Bevell is fired (hypothetically speaking)

[Seymour]

Trust me. I'm not advocating why this was the right choice. I'm throwing out reasons they may have used to justify the call. And yes, who's hot and who's not and matchups do come into play!

 

[NOLAHawk]

The super bowl is long over. Here and now. We are discussing what can now be considered a middle aged team. A few more years on the vine and our defense core will lose a step or be separated to F/A. As another poster said, we're doing something that hasn't been done since the 50's, but we have equal but expiring talent on offense.
.

We have the staff now, including a marginal oline. If we can't get it this or next, that's it baby.

We don't have a qb that will sustain his contract without substantial injuries. We are not NE or Indy/denver our qb won't be 45 at the end of his career. Consistency makes champs, unmetered patience though will not.

The oc is one that needs to maximize today. I don't get that

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sports Hernia]

Wasn't Lockette having a pretty decent second half? As a ST gunner, too, you'd think he would be the perfect receiver to slant in hard while expecting some contact.

I don't remember Lockette really doing much, but being a ST gunner is different from running a precise route and then fighting for the ball if needed. Bevell's public criticism of Lockette on the play wasn't exactly wrong, it was just classless, and Lockette shouldn't have been the primary receiver on that play.

I guess we would have differing opinions on "public criticism" as I don't see the response to a reporter's question being "we could've gone a little harder to the ball" as being a public flogging. Also, you know, it was the truth.
And I do think Ricardo had made a few catches in the game. My thought is that his body type, speed and propensity to work in contact made him a good candidate to run that route. Ball gets there a split second quicker or he's a half-step quicker getting to the spot where the ball is thrown and it's gold.
Don't forget Butler making the play of his career as a rookie also figured in prominently.
Anyhow, that's in the past and we've won, what, 19 games since? Making the Super Bowl 3 times in 4 years will put us in some pretty select company.

Butler made the play because Browner told him it was coming and told him where the ball was going to be thrown.
I ask you why wasn't THAT factored into the play call????

Browner said he could see what play they were going to run because of the formation and personnel.

Well, there was no way he knew for sure and even if he did, I believe we still score a TD if it's executed a split second better. Hey, who knows, that end result might make us that much better and hungrier in building as much of a dynasty as one can in the free agent and salary cap era.

But we do know, Browner talked about it right after the Super Bowl. Do you think he is lying?

IMHO, we win the game if we simply give Beastmode the ball.

Neither of our minds will be changed apparently. 8)

 

[Ozzy]

What I found interesting is Pete seems to be a little more critical of Bevell after this loss. He said we should of ran the ball more. He also said the game plan didn't account for Tampa to be that effective with their pass rush so the routes used were a little slower developing and that it was probably a mistake. I do think Pete is in some ways letting Bevell know we need to do better and that includes him. This isn't to say Bevell is horrible or its all his fault.

I'm a little confused we didn't assume, or always assume at this point, that the team will have success rushing Wilson, especially if our starting center is out and there are new pieces in place...that's crazy to me that they didn't account for that possible outcome. I haven't watched the all-22 but I would be interested to see if they changed the routes and when they were changed. I'm hoping it was early on in the game but I have no idea.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm a little confused we didn't assume, or always assume at this point, that the team will have success rushing Wilson, especially if our starting center is out and there are new pieces in place...that's crazy to me that they didn't account for that possible outcome. I haven't watched the all-22 but I would be interested to see if they changed the routes and when they were changed. I'm hoping it was early on in the game but I have no idea.

This is the first week since week 1 that Russell's completely off the injury report............so I do think we'll see quite a bit more zone read and read option runs from him.

IMO we don't have a choice with our O-line, gotta do something to keep the defense honest. The threat of Russell running is literally the ONLY thing keeping front 7's from crashing the line.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Good points Austin, but remember too that there were a handful of those routes where guys like Lockett and Richardson had gained separation, but Russ misfired long or wide. Saw a breakdown of those sacks where Jimmy and Baldwin were both open for quick hitters, but the pressure got there so quickly that all Russ could do was tuck and cover.
When defenses can effectively rush 4 against our 5, they can play that press coverage with their linebackers or safety and muck up those short, quick passes. If we can get our dang running game going, they'll have to crowd the line more and devote another body to the box, opening up the middle more.
I always like to beat teams with their best players, but I'll admit my feelings won't be hurt too much if Kuechle is forced to sit out another game.

 

[Ozzy]

Yep that's true as well. Really hoping Britt returning can stabilize the line. I think we almost have to commit to the run early and take some pressure off those guys.

 

[McGruff]

I'm gonna torture myself by reading this thread in its entirety in a moment . . .

But this thought struck me after watching the three coaching pressers from yesterday (Pete, Tom and Darrell) . . . what would it looks like if we handed the game day clipboard over to Cable?

In 2010 as head coach of the Oakland Raiders, Tom's offense was 2nd in rushing in the NFL and 6th in scoring. That was with Jason Cambell at QB and McFadden and Michael Bush.

I gotta think he could bring some toughness back and be a little more bullish on running the ball.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm gonna torture myself by reading this thread in its entirety in a moment . . .

But this thought struck me after watching the three coaching pressers from yesterday (Pete, Tom and Darrell) . . . what would it looks like if we handed the game day clipboard over to Cable?

In 2010 as head coach of the Oakland Raiders, Tom's offense was 2nd in rushing in the NFL and 6th in scoring. That was with Jason Cambell at QB and McFadden and Michael Bush.

I gotta think he could bring some toughness back and be a little more bullish on running the ball.

I don't think it'd look any different because this is Pete's team, the plays we run are within the framework of how Pete wants this offense to look..............tough, run first to open up play action and explosive plays in the passing game.

So giving Cable the playcalling reins wouldn't do anything IMO other than make the offense look even MORE one dimensional because he doesn't have a good understanding of the passing game beyond offensive line pass protection.

People can hate on Bevell, but at least he's a fully experienced OC that understands the complexities with run and pass. Cable is just one.

 

[McGruff]

The "excuse" of the O-Line play is not Bevells coaching job. That is Cables responsibility.

I haven't seen a single idea in this thread that answers the OP. Just what people don't want to see.

I would say, if you owned the team, coached the team or were GM of the team you may be able to have some input.

Thankfully, you aren't.

Well by that logic, none of us should have any thoughts on the matter.

You asked for my two cents, now you're telling me I'm not entitled to them. Well, tough tits I guess, there they are. And here I go.

I actually think you, Windy City, did exactly what Largent was asking for. You offered concrete examples of what you would do different. Treat third and short like its third and short, and third and long like its third and long. Highlight the strengths of Jimmy Graham (although to be fair, IIRC Jimmy's best years came when playing with Colston . . . the Seahawks need a Colston like WR to take pressure off of Jimmy).

I say good on you for actually answering the OP question.

As an additional aside, the pro-Bevell crowd (of which I am a part) is off base in this thread. The thread is specifically about the hypothetical scenario of Bevell being fired and what we could do differently. If you aren't interested in addressing the hypothetical question, don't respond.

 

[McGruff]

If he's fired, that would lead me to believe the season would have come off the tracks and we limp into January and promptly get blown out due to another miserable performance by the OL.

However, everyone who wants Bevell gone is probably in for a rough December and January. Because at MOST we lose one game to end the regular season. And that's going to lead to a bye and that's going to lead to a home game for a shot at the NFC title.

But hypothetically speaking? Pete would probably look to a Steve Sarkisian type to run the offense. Looking at the probable coaching changes elsewhere, there aren't many striking offensive minds that are about to be sh**canned either. Maybe the Browns do a Browns like thing and fire Hue Jackson for an 0-16 season. That's about the best hail Mary candidate I can throw out there.. Otherwise you're looking at someone very similar, and arguably worse, to Darrell Bevell.

Hue was Cable's OC in Oakland. Just saying . . . .

 

[McGruff]

I can't say that I know coaches well enough to name a replacement, but I would hope that he would work in more quick passes. I feel like a offensive game that had a higher percentage of quick passes would help the oline tremendously.

Bevell actually brought that up in his presser.

basically said we could try a bunch of passes that get us 2-3 yards a shot, and trust that we can convert third downs.

But we can't convert third downs, so he's electing to take deeper shots.

It comes back to an oline that can't run block.

 

[McGruff]

I'm a little confused we didn't assume, or always assume at this point, that the team will have success rushing Wilson, especially if our starting center is out and there are new pieces in place...that's crazy to me that they didn't account for that possible outcome. I haven't watched the all-22 but I would be interested to see if they changed the routes and when they were changed. I'm hoping it was early on in the game but I have no idea.

Pete has basically said they did assume that. They knew that Tampa would stunt and game. They were game plan ready.

They just didn't think their OL would fail so miserably.

Having Hunt in there was a necessity. Putting Sowell out there, at a new postion, was a colossal mistake IMO, especially if you aren't going to subsequently pound the ball. Too much change at one time with too many young players.

 

[McGruff]

I'm gonna torture myself by reading this thread in its entirety in a moment . . .

But this thought struck me after watching the three coaching pressers from yesterday (Pete, Tom and Darrell) . . . what would it looks like if we handed the game day clipboard over to Cable?

In 2010 as head coach of the Oakland Raiders, Tom's offense was 2nd in rushing in the NFL and 6th in scoring. That was with Jason Cambell at QB and McFadden and Michael Bush.

I gotta think he could bring some toughness back and be a little more bullish on running the ball.

I don't think it'd look any different because this is Pete's team, the plays we run are within the framework of how Pete wants this offense to look..............tough, run first to open up play action and explosive plays in the passing game.

That's kind of my point. Pete and Cable seem to be on the same page.

Bevell's natural bent is a true WCO. Pass to set up the run. That's who he was in Minnesota and how he was trained in Green Bay.

I kind of admire Bevell for pulling in his natural reigns, but I think when the heat is on he falls back to the pass instead of sticking to the run. Its in his coaching DNA.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I'm gonna torture myself by reading this thread in its entirety in a moment . . .

But this thought struck me after watching the three coaching pressers from yesterday (Pete, Tom and Darrell) . . . what would it looks like if we handed the game day clipboard over to Cable?

In 2010 as head coach of the Oakland Raiders, Tom's offense was 2nd in rushing in the NFL and 6th in scoring. That was with Jason Cambell at QB and McFadden and Michael Bush.

I gotta think he could bring some toughness back and be a little more bullish on running the ball.

I don't think it'd look any different because this is Pete's team, the plays we run are within the framework of how Pete wants this offense to look..............tough, run first to open up play action and explosive plays in the passing game.

That's kind of my point. Pete and Cable seem to be on the same page.

Bevell's natural bent is a true WCO. Pass to set up the run. That's who he was in Minnesota and how he was trained in Green Bay.

I kind of admire Bevell for pulling in his natural reigns, but I think when the heat is on he falls back to the pass instead of sticking to the run. Its in his coaching DNA.

Maybe you're right, hard to know without having in depth conversations with all three Pete, Cable and Bevell.

To me this offense is a four headed monster with equal input between Pete, Cable, Russell and Bevell. Very few teams give the OC or QB full autonomy.

That's been my point all along with the posters who want Bevell fired, I honestly don't think our offense would look much different cause Pete would just go out and hire another coordinator that has worked with him, or come from his coaching tree that knows how he likes his offense run.

 

[McGruff]

I agree. Bevell has just never made sense as that guy. they've made it work, but when the wheels start to come off, you can sense there is tension there.

And maybe that is a good thing.

One gets the feeling that those four headed meetings are really two heads . . . Pete/Cable vs. Bevell/Wilson. One side wants to go more conservative, one side wants to open things up.

I think they go into most games planning to run, but when it doesn't work early, the guy with the clipboard in his hands starts chucking the ball around.

TBH . . . I think both can work. But if we are going to chuck it, I'd rather go full WCO on it and abandon the play action deep pass.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I think they go into most games planning to run, but when it doesn't work early, the guy with the clipboard in his hands starts chucking the ball around.

TBH . . . I think both can work. But if we are going to chuck it, I'd rather go full WCO on it and abandon the play action deep pass.

The irony is during the Lynch years everyone complained that we didn't chuck it around enough with the pass when the run wasn't working for quarters and entire first halves.

All I know is this, when Russell's healthy and our line is playing even mediocre, this is a dynamic offense that can put up 30-40 pts a game. That tells me that the four headed monster is in sync and working well together. So why mess up that chemistry............... for what?

 

[razor150]

Maybe you're right, hard to know without having in depth conversations with all three Pete, Cable and Bevell.

To me this offense is a four headed monster with equal input between Pete, Cable, Russell and Bevell. Very few teams give the OC or QB full autonomy.

That's been my point all along with the posters who want Bevell fired, I honestly don't think our offense would look much different cause Pete would just go out and hire another coordinator that has worked with him, or come from his coaching tree that knows how he likes his offense run.

That isn't a bad argument. You can see from my posts that I am not a huge Bevell fan, but the idea that Pete brought Cable in and basically made him co-OC is a bit strange, and is probably in part why our offense will look so disjointed sometimes. I don't think it was a very good idea to bring in an O-line coach and then give him power over the OC.

 

[McGruff]

I think they go into most games planning to run, but when it doesn't work early, the guy with the clipboard in his hands starts chucking the ball around.

TBH . . . I think both can work. But if we are going to chuck it, I'd rather go full WCO on it and abandon the play action deep pass.

The irony is during the Lynch years everyone complained that we didn't chuck it around enough with the pass when the run wasn't working for quarters and entire first halves.

All I know is this, when Russell's healthy and our line is playing even mediocre, this is a dynamic offense that can put up 30-40 pts a game. That tells me that the four headed monster is in sync and working well together. So why mess up that chemistry............... for what?

I do agree that when our players execute, it can be beautiful to watch and is as dynamic as they come.

When we don't execute, I think the tension is exposed.

I think this year has been harder than most for 3 reasons.

First, the online is brutally young, and its gonna take time.

Second, the extended absence of Thomas Rawls set us back a bit running the ball.

Third, fan expectations coming into this year were and remain absurdly high.

 

[HawkGA]

Hmm, actual football discussion. Carry on.