Ringer article on Seahawks Offense

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
8,286
Reaction score
397
Or in truth it was Bevell who made the call, then ducked away and threw his WR under the bus for it. Carroll took the heat but it was stupid Bevell. I don't 100% blame RW for that play. Yes he threw the ball but the personnel he had to work with on that call was mindboggling. Ricardo Lockette as the primary WR on a slant. Where was Matthews or better yet, they could have had Zach Miller or Luke Willson lined up there. Butler likely doesn't make the play if that happens. He ran through Lockette. A bigger receiver, he wouldn't have gotten through. Just my opinion.
Wilson knew that Lockette was going to be his target, his pass SHOULD have been thrown low & away for ONLY HIS GUY, OR NOBODY get's it.
He was at the end of his THIRD YEAR & no longer a Rookie, so, IF he'd have made the adjustment, he'd have been the 'HERO', as it turns out it evolves into a blame game on ANYONE BUT Russell Wilson.
IF he was part of the reason for WINNING the 48 Lombardi in his second year, he's also part of the reason for the LOSING in 49.
It's not a "Heads I win, Tales you lose"
Like you, I believe that it was indeed a Darryll Bevell call, but everyone holds Pete responsible FOR EVERY MISTAKE THAT IS MADE BY HIS PLAYERS & Coaches.
PETE= All the BLAME, None of the CREDIT, Don't believe me? ask 63 & Twisted.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,691
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Cockeysville, Md
Keasley,

It isn't whether we are nothing without Wilson. We are nothing without a top-tier franchise QB. Remember, I wanted to trade Wilson before his contract extension BECAUSE I SAW THIS HAPPENING BEFORE IT DID.

I wasn't some Wilson fanatic. But I know enough to know without Wilson we would have done nothing this past five years. Even with all the distractions and things that likely did impact Wilson's success.

And yes, I have concerns that Carroll has outlived his usefulness. If an aging coach, that typically wins because of defense, has somehow put together teams in the past few years that literally are among the worst of the history in the NFL, what else is there to expect success from?

You could say player development because that WAS also a strength. But in the past 5 years (and even 8 years), we have put together only average or substantially below average in terms of roster strength additions.

So what now?

We aren't nothing without Wilson. We are, however, nothing without a franchise QB. We had one. We gave him away. They are near impossible to get because to be a top-tier team you need them.
near impossible to get?

Allen
Mahomes
Herbert
Murry
Jackson
Burrow
Mac Jones
and Davis Mills is a no name who doesnt look too shabby

Thats 1/4 of the league finding franchise qbs in the last 4 years and most of them are borderline elite... in just the last 4 years

And the jury is still out on guys like Lance, Fields, Wilson and Hurts

The pro and college games have changed in ways that make it easier for young QB's to succeed. Its not 1991 anymore.
 

keasley45

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 4, 2010
Messages
1,691
Reaction score
1,080
Location
Cockeysville, Md
Wilson knew that Lockette was going to be his target, his pass SHOULD have been thrown low & away for ONLY HIS GUY, OR NOBODY get's it.
He was at the end of his THIRD YEAR & no longer a Rookie, so, IF he'd have made the adjustment, he'd have been the 'HERO', as it turns out it evolves into a blame game on ANYONE BUT Russell Wilson.
IF he was part of the reason for WINNING the 48 Lombardi in his second year, he's also part of the reason for the LOSING in 49.
It's not a "Heads I win, Tales you lose"
Like you, I believe that it was indeed a Darryll Bevell call, but everyone holds Pete responsible FOR EVERY MISTAKE THAT IS MADE BY HIS PLAYERS & Coaches.
PETE= All the BLAME, None of the CREDIT, Don't believe me? ask 63 & Twisted.
Exactly. The play was a gimme.

I'm gonna say it. taller qb is able to throw that ball where it needs to go. Simple physics. The hiugher the release point, the lower the qb can get that ball just beyond the line. Brady makes that pass 100x out of 100. We could have run Lynch, We could have thrown a fade to Mathews, Wilson could have created on his own... or the play could just have been executed propoerly and the ball NOT Thrown to literally the only spot it could have been contested. Lockette was smart to drag slowly behind the screen. he was supposed to get the ball there and instead it was thrown well in front of him.
 

hawkfan68

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
8,609
Reaction score
107
Location
Sammamish, WA
Exactly. The play was a gimme.

I'm gonna say it. taller qb is able to throw that ball where it needs to go. Simple physics. The hiugher the release point, the lower the qb can get that ball just beyond the line. Brady makes that pass 100x out of 100. We could have run Lynch, We could have thrown a fade to Mathews, Wilson could have created on his own... or the play could just have been executed propoerly and the ball NOT Thrown to literally the only spot it could have been contested. Lockette was smart to drag slowly behind the screen. he was supposed to get the ball there and instead it was thrown well in front of him.
I agree the execution was poor. However, that play was not a "gimme" as you say. Not with a short QB like RW. IIRC he didn't even move from the pocket. In a short field, that's a lot of traffic to squeeze a ball through. I know they ran the same play against the Panthers earlier that season and it was successful. I believe it was Lynch who caught that pass. They could have put Lynch there instead of Lockette. I don't believe Lockette was the right player there. That's why I don't blame him for trying to execute as it may have been called.

What they should have done was a play action with RW rolling to the left, Lynch wide open in the end zone. Coaches have to be smarter and recognize their personnel strengths. Unfortunately, they had Bevell calling the plays. The whole offensive coaching staff tried to be cute and it bit them.
 
Last edited:

seatownlowdown

Active member
Joined
Sep 19, 2013
Messages
274
Reaction score
28
Location
seatown
this thread just shows both parties philosophically had become highly incompatible, to the point of toxic levels.

so we go from picking up chunk yardage from marshawn and the run game and controlling the pace of the game, to putting the ball in russell's hands- eventually letting him play russellball as a shotgun/rollout qb, throwing 40+ times a game. to me one thing that is overlooked in the grand scheme of things, is that the more the seahawks depended on wilson, the worse they became on offense and defense. constant 3-and-outs and an overall failure to capitalize on 3rd down by our offense not only means less points for us, but keeps the others teams offense on the field, and as a caveat, it demoralizes our defense too.

so missing those easy reads and "layups" as kurt warner attested in that posted video or as keasley45 laid out for all the russell groupies to see in this very thread, just killed the narrative it was "bad playcalling". sorry russell groupies! :ROFLMAO:(y) i don't study all-22 but i watch the games, sometimes even twice, and even i didn't realize how much was left on the field from our passing game until there are breakdowns of individual plays.

russell wilson has some outstanding and "special" attributes. maybe pete carroll didn't do enough to "play to russell wilson's strengths"... but how do you? most of russell's strengths were/are actually for off-script stuff like altering the play altogether at the line adjusting to the defense using hot reads or after the original play has elapsed... like scrambling, throwing on the run, and deep balls which requires time. playcalling was always going to be incompatible to russell wilson's strengths. it simply didnt matter how good the average playcall was. russell thought he was smarter than the play in front of him. and that turned out to be false. i think after the pads are on, somewhere during the next season denver's coaching staff will realize that. doesn't matter how great the playcalling is, ie protection assignments or designing receivers open, if the quarterback won't take what the playcall gives then youre left with off-script russellball and it's downside.

i think that when geno came in and played well, making proper reads, staying in the pocket, following the script, and moving the chains, that's the point the seahawks organization knew that was the end of russell in a seahawks uniform (as he had been manipulating for anyway). the seahawks figured if they could find a qb that can see the field, stay in the pocket, make quick reads, follow the script, then they will be successful in the offense. no, geno isn't the answer, or the player of wilson's caliber, certainly not. but for geno to take the seahawks playcalls and move the chains, it really did expose russell. even the frustrated receivers were like "thank you, it can be done" :eek: lol. i also imagine it's mentally anguishing for receivers to be scripted open by playcall design, then actually be open, and wilson fail to capitalize again and again, left with nothing. boom, gotta return to the sidelines again.





it had become time to move on.
 

LeaveLynchAlone

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
108
Reaction score
27
It feels like that ship has sailed.
We could have doubled down on the LOB & Lynch, and got another QB. We didn't.

When we traded Unger, things were over. Then we were all in on Wilson.
The problem is we didn't have a head coach that could do anything going all in on Wilson. I don't believe that another coach couldn't have leveraged that existing team better.
At that point, we were basically a wildcard team.
Wilson did something maybe 1 or 2 QBs in the league could do - he got better under pressure. Even Pete knew to ride it. Pete just couldn't reconcile how he learned to win games wouldn't work. So he tried to win his way, flopped regularly and then hoped Wilson could bail him out. Sometimes Wilson did. But it dug such big holes for us that we regularly could not win in playoffs against better coaches.
I don't think you can argue that because Wilson didn't succeed as well without the LOB, he wouldn't have under a better coach. That was the whole point of trying to keep Wilson, because with someone else you at least have a chance at a better outcome.

I don't think you can point to any tangible upside from Carroll. Best case we end up where we already were without Wilson, just save that salary cap money. More likely we end up worse. So why bother?

I am still trying to figure out what 'success' looks like post-Wilson. Nobody seems to expect playoffs. Most doubt we will be as competitive. Apparently, people are OK losing more if we use the middle of the field because they think Wilson is sort of a knob, if not a smug self absorbed something. But that is just about feelings.

What is the realistic upside next year, year after, year after that?
Because so far, none of those upsides seem to be better than what we had, even with one of the worst defenses in the history of NFL.
We no longer have Wilson. So not sure what this is. Where we go from here is more salient...and so far the answer to 'Where do we go from here?' seems to be nowhere.


PS Lane was not a slot corner and was crappy at that. Keeping Lane instead of Burley, injured or not, was still dumb. And I liked Lane.
:cry:
 

LeaveLynchAlone

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
108
Reaction score
27
Look at the circumstances Wilson was expected to produce in.
We were, for most of his time here, one of the smallest time to pressure lines in the league (after the Unger trade).

So even when the protection was good, he had to expect it wasn't or expect it would rapidly degrade.

In many instances, he was expected to complete passes on 3rd and long or obvious passing downs, which makes it easier to defend and easier for defenders to rush the passer.

And we still had Pete's moronic (simplistic) gameplans.
Most of that 'cluster' was godawful if not lazy gameplans, instead of Wilson not completing passes.
:cry:
 

LeaveLynchAlone

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
108
Reaction score
27
Keasley,

It isn't whether we are nothing without Wilson. We are nothing without a top-tier franchise QB. Remember, I wanted to trade Wilson before his contract extension BECAUSE I SAW THIS HAPPENING BEFORE IT DID.

I wasn't some Wilson fanatic. But I know enough to know without Wilson we would have done nothing this past five years. Even with all the distractions and things that likely did impact Wilson's success.

And yes, I have concerns that Carroll has outlived his usefulness. If an aging coach, that typically wins because of defense, has somehow put together teams in the past few years that literally are among the worst of the history in the NFL, what else is there to expect success from?

You could say player development because that WAS also a strength. But in the past 5 years (and even 8 years), we have put together only average or substantially below average in terms of roster strength additions.

So what now?

We aren't nothing without Wilson. We are, however, nothing without a franchise QB. We had one. We gave him away. They are near impossible to get because to be a top-tier team you need them.
:cry:
 

Pandion Haliaetus

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 16, 2013
Messages
3,526
Reaction score
148
this thread just shows both parties philosophically had become highly incompatible, to the point of toxic levels.

so we go from picking up chunk yardage from marshawn and the run game and controlling the pace of the game, to putting the ball in russell's hands- eventually letting him play russellball as a shotgun/rollout qb, throwing 40+ times a game. to me one thing that is overlooked in the grand scheme of things, is that the more the seahawks depended on wilson, the worse they became on offense and defense. constant 3-and-outs and an overall failure to capitalize on 3rd down by our offense not only means less points for us, but keeps the others teams offense on the field, and as a caveat, it demoralizes our defense too.

so missing those easy reads and "layups" as kurt warner attested in that posted video or as keasley45 laid out for all the russell groupies to see in this very thread, just killed the narrative it was "bad playcalling". sorry russell groupies! :ROFLMAO:(y) i don't study all-22 but i watch the games, sometimes even twice, and even i didn't realize how much was left on the field from our passing game until there are breakdowns of individual plays.

russell wilson has some outstanding and "special" attributes. maybe pete carroll didn't do enough to "play to russell wilson's strengths"... but how do you? most of russell's strengths were/are actually for off-script stuff like altering the play altogether at the line adjusting to the defense using hot reads or after the original play has elapsed... like scrambling, throwing on the run, and deep balls which requires time. playcalling was always going to be incompatible to russell wilson's strengths. it simply didnt matter how good the average playcall was. russell thought he was smarter than the play in front of him. and that turned out to be false. i think after the pads are on, somewhere during the next season denver's coaching staff will realize that. doesn't matter how great the playcalling is, ie protection assignments or designing receivers open, if the quarterback won't take what the playcall gives then youre left with off-script russellball and it's downside.

i think that when geno came in and played well, making proper reads, staying in the pocket, following the script, and moving the chains, that's the point the seahawks organization knew that was the end of russell in a seahawks uniform (as he had been manipulating for anyway). the seahawks figured if they could find a qb that can see the field, stay in the pocket, make quick reads, follow the script, then they will be successful in the offense. no, geno isn't the answer, or the player of wilson's caliber, certainly not. but for geno to take the seahawks playcalls and move the chains, it really did expose russell. even the frustrated receivers were like "thank you, it can be done" :eek: lol. i also imagine it's mentally anguishing for receivers to be scripted open by playcall design, then actually be open, and wilson fail to capitalize again and again, left with nothing. boom, gotta return to the sidelines again.





it had become time to move on.


This probably won’t end the thread but should be the end of the thread.
 

LeaveLynchAlone

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
108
Reaction score
27
That makes sense. Because he was stuck with what might be the literal worst coach and worst gameplans in the NFL.

Wilson isn't the anti-Brady but you could make a VERY strong argument that Carroll is the anti-Bill.

It feels like that might impact 3rd down %.
:cry:
 

LeaveLynchAlone

Active member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
108
Reaction score
27
John63,

You should probably let them cling to their delusions that Pete could have been any kind of success without Wilson. Defending Wilson shouldn't matter at this point.

There is nothing to save.

Carroll WAS a great coach (always a gameday moron but he was such an amazing player development guy and motivator, it hardly mattered).

But this is almost as if a 67 year old Steve Largent ended up coming back to be our #2 receiver. You wouldn't hate the guy, but you would hate that he is out there because he can't run routes anymore or catch the ball at near a college, much less NFL level.

Every dropped ball would be a pass that should have gone to someone else.

We ran off our HOF QB ( maybe he because he comes off as a knob more often now).
And now we have an aging, seemingly barely capable headcoach to do this with basically no quality QB.

Arguing about whether Wilson was good or not does not matter, we don't have him now or in the future.

The only reason to continue to argue seems for them to convince themselves that was the reason Pete has basically struggled to be any kind of playoff threat or even a playoff team recently was Wilson. Unlikely but that is all they got now. (We aren't counting that crappy wildcard against the Rams...that was luck, not accomplishment).

Whatever. Wilson is gone. We are stuck with Pete. So we have to deal with it.
When Pete finally leaves it will probably get worse not better. But the days of the Seahawks mattering to anyone outside of Seattle (except as an easy win for above .500 teams) probably are over. And no need to defend Wilson because they will find out Pete can fail just as easily without him.
:cry:
 

John63

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Messages
6,582
Reaction score
111
John63,

You should probably let them cling to their delusions that Pete could have been any kind of success without Wilson. Defending Wilson shouldn't matter at this point.

There is nothing to save.

Carroll WAS a great coach (always a gameday moron but he was such an amazing player development guy and motivator, it hardly mattered).

But this is almost as if a 67 year old Steve Largent ended up coming back to be our #2 receiver. You wouldn't hate the guy, but you would hate that he is out there because he can't run routes anymore or catch the ball at near a college, much less NFL level.

Every dropped ball would be a pass that should have gone to someone else.

We ran off our HOF QB ( maybe he because he comes off as a knob more often now).
And now we have an aging, seemingly barely capable headcoach to do this with basically no quality QB.

Arguing about whether Wilson was good or not does not matter, we don't have him now or in the future.

The only reason to continue to argue seems for them to convince themselves that was the reason Pete has basically struggled to be any kind of playoff threat or even a playoff team recently was Wilson. Unlikely but that is all they got now. (We aren't counting that crappy wildcard against the Rams...that was luck, not accomplishment).

Whatever. Wilson is gone. We are stuck with Pete. So we have to deal with it.
When Pete finally leaves it will probably get worse not better. But the days of the Seahawks mattering to anyone outside of Seattle (except as an easy win for above .500 teams) probably are over. And no need to defend Wilson because they will find out Pete can fail just as easily without him.
Great post spot on
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
233
Kurt Warner couldn't understand why Russ wouldn't take the easy throws.

I remember when this was first posted several people were questioning down and distance to absolve Wilson of his need to just throw to the open receiver, so I did a little research to see if Warner was cherry picking things that needed to go deep to make first downs:

First and 25
First and 10
First and 10
Third and 3 This was the bomb to Chris Carson of all people
First and 15
Third and 24 (obviously the pass Warner was recommending would not have gotten the first)
First and 10
Second and 15
Third and 15

Of each of these, the last two were play calls that I question. The options in the routes were not layered as they should be.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
230
Again. Wilson is gone.
No longer a Seahawk.

Let's see how Carroll does without him. If he does well, everyone here will give him his flowers - including me.
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
233
Again. Wilson is gone.
No longer a Seahawk.

Let's see how Carroll does without him. If he does well, everyone here will give him his flowers - including me.
You were the one that literally said that Wilson was the only thing worth talking about in our offense and that is why the article centered around him.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
230
No BASF.
No I basically said Wilson was the reason we were winning with the offense by executing often outside of the gameplans.

The goal of an offense is to score. Not to move the chains. That was part of the problem. There is a lot of focus here on missed plays. I have seen them too.

But every player has strengths and weaknesses. Remember those were weaknesses, but you also lose the strengths. Wilson was great at scoring TDs in the RZ. He was also actually exceptional at TDs per drive.

I have no doubt our next QB will move the chains, use the middle of the field, whatever. I also have little doubt that our RZ % will tank and our scoring will as well.
That probably won't even be as much the QBs fault, even if Geno (Blech) is QB. It will be Pete thinking it is still the 80s/90s and trying to run the ball/play field position but not actually scoring TDs. Running the ball well without an exceptional passing game, makes you the Titans or Browns. And Titans is a best case.

In a league where the average winning team needs to score at least 27.... (That was the # when I last checked...it might have dropped a little last year because all the QBs being injured)
 

BASF

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
2,264
Reaction score
233
It is telling that the most compelling player for the Seahawks left.

The article is about Wilson because Wilson is still worth writing about.

They didn't write about the increasingly less capable, increasingly less competent HC because nobody cares. Nor the team that is essentially 1/2 JAGs.

They made it about Wilson.

There isn't much left to matter.

This wasn't you writing this? Maybe a ghost writer?
 

scutterhawk

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 11, 2010
Messages
8,286
Reaction score
397
I agree the execution was poor. However, that play was not a "gimme" as you say. Not with a short QB like RW. IIRC he didn't even move from the pocket. In a short field, that's a lot of traffic to squeeze a ball through. I know they ran the same play against the Panthers earlier that season and it was successful. I believe it was Lynch who caught that pass. They could have put Lynch there instead of Lockette. I don't believe Lockette was the right player there. That's why I don't blame him for trying to execute as it may have been called.

What they should have done was a play action with RW rolling to the left, Lynch wide open in the end zone. Coaches have to be smarter and recognize their personnel strengths. Unfortunately, they had Bevell calling the plays. The whole offensive coaching staff tried to be cute and it bit them.
Nope, It was POORLY EXECUTED PLAY by RUSSELL WILSON.
People can Speculate 'til hell freezes over, BUT bottom line, RW doesn't get a Mulligan on that pass & is owed his fair share of the BLAME.
Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda, It amazes the hell out of me how everyone has 20-20 Vision >AFTER< the play turns to sh*t, and then DEFLECTS.
If the dog hadn't stopped to take a crap, he'd have caught that there rabbit.
Bevell & Carroll were BOTH complicit, in that they had faith that RW could make that pass go off without a hitch....EGG ON THE FACES.
 
Top