Bevell play calling

[hawksfansinceday1]

I think a logical critique of certain sets and plays would be enforced by having concrete data on the number of times the set and play has been run and then extrapolating the success rate. Attylla referenced this. Otherwise it's as tangible as the proverbial fart in the wind.

It seems to me you have a far greater chance of stench from that proverbial fart if you take away the threat of half your offense (running play) on 4th and inches. I have no problem with a pass play there, only with the fact that the Dolphins knew it would be a pass play.

Oh, I'm guessing it would be rather difficult to find concrete evidence of how often a play like that works from an empty backfield set on 4th and inches because I'm guessing there aren't many plays out there like that to choose from.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

That said, Russ's execution/choice of receiver is definitely in question as well. But wouldn't it be easier to be successful with that play if there was at least the threat of a run on 4th and inches?

Yep, I can't even think of a time when that stupid three receiver set on one side and empty backfield quick throw out has worked.

I'd rather see anything other than a throw behind the line on 4th and 1.

 

[Siouxhawk]

I think a logical critique of certain sets and plays would be enforced by having concrete data on the number of times the set and play has been run and then extrapolating the success rate. Attylla referenced this. Otherwise it's as tangible as the proverbial fart in the wind.

It seems to me you have a far greater chance of stench from that proverbial fart if you take away the threat of half your offense (running play) on 4th and inches. I have no problem with a pass play there, only with the fact that the Dolphins knew it would be a pass play.

Oh, I'm guessing it would be rather difficult to find concrete evidence of how often a play like that works from an empty backfield set on 4th and inches because I'm guessing there aren't many plays out there like that to choose from.

Too many variables to arbitrarily shoot down the success rate of this set from its inception.

 

[Uncle Si]

Since we are hammering the one play... my issue, much like the play we don't discuss any longer, is its deviation away from the type of team PC and Bevell created when they got here.

Bevell for sure is a significant part of the team's successes on offense. But he's also part of its struggles. I think its fair to give credit and critique at the same time

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

Since we are hammering the one play... my issue, much like the play we don't discuss any longer, is its deviation away from the type of team PC and Bevell created when they got here.

Bevell for sure is a significant part of the team's successes on offense. But he's also part of its struggles. I think its fair to give credit and critique at the same time

Agree 100%

 

[mikeak]

No offense but not buying it. With a QB like Russ you have to put trust in him to choose who and when to throw to.

But we don't. It isn't only on 3rd or 4th down, we leave a lot more plays on the field than most teams because of ball safety. It is most likely also why RW is more likely to overthrow a streaking WR than underthrow them.....a lot more likely

 

[gmor]

Couldn't control myself in starting another Bevell thread. My question (or concern) is why do we constantly when faced with a 3rd or 4th down play have the receiver catching the ball before reaching the 1st down line? This happened at least a few times last week and just don't get it. A buddy of mine was blaming the receiver however it seems that this is the way the palay is being called and is meant to be caught prior to the 1st down marker. Seems absolutely idiotic to me because instead of just catching the ball past the marker you must now catch the ball and get across the 1st down marker where many of the defenders are just waiting there to stop you and kill the play.

I just don't get the logic. Bevell.

Hitting the check down guy would be the guess.

 

[seabowl]

Couldn't control myself in starting another Bevell thread. My question (or concern) is why do we constantly when faced with a 3rd or 4th down play have the receiver catching the ball before reaching the 1st down line?

This is too anecdotal. Seems like, feels like. Need specifics. Show all of the 3rd downs. Show the play call. Show the defense. Results (which aren't offered either) aren't proof. There are legitimate reasons why throwing short could be the correct play. But without context there's no basis to discuss further.

If you want to make that claim, then make your case. Then let others pick it apart. Right now this is just subjective opinion. Which nobody can intelligently agree with. Maybe you are on to something here. But without any effort to justify the claim it's not worth examining.

I don't have rewind but if you watched the game last week there were at least 2 third or fourth and shorts where the play appeared to have been drawn up to throw to the recover prior to him being over the first down marker.

 

[RichNhansom]

How many times have we watched YAC? How many teams rely on YAC?

If your downfield options have been covered and handing off is no longer an option then your options are to pass the ball, throw it away or take a sack. So if you have to choose between taking a sack, throwing the ball away or throwing it short of the first down marker and hoping for the best, what option would you choose?

Consider taking even 7 yards on a 3rd and 10 still nets better field position even if you don't achieve the first down and ultimately this is a game of field position. Live to fight another down.

As for empty sets I have read on here that is our highest percentage of success, so choosing to utilize your most successful scheme doesn't seem all that crazy, especially when you consider it would be to late for the defense to change personnel to compensate for it without burning a time out. Of course this assumes your opponent is setting up to stop the short run.

Really the only excuse for an empty set to fail on 3rd or 4th and short is execution because you should have mismatches all over the field.

 

[dogorama]

How many times have we watched YAC? How many teams rely on YAC?

If your downfield options have been covered and handing off is no longer an option then your options are to pass the ball, throw it away or take a sack. So if you have to choose between taking a sack, throwing the ball away or throwing it short of the first down marker and hoping for the best, what option would you choose?

Consider taking even 7 yards on a 3rd and 10 still nets better field position even if you don't achieve the first down and ultimately this is a game of field position. Live to fight another down.

As for empty sets I have read on here that is our highest percentage of success, so choosing to utilize your most successful scheme doesn't seem all that crazy, especially when you consider it would be to late for the defense to change personnel to compensate for it without burning a time out. Of course this assumes your opponent is setting up to stop the short run.

Really the only excuse for an empty set to fail on 3rd or 4th and short is execution because you should have mismatches all over the field.

Not to pick apart your post Rich but stats don't always tell the whole story. I would be curious to know the percentage of times we are sacked in empty sets. That would skew the "highest percentage of success" as would completions that don't result in a first down because often in that situation the defense will just give you the underneath completion. Given that the stat says 75% completion rate, it isn't all that different from the 67% rate in all sets last year.

As for the mismatches, teams are employing dime sets now w/six DB's and a LB in coverage. and even in nickels there will be seven defenders. The most eligible receivers we can send is five.

 

[LymonHawk]

First and foremost this team is about the ball. Whether offense or defense.

You take it away on D and you protect it on O. The ball is everything!

 

[RichNhansom]

How many times have we watched YAC? How many teams rely on YAC?

If your downfield options have been covered and handing off is no longer an option then your options are to pass the ball, throw it away or take a sack. So if you have to choose between taking a sack, throwing the ball away or throwing it short of the first down marker and hoping for the best, what option would you choose?

Consider taking even 7 yards on a 3rd and 10 still nets better field position even if you don't achieve the first down and ultimately this is a game of field position. Live to fight another down.

As for empty sets I have read on here that is our highest percentage of success, so choosing to utilize your most successful scheme doesn't seem all that crazy, especially when you consider it would be to late for the defense to change personnel to compensate for it without burning a time out. Of course this assumes your opponent is setting up to stop the short run.

Really the only excuse for an empty set to fail on 3rd or 4th and short is execution because you should have mismatches all over the field.

Not to pick apart your post Rich but stats don't always tell the whole story. I would be curious to know the percentage of times we are sacked in empty sets. That would skew the "highest percentage of success" as would completions that don't result in a first down because often in that situation the defense will just give you the underneath completion. Given that the stat says 75% completion rate, it isn't all that different from the 67% rate in all sets last year.

As for the mismatches, teams are employing dime sets now w/six DB's and a LB in coverage. and even in nickels there will be seven defenders. The most eligible receivers we can send is five.

You bring up a couple good points and I agree it would be good to investigate a little more to really evaluate the true success of the play design. I still think the premise of creating mismatches is valid though. If a team schemes to stop the run ( very likely in short down situations) they likely don't have the same personnel on the field they would field in a normal passing down where you would most likely utilize an empty set.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Yep... Like the time they threw for a big downfield play on fourth down to save the game vs Miami.

Or the big third down conversion vs Green Bay in the NFCCG when they also threw downfield on a brilliantly designed call and one play later scored on a downfield bomb to win the game.

But yeah... That doesn't chime with the Bevell obsession.

Or the times they threw downfield on 3rd and 2, missed, and lost the game because the other offense got back on the field too much.

Bevell's gambling is a double-edged sword. He doesn't take the highest-percentage route consistently, and that's why I remain steadfastly a critic of his situational play-calling.

That's not the point.

The OP is criticising Bevell for rarely/never throwing beyond the sticks on third down. Just days after the most important play of the game short of the throw to Baldwin for a TD was a 4th down throw down the field.

 

[Jimjones0384]

Couldn't control myself in starting another Bevell thread. My question (or concern) is why do we constantly when faced with a 3rd or 4th down play have the receiver catching the ball before reaching the 1st down line? This happened at least a few times last week and just don't get it. A buddy of mine was blaming the receiver however it seems that this is the way the palay is being called and is meant to be caught prior to the 1st down marker. Seems absolutely idiotic to me because instead of just catching the ball past the marker you must now catch the ball and get across the 1st down marker where many of the defenders are just waiting there to stop you and kill the play.

I just don't get the logic. Bevell.

Ball safety.

That's right, the defenders are keeping the play in front of them, they know where you have to go. Ideally, you want to find a spot, or seam if you will, in the zone to get the 1st but often you just have to take what they give you. Trying to force the issue can risk an INT (ball safety). But I don't always see that, there are plenty of downfield first down passes.

No offense but not buying it. With a QB like Russ you have to put trust in him to choose who and when to throw to.

Pretty standard across the league. No defense is exactly the same. If they give you something past the sticks, you take it. 8f not you throw quickly and let your wr try to do the work. There is never a generic play to call in that situation. You can't say 3rd and four, throw it five yds. Like they said above, the defense knows where you need to get to as well. Plus, a punt isn't a loss. It is a draw. Giving your opponent poor field position is a vital part of the game. How about bevells play calling after russ got injured, it helped win the game. How about the fact that the Seahawks were the only team with a top 5 offense and defense last year. Russell wilson is having the best career of any QB to this point, Bevell has a big part in it. I know he isn't perfect, but damn.

 

[seabowl]

Don't remember exactly when but saw more evidence of this again today

 

[NFSeahawks]

Couldn't control myself in starting another Bevell thread. My question (or concern) is why do we constantly when faced with a 3rd or 4th down play have the receiver catching the ball before reaching the 1st down line? This happened at least a few times last week and just don't get it. A buddy of mine was blaming the receiver however it seems that this is the way the palay is being called and is meant to be caught prior to the 1st down marker. Seems absolutely idiotic to me because instead of just catching the ball past the marker you must now catch the ball and get across the 1st down marker where many of the defenders are just waiting there to stop you and kill the play.

I just don't get the logic. Bevell.

I talk about this alot in the chat room during gamedays.

One glaring thing that Bevell does is throw before the yard to gain. Trust me it's as maddening as you think it is.

But you know, I guess PC loves Bevell so w.e.