Bevell's Fireable Offense(s)

[scutterhawk]

(mishandling Jimmy has to be there as well)

Hell no on the Jimmy Graham gig, he HAS TO BLOCK like an average to good TE is suppose to do for his team mates.
Just about every other TE in the League does their part.
Dropping a pass every now and then is excusable, but for $10,000.000 a year, he needs to be a more complete player.
I love the guy, but he's not worth the money he's getting.......the team NEEDS him to step up his game.

 

[Ambrose83]

I have always been a Bevell hater and will never change my mind. He sucks. When is the last time you can recall seeing an effectively and timely screen called? We are alway under pressure and teams love to blitz us. Screens should be a staple of this offense

This.. I watch tons of football.. I see screens go for long gains every single game... yet we never use them... W t f

 

[Seymour]

Funny watching the Packer Lion game and thinking of Bevell. Lions killing the blitz with the HB screen. 1 for 63 yards. This is football 101 since the 50's yet it escapes Bevell week after week. The few times we've tried it it works of course. :roll: ukeface:

 

[adeltaY]

(mishandling Jimmy has to be there as well)

Hell no on the Jimmy Graham gig, he HAS TO BLOCK like an average to good TE is suppose to do for his team mates.
Just about every other TE in the League does their part.
Dropping a pass every now and then is excusable, but for $10,000.000 a year, he needs to be a more complete player.
I love the guy, but he's not worth the money he's getting.......the team NEEDS him to step up his game.

Jimmy being a bad blocker is severely overblown. There are tons of clips showing him putting defensive ends on their asses. He's not a good blocker, but he has improved. The point about nearly every other TE doing their part is ludicrous. The vast majority of TEs are either blockers or pass catchers. Delanie Walker and Gronk are the only two I can think of who are really good at both. Witten was in his prime. I think Kelce has improved too. Ertz, Fleener, Jordan Reed, Julius Thomas, Jared Cook, etc. are as one dimensional as Graham.

 

[mistaowen]

Funny watching the Packer Lion game and thinking of Bevell. Lions killing the blitz with the HB screen. 1 for 63 yards. This is football 101 since the 50's yet it escapes Bevell week after week. The few times we've tried it it works of course. :roll: ukeface:

Mentioned this in the NFL forum as the game was wrapping up. Stafford/Lions were masterful picking apart the Packers when they blitzed. Even full jailbreaks, Stafford saw where it was coming from and immediately hit the hot route. Don't recall any hot routes or screens against GB week 1, just a lot of Russell running for his life while receivers were 20 yards down field.

 

[chris98251]

There's nothing wrong with our gameplan and offense fundamentally. It was just one of those stinker games. Thankfully, they are far and few between.

And this is why everybody has issues with you. You dont or cant comprehend how bad our offense truly is. You say it was one of those stinker games but thats pretty much the norm for this offense. Its nothing out of the ordinary for this offense to do nothing for 3+ quarters in any given game. The output we had against Houston is whats not normal.

But more often than not, they get the job done. The game was scripted for another typical Hawks win had we just made 2 of those 3 field goals and the defense come up with a stop. We were sabotaged by penalties and 2 turnovers.Thats not going to be the norm, rather the exception. So yeah, I feel good about this offense going forward.

The fact that your so enamored with your own posts and want to depend on field goals instead of touchdowns is the end of the argument. Field goals keep you in games and if your scoring touchdowns are not needed to win. If you can't score touchdowns you hope you can stop the other team and pray you have enough drives to get enough field goal attempts to win.

Again the difference in praying you can do enough and making a statement that your better then the other team.

We do a shitload of praying in Seattle these days.

 

[Anthony!]

Funny watching the Packer Lion game and thinking of Bevell. Lions killing the blitz with the HB screen. 1 for 63 yards. This is football 101 since the 50's yet it escapes Bevell week after week. The few times we've tried it it works of course. :roll: ukeface:

Mentioned this in the NFL forum as the game was wrapping up. Stafford/Lions were masterful picking apart the Packers when they blitzed. Even full jailbreaks, Stafford saw where it was coming from and immediately hit the hot route. Don't recall any hot routes or screens against GB week 1, just a lot of Russell running for his life while receivers were 20 yards down field.

Problem is POC has said many times that is part of their game plan Rw running for his life and making something out of nothing

 

[Siouxhawk]

There's nothing wrong with our gameplan and offense fundamentally. It was just one of those stinker games. Thankfully, they are far and few between.

And this is why everybody has issues with you. You dont or cant comprehend how bad our offense truly is. You say it was one of those stinker games but thats pretty much the norm for this offense. Its nothing out of the ordinary for this offense to do nothing for 3+ quarters in any given game. The output we had against Houston is whats not normal.

But more often than not, they get the job done. The game was scripted for another typical Hawks win had we just made 2 of those 3 field goals and the defense come up with a stop. We were sabotaged by penalties and 2 turnovers.Thats not going to be the norm, rather the exception. So yeah, I feel good about this offense going forward.

The fact that your so enamored with your own posts and want to depend on field goals instead of touchdowns is the end of the argument. Field goals keep you in games and if your scoring touchdowns are not needed to win. If you can't score touchdowns you hope you can stop the other team and pray you have enough drives to get enough field goal attempts to win.

Again the difference in praying you can do enough and making a statement that your better then the other team.

We do a shitload of praying in Seattle these days.

Do you even watch the Seahawks? Do you know anything about this team you proclaim to be knowledgeable about? It doesn't appear so.

It's ludicrous and your over-the-top hyperbole to suggest I ever mentioned preferring field goals to touchdowns. Reading comprehension would unveil that with how this team is built from the defense on down that we protect points like no other team in the league. That's how we're structured. So we play conservative on offense and take the less-riskier field goal because more often than not, our team will protect the scoreboard and prevail.

It obviously didn't happen Sunday, but it should have. It was set up to be another Seahawk brand type of win. If we get those 3 field goals to go along with our 2 touchdowns, we score 23 points. That's more than enough to offset their final dramatic drive.

I hope we stick with the same type of philosophy, because I believe in it. But I don't need a whiz bang offense with a bunch of bells and whistles to pacify a lack of an attention span like others on here. I'll stick with the control offense and smothering defense --- because it works. I'm pretty sure Pete believes that too.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Go Hawks?

 

[chris98251]

And this is why everybody has issues with you. You dont or cant comprehend how bad our offense truly is. You say it was one of those stinker games but thats pretty much the norm for this offense. Its nothing out of the ordinary for this offense to do nothing for 3+ quarters in any given game. The output we had against Houston is whats not normal.

But more often than not, they get the job done. The game was scripted for another typical Hawks win had we just made 2 of those 3 field goals and the defense come up with a stop. We were sabotaged by penalties and 2 turnovers.Thats not going to be the norm, rather the exception. So yeah, I feel good about this offense going forward.

The fact that your so enamored with your own posts and want to depend on field goals instead of touchdowns is the end of the argument. Field goals keep you in games and if your scoring touchdowns are not needed to win. If you can't score touchdowns you hope you can stop the other team and pray you have enough drives to get enough field goal attempts to win.

Again the difference in praying you can do enough and making a statement that your better then the other team.

We do a shitload of praying in Seattle these days.

Do you even watch the Seahawks? Do you know anything about this team you proclaim to be knowledgeable about? It doesn't appear so.

It's ludicrous and your over-the-top hyperbole to suggest I ever mentioned preferring field goals to touchdowns. Reading comprehension would unveil that with how this team is built from the defense on down that we protect points like no other team in the league. That's how we're structured. So we play conservative on offense and take the less-riskier field goal because more often than not, our team will protect the scoreboard and prevail.

It obviously didn't happen Sunday, but it should have. It was set up to be another Seahawk brand type of win. If we get those 3 field goals to go along with our 2 touchdowns, we score 23 points. That's more than enough to offset their final dramatic drive.

I hope we stick with the same type of philosophy, because I believe in it. But I don't need a whiz bang offense with a bunch of bells and whistles to pacify a lack of an attention span like others on here. I'll stick with the control offense and smothering defense --- because it works. I'm pretty sure Pete believes that too.

Your post history indicates a different story, it's the plan, it's the philosophy, it's what Pete wants. No matter if we can't score in the redzone, Field goals are points and you will take them and that the offense isn't broken, look he took us to a Super Bowl with his excellent game planning and offense. Need I go on, if half the board didn't have you on ignore I would have plenty of support for my observation.

 

[SeaMeat]

Here's an abbreviated list:
- just kind of looks like a dick

This made me laugh!

 

[Siouxhawk]

But more often than not, they get the job done. The game was scripted for another typical Hawks win had we just made 2 of those 3 field goals and the defense come up with a stop. We were sabotaged by penalties and 2 turnovers.Thats not going to be the norm, rather the exception. So yeah, I feel good about this offense going forward.

The fact that your so enamored with your own posts and want to depend on field goals instead of touchdowns is the end of the argument. Field goals keep you in games and if your scoring touchdowns are not needed to win. If you can't score touchdowns you hope you can stop the other team and pray you have enough drives to get enough field goal attempts to win.

Again the difference in praying you can do enough and making a statement that your better then the other team.

We do a shitload of praying in Seattle these days.

Do you even watch the Seahawks? Do you know anything about this team you proclaim to be knowledgeable about? It doesn't appear so.

It's ludicrous and your over-the-top hyperbole to suggest I ever mentioned preferring field goals to touchdowns. Reading comprehension would unveil that with how this team is built from the defense on down that we protect points like no other team in the league. That's how we're structured. So we play conservative on offense and take the less-riskier field goal because more often than not, our team will protect the scoreboard and prevail.

It obviously didn't happen Sunday, but it should have. It was set up to be another Seahawk brand type of win. If we get those 3 field goals to go along with our 2 touchdowns, we score 23 points. That's more than enough to offset their final dramatic drive.

I hope we stick with the same type of philosophy, because I believe in it. But I don't need a whiz bang offense with a bunch of bells and whistles to pacify a lack of an attention span like others on here. I'll stick with the control offense and smothering defense --- because it works. I'm pretty sure Pete believes that too.

Your post history indicates a different story, it's the plan, it's the philosophy, it's what Pete wants. No matter if we can't score in the redzone, Field goals are points and you will take them and that the offense isn't broken, look he took us to a Super Bowl with his excellent game planning and offense. Need I go on, if half the board didn't have you on ignore I would have plenty of support for my observation.

Actually believe all of those things you wrote, except that Bev didn't take us to 48 and 49, but he certainly played a complementary role in helping us get there.
Oh, and saying 50 percent of the board has me on ignore would be more hyperbole on your part.

 

[hawkfan68]

ESPN showed a stat on their NFL Live segment, the Seahawks have scored 16 points or less in 4 games this season thus far. The offense is not pulling its weight. That's the bottom line and it needs to be corrected soon.

 

[Boycie]

I have always been a Bevell hater and will never change my mind. He sucks. When is the last time you can recall seeing an effectively and timely screen called? We are alway under pressure and teams love to blitz us. Screens should be a staple of this offense

This.. I watch tons of football.. I see screens go for long gains every single game... yet we never use them... W t f

RW is too short to run the screen plays. :stirthepot:

 

[adeltaY]

The defense hasn't allowed more than 17 points in all but two games (two points in the Colts game were due to a safety, so they only gave up 16)! You're absolutely right that the offense is at fault for most of our losses.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Bevell's fireable offense for me is him not screaming at the top of his lungs in playcall and scheme meetings with Pete to open up the offense, go up tempo more often and take advantage of what Russell does best..................be 4 minute offense tempo/rhythm QB.

Russell has an insane QB rating of like 121 in the 4th quarter. Why? Cause he's clutch and is finally allowed to go up tempo 4 minute offense. Rest of the game? He's shackled with a boring slow plodding run first predictable offensive scheme shoved down his throat by his head coach.

 

[chris98251]

The fact that your so enamored with your own posts and want to depend on field goals instead of touchdowns is the end of the argument. Field goals keep you in games and if your scoring touchdowns are not needed to win. If you can't score touchdowns you hope you can stop the other team and pray you have enough drives to get enough field goal attempts to win.

Again the difference in praying you can do enough and making a statement that your better then the other team.

We do a shitload of praying in Seattle these days.

Do you even watch the Seahawks? Do you know anything about this team you proclaim to be knowledgeable about? It doesn't appear so.

It's ludicrous and your over-the-top hyperbole to suggest I ever mentioned preferring field goals to touchdowns. Reading comprehension would unveil that with how this team is built from the defense on down that we protect points like no other team in the league. That's how we're structured. So we play conservative on offense and take the less-riskier field goal because more often than not, our team will protect the scoreboard and prevail.

It obviously didn't happen Sunday, but it should have. It was set up to be another Seahawk brand type of win. If we get those 3 field goals to go along with our 2 touchdowns, we score 23 points. That's more than enough to offset their final dramatic drive.

I hope we stick with the same type of philosophy, because I believe in it. But I don't need a whiz bang offense with a bunch of bells and whistles to pacify a lack of an attention span like others on here. I'll stick with the control offense and smothering defense --- because it works. I'm pretty sure Pete believes that too.

Your post history indicates a different story, it's the plan, it's the philosophy, it's what Pete wants. No matter if we can't score in the redzone, Field goals are points and you will take them and that the offense isn't broken, look he took us to a Super Bowl with his excellent game planning and offense. Need I go on, if half the board didn't have you on ignore I would have plenty of support for my observation.

Actually believe all of those things you wrote, except that Bev didn't take us to 48 and 49, but he certainly played a complementary role in helping us get there.
Oh, and saying 50 percent of the board has me on ignore would be more hyperbole on your part.

They would respond but they can't see your comments.

 

[HansGruber]

Siouxhawk reminds me of Tim Ruskell. And so does Bevell. Coincidence?

Don't bother to respond Sioux. I've got you on ignore like everyone else on this forum.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Siouxhawk reminds me of Tim Ruskell. And so does Bevell. Coincidence?

Don't bother to respond Sioux. I've got you on ignore like everyone else on this forum.

I, personally think that he is pehawk here to troll the ever living hell out of all of us under another key. That would just be me though. I must admit, he is doing a great job on his trolling. I must tip my hat to his consistent and relentless approach to the sacred art of internet trolling. One of the better troll jobs I have seen.

 

[sdog1981]

Siouxhawk reminds me of Tim Ruskell. And so does Bevell. Coincidence?

Don't bother to respond Sioux. I've got you on ignore like everyone else on this forum.

I, personally think that he is pehawk here to troll the ever living hell out of all of us under another key. That would just be me though. I must admit, he is doing a great job on his trolling. I must tip my hat to his consistent and relentless approach to the sacred art of internet trolling. One of the better troll jobs I have seen.

Very true, You have to respect the almost artistic level he gets with it. He makes the deft move of Correlations that are not causations. Sioux's logic follows the same path that the older Miss America is the more murders are committed.

Here is the chart that proves I'm right

http://twentytwowords.com/funny-graphs- ... -pictures/