Is Bevell to blame for much of this teams discontent?

[StoneCold]

Point blank - its hard to have any meaningful or constructive conversations when the following are in play

1. We've returned the vast majority of starters on our team YoY for several years - there is no intrigue of big gains by discounted players, it's all about players that were here in 2013-2014 and new additions playing up to the level the team showed in 2013 and 2014.

2. Coaching turnover has only nipped our DC position so there's no intrigue there.

3. Any inflection point to ask if the team could do a better job in any regard is met with objection from whatever faction is under the scope for improvement. Bevell defenders, Cable defenders, RW defenders, Defense defenders, JS defenders, etc etc all tell you in one way or another that if you don't think their pet cause is perfect you have a problem with PC. It's a function of falling in love with an aspect of the team that was present during the height of success and assigning blame outward away from their pet cause as if the issues with one part of the team don't spill over to others.

4. The team hasn't changed nearly enough schematically to have meaningful X and O conversations. What if we did X or Y or Z don't have any traction because the Seahawks will never waver too far from A, B and C. We could point out alternatives and what other teams do until we're lime green in the face and it won't make one iota of a difference from anything we see on the field. It's not even fun to speculate because you know outside of 4 or 5 plays per season, you are digesting the same stuff you did in previous seasons.

Basically the team has stagnated from the view point of fan intrigue even if the results are solid. The novelty of 2012 and 2013 are long gone and what we have to discuss is so much of what we already know and feel given the lack of roster and coaching upheaval.

There is an element of "Favs" and you can't criticize my guy, but I think it stems from a lack of nuance in the discussion. Just look at the title of this thread. It's an all or nothing proposal. People criticize a play or a play call and sometimes it's warranted, but too often I read a post and think, well there are a lot of moving parts to make any play work, and there are defensive players who are working just as hard to blow the play up. What this site lacks is people who can dissect plays from multiple angles and too many posters like me that don't know poop.

As for Bevell? Bevell does what Pete wants. Pete prefers to not be tricky. Here's what we do, try to stop it. Don't turn the ball over while going for the occasional explosive play.

 

[chris98251]

Point blank - its hard to have any meaningful or constructive conversations when the following are in play

1. We've returned the vast majority of starters on our team YoY for several years - there is no intrigue of big gains by discounted players, it's all about players that were here in 2013-2014 and new additions playing up to the level the team showed in 2013 and 2014.

2. Coaching turnover has only nipped our DC position so there's no intrigue there.

3. Any inflection point to ask if the team could do a better job in any regard is met with objection from whatever faction is under the scope for improvement. Bevell defenders, Cable defenders, RW defenders, Defense defenders, JS defenders, etc etc all tell you in one way or another that if you don't think their pet cause is perfect you have a problem with PC. It's a function of falling in love with an aspect of the team that was present during the height of success and assigning blame outward away from their pet cause as if the issues with one part of the team don't spill over to others.

4. The team hasn't changed nearly enough schematically to have meaningful X and O conversations. What if we did X or Y or Z don't have any traction because the Seahawks will never waver too far from A, B and C. We could point out alternatives and what other teams do until we're lime green in the face and it won't make one iota of a difference from anything we see on the field. It's not even fun to speculate because you know outside of 4 or 5 plays per season, you are digesting the same stuff you did in previous seasons.

Basically the team has stagnated from the view point of fan intrigue even if the results are solid. The novelty of 2012 and 2013 are long gone and what we have to discuss is so much of what we already know and feel given the lack of roster and coaching upheaval.

There is an element of "Favs" and you can't criticize my guy, but I think it stems from a lack of nuance in the discussion. Just look at the title of this thread. It's an all or nothing proposal. People criticize a play or a play call and sometimes it's warranted, but too often I read a post and think, well there are a lot of moving parts to make any play work, and there are defensive players who are working just as hard to blow the play up. What this site lacks is people who can dissect plays from multiple angles and too many posters like me that don't know poop.

As for Bevell? Bevell does what Pete wants. Pete prefers to not be tricky. Here's what we do, try to stop it. Don't turn the ball over while going for the occasional explosive play.

Well that's what the real issue was on the play, they went cute and it exploded like a Nuclear bomb with some of the team, the media and the fans.

 

[StoneCold]

Point blank - its hard to have any meaningful or constructive conversations when the following are in play

1. We've returned the vast majority of starters on our team YoY for several years - there is no intrigue of big gains by discounted players, it's all about players that were here in 2013-2014 and new additions playing up to the level the team showed in 2013 and 2014.

2. Coaching turnover has only nipped our DC position so there's no intrigue there.

3. Any inflection point to ask if the team could do a better job in any regard is met with objection from whatever faction is under the scope for improvement. Bevell defenders, Cable defenders, RW defenders, Defense defenders, JS defenders, etc etc all tell you in one way or another that if you don't think their pet cause is perfect you have a problem with PC. It's a function of falling in love with an aspect of the team that was present during the height of success and assigning blame outward away from their pet cause as if the issues with one part of the team don't spill over to others.

4. The team hasn't changed nearly enough schematically to have meaningful X and O conversations. What if we did X or Y or Z don't have any traction because the Seahawks will never waver too far from A, B and C. We could point out alternatives and what other teams do until we're lime green in the face and it won't make one iota of a difference from anything we see on the field. It's not even fun to speculate because you know outside of 4 or 5 plays per season, you are digesting the same stuff you did in previous seasons.

Basically the team has stagnated from the view point of fan intrigue even if the results are solid. The novelty of 2012 and 2013 are long gone and what we have to discuss is so much of what we already know and feel given the lack of roster and coaching upheaval.

There is an element of "Favs" and you can't criticize my guy, but I think it stems from a lack of nuance in the discussion. Just look at the title of this thread. It's an all or nothing proposal. People criticize a play or a play call and sometimes it's warranted, but too often I read a post and think, well there are a lot of moving parts to make any play work, and there are defensive players who are working just as hard to blow the play up. What this site lacks is people who can dissect plays from multiple angles and too many posters like me that don't know poop.

As for Bevell? Bevell does what Pete wants. Pete prefers to not be tricky. Here's what we do, try to stop it. Don't turn the ball over while going for the occasional explosive play.

Well that's what the real issue was on the play, they went cute and it exploded like a Nuclear bomb with some of the team, the media and the fans.

"The Play" is an excellent example of a discussion with a lack of nuance. I've heard it called Stupidest Call in the history of football. No hyperbole in that phrase, nope none at all. I don't think it was a great call, but what distinguishes it is, it had the worst outcome in Seahawk history.

 

[Spin Doctor]

It depends if Kearse's jam on Browner rubs Butler off the play. If that happens and Russ hits him in the numbers, he easily scores.

Here is the thing you're completely brushing off, the design of the play was terrible given the personnel we used, and the opposition. We played right into the Patriots strengths. The fundamental flaw of the play is we relied on picking off Browner. A cornerback that is notorious for his physicality, and disruption. Moreover, we had been using this same play since the Browner years. He knew it was coming, and he recognized the play. The condition for this play being successful was picking off Bronwer. The problem here is that this is the area he is best in, disrupting routes, and plays like this. Bevell literally picked a play that played right into Browners greatest strengths.

The second contention I have with this play is who it was designed around. We used LOCKETTE of all people to make the play with the biggest game of the year on the line. A wide receiver that was known for having questionable hands, and bad route running. He was 5th receiver on our roster. Is it really a surprise that his route running, and poor hands were one of the reasons why the infamous play failed? Bevell himself even came out and slammed Lockette, so the question remains, why use a receiver that has the reputation of those very same things you criticized him of Bevell?

The play failed because we played into the Patriots strengths, plain and simple. That is what you want to avoid as an offensive coordinator. That is why this play failed. You can harp on Wilson, Lockette, and Kearse all you want, but the real reason why this played failed is we played into the Patriots strengths. The play was dead on arrival.

 

[Siouxhawk]

If one of 3 things happen, the play goes for a touchdown. The call and the personnel grouping favored us as the Pats had their heavy package in expecting a run. Phenomenal play by Butler and being off by a split second were the perfect storm that denied us.

And Ricardo was No. 3 on the depth chart.

 

[semiahmoo]

This maybe...yardage and circumstance are different, but this is the quick on the numbers you want. Either way I think you can only net half a yard on the latter superbowl play at best. They just flat out knew it was coming.

The coaching staff didn't anticipate it because they had their run stopping package in there. But Butler certainly knew it was coming as he gambled and jumped the route.

Browner literally told Butler the spacing at which he needed to line up. They changed the angles in anticipation of it.

YUP.

 

[semiahmoo]

Yes, one of the worst play calls of all time. Especially since it didn't fool Belichick one bit. He recognized the play within seconds of our offense lining up and had their defense adjusting. He even seemed confused the Hawks were attempting something so dumb. (This was on a recap of the Super Bowl show a couple years back where they had sideline footage of both coaches.)

We should have gone smashmouth. Their D was tired. Marshawn wanted the ball.

Bevell tried to get cute and we lost the game. He's been carrying the baggage of that play call with him ever since.

The only answer I can conceive is that Pete and Darrell panicked when Belichick didn't call a timeout. and went blank.

That's exactly what happened. They panicked.

Agreed. Bellichick and his staff reacted immediately when they saw the formation and the entire Patriots D shifted in response while on the other side, our coaching staff and our QB froze. We were out-coached in the final seconds - no doubt. And we lost because of it - rightfully so. The better team won because they were the better team on the last play to decide that year's Super Bowl winner.

 

[Siouxhawk]

More tail chasing.

 

[semiahmoo]

It depends if Kearse's jam on Browner rubs Butler off the play. If that happens and Russ hits him in the numbers, he easily scores.

Here is the thing you're completely brushing off, the design of the play was terrible given the personnel we used, and the opposition. We played right into the Patriots strengths. The fundamental flaw of the play is we relied on picking off Browner. A cornerback that is notorious for his physicality, and disruption. Moreover, we had been using this same play since the Browner years. He knew it was coming, and he recognized the play. The condition for this play being successful was picking off Bronwer. The problem here is that this is the area he is best in, disrupting routes, and plays like this. Bevell literally picked a play that played right into Browners greatest strengths.

The second contention I have with this play is who it was designed around. We used LOCKETTE of all people to make the play with the biggest game of the year on the line. A wide receiver that was known for having questionable hands, and bad route running. He was 5th receiver on our roster. Is it really a surprise that his route running, and poor hands were one of the reasons why the infamous play failed? Bevell himself even came out and slammed Lockette, so the question remains, why use a receiver that has the reputation of those very same things you criticized him of Bevell?

The play failed because we played into the Patriots strengths, plain and simple. That is what you want to avoid as an offensive coordinator. That is why this play failed. You can harp on Wilson, Lockette, and Kearse all you want, but the real reason why this played failed is we played into the Patriots strengths. The play was dead on arrival.

BINGO. One of the best descriptions of how awful that play was that I've yet heard. Without a doubt one of the dumbest play calls in Super Bowl history. And no doubt those players still left with the team now are ticked off about it. Two rings sure sounds a lot better than one. They have to think the coaches took that second ring from them.

 

[Siouxhawk]

And even more tail chasing.

 

[nash72]

4. The team hasn't changed nearly enough schematically to have meaningful X and O conversations. What if we did X or Y or Z don't have any traction because the Seahawks will never waver too far from A, B and C. We could point out alternatives and what other teams do until we're lime green in the face and it won't make one iota of a difference from anything we see on the field. It's not even fun to speculate because you know outside of 4 or 5 plays per season, you are digesting the same stuff you did in previous seasons.

This is a good point. Somebody on here said it best when they said that Pete runs the team like the team he wants rather than the team we have. Its not 2013 and we cant depend on the defense to pull our fat out of the fire all the time anymore. The most baffling thing I ever witnessed was how the offense changed in the latter part of 2015 and we excelled, but it went right back to the same old philosophy last season when we were worse off than the year before. We had an injured QB, injured RB's, and the worst Oline in the NFL and we're still running the zone read stuff in which the other team knows there is no shot that Wilson is going to take off. Its like running into the same brick wall over and over again thinking somehow your going to break through. Thats a big reason why fans get infuriated. You need to adapt.

I said that. Me.

Kudos to you sir. It was a true and great statement.

 

[nash72]

Agreed. Bellichick and his staff reacted immediately when they saw the formation and the entire Patriots D shifted in response while on the other side, our coaching staff and our QB froze. We were out-coached in the final seconds - no doubt. And we lost because of it - rightfully so. The better team won because they were the better team on the last play to decide that year's Super Bowl winner.

Belichicks reactions was priceless too. It was one of those 'I cant believe they are trying this'. Lol. Yeah, it was a great play call.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Agreed. Bellichick and his staff reacted immediately when they saw the formation and the entire Patriots D shifted in response while on the other side, our coaching staff and our QB froze. We were out-coached in the final seconds - no doubt. And we lost because of it - rightfully so. The better team won because they were the better team on the last play to decide that year's Super Bowl winner.

Belichicks reactions was priceless too. It was one of those 'I cant believe they are trying this'. Lol. Yeah, it was a great play call.

Fake news.

 

[semiahmoo]

"The Play" infamy is of historical proportions. It is a fascinating thing to go back and review it. From Belichick calmly staring at the Hawks' sideline and sensing, in his own words, "something wasn't right" and then choosing not to call a timeout, to the hours spent preparing for the very play the Seahawks attempted - preparation which included sending Malcolm back in to play D against that same play.

Pete Carroll is a good coach. Bill Belichick is a great one and in those final seconds, the better coach won out.

https://youtu.be/MeNYQaS3rZI?t=6m18s

 

[semiahmoo]

Agreed. Bellichick and his staff reacted immediately when they saw the formation and the entire Patriots D shifted in response while on the other side, our coaching staff and our QB froze. We were out-coached in the final seconds - no doubt. And we lost because of it - rightfully so. The better team won because they were the better team on the last play to decide that year's Super Bowl winner.

Belichicks reactions was priceless too. It was one of those 'I cant believe they are trying this'. Lol. Yeah, it was a great play call.

Sad but true. He was staring across the field at our coaches and said, "something isn't right" meaning we looked like we had no clue what we were doing. He decided they didn't need to call a timeout. He didn't want the Hawks to have the chance to gather themselves. He saw the panic in our team and took advantage, and when they recognized the route call, it was like Pavlov's dog. The Patriots were ready-ready-ready. They had been preparing for that exact play for weeks.

Then there is the big slap in the face to Lynch that was Bevell's play call, but that's another topic...

 

[Siouxhawk]

And since the other side need countless posts to say the same thing over and over and over again, I'll repeat that if Lockette was a half a step quicker as the play was designed and which he likely rehearsed 100s of times in practice, the play goes for a touchdown. Butler was the only one who could deny us and he made a spectacular burst to get to the ball first.

 

[semiahmoo]

And since the other side need countless posts to say the same thing over and over and over again, I'll repeat that if Lockette was a half a step quicker as the play was designed and which he likely rehearsed 100s of times in practice, the play goes for a touchdown. Butler was the only one who could deny us and he made a spectacular burst to get to the ball first.

Indeed, and Butler was sent in to do just that. They knew the play better than we did.

Superior coaching won.

Glad to see you agree with me.

My accuracy rate is now at 99.44%

Remarkable!

 

[Siouxhawk]

And since the other side need countless posts to say the same thing over and over and over again, I'll repeat that if Lockette was a half a step quicker as the play was designed and which he likely rehearsed 100s of times in practice, the play goes for a touchdown. Butler was the only one who could deny us and he made a spectacular burst to get to the ball first.

Indeed, and Butler was sent in to do just that. They knew the play better than we did.

Superior coaching won.

Glad to see you agree with me.

My accuracy rate is now at 99.44%

Remarkable!

I hardly think we're in agreement. And matching your socks 99.4% of the time is indeed quite the accomplishment.

 

[Uncle Si]

And since the other side need countless posts to say the same thing over and over and over again, I'll repeat that if Lockette was a half a step quicker as the play was designed and which he likely rehearsed 100s of times in practice, the play goes for a touchdown. Butler was the only one who could deny us and he made a spectacular burst to get to the ball first.

Indeed, and Butler was sent in to do just that. They knew the play better than we did.

Superior coaching won.

Glad to see you agree with me.

My accuracy rate is now at 99.44%

Remarkable!

Semi

Check your PNs

 

[johnnyfever]

And since the other side need countless posts to say the same thing over and over and over again, I'll repeat that if Lockette was a half a step quicker as the play was designed and which he likely rehearsed 100s of times in practice, the play goes for a touchdown. Butler was the only one who could deny us and he made a spectacular burst to get to the ball first.

Indeed, and Butler was sent in to do just that. They knew the play better than we did.

Superior coaching won.

Glad to see you agree with me.

My accuracy rate is now at 99.44%

Remarkable!

I hardly think we're in agreement. And matching your socks 99.4% of the time is indeed quite the accomplishment.

Isn't this a personal attack on Semi because siouxhawk lacked the ability to retort with a substantive response. I agree it's not really sioux's fault because he is wrong in this case and there isn't much in the way of a logical rebuttal, but why the PM to semi instead of sioux?

It was a poor playcall by carroll and Bevell, and Belicheck took advantage of that poor strategy. Seems like a legit thing to point out in a thread about Bevell.