Good Sheil article on Bevell and his play-calling goals

[McGruff]

The whole premise of the article (and this thread) is undermined by film and especially the last line from Tom Cable-- "You're looking at this to see whether you've got that. And it was there."

The initial plays weren't really setting anything up. They were used to confirm they would get the desired alignment and aggressive misplays from the defense out of a particular formation. The explosive plays were not dependent on the defense adjusting based on the success of the prior play. The film shows this and Cable explicitly states it. The plays almost certainly would have worked without the so-called setup plays. They knew the play would work later because it would have worked the first time. Not sure why they insist on calling the "conservative" plays first; seems to me that leading with the misdirection plays would benefit the base play later more than the other way around, but I have no basis for that opinion other than gut instinct. :lol:
But on Sunday, Carolina was just really bad defensively, so pretty much everything succeeded regardless.

I can't find video of the Rawls run on the flysweep action, but the Lockett run was really just a superbly executed play for a 10 yard gain that turned into a 75 yard TD thru a combination of Kuechly being out, an inexcusable whiff by the safety, and Lockett's deceptive speed.

[youtube]vawePIKKWOk[/youtube]

Baldwin would have been wide open on the Rawls run where he downblocked the first time:

[youtube]7LPclbm8wv0[/youtube]

It's the very first play in the video-- the DB commits to the run before the ball is handed to Rawls.

The Vannett play also took advantage of Klein replacing Kuechly, but good on Seattle for exploiting that weakness.

For the most part, the offense seems to be feast or famine based on the success of the running game, which is obviously problematic when playing teams that are stout against the run. I prefer controlled passing to setup the run rather than vice-versa, mainly because it's much harder to defend passes under the current rules than it is to take away the run. The offense was wildly successful when implementing such a style in the second half of last season. There must be some reason they have gone back to a run/play-action style, but I can't figure out what it is.

I just want to say that this is an excellent pot. I don't agree with all of it, but it is a first rate argument.

 

[West TX Hawk]

The whole premise of the article (and this thread) is undermined by film and especially the last line from Tom Cable-- "You're looking at this to see whether you've got that. And it was there."

The initial plays weren't really setting anything up. They were used to confirm they would get the desired alignment and aggressive misplays from the defense out of a particular formation. The explosive plays were not dependent on the defense adjusting based on the success of the prior play. The film shows this and Cable explicitly states it. The plays almost certainly would have worked without the so-called setup plays. They knew the play would work later because it would have worked the first time. Not sure why they insist on calling the "conservative" plays first; seems to me that leading with the misdirection plays would benefit the base play later more than the other way around, but I have no basis for that opinion other than gut instinct. :lol:
But on Sunday, Carolina was just really bad defensively, so pretty much everything succeeded regardless.

I can't find video of the Rawls run on the flysweep action, but the Lockett run was really just a superbly executed play for a 10 yard gain that turned into a 75 yard TD thru a combination of Kuechly being out, an inexcusable whiff by the safety, and Lockett's deceptive speed.

[youtube]vawePIKKWOk[/youtube]

Baldwin would have been wide open on the Rawls run where he downblocked the first time:

[youtube]7LPclbm8wv0[/youtube]

It's the very first play in the video-- the DB commits to the run before the ball is handed to Rawls.

The Vannett play also took advantage of Klein replacing Kuechly, but good on Seattle for exploiting that weakness.

For the most part, the offense seems to be feast or famine based on the success of the running game, which is obviously problematic when playing teams that are stout against the run. I prefer controlled passing to setup the run rather than vice-versa, mainly because it's much harder to defend passes under the current rules than it is to take away the run. The offense was wildly successful when implementing such a style in the second half of last season. There must be some reason they have gone back to a run/play-action style, but I can't figure out what it is.

I just want to say that this is an excellent pot. I don't agree with all of it, but it is a first rate argument.

I agree. You definitely need excellent pot when watching our offense sometimes!

 

[West TX Hawk]

Correct. In fact, it lost us an Owl. I may not ever forgive that. In fact, that taints my view of everything Bevell does. I still can't believe that play call. The epitome of "out-cuting yourself"

If you listen to the coaches reasoning the play they called made sense and was not a bad call. The result is what sucked (and execution). Also the DB made a epic play on the ball. Some credit there as well. People still want to be pissed and blame someone.

I wonder if you polled all of the league current OC's how many would say it was a bad call. Maybe not what they might do but not a bad call given the situation.

Maybe not but maybe they would.

Baldwin was being covered by Revis, Graham was doubled and Browner was covering Kearse. Butler was the weakest link and was going to shadow Lockette. I don't like the middle of the field either but it is a very high percentage play and a fade to Lockette really wasn't an option.

I was hoping for a running play also and I believe if the pass is incomplete the next play will be a run but there is no guarantee that Lynch doesn't fumble either. It's happened before at the goal line so in reality running wasn't any safer than the slant percentage wise and we were trying to get NE to burn their last time out to lower the chances of them doing what Atlanta did a couple years before when they had 31 seconds remaining.

To me this really just comes down to an excellent defensive play call by Billy and great execution by Browner and Butler.

Graham wasn't on the team. Do you mean Luke Willson was doubled up?

While there's no guarantee of anything, I take my chances with Lynch against the 31st goal line defense anytime. If he fumbled, I would have no qualms at all because we would've gone down with our very best. Bevell and Pete evidently don't support that theory-Bevell believes in trying to outthink and outsmart the defense instead of attacking with your best player in crucial situations and Pete acquiesces to this.

 

[West TX 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.

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.

Correct. In fact, it lost us an Owl. I may not ever forgive that. In fact, that taints my view of everything Bevell does. I still can't believe that play call. The epitome of "out-cuting yourself"

Well, that's your cross to bear. I look at it as a motivating moment, am still proud of the team for that year and am enjoying the most prosperous string of years in franchise history.

A "motivating moment" huh? What a bunch of bullsh!t.

 

[Largent80]

You guys seem to just want to keep beating the shit out of yourselves over a single play, and for what reason?...

What about the defense letting N.E. back into the game. Bevells fault?

Sheeeesh.

 

[Ambrose83]

You guys seem to just want to keep beating the shit out of yourselves over a single play, and for what reason?...

What about the defense letting N.E. back into the game. Bevells fault?

Sheeeesh.

Of course not, but it is his job to call the plays... That last call was idiotic on every level... The d surrendering the lead doesn't change that fact .

 

[Siouxhawk]

[lquote="Siouxhawk"]

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.

Correct. In fact, it lost us an Owl. I may not ever forgive that. In fact, that taints my view of everything Bevell does. I still can't believe that play call. The epitome of "out-cuting yourself"

Well, that's your cross to bear. I look at it as a motivating moment, am still proud of the team for that year and am enjoying the most prosperous string of years in franchise history.

A "motivating moment" huh? What a bunch of bullsh!t.[/quote]
It's not B.S. at all if you think it through. Russ feeds off of emotion and he knows he let that slip through his hands. The motivation to finish a game will be that much stronger with that experience stored in his memory bank.

 

[Siouxhawk]

You guys seem to just want to keep beating the shit out of yourselves over a single play, and for what reason?...

What about the defense letting N.E. back into the game. Bevells fault?

Sheeeesh.

Of course not, but it is his job to call the plays... That last call was idiotic on every level... The d surrendering the lead doesn't change that fact .

Just like the year prior it was his play calling that helped the Hawks to their first Super Bowl win in franchise history.

 

[Largent80]

You guys seem to just want to keep beating the shit out of yourselves over a single play, and for what reason?...

What about the defense letting N.E. back into the game. Bevells fault?

Sheeeesh.

Of course not, but it is his job to call the plays... That last call was idiotic on every level... The d surrendering the lead doesn't change that fact .

That play doesn't happen if the D does their job. We had them beat, we shouldn't have had to run ANY play, but that get's buried in hatred over one play out of a games worth.

But it's ok if you want to bash your head against a wall for the rest of your life.

 

[Ambrose83]

You guys seem to just want to keep beating the shit out of yourselves over a single play, and for what reason?...

What about the defense letting N.E. back into the game. Bevells fault?

Sheeeesh.

Of course not, but it is his job to call the plays... That last call was idiotic on every level... The d surrendering the lead doesn't change that fact .

That play doesn't happen if the D does their job. We had them beat, we shouldn't have had to run ANY play, but that get's buried in hatred over one play out of a games worth.

But it's ok if you want to bash your head against a wall for the rest of your life.

Lol playing the what if this didbt happen scenario game is frankly stupid... In the real world it happened, sooo that idiotic play call also happens.... I'm over the game but have no issue stating my opinion of that game . You are a pro bevell guy like our boy Sioux so you can always twist your narrative to suit your opinion.... I just go off common sense... if we had 30 passing options from the 1... In that game, with that personal on the field.. that play call should be number 31.... Winning the Superbowl or our d coughing up the lead does not change that fact or excuse the sheer stupidity that it was.

 

[Ambrose83]

You guys seem to just want to keep beating the shit out of yourselves over a single play, and for what reason?...

What about the defense letting N.E. back into the game. Bevells fault?

Sheeeesh.

Of course not, but it is his job to call the plays... That last call was idiotic on every level... The d surrendering the lead doesn't change that fact .

Just like the year prior it was his play calling that helped the Hawks to their first Super Bowl win in franchise history.

Lol well our d gave up 8 pts.... A monkey could have called the game and still won... That being said we win in spite of our oc not because of him..

 

[nash72]

I understand the strategy of plays setting other plays up and so forth and how Pete wants to run the offense, but I'm still not totally on board with it all most of the time. The Hawks do a ton of things the CUTE way it seems when a conventional call is all that is needed to get a first down, TD, or whatever. I also hate the offense when it lays down and depends on the defense to hold the lead. I would rather they continue to attack so the majority of the games weren't so close. Admit it, we as Seahawk fans are hyper ventilating well into the 4th quarter 90% of the games they play.

Getting back to the offense, its Pete's style they run and we have been successful for some years now, but its the personnel and matchups that really baffle me sometimes. Take the WR screens everybody has been talking about, why even throw one to Kearse? Lockett and Baldwin run them better and Kearse is the best blocking WR we have. Makes little sense. The famous play that lost us the superbowl is another head scratcher. There is no way Ricardo Lockette should be seeing any kind of pass with a game of that magnitude is on the line. That was just an awful play call no matter how people want to sugarcoat it with percentages and so forth. People want to give Butler all the credit in the world when Browner told him what he needed to do before the play was even ran. He made the play, but how spectacular can it really be when you know whats coming beforehand? Oh well.

OK Coach.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

Again, spin it all you want, but it was an atrocious play call. The results pretty much prove it. Get over your bias.

 

[Largent80]

:229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: Bash on Einstien...... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[nash72]

What about the defense letting N.E. back into the game. Bevells fault?

Sheeeesh.

Defense had an excuse due to the entire secondary being hurt and not being able to punish the short routes. The stagnant 2nd half offense and the final CUTE play,,,,,,,,not so much.

 

[nash72]

:229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: :229031_banghead: Bash on Einstien...... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Your right. I'm probably too invested, but it sucks when your team loses a superbowl due to the worst play ever called.

 

[McGruff]

Let's at least give an effort to steering the discussion towards the present and the content of the article and the original post. Rehashing tired arguments from 2 years ago on both sides does nothing to change or inform inquiring minds.

 

[hawkfan68]

You guys seem to just want to keep beating the shit out of yourselves over a single play, and for what reason?...

What about the defense letting N.E. back into the game. Bevells fault?

Sheeeesh.

Of course not, but it is his job to call the plays... That last call was idiotic on every level... The d surrendering the lead doesn't change that fact .

Just like the year prior it was his play calling that helped the Hawks to their first Super Bowl win in franchise history.

The Defense set the tone of that game from the first play of SB48. The defense won that game. Did Bevell call the safety on the first play of the game? Did Bevell call the INT and TD by Malcolm Smith? Did Bevell call the 87 yard kickoff return by Harvin to start the 2nd half? Did Bevell's play calls force 4 turnovers by the Broncos?
They could have won that game with Minnie Mouse as their OC as the defense and ST set them up nicely.

Getting back to the present time. Bevell and the Seahawks are coming off a game where the play calls seem to be great. The offense had arguably their best game of the season. Let's hope that continues tomorrow afternoon and beyond.

 

[Palmegranite]

Let's at least give an effort to steering the discussion towards the present and the content of the article and the original post. Rehashing tired arguments from 2 years ago on both sides does nothing to change or inform inquiring minds.

Agreed. It's really disheartening to see these posts keep popping up. For gosh sakes,there are 30 teams that would give their eye teeth to have the success that Seattle has had in the last 1/2 decade.

 

[Ambrose83]

Let's at least give an effort to steering the discussion towards the present and the content of the article and the original post. Rehashing tired arguments from 2 years ago on both sides does nothing to change or inform inquiring minds.

Agreed. It's really disheartening to see these posts keep popping up. For gosh sakes,there are 30 teams that would give their eye teeth to have the success that Seattle has had in tdhe last 1/2 decade.[/quote

Lol so that just excuses idiotic play calls and questionable at best decisions ? Sorry if as a fan I want the best from our team... Feel free to be content with what we have.. as my rams fan buddy always says ...no.matter how many sb we win.. we should have one more....

 

[nash72]

. as my rams fan buddy always says ...no.matter how many sb we win.. we should have one more....

Yep. My Packer buddy says the same.