Can we talk Bevell?

[pehawk]

I thought the gameplan at Houston was fundamentally sound -- run the ball, try and take out some of the pass rush threat.

Unfortunately, sometimes you just can't stop a guy with 4/5th's of your line being switched.

The big issue for me was failing to switch until the end of the third. They stuck with the conservative approach too long. But, ultimately, they won.

And that sums up my feelings on Bevell. I get very frustrated, and can poke holes from my armchair perch, but, I push it down knowing it always works out, somehow.

 

[DavidSeven]

Bevell is always going to be handcuffed by Wilson's height and the limited offensive talent on this team, but he does have room to improve.

What Wilson needs is a monster center and a great TE, no disrespect to Unger and Miller but they need better for Wilson to be at his best.

Dude, what? Unger was an All-Pro last year. What else do you want?

True and Miller is a beast. He does everything well and is a Pro-Bowl level player. His modest numbers are a result of the scheme, not a lack of talent.

 

[keasley45]

I thought the gameplan at Houston was fundamentally sound -- run the ball, try and take out some of the pass rush threat.

Unfortunately, sometimes you just can't stop a guy with 4/5th's of your line being switched.

The big issue for me was failing to switch until the end of the third. They stuck with the conservative approach too long. But, ultimately, they won.

And that sums up my feelings on Bevell. I get very frustrated, and can poke holes from my armchair perch, but, I push it down knowing it always works out, somehow.

Is there something that you saw that was markedly different in the 2nd half / end of the 3rd in the way of play calling? The only difference i saw was russ getting fed up with being clobbered and taking the game into his own hands (and legs). Cant say that i remember anything especially creative, or us opening things up at all. And the issue for me is that even if we do 'open it up', the play design is very elementary. No sophistication whatsoever. No scheme to get Rice or Tate open or attack a weakness in the opposing team's secondary. The plays are just... blah. You watch the plays an offense like NE runs (and i'm talking plays here, not QB ability) and its obvious that they have a scheme designed to exploit the defense in a certain way or to get guys uncovered. It helps to have Brady throwing to them but i dont think the fact that they are putting up decent offensive numbers with a bunch of no name receivers is all due to their QB. They are game planning and designing plays to put their guys in the best possible position to realize success. i dont ever look at the stuff we run and say 'wow, that play is just difficult to defend'. Holmgren, for all his faults, had those plays. The top offenses in the league have those plays. We have Darrel Bevell.

 

[-The Glove-]

I thought the gameplan at Houston was fundamentally sound -- run the ball, try and take out some of the pass rush threat.

Unfortunately, sometimes you just can't stop a guy with 4/5th's of your line being switched.

The big issue for me was failing to switch until the end of the third. They stuck with the conservative approach too long. But, ultimately, they won.

And that sums up my feelings on Bevell. I get very frustrated, and can poke holes from my armchair perch, but, I push it down knowing it always works out, somehow.

Is there something that you saw that was markedly different in the 2nd half / end of the 3rd in the way of play calling? The only difference i saw was russ getting fed up with being clobbered and taking the game into his own hands (and legs). Cant say that i remember anything especially creative, or us opening things up at all. And the issue for me is that even if we do 'open it up', the play design is very elementary. No sophistication whatsoever. No scheme to get Rice or Tate open or attack a weakness in the opposing team's secondary. The plays are just... blah. You watch the plays an offense like NE runs (and i'm talking plays here, not QB ability) and its obvious that they have a scheme designed to exploit the defense in a certain way or to get guys uncovered. It helps to have Brady throwing to them but i dont think the fact that they are putting up decent offensive numbers with a bunch of no name receivers is all due to their QB. They are game planning and designing plays to put their guys in the best possible position to realize success. i dont ever look at the stuff we run and say 'wow, that play is just difficult to defend'. Holmgren, for all his faults, had those plays. The top offenses in the league have those plays. We have Darrel Bevell.

Not speaking for Pe, but I did see a slant and a rb screen. A couple bootlegs. And yes, RW decided to take over and tuck and run. I doubt RW is saying to himself in the first half, "I'm just gonna chill in the pocket and not run much."

 

[BASF]

I'm not worried about the WR's. Yeah, they should win a handful more 1-on-1 matchups, but, Wilson doesn't throw it unless wide-open. Pete's beat that in his head.

Poppycock! Wilson has thrown dozens of jump balls into coverage for each of our receivers over the past year and a quarter. A large percentage of our touchdowns have been just that, with the receivers going up and getting the ball over defenders or in Rice's case, in front of.

Wilson's inability to throw quick slants.

Poppycock! Wilson threw numerous quick slants during his Wisconsin days. The thing about quick slants is they are accomplished by the O-Line as much as by the QB and receiver. The guard and tackle have to open that throwing lane precisely and quickly. We don't have the guards who can get that accomplished as both Carpenter and Sweezy are hit and miss with their pass pro still. While Giacomini is fairly good as a RT, he is not quick footed enough to get that passing lane open quickly. Nor do we have that large thick bodied receiver that can win inside with his first step to be where Wilson needs him on the slant. As was pointed out earlier Brees throws quick slants on a regular basis and he is not much taller than Wilson.

Boy was I glad to see not one, but TWO half back screens in this game. INCREDIBLE.

Does anyone know why we wouldn't utilize these more, considering defense's propensity blitz recently.

Sometimes, you have to keep your back in to block and while missing three starters on the line, it was a great time to have that extra blocker.

 

[Scottemojo]

I thought the gameplan at Houston was fundamentally sound -- run the ball, try and take out some of the pass rush threat.

Unfortunately, sometimes you just can't stop a guy with 4/5th's of your line being switched.

The big issue for me was failing to switch until the end of the third. They stuck with the conservative approach too long. But, ultimately, they won.

And that sums up my feelings on Bevell. I get very frustrated, and can poke holes from my armchair perch, but, I push it down knowing it always works out, somehow.

Is there something that you saw that was markedly different in the 2nd half / end of the 3rd in the way of play calling? The only difference i saw was russ getting fed up with being clobbered and taking the game into his own hands (and legs). Cant say that i remember anything especially creative, or us opening things up at all. And the issue for me is that even if we do 'open it up', the play design is very elementary. No sophistication whatsoever. No scheme to get Rice or Tate open or attack a weakness in the opposing team's secondary. The plays are just... blah. You watch the plays an offense like NE runs (and i'm talking plays here, not QB ability) and its obvious that they have a scheme designed to exploit the defense in a certain way or to get guys uncovered. It helps to have Brady throwing to them but i dont think the fact that they are putting up decent offensive numbers with a bunch of no name receivers is all due to their QB. They are game planning and designing plays to put their guys in the best possible position to realize success. i dont ever look at the stuff we run and say 'wow, that play is just difficult to defend'. Holmgren, for all his faults, had those plays. The top offenses in the league have those plays. We have Darrel Bevell.

I can't speak for those two and what they saw, but Seattle almost completely abandoned the I formation when they started to have some offensive success. The few times in the 2nd half we ran the I, it was jumped on by the Texans. Normally, a play action out of the I should afford some time to pass, but the Texans treated every I as a blitz opportunity and dropped into deep coverage to take away the first read.
The game started with a deep PI on play action. Shortly afterwards Lynch had a big run from the I formation. Bevell tried going back to that well the rest of the day, but they were on it. Later he ran a variety of flanker sets instead of I, those were more successful.