What if Bevell is playing the long con?

[amill87]

I'm pretty sure they are holding back a few plays for just the right time, but overall change? Not likely.

Holmgren said many times he would run certain plays to set up others, either in that game or later down the road. This was a very few plays though.

I do not think we will see a lot of new stuff though. Changes in players available will always make a difference, Harvin for example, but most of the plays will be quite similar in my opinion.

I don't think we will see changes but I'm really starting to think the Bevell does not open it up unless they feel they have to. Look at all the trends, how many times have we gone into the 4th quarter with a crap offense to have the offense suddenly explode?

I think Carroll wants to keep things in control and not overreact to situations and force them to open up the offense which could lead to turnovers which usually helps blow games open. If we don't commit turnovers, Pete trusts the defense to keep the game close. Than when the offense needs to step up and score, they do something the other team hasn't seen and bam, they get the points they need.

Crazy I know.

 

[RolandDeschain]

If we can adjust, why can't other teams adjust as well?

Uh, looks to me like the Colts and Rams adjusted to us pretty well.

Not to mention, a play is only bad when it doesn't work.

I'm tired of hearing this. Plenty of people fall into that category, but I'm not one of them. I have bashed play calls that got us a TD and admired one that failed miserably. I can post the entire .NET live chat history for the past few games if you want to spend the time and effort finding posts where I've done so if you want. :roll:

 

[amill87]

Wilson turns the ball over more often while getting sacked than with interceptions, so why would they call for him to get sacked every play? :sarcasm_off:

During Wilson's press conference, he talked about how he "surrendered" on some plays to reduce his fumbling. You know Carroll was in his ear about it because it hurts what they have planned overall.

 

[Cartire]

If we can adjust, why can't other teams adjust as well?

Uh, looks to me like the Colts and Rams adjusted to us pretty well.

Not to mention, a play is only bad when it doesn't work.

I'm tired of hearing this. Plenty of people fall into that category, but I'm not one of them. I have bashed play calls that got us a TD and admired one that failed miserably. I can post the entire .NET live chat history for the past few games if you want to spend the time and effort finding posts where I've done so if you want. :roll:

Roland's like or dislike of a play, regardless of the results, do not make you right.

Regardless of what you think, you are not the end all great mind of football. Get over yourself.

:sarcasm_on: That, or please stop wasting your time here and start working for an NFL team. Your obvious gifts should have netted you millions by now.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I didn't say it made me right, I'm saying I'm not a HYPOCRITE that likes every successful play because it works. Keep your dislike of me in the shack/PWR, please.

 

[OrFan]

Wilson turns the ball over more often while getting sacked than with interceptions, so why would they call for him to get sacked every play? :sarcasm_off:

During Wilson's press conference, he talked about how he "surrendered" on some plays to reduce his fumbling. You know Carroll was in his ear about it because it hurts what they have planned overall.

I noticed that also. May have more to do with him taking a sack instead of taking off, or the way he would kind of crunch up when getting sacked to lessen the blow. Not sure.

 

[Cartire]

I didn't say it made me right, I'm saying I'm not a HYPOCRITE that likes every successful play because it works. Keep your dislike of me in the shack/PWR, please.

Oh I don't dislike you. I dislike the contrarian that seems to always post on your account. :th2thumbs:

 

[imnKOgnito]

Wilson turns the ball over more often while getting sacked than with interceptions, so why would they call for him to get sacked every play? :sarcasm_off:

During Wilson's press conference, he talked about how he "surrendered" on some plays to reduce his fumbling. You know Carroll was in his ear about it because it hurts what they have planned overall.

I noticed that also. May have more to do with him taking a sack instead of taking off, or the way he would kind of crunch up when getting sacked to lessen the blow. Not sure.

He definitely tucked the ball away better this week than he has all season, so can't complain about that. I do think, though, on the last sack he had Miller open for a first down as he released and should have tried to hit him rather than take the sack. He was going to get clocked either way. But, we won, so moot point.

 

[bestfightstory]

I don't think we will see changes but I'm really starting to think the Bevell does not open it up unless they feel they have to. Look at all the trends, how many times have we gone into the 4th quarter with a crap offense to have the offense suddenly explode?

I think Carroll wants to keep things in control and not overreact to situations and force them to open up the offense which could lead to turnovers which usually helps blow games open. If we don't commit turnovers, Pete trusts the defense to keep the game close. Than when the offense needs to step up and score, they do something the other team hasn't seen and bam, they get the points they need.

Crazy I know.

Another fascinating theory that requires giving our coaching staff (as a whole) the benefit of the doubt for having a philosophy and vision that has brought us to 7-1.

Crazy, I know.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

The defense has put us in a position to reach 7-1, but the only thing that has BROUGHT us to 7-1 is Russell Wilson's legs. I wouldn't call it a philosophy or a vision, and I certainly don't like the entire season hinging that much on those legs.

 

[themunn]

Wilson turns the ball over more often while getting sacked than with interceptions, so why would they call for him to get sacked every play? :sarcasm_off:

Wilson's going to get sacked anyway, you might look at it and say "7 sacks! ridiculous! why didn't they give the O-Line help, they KNEW Okung and Giacomini were injured".

Then you look at the game in January, when Wilson was sacked 6 times against the Rams and you think "hang on, this Rams defense led the league in sacks a year ago and is tied for 5th this year - DESPITE having one of the worst rushing defenses in the league in both years" and you think "maybe just maybe we should be careful, we've fumbled the ball a lot in recent weeks and it's given the opposition great field position. Maybe we tell Wilson "2 reads, and don't try to extend any plays with your legs, until our tackles get back it's just too dangerous, you leave the ball exposed if you're trying to make a pass after 3 seconds". Maybe.

It's likely that the plan in mind was to take sacks rather than risk fumbling when trying to throw the ball when under pressure. I know certain posters have claimed Wilson should have "eaten the sack" on a couple of fumbles instead of trying to make a play. I don't agree that it's the right idea, but given how often the Rams get pressure and how unlikely the were to score unless we handed it to them, it's a reasonable game plan

 

[amill87]

Wilson turns the ball over more often while getting sacked than with interceptions, so why would they call for him to get sacked every play? :sarcasm_off:

Wilson's going to get sacked anyway, you might look at it and say "7 sacks! ridiculous! why didn't they give the O-Line help, they KNEW Okung and Giacomini were injured".

Then you look at the game in January, when Wilson was sacked 6 times against the Rams and you think "hang on, this Rams defense led the league in sacks a year ago and is tied for 5th this year - DESPITE having one of the worst rushing defenses in the league in both years" and you think "maybe just maybe we should be careful, we've fumbled the ball a lot in recent weeks and it's given the opposition great field position. Maybe we tell Wilson "2 reads, and don't try to extend any plays with your legs, until our tackles get back it's just too dangerous, you leave the ball exposed if you're trying to make a pass after 3 seconds". Maybe.

It's likely that the plan in mind was to take sacks rather than risk fumbling when trying to throw the ball when under pressure. I know certain posters have claimed Wilson should have "eaten the sack" on a couple of fumbles instead of trying to make a play. I don't agree that it's the right idea, but given how often the Rams get pressure and how unlikely the were to score unless we handed it to them, it's a reasonable game plan

This appears more likely than the "BEVELL SUCKS!!!!111!" theory.

 

[KitsapGuy]

Aaron Levine ‏@AaronQ13Fox 12m
Carroll: 'I love the way Darrell (Bevell) calls a game.' #Seahawks

ukeface:

 

[amill87]

I don't know what the hell the coaches want to do but whatever it is, it appears to be working. You don't lose by less than 7 points in the past 24 by accident. Sure the defense has helped but there have been games where the defense has given up more the 24 pts.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Aaron Levine ‏@AaronQ13Fox 12m
Carroll: 'I love the way Darrell (Bevell) calls a game.' #Seahawks

ukeface:

Don't worry. He's just talking Bevell up in order to get him out of town and upgrade the position, just like he did Gus Bradley.

 

[Hawks46]

I mentioned this in a thread the other day. Pete is known for being risky at times, after all he does have the nick name big balls Pete for a reason.

It's pretty unlikely but what if Pete really has told Bevell to hold back a little? We know this team is confident in this defense and Wilson. If Bevell was really that bad of a play caller, you'd think we would've lost a game by more than 7 points at some point in the past 24 games, yet every time the offense has needed to step up and score, they have.

We are never going to know the truth behind this, but it can't be coincidence that the entire NFL is talking about Bevell being a head coach some day yet he can't call the most basic plays that the every day fan can notice?

Reasonable. Also reasonable to accept as truth that Bevell's game plans are vetted by Carroll and designed, in part, by Cable.

It sounds like a conpsiracy theory, or just fans' wishful optimism. Except....

We are without a doubt, the deepest team in the league. Losing Rice might make an impact, but it's mitigated by signing Lockette. Rice wasn't making a productive impact in games, but he was still pulling defenses deep. Lockette can decoy that way even better, since he's much faster. If teams ignore him, Wilson WILL make them pay.

We've lost both our starting Tackles, missed a starting LBer the 1st 4 games of the season, missed our starting LEO the first 3 games of the season, lost our starting MLB for 2 games, lost our starting TE for a few games, the list goes on and on. And we're still 7-1.

It's possible that the coaching staff factored in how deep we are on both sides of the ball, and how elite our defense is, and is slow playing the rest of the league. I'm not sure Pete would get that cute, but it would be freaking awesome if we did this.

The other factors would be: Harvin coming back. I've read they had plays installed for Harvin, and it was said that Tate could run the same plays, but we haven't seen that yet. So in a minor sense, we ARE slow playing somewhat, as we haven't unleashed the Harvin package without Harvin.

The other factor is that the coaching staff seemed very high on Bowie and a couple of other young OLmen after the preseason, but they really haven't played up to expectations. But it's possible, for sure.

 

[amill87]

Big balls Pete.

This team is known for risky/crazy personnel decisions. Why not have that carry over to coaching and game planning?

 

[loafoftatupu]

I think to some extent PC likes this. In 2010 under Jeremy Bates, there were a bunch of things that came out of the playoff game against the Saints. They hung over 40 points that day and out gunned the flipping Saints. In Chicago the next week they led with a play to Leon in the backfield that if not for a defender's reach in desperation scores on the first play from scrimmage. Carlson was looked at in that game but was injured.

Some of the stuff to the TE last year happened in the Skins game and obviously the Atlanta comeback, big focus that has never been used.

There might be a little truth to it, but it is not the reason for all the issues on protection.

 

[Sports Hernia]

I highly doubt it, since if this was a long con, it could very easily result in us being a wild card in the playoffs.

He'll probably open things up more once we have our tackles back and Percy on the field, but it will not have changed his stubborn refusal to adjust in many critical moments to date thus far in the 2013 season.

Anything can happen any day. And just saying you can adjust to win isn't taking everything into account. If we can adjust, why can't other teams adjust as well?

Mondays game was bad, but you can't discount all the other games where play calling was great. We've had plenty of great play calling games this year.

Not to mention, a play is only bad when it doesn't work. The eleven guys on the field have to win their match ups every play as well. It's not always gonna happen. As much as everyone wants to assume this is just a chess match, it's not. Sometimes your piece is gonna lose regardless if it was the right call.

The play calling hasn't been great so far though. In getting back to the original question IMHO he is stubborn.