Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking

[Shanegotyou11]

Its such a catch 22 IMO. Blame bevell for his play calling and that's fine but also he is playing without a full deck. The same people defending Russ and hating bevell is strange to me. The offensive line is the main issue. It always has been with this regime. Russ and Bevell don't get a full deck like DC's on the defensive side.

I'd never want to be a OC on this team or QB or WR or RB. The offensive line was ranked 31st. Its payroll was 31st. You get what you pay for. The Seahawks pay the most in the NFL for defense. You get 8 pro bowlers and top defense year in and out. Its why New DC's are solid here. (Players more then the DC) My favorite DC was Quinn and I liked how he mixed it up.

Its like Phil Jackson. How great was he? Was he good? Yes. Great? Idk. He had MJ and Kobe and Shaq. The DC's have the best defensive players in the NFL.

Again, I understand the blame game. People wanna blame Russ, Bevell, Cable,etc. Its really what you pay for. You pay for crap, you usually get crap. However, winning a SB and being in playoffs shows it was a smart choice compared to paying for best O line like Dallas.

 

[Seymour]

Actually burning that last time out was huge in that sequence. It prevented at least another shot at the end zone by the Rams.

I'm with AdHawk firmly on this one. The end of the game fit the Hawks' identity under Pete to a T.

And it's quite presumptive to think we'd automatically score a TD there. Too many bad things could happen, including stopping the clock.

No it didn't. They turned the ball over on downs, and did not run out of time.

If they had that time out in their back pocket, it changes things for them strategy wise.

What I said was a fact. What you said is 100% BS speculation.
If a meteor fell on the stadium we would also not have a team. Should we plan the funeral now then?

 

[pittpnthrs]

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.

Exactly. It was the equivalence of not even trying. I'm not even suggesting we blame Bevell, maybe its on Pete or more likely a combination of both but regardless it was a weird decision. We gave ourselves almost zero chance to be successful there.

No, not at all the equivalent. That's only in your own mind.

Trying and not getting something against people trying to stop you isn't the same as not trying.

Could they have called something different? Perhaps, but why didn't the called play get them 2 yards? If that's execution, then perhaps any call they had made could have suffered the same because of ineptitude of the line, backs, or otherwise.

It was only in my mind that they lined up in the same formation and ran the same exact play that got us 2 yards when we needed 5? Do you and Bevell think that was going to catch the Rams off guard or something? It was a horrible display of play calling. How or why are you trying to defend that?

 

[RolandDeschain]

No it didn't. They turned the ball over on downs, and did not run out of time.

How dare you intercede with facts like this?

 

[bevellisthedevil]

Delusional? I think the real head-scratcher is the usual sect of supposed know-it-alls who bellyache right away in the aftermath of a game you could sense us taking control of. And a big game at that. Time after time Bevell called successful plays to move the chains and grind the clock. This while operating behind a line that sometimes looked superb and gave Russ loads of protection, other times inexplicably whiffing on a blitz that left Russ a sitting duck.

Just have to say that the stance of those grumbling like this is hard to take serious anymore.

Yes, and this post is absolutely delusional. The Seahawks offense had a grand total of 0 first downs in the 4th Quarter. When exactly Siouxhawk did you feel like we were taking over the game? Was it when our last 4 drives netted 19 yards and burned 1:25, 1:03, 1:45, and 1:37 off the clock?

What are you going to tell me next? Are you going to tell me that netting 57 feet or 684 inches is better than 19 yards?

19 yards in the 4th Quarter

I never have claimed to know it all. I know that 0 first downs in a quarter when you have 4 drives is ass. I know that time after time the offense can't get out of its own way.

 

[Scorpion05]

13 possessions - 241 yards for an average of 18.5 yards per possession and a grand total of 16 points. In addition, the defense got the ball back to the offense with 5 turnovers.

Turnover #1 - We got the ball at our own 20 8 plays 29 yards punt
Turnover #2 - we got the ball at their 30 4 plays 15 yards intercepted
Turnover #2- We got the ball at our own 29 3 plays -2 yards punt
Turnover #3 We got the ball at their 46 3 plays 8 yards punt
Turnover #4 We got the ball at their 20 4 plays 3 yards field goal YESSSS! a field goal

So we get 5 turnovers and run a total of 22 plays and gain 53 yards and score 1 field goal and somehow the offense did its job? There are way too many delusional people on this site. Its entertaining but delusional.

How is any of that acceptable to anyone? How is 5 turnovers, 3 in Rams territory and netting 3 total points even remotely close to acceptable?

Sad thing is the defense and special teams literally set them up for 6 points at least, and they couldnt even do that right. And also had a turnover which put the rams in FG range I believe.

Also outside of the last 2 drives before the half and the drive after the half the offense was so bad.....taking those 3 out...

6 plays 4 yards 2:56 PUNT
8 plays 29 yards 4:16 PUNT
1 Play 0 yards :11 INT
3 Plays 3 yards 1:47 PUNT
4 Plays 15 yards 2:01 INT
3 plays -2 yards 2:20 PUNT
3 plays 3 yards 1:03 PUNT
3 plays 8 yards 1:45 PUNT
4 plays 3 yards 1:37 FG

You guys have GOT to be kidding me with being happy about this offensive performance. This is the same crap that happens almost every game. Defense keeps us in it, or gets turnovers and the offense usually does JUST ENOUGH to win the game, with like, 2 drives, usually at the end of the half or end of the game. Its pissing me off

SEVEN DRIVES that didnt even get 10 yards, ONLY ONE OF THOSE past 5 yards

Our offense decided to only show up for last half of the 2nd quarter and starting 3rd quarter. Outside of that they were on a milk carton.. MISSING

What you said is accurate, except for the whole leaving out 3 good drives thing you just did

Most teams win based on just that. 3 or 4 good drives. Most football games end in a score of say, 17-10, or in the low 20s. Every now and then, both teams score 30. So what would have been adequate for you, maybe one more TD? Fine, that'd be great

We scored 16 points. So basically your logic is, because we didn't score 28, or 30, our offense is horrible? It needs work sure, all I'm saying is...let's not pretend as if this was a 9-3 game. The score card is pretty common with what happens across the league consistently. This does not mean some of us are satisfied, of course we have a high scoring offense. A high scoring offense would make us a perfect team. But let's not pretend as if us not scoring almost 30 points is out of the norm

What I was truly disappointed in was the last drive. We should have iced the game. That was pitiful

3 of those points came because of the defense getting a turnover. They ALSO turned the ball over after special teams handed them FG range position at Rams 30 yard line, and they ALSO handed the rams 3 points by throwing an interception setting the rams up at the SEATTLE 19. In the past two games we have allowed 28 points.....8 of those have been directly because of the offense and then the defense itself has scored 2TD and set up a FG by INT

Okay

So basically your point is, against a talented defense familiar with us we turned the ball over twice, and they turned the ball over. Fine. Sounds like a typical football game to me

Teams with as little invested on offense as we do rarely have as much success as we do. We have a longggggg way to go, but we're not exactly a putrid, game managing Trent Dilfer like offense. We have a certain style of play, and we're conservative. We're not risk taking. We take our deep shots and other times we're careful. We need improvement running the ball(we lost our starting RB). The Rams offense is a classic example of a team who's high scoring but takes risks, which will catch up to them. Mark my words, no matter how much points the Rams score a game they will not be on our level. Great teams are built on defense and solid offensive play

Last week we were great on offense. This week we were below average on offense but made key plays when needed. Great teams can win ugly(like this week) and win great(like last week) and we have had enough evidence of that over the years(2015 Broncos, 2013 Seahawks, etc.)

 

[RolandDeschain]

Okay

So basically your point is, against a talented defense familiar with us we turned the ball over twice, and they turned the ball over. Fine. Sounds like a typical football game to me

Teams with as little invested on offense as we do rarely have as much success as we do. We have a longggggg way to go, but we're not exactly a putrid, game managing Trent Dilfer like offense. We have a certain style of play, and we're conservative. We're not risk taking. We take our deep shots and other times we're careful. We need improvement running the ball(we lost our starting RB). The Rams offense is a classic example of a team who's high scoring but takes risks, which will catch up to them. Mark my words, no matter how much points the Rams score a game they will not be on our level. Great teams are built on defense and solid offensive play

Actually, the Trent Dilfer-led Ravens in 2000 (who won the Super Bowl that season) averaged 20.8 points per game for the regular season, and this was in an era when offenses scored fewer points in general AND this includes Dilfer coming in to replace the QB that started the season, Tony Banks, after four straight games without an offensive touchdown; yet despite that incredible month of no TDs scored by the offense, they still finished with a 20.8 average on the regular season. For the games Dilfer was the starting QB in (eight regular-season games starting at their loss to Pittsburgh), they averaged 24.875 points per game.

We are currently averaging 22 points per game in a higher-scoring era with a better QB. At present, we should aspire to Trent Dilfer-like offensive capabilities, as sad as that is.

Last week we were great on offense. This week we were below average on offense but made key plays when needed. Great teams can win ugly(like this week) and win great(like last week) and we have had enough evidence of that over the years(2015 Broncos, 2013 Seahawks, etc.)

"Great" is stretching it; that final score was bolstered MIGHTILY by two defensive touchdowns. The NFL average offensive score for a game for the 2016 season was 22.7 points per game, and our offense scored 32 points at home against one of the worst teams in the league this year with what, a 3rd-string QB? We may as well have the Seahawks play against a college defense, then we can discuss how great the offense looks all the time.

This game is too complicated to EVER judge by final scores.

Anyone who thinks the offense "took good strides" in this game is delusional. Our defense got FIVE TURNOVERS for our offense and we scored 16 points. If anyone knows how to quickly find some stats on games where one team gets five+ turnovers, post the scores, because most teams that get that much of a competitive edge throughout the game absolutely DESTROY the opposition, not barely win. (Excluding any games where both teams have like 4-5 turnovers, as that's obviously a largely nullifying factor.)

...You know, like how the Seahawks did in that turnover-fest we call the 58-0 Seahawks win over the Cardinals from 2012.

 

[chris98251]

So that last series if we were playing the Packers, or the Patriots and gave them the time we gave the Rams would have been ok ?

And they are not even the best ranked offense this year.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Delusional? I think the real head-scratcher is the usual sect of supposed know-it-alls who bellyache right away in the aftermath of a game you could sense us taking control of. And a big game at that. Time after time Bevell called successful plays to move the chains and grind the clock. This while operating behind a line that sometimes looked superb and gave Russ loads of protection, other times inexplicably whiffing on a blitz that left Russ a sitting duck.

Just have to say that the stance of those grumbling like this is hard to take serious anymore.

Yes, and this post is absolutely delusional. The Seahawks offense had a grand total of 0 first downs in the 4th Quarter. When exactly Siouxhawk did you feel like we were taking over the game? Was it when our last 4 drives netted 19 yards and burned 1:25, 1:03, 1:45, and 1:37 off the clock?

What are you going to tell me next? Are you going to tell me that netting 57 feet or 684 inches is better than 19 yards?

19 yards in the 4th Quarter

I never have claimed to know it all. I know that 0 first downs in a quarter when you have 4 drives is ass. I know that time after time the offense can't get out of its own way.

And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.

 

[adeltaY]

Delusional? I think the real head-scratcher is the usual sect of supposed know-it-alls who bellyache right away in the aftermath of a game you could sense us taking control of. And a big game at that. Time after time Bevell called successful plays to move the chains and grind the clock. This while operating behind a line that sometimes looked superb and gave Russ loads of protection, other times inexplicably whiffing on a blitz that left Russ a sitting duck.

Just have to say that the stance of those grumbling like this is hard to take serious anymore.

Yes, and this post is absolutely delusional. The Seahawks offense had a grand total of 0 first downs in the 4th Quarter. When exactly Siouxhawk did you feel like we were taking over the game? Was it when our last 4 drives netted 19 yards and burned 1:25, 1:03, 1:45, and 1:37 off the clock?

What are you going to tell me next? Are you going to tell me that netting 57 feet or 684 inches is better than 19 yards?

19 yards in the 4th Quarter

I never have claimed to know it all. I know that 0 first downs in a quarter when you have 4 drives is ass. I know that time after time the offense can't get out of its own way.

I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at your comment. Hilarious. Thanks, I needed that :mrgreen:

 

[adeltaY]

And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.

Then why did we attempt any passes in the 4th? Should have run it every single down if Pete's plan was to just run the clock. And why no zone read even when we did run? That would take one defender out of the RBs way or Russ could pull it and likely convert a first down.

Also, looks like we were running out of condensed/tight formations most of the game, which brought TEN players into the box. RBs had no chance. Why the heck can't we spread it out and run from the shotgun? Our OL isn't good enough to run from under center with any semblance of consistency, nor our our RBs it seems.

 

[Siouxhawk]

And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.

Then why did we attempt any passes in the 4th? Should have run it every single down if Pete's plan was to just run the clock. And why no zone read even when we did run? That would take one defender out of the RBs way or Russ could pull it and likely convert a first down.

Also, looks like we were running out of condensed/tight formations most of the game, which brought TEN players into the box. RBs had no chance. Why the heck can't we spread it out and run from the shotgun? Our OL isn't good enough to run from under center with any semblance of consistency, nor our our RBs it seems.

Different time and field possession circumstances. I was referring to that last drive in the response you quoted. At that point, Pete wanted the 6-point lead and his defense to close it out. Mission accomplished.

 

[Ad Hawk]

Okay

So basically your point is, against a talented defense familiar with us we turned the ball over twice, and they turned the ball over. Fine. Sounds like a typical football game to me

Teams with as little invested on offense as we do rarely have as much success as we do. We have a longggggg way to go, but we're not exactly a putrid, game managing Trent Dilfer like offense. We have a certain style of play, and we're conservative. We're not risk taking. We take our deep shots and other times we're careful. We need improvement running the ball(we lost our starting RB). The Rams offense is a classic example of a team who's high scoring but takes risks, which will catch up to them. Mark my words, no matter how much points the Rams score a game they will not be on our level. Great teams are built on defense and solid offensive play

Actually, the Trent Dilfer-led Ravens in 2000 (who won the Super Bowl that season) averaged 20.8 points per game for the regular season, and this was in an era when offenses scored fewer points in general AND this includes Dilfer coming in to replace the QB that started the season, Tony Banks, after four straight games without an offensive touchdown; yet despite that incredible month of no TDs scored by the offense, they still finished with a 20.8 average on the regular season. For the games Dilfer was the starting QB in (eight regular-season games starting at their loss to Pittsburgh), they averaged 24.875 points per game.

We are currently averaging 22 points per game in a higher-scoring era with a better QB. At present, we should aspire to Trent Dilfer-like offensive capabilities, as sad as that is.

Last week we were great on offense. This week we were below average on offense but made key plays when needed. Great teams can win ugly(like this week) and win great(like last week) and we have had enough evidence of that over the years(2015 Broncos, 2013 Seahawks, etc.)

"Great" is stretching it; that final score was bolstered MIGHTILY by two defensive touchdowns. The NFL average offensive score for a game for the 2016 season was 22.7 points per game, and our offense scored 32 points at home against one of the worst teams in the league this year with what, a 3rd-string QB? We may as well have the Seahawks play against a college defense, then we can discuss how great the offense looks all the time.

This game is too complicated to EVER judge by final scores.

Anyone who thinks the offense "took good strides" in this game is delusional. Our defense got FIVE TURNOVERS for our offense and we scored 16 points. If anyone knows how to quickly find some stats on games where one team gets five+ turnovers, post the scores, because most teams that get that much of a competitive edge throughout the game absolutely DESTROY the opposition, not barely win. (Excluding any games where both teams have like 4-5 turnovers, as that's obviously a largely nullifying factor.)

...You know, like how the Seahawks did in that turnover-fest we call the 58-0 Seahawks win over the Cardinals from 2012.

How about NFCCG against the Pack where we gave them plenty of turnovers, and they--at the hands of the great Aaron Rodgers--only netted 19 pts? Yes it was wild, and took the crazy onside kick, but we won that game, too.

You're correct that this game is too complicated to judge by final scores, and that includes all aspects of the game. Our 16 points won the game because that's the type of ball PC plays.

There's nothing average about the scores opponents put up against us because our D tends to be that good; but that requires we don't need to score as many to win. It appears we play the percentages well overall.

 

[pittpnthrs]

Forget about the 3 or even going for a TD, all we needed was a 1st down and the game was over. Of course we failed to do so. Love that we won, but people failing to recognize the issues is just mind boggling.

 

[Ozzy]

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.

Exactly. It was the equivalence of not even trying. I'm not even suggesting we blame Bevell, maybe its on Pete or more likely a combination of both but regardless it was a weird decision. We gave ourselves almost zero chance to be successful there.

No, not at all the equivalent. That's only in your own mind.

Trying and not getting something against people trying to stop you isn't the same as not trying.

Could they have called something different? Perhaps, but why didn't the called play get them 2 yards? If that's execution, then perhaps any call they had made could have suffered the same because of ineptitude of the line, backs, or otherwise.

So its in the mind of myself and almost a dozen offensive minds, scouts, ex coaches etc. Again we closed shop and didn't even attempt a shot in the end zone. It was dumb and should of cost us. Ironically we still gave them too much time even with the 2 running plays. You also ask why didn't the play net more than 2 yards and are surprised by the execution......we weren't able to run all day, if we were running the play expecting more isn't it odd to expect it there when you couldn't run all day?

Sioux I'll say it again. I think if you showed at least a little objectivity with Bevell people would be more receptive of your arguments because you're not always wrong but when you defend every single decision it makes it tough. I get you love Bevell but its ok to admit he might of gotten this call or that call wrong, doesn't make him a bad OC(I think he is but regardless) just makes him like every other OC, even the great ones.

 

[Ozzy]

And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.

Then why did we attempt any passes in the 4th? Should have run it every single down if Pete's plan was to just run the clock. And why no zone read even when we did run? That would take one defender out of the RBs way or Russ could pull it and likely convert a first down.

Also, looks like we were running out of condensed/tight formations most of the game, which brought TEN players into the box. RBs had no chance. Why the heck can't we spread it out and run from the shotgun? Our OL isn't good enough to run from under center with any semblance of consistency, nor our our RBs it seems.

Different time and field possession circumstances. I was referring to that last drive in the response you quoted. At that point, Pete wanted the 6-point lead and his defense to close it out. Mission accomplished.

This is mind boggling. You're right Pete wanted a 6 pt lead. Where there is disagreement is was the final sequence of plays the right calls. Like another poster said above a first down also seals the game. We couldn't run all day and still went with 2 running plays, a 3 TE set that was doomed from the beginning and gave the Rams a chance to win the game. I love Pete like you love Bevell but it was a bad decision. As great as Pete is, he's human like any other coach and I would hope he would play it differently in the future.

 

[Smellyman]

And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.

Then why did we attempt any passes in the 4th? Should have run it every single down if Pete's plan was to just run the clock. And why no zone read even when we did run? That would take one defender out of the RBs way or Russ could pull it and likely convert a first down.

Also, looks like we were running out of condensed/tight formations most of the game, which brought TEN players into the box. RBs had no chance. Why the heck can't we spread it out and run from the shotgun? Our OL isn't good enough to run from under center with any semblance of consistency, nor our our RBs it seems.

Different time and field possession circumstances. I was referring to that last drive in the response you quoted. At that point, Pete wanted the 6-point lead and his defense to close it out. Mission accomplished.

This is mind boggling. You're right Pete wanted a 6 pt lead. Where there is disagreement is was the final sequence of plays the right calls. Like another poster said above a first down also seals the game. We couldn't run all day and still went with 2 running plays, a 3 TE set that was doomed from the beginning and gave the Rams a chance to win the game. I love Pete like you love Bevell but it was a bad decision. As great as Pete is, he's human like any other coach and I would hope he would play it differently in the future.

On 710 Pete said he REALLY wanted to go for it on 4th and 2 but was talked out of it. Bevell crapping his pants next to him was probably begging for the FG.

 

[Ozzy]

I missed that interview, that's fascinating on multiple levels.

 

[NFSeahawks]

Alot of people on this site told me the offense was fine vs the Rams though and that I should just be happy with a win and get over our awful scoring output amd our unwillingness to put the game away.

 

[mistaowen]

I like how the narrative by some is the zero first downs in the 4th quarter was all part of the plan.