defend because as a defense, you can't assume that Graham is just out there to block, especially when historically he's split out wide to create mismatches on smaller players in one on one's. Now you're creating formations that have multiple options and can disguise plays, which is one of my biggest pet peeves about Bevell: most of his stuff is painfully obvious.

My other big gripe about Bevell is situational play calling, and yes I'm not sure how much of that is on Russ. In particular, our red zone play calling is atrocious. maybe that is on Wilson.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Thanks for the find and link, Montana.

This is all part and parcel of the formula concocted by Pete, and as Sarge mentioned-- A) Establish run game; B) Win turnover-ratio margin; and hit them with big, explosive plays. This, while relying on a defense that surrenders the fewest points in the league.

We've been doing it successfully for the past 5 years. Bevell is the offensive caretaker of this plan and by and large has it working proficiently in the second half of the season as we're barreling into the playoffs. As Sarge also mentioned, this plan requires the necessary contributions from the line and Russ making the right reads, but when it's hitting its stride like the article stated with the Lockett jet sweep, the seam pass to Vannett and the play-action pass to Baldwin, it's sure a thing of beauty.

 

[Largent80]

I think Bevell has done a great job. Had to deal with an injured RW from the first game until about 2 weeks ago.

Kept us in the hunt in spite of all the injuries.

I'm a fan of his this year.

Hail to the Bevell...... :bow: :bow: :bow:

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

To be honest, this has been what he has been doing for 4 years and hasn't really changed his approach.

when we can't run or the offensive line is atrocious, his play designs can't really come to fruition.

People always thinks Russell bails out Bevell, but really Russell much more often bails out the offensive line.

 

[ivotuk]

Great article, thanks for posting Montana.

I like Sheil Kapadia, he's light-years better than what we had, and I think he's even slightly better than Sando, because he adds variety to his writing.

I LOVE the format of this particular article, and it actually reminds me of the breakdowns LaLoosh used to do, just not quite as good. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and they help bring words to life. especially words that are describing a football play. Just as important, what that picture is and at what point of the play that it's taken from. Sheil's got that down.

His only problem now is his deadpan, boring voice, but he's picked it up lately even with that. I've been impressed. He shows excitement instead of a Marvin-Like (the Paranoid Android), lackluster, depression laden, mechanical voice. At first he was that way, but now there's excitement in his voice. He likes what he's doing.

I'm sure ESPN thought they were dumping one of their worst "media men" on our doorstep. Haha! Jokes on them! When I look at other article by team associated writers, I see zero creativity. So thanks ESPN.

back to the article. This is what Pete, Darrell, and Cable have been trying to do all along, but it's impossible to call a game plan when your offensive line being shuffled around and is whiffing on their assignments, your QB is hobbled and is unable to play up to his abilities, and your running back is Christine Michael. Add to that, a recovering Graham, an injured Lockett, another injured tight end (Luke), and playing against some pretty good teams, and you have a recipe for disaster, that at first glance, looks like bad play calling.

But now that we're getting healthy, have Britt back and in his best position, and are actually staying on schedule on 1st and 2nd down, AND having success on 3rd down, the game plan looks much better.

So what it all comes down to, like Brock always says, it plays, players and execution. With 1 or 2 of those factors missing, our offense looks like garbage.

So glad to have our peeps back, and playing well. I think we go on a tear the rest of the year, and believe that we are easily the BEST team in the NFC, and maybe the NFL.

 

[Maulbert]

Great find and analysis. Kudos. :2thumbs:

edited by McGruff to remove potentially inflammatory remarks towards those who might disagree with the posted article

 

[Smelly McUgly]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the bubble screens in and of themselves. They're the equivalent of a short hitch or out - take what the defense gives you. If the corners are six yards off the LOS, take the yards.

HOWEVER, I've seen too many bubble screens to guys who shouldn't be running them. Throwing them to Baldwin is defensible; throwing them to Kearse is not. The personnel involved in those screens (and in other plays) is what bothers me. I don't think that the surprise of throwing a bubble screen to Kearse is worth the fact that he sucks at running them unless I see more hard data that killing drives due to plays like bubble screens with sub-optimal personnel on the field is eventually linked to opening up a defense later in the game.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the bubble screens in and of themselves. They're the equivalent of a short hitch or out - take what the defense gives you. If the corners are six yards off the LOS, take the yards.

HOWEVER, I've seen too many bubble screens to guys who shouldn't be running them. Throwing them to Baldwin is defensible; throwing them to Kearse is not. The personnel involved in those screens (and in other plays) is what bothers me. I don't think that the surprise of throwing a bubble screen to Kearse is worth the fact that he sucks at running them unless I see more hard data that killing drives due to plays like bubble screens with sub-optimal personnel on the field is eventually linked to opening up a defense later in the game.

I don't like them thrown to Kearse either, but if you've noticed the past 5-6 weeks one of the first 5-6 plays every game has been a quick throw to Kearse out in the flat.

Me thinks Pete and Bevell have noticed a trend that Kearse's drops go down if he gets a quick throw to get his confidence going. Maybe he's got some issues with anxiety or the pressure of making a big catch later on in the game if he hasn't been involved early. That's when balls bounce off his hands.

So IMO it's more to get Kearse going, than something that's highly successful for yards.