Breakdown on the 7 sacks, and more.

[pehawk]

Edit to Montana; No one needs validation via field gulls...

Do you have ANY grasp on the concept of irony, Drax?

No Roland, I do not.

 

[hawkfan68]

"..........our first TD came on a drive with a lot more quick passes".

I simply don't understand why Bevell/Pete don't incorporate more of this type of approach into our team's offense. That one sack that was obviously on Russ where he clearly had a guy open crossing underneath and didn't throw it to him was just exactly what I'm talking about. That's what a hot routs adjustment usually looks like.

I still worry that Wilson is just not seeing the middle of the field very effectively, because of, yes, his height. His ability to get the ball there isn't a concern, given his textbook-high release point. But perhaps Bevell doesn't send receivers there because Wilson's limited vision makes it a low-percentage area.

Another theory I've been considering - Seattle's offensive line is not the appalling mess that some make it out to be, but perhaps Wilson still needs more. He had an above-average line at Wisconsin. Perhaps some dominantly-established passing lanes and moving-pocket-savvy linemen are needed to really bring the most out of pocket-passer-Wilson. I personally don't see the easy connection people make between outstanding offensive line and Super Bowl dynasty (it hasn't been in evidence since the mid-00's), but Wilson may honestly be a more demanding QB in that aspect.

Good points MontanaHawk05. This makes a lot of sense. It wasn't so much a problem in 2012 and last year because of Sidney Rice, Miller, Willson, and Tate. Sidney being 6'4 was easy to spot for Wilson. Tate because he wasn't afraid to play in the middle and had nice YAC totals. With Helfet and Willson primarily being used for blocking they aren't able to attack the middle. They did some of that with Moeaki last game so hopefully they can start working the middle again.

 

[pehawk]

Remember when we sacked Aaron Rodgers 8 times in the first half, it happens to the best of them. Taking the sack was better than giving the Cardinals any turnovers. The blame should be spread out to everyone, i think we can agree that the playcalling has been lacking since the Rams game. In the Rams game, Wilson was able to throw the ball everywhere including the middle and he stood in the pocket, and did great running as well. I want that playcalling again. I think we play our offense like we play our defense, we show our hand and let them try and stop us, which at the moment for our offense isn't scaring anyone.

Word, I'm actually cool with the OL. As long as they can run block and are nasty, I'll be fine with it.

 

[blkhwk]

I watched an interview many, many years ago with the late Bill Walsh on what made his "west coast" offense so great.

He mentioned the use of receivers in "layers" of the field.... some deep, some short, some intermediate. Looking at these still shots, that concept is not put to use at all.

There also does not appear to be much movement after initial routes are ran. You can see this in games when RW is scrambling many times receivers are watching instead of moving with RW to try and find an open space. Remember Sidney Rice's TD vs. Arizona last year in AZ, Russ scrambled, Rice went deep for 6. The John Elway Broncos used to have designed routes that were ran when Elway scrambled you would think the 'Hawks would have something similar.

 

[seedhawk]

Great breakdown Scotte, with many good additions. My 2 cents. While most everyone here recognizes just what RW brings to our team, they seem to ignore the problems he creates just because he is what he is.

1) He is short, so he needs lanes blocked for specific pass plays.

2) He has wheels like almost no other QB does, and vision or anticipation to go with it. He seems to spin out of certain sacks on a regular basis. Two edged sword however, as this ability makes life really difficult on our O-line. Do they chance the 10 yard hold, or just let the guy go and trust RW to escape? I do not know the answer.

3) He holds the ball longer than about every other QB not named Rothlisberger. RW is always looking to make something happen, and it is a 65-35 to 70-30 proposition. When it works, we all praise RW, but when it fails, we blame the line, or the WR's.

Seems to me we all need to chill a bit, and just accept things for what they are. Maybe our line truly sucks, perhaps our Wr's are indeed pedestrian, then again, maybe they just look like they do the way they do because of our Qb. What I do know is, we are 35-13 with Rw as our Qb. That is Brady-esque!

 

[SeaChase]

The WR's probably get tired out since Wilson is always scrambling.

 

[IndyHawk]

Great post Scott..Love the pics and explanation of whats going on...I hope you'll do this more often so the OL ,OC haters understand that Russ is not always a rose in everything..I love the guy but he's not perfect and without blame..Again great post man..

 

[Blitzer88]

Great work! Very interesting to read.

 

[Hawks46]

They are guesses. I watch each play a bunch of times from 2 angles. You are free to disregard as you see fit.

Fans are entitled to their opinion. What really matters is what Pete thinks.

I am starting to reach a point where I think one of Pete's top offseason priorities is finding a new OC. That's not to say Bevell is killing us, but I do believe that this season he is hurting us. It is an area of improvement and an easy fix relative to some other areas. I also think that Bevell's shortcomings have been easier to notice, and more difficult to defend this year.

I think Bevell is a great fit philosophically for Pete. I don't know if Pete could co-exist with a big ego coach. I think he looks for yes men, or failing that, brilliant teachers. Cable is a teacher. Bevell is a yes-man. I think that, plus loyalty, is why Bevell is still here, and might remain here for some time.

Of course, the same thing was true for Holt and Sark at UW. Holt should have been fired after his first year, he was light-himself-on-fire incompetent. I don't think Bevell is nearly that bad at his job, but I do see worrisome signs of incompetence... and Pete effectively looking the other way.

I'm sure firing Holt was the toughest thing Sark ever had to do, but he had to do it. And he did it too late. I don't know if Pete is capable of doing the same to Bevell, not unless Bevell becomes a bigger problem.

I used to be a Bevell supporter. I thought his vanilla stylings suited Seattle well. I started to turn on him last year when smarter DC's were running circles around him and Bevell would take weeks to make very basic adjustments that an average OC would make mid-game. He does fit Seattle, and he's a nice guy, and I think that's the only reason he still has a job here. In terms of competency he has to be near the bottom of the league, at least among OC's who've been at it as long as he has.

And I think it's gotten to the point now where it is holding Wilson back from his potential. I am not putting all the blame on Bevell, but I do think that if Pete replaced Bevell with a top shelf OC the difference in 2015 would likely be night and day. I honestly think Seattle's near total dependance on Russell Wilson magic to win games is as much about Bevell as it is Wilson.

You know, it's funny but I was thinking along these lines last night when I was watching the first half of the NO/BAL game. Baltimore came out and straight established the run, then gashed NO with big plays through the air. Reminded me of us last year, and the announcers were gushing over their balance.

Kubiak has made a HUGE difference in that offense. So, is Baltimore's WR corps that great ? Their best WR is probably Smith at 35 years old, Jones is a go/fly route specialist that doesn't like to go over the middle, and I watched the game and still couldn't tell you who their 3rd WR was. They've turned a RB who has average speed and great vision into the 3rd best rusher (by yards) in the league. The best thing about the Ravens is that they overpaid their QB, had to lose a bit last year to absorb that and get rid of contracts, reloaded in the draft on the defensive side, and still managed to have a damned good OL to help keep things moving. Gives me hope that we won't be ruined when we have to pay Russ.

As for those sacks, I've noticed (at least last game) that Wilson tends to bail right first. Look at 3 of those sacks, and all the space and a huge lane on that left side. One of those instances, he was trying to move to an open WR on that side, so I get that. But it might be a tendency and the Cards seem to know that.

As to Bevell, my biggest gripe with him is his lack of ability to adjust. Teams will do the same thing to us all game and we can't find a way to adjust to it. The Cards' gameplan was the exact same one they won with last year, but we had an even more dominant defensive performance (in terms of yardage and possessions) while our offense managed to do a bit more.

 

[BlueOne]

To my eyes only 2 sacks were on Wilson arguably holding onto the ball too long. 2 were on offensive line whiffs. The other 3, and partially the 2 on Wilson as well frankly, seemed like either poor play design/calling or on Wilson for not calling an audible.

 

[volsunghawk]

Great thread. Lots of great points all around.

I will say, though, that I think that a couple of the things mentioned here have to go back to the play design and in-game calls. The seeming lack of hot reads is problematic, and I can't remember the last time we had an empty backfield look result in a positive play. Maybe I'll spend some of this weekend going back through the season's games and doing a quick tally.

 

[Scottemojo]

Great thread. Lots of great points all around.

I will say, though, that I think that a couple of the things mentioned here have to go back to the play design and in-game calls. The seeming lack of hot reads is problematic, and I can't remember the last time we had an empty backfield look result in a positive play. Maybe I'll spend some of this weekend going back through the season's games and doing a quick tally.

There have been some great plays out of empty. It is rather boom or bust, though.

 

[Chawks1]

Excellent breakdown. One thing about the play calling, RW still has the ability to change out of plays if needed. He is accountable too. One way to counter it is to run an up tempo offense by hurrying to the line to have time to see how the D lineups. i noticed too many times we run the clock down to the last second. This allows the D to dictate to the offense.

But sometimes you have to give credit to the opponent. They disguise things very well. Hopefully we file these away for when we play them in a few weeks.

 

[SalishHawkFan]

So, you're saying that he just should have thrown the ball away on all those sacks?
NONE of the Seahawks Receivers scare anyone, and it all dumps right back on Wilson's shoulders.
What I'm waiting for now, is for someone to show that they have the Solution.
We're seeing and hearing lots of blame, what I'm not seeing or hearing, is someone that is ready to ride up and save the day.
Super easy to poke holes, so if you have fixes, I'm ready to be enlightened.

First sack: On Wilson. Sometimes players don't make good plays and there's no solution, it's just part of the game. See that WR bottom right? His defender has his hips totally turned the wrong way. A lob to the corner near the endzone gives us six. Wilson doesn't see it.

Second sack: That play needed an audible to shift the line to block left instead of right. Let the guy on the opposite side go in free. The reason? Too tight coverage on the right for there to be any hot read to that side. The guy they let through instead can jump up and bat down the pass or worse so that cuts off the hot read to the left. Shifting the line was the only solution. But does Wilson have the freedom to do that? If he does, then it's on him. If he doesn't, then it's on Bevell.

3rd sack: No excuse not to hit the WR coming across the middle. Solution? Throw the damn ball!

4th sack: Toss out the fake. Bad play design. Takes too long and doesn't accomplish anything.

5th sack: Sometimes the other team wins the play. That's football. I don't agree Russell could have thrown it away. He was still inside the pocket.

6th sack: That one is bad play design IMO.

7th sack: If I'm stuck with this play, I don't see what Wilson can do. Two spies on him, can't run. Only two WR's, they're not getting open. Stalemate. Eventually, the rush will win a stalemate no matter how many blockers you have. That's horrible play design. Someone has to pop out of there to be a receiver.

 

[Scottemojo]

So, you're saying that he just should have thrown the ball away on all those sacks?
NONE of the Seahawks Receivers scare anyone, and it all dumps right back on Wilson's shoulders.
What I'm waiting for now, is for someone to show that they have the Solution.
We're seeing and hearing lots of blame, what I'm not seeing or hearing, is someone that is ready to ride up and save the day.
Super easy to poke holes, so if you have fixes, I'm ready to be enlightened.

First sack: On Wilson. Sometimes players don't make good plays and there's no solution, it's just part of the game. See that WR bottom right? His defender has his hips totally turned the wrong way. A lob to the corner near the endzone gives us six. Wilson doesn't see it.

Second sack: That play needed an audible to shift the line to block left instead of right. Let the guy on the opposite side go in free. The reason? Too tight coverage on the right for there to be any hot read to that side. The guy they let through instead can jump up and bat down the pass or worse so that cuts off the hot read to the left. Shifting the line was the only solution. But does Wilson have the freedom to do that? If he does, then it's on him. If he doesn't, then it's on Bevell.

3rd sack: No excuse not to hit the WR coming across the middle. Solution? Throw the damn ball!

4th sack: Toss out the fake. Bad play design. Takes too long and doesn't accomplish anything.

5th sack: Sometimes the other team wins the play. That's football. I don't agree Russell could have thrown it away. He was still inside the pocket.

6th sack: That one is bad play design IMO.

7th sack: If I'm stuck with this play, I don't see what Wilson can do. Two spies on him, can't run. Only two WR's, they're not getting open. Stalemate. Eventually, the rush will win a stalemate no matter how many blockers you have. That's horrible play design. Someone has to pop out of there to be a receiver.

Well said.

 

[XxXdragonXxX]

So, you're saying that he just should have thrown the ball away on all those sacks?
NONE of the Seahawks Receivers scare anyone, and it all dumps right back on Wilson's shoulders.
What I'm waiting for now, is for someone to show that they have the Solution.
We're seeing and hearing lots of blame, what I'm not seeing or hearing, is someone that is ready to ride up and save the day.
Super easy to poke holes, so if you have fixes, I'm ready to be enlightened.

First sack: On Wilson. Sometimes players don't make good plays and there's no solution, it's just part of the game. See that WR bottom right? His defender has his hips totally turned the wrong way. A lob to the corner near the endzone gives us six. Wilson doesn't see it.

Second sack: That play needed an audible to shift the line to block left instead of right. Let the guy on the opposite side go in free. The reason? Too tight coverage on the right for there to be any hot read to that side. The guy they let through instead can jump up and bat down the pass or worse so that cuts off the hot read to the left. Shifting the line was the only solution. But does Wilson have the freedom to do that? If he does, then it's on him. If he doesn't, then it's on Bevell.

3rd sack: No excuse not to hit the WR coming across the middle. Solution? Throw the damn ball!

4th sack: Toss out the fake. Bad play design. Takes too long and doesn't accomplish anything.

5th sack: Sometimes the other team wins the play. That's football. I don't agree Russell could have thrown it away. He was still inside the pocket.

6th sack: That one is bad play design IMO.

7th sack: If I'm stuck with this play, I don't see what Wilson can do. Two spies on him, can't run. Only two WR's, they're not getting open. Stalemate. Eventually, the rush will win a stalemate no matter how many blockers you have. That's horrible play design. Someone has to pop out of there to be a receiver.

Only thing I disagree with here is the first one. Looks to me like that's Turbine running to the flat. A toss to the corner would have been basically a throw away and could have resulted in an intentional grounding call like the one against KC. The defender is in position to jump the throw to the flat for a pick 6.

 

[HansGruber]

I enjoyed the post and it was interesting to see the photos, but I'm curious how you know what the linemen were "supposed" to do on the given plays? Luke Willson was just on ESPN last week saying that nobody outside of the locker room knows what plays they're supposed to run and that things change completely as they lined up and linemen are calling out assignments.

So, did you get that info from coaching staff? If not, where? Are you just basing this on your own guesses, according to what you saw on film? How do you know that everyone on the field was perfectly executing whatever play was called in by the coaches, including whatever adjustments or assignment changes were called as they were lining up?

My problem with fan interpretation of game calling and what happens on plays is exactly what Luke WIllson, Warren Moon, Brock Huard, Pete Carroll and countless other athletes and coaches have all said in interviews. Unless you're part of the huddle and actually standing on the O-line, it is impossible for you to know how players are performing because you have no idea what plays are being called and what audibles/adjustments are being made at the line.

They are guesses. I watch each play a bunch of times from 2 angles. You are free to disregard as you see fit.

Well don't get me wrong, I enjoy the insight. If nothing else, it teaches me a bit more about football as I never played beyond high school.

I'm just learning to ignore anyone's criticism of play calling or positional play because of the things I mentioned.

I mean, every time I hear a coach or player comment on analyst opinion, they just laugh off what we see and explain it was a totally different playcall than anyone thought. I once heard one of the Seahawks laughing at Huard's assessment of a WR route, and Huard is a former pro quarterback. The player explained that what Huard thought was a hook route was actually a designed block. I've seen and heard Carroll outright laugh at questions about play calls and tell analysts that they were way off on what they were seeing.

What I found really interesting is that both Baldwin and Willson have explained in interviews that the Seahawks use a system (WR option?) where the receiver route changes at the line based on how the defense lines up in coverage. Baldwin explained that Russell Wilson, as a result, often has to make 2-3x as many reads versus systems that employ fixed routes. It also allows Seattle to adjust to coverages without an audible.

This specifically makes me question analysts who claim to know a route based on the fact that Wilson didn't verbally audible at the line. Just because he didn't audible doesn't mean that the Seahawks are running a "designed" play with fixed routes. Nobody outside the coach, WR and qb knows how the WR should end his route. Whether it's supposed to be an in or out, hook, block, etc. I've yet to hear one analyst discuss this, outside of Brock Huard, who openly admits that his reads of called plays are most likely wrong.

So it's hard for me to blame Bevell, Wilson or the o line for sacks or failed plays. There's really no way to know if someone failed on a route, whiffed a block, held the ball too long, etc. As Baldwin explained to espn, even if you think you know the call, you don't, and it's not like the players or coaches will ever tell you.

Anyway, didn't intend as criticism. I enjoy your posts and just wanted to hear how you account for this in your analysis.

 

[HansGruber]

BTW, in an epic endorsement of your analysis skillz, Scotte, Fieldgulls pretty much agrees with you.

http://www.fieldgulls.com/football-brea ... even-sacks

Yeah, but players and coaches say that if we aren't on the field, we don't know nothing, Montana!

I'm disappointed in this response. It clearly serves no purpose other than to mock and berate.

And one thing I've learned as a doctor is that the good ones embrace rather than discourage skepticism. Skepticism offers an opportunity to both learn and teach. The only people who resist this opportunity are those who question their own knowledge and therefore see any challenge as threatening.

I never intended any insult so you're talking it that way is disappointing and really takes away from the good stuff.

 

[scutterhawk]

So, you're saying that he just should have thrown the ball away on all those sacks?
NONE of the Seahawks Receivers scare anyone, and it all dumps right back on Wilson's shoulders.
What I'm waiting for now, is for someone to show that they have the Solution.
We're seeing and hearing lots of blame, what I'm not seeing or hearing, is someone that is ready to ride up and save the day.
Super easy to poke holes, so if you have fixes, I'm ready to be enlightened.

A throw away is better than a sack, right?
Russell Wilson has completed passes while under extreme pressure, so no, I don't agree that he should Always throw the ball away.
Even though he threw the ball away while he was being tackled, (something most QB's do, and get an incomplete pass call) the Referees still gave the Cards the sack,,,, was a bad call.

Baldwin is a slot receiver who rarely runs routes to the short middle of the field. Pretty easy solution there.

Don't do a long developing play fake on a screen.

Norwood has shown a talent for finding the holes in zones.

And I did point out that the passing game got a lot more consistent when the playcalling trended towards a short, quick passing game.

But if you want to say I only poked holes, whatever. Seeing as your solution seems to be go get different receivers.

You answered, but you answered to what was SOME corrections that were made in the second half.
'Play-call'= Was Baldwin (most reliable) open very much in the first half?, not by a long shot.
'Play-call'= "A long developing play fake on a screen"
'Play-call'= how much is Norwood figured in on Bevell's schemes.
You did point out that with changes in > Play-calls < in the second half, that the passing game had a lot more success.
I'm seeing some questionable plays by RW (and in my opinion, that I believe is connected to Bevell's coaching), that looks a whole lot like that weren't a big problem in his first two Seasons here.
You doubt that SOME of the deficiencies are tied to Wilsons current Receivers? -----Sid. Rice?, Golden Tate?

 

[scutterhawk]

Excellent work. For several weeks now, I have been saying that this O-line is gelling into a pretty damn good unit, and it shows in these caps. We definitely missed Unger though. Yes they have work to do,

I think a huge part of the problem with the passing game is the 70% completion percentage target. During the offseason, I recall Wilson mentioning this as a goal for the year and thinking, "well I hope Carroll sits him down and says great goal and all, but let's be realistic. Only 4 QB's have completed an NFL season with a 70% or better completion percentage, and the quickest to do it was Brees in his 8th year (Anderson did it in his 11th and both Young and Montana in their 10th). Keep it in the back of your mind, but let's focus on winning and worry less about being great (prematurely)." Then my jaw dropped when I found out that Carroll was actually promoting this as a target for the season. Wilson plays best when he is relaxed, having fun, and improvising. I really wonder if the pressure to (prematurely) achieve elite, historical level excellence is messing with his mojo.

Don't get me wrong. I love that Carroll is pushing his players to be elite and the best they can be. I just think he needs to be careful and keep Wilson grounded in his early developmental years.

- bsd

Yep ^, and realistic playcalls.
Wilson IS without two of his most counted on Receivers---Rice & Tate.
Wilson had gotten a bunch of his Receivers gathered together last off-Season, on a beach in California, to try and gain some consistency.
He recognized the deficiencies, and tried to do something to fix it, and now all he has to do, is to hope that Carroll will get Bevell to erase the Percy Harvin mistake, and design some plays that take advantage of the Receivers that are still with the team.