Cliff Avril checks in on where things went wrong

[Sgt. Largent]

All of that was predictable. Browner was the most physical corner in the NFL. Unger had low snaps all the time. Lockette had very limited experience as a receiver. Not anticipating these things is where the criticism is warranted.

Lol.

It was literally the most unpredictable play we could have run. That's WHY we were all screaming at the TV "WHY DIDN'T YOU RUN LYNCH YOU IDIOTS!!"

- run Lynch and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- run Russell and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- roll out to Doug and it fails, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- slant to an underused WR on the goalline? About the most unpredictable play we had in the playbook

It Failed, THAT'S WHY we all hate the playcall. Absolutely nothing to do with the playcall itself, you can spin it anyway you want.

 

[Seymour]

" Unger doesn't have the low snap, we win".

LMAO. That is a totally ridiculous comment you know. No way in hell you can make that call. The snap has zero to do with Butlers perfect play on the ball. And please don't make like the hike all the sudden makes Russell throw the prefect placement of the ball. If Lockette runs FULL speed the ball IS perfect for Christ sakes.

 

[hawknation2018]

All of that was predictable. Browner was the most physical corner in the NFL. Unger had low snaps all the time. Lockette had very limited experience as a receiver. Not anticipating these things is where the criticism is warranted.

Lol.

It was literally the most unpredictable play we could have run. That's WHY we were all screaming at the TV "WHY DIDN'T YOU RUN LYNCH YOU IDIOTS!!"

- run Lynch and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- run Russell and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- roll out to Doug and it fails, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- slant to an underused WR on the goalline? About the most unpredictable play we had in the playbook

It Failed, THAT'S WHY we all hate the playcall. Absolutely nothing to do with the playcall itself, you can spin it anyway you want.

What I am saying was "predictable" was the poor receiving by Ricardo Lockette, a bad snap by Unger, a physical play by Browner to prevent the pick play, etc.

The play call itself was portrayed as unpredictable (because it was widely regarded as a poor decision) when it was anything but. Seahawks fan were all too accustomed to poor decisions by Bevell, including his abandonment of the run in critical moments.

Ultimately, the Seahawks chose to run a quick hitter BECAUSE Belichick refused to call a timeout (they wanted to run time off the clock and then quickly stop it). Bevell was suckered into a lower probability play by an all-time great coach who had his number.

 

[jammerhawk]

It's over and was over in Feb, 2015 yet this call and the fallout from it remains under discussion to date. The play pissed me off and was such a kick in the stones the way it happened. Something needed to happen with the staff to allow for a cleansing right after this but Pete was too loyal and it bit him in the rear.

Without a doubt it was a dumb call for the situation, it failed and as a result the team snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.
Did the D let the team down in the 4th Q? Yep! Did Bevell ever take ownership for 'the call'? Nope! In fact he offloaded blame to the players. For that alone he should have been let go. He didn't compete, own it, then blamed everyone else. pete owned the call, and did Wilson. Did Pete fail to stay true to his run first philosophy? Yep! Did Pete apply the same always compete rules to the coaching staff he applied to the player? Nope! Would this situation have been able to be managed better by Pete if he had axed Bevell? Likely so! Should Pete have forced Coach Fable to meet this expectations rather than buying Cable's BS? Absolutely!

I have a simmering belief that even Pete was internally concerned about the team's genuine ability to make critical short yardage conversions, and that was because he quietly had little faith the OLine could runblock the play well enough to allow Lynch to score from the 1.5 yard line as the OLine was allowing immediate contact forcing Lynch to convert short yardage plays on his own. This concern allowed him to stray from his own philosophy na the bought Cable's BS hoping the run game could be fixed to degree he fired a good RB coach in Sherman Smith giving cable more power to screw things up and of course that's what happened.

The defensive injuries contributed to the 4th Q defensive letdown in XLIX the losses of Avril and Lane were key losses that the D was unable to compensate for. That said it was a team loss both sides of the ball failed, along with the coaching staff.

To me the complainers like Sherman and Bennett who had a need to assign blame or who were unwilling to stay 'ALL IN' with the system that made them both successful indicates only that neither were in reality true team players but rather just me guys interesting furthering their personal interests.

Yep that call marked a the public awareness of the shift in Pete's core philosophy but reality is the signs were there before that as he deferred far to much to underperforming offensive coaches. Age, cap issues, and pete's stubbornness to move ourt some friends on his staff despite the reality they were facing to meet their stated objectives allowed for the downturn.

Fortunately the changes have been made and it's time to turn the page and move on, to forgive and quietly remember the lessons learned, but the go back to the formula that was a winning formula.

 

[TwistedHusky]

While it is wonderful to have opinions, and apparently there are diverse perspectives on this one, the diverse opinions do not change the reality.

The reality is that the people whose opinion mattered the most, the players on defense, have repeatedly said it bothered them and it derailed the team. So, since it matters to them, it matters. Regardless of how so many of you feel.

The Seahawks rode to most of their wins on the backs of the defense. They got to their SB win on the strength of it.

The Defense is the reason this team did so well. So when they say something upset them, it becomes important to listen to them.

I should point out that it was not a single play but how the Seahawks treated the aftermath of that play that really created the fractures. Sure the play was stupid. But many close games can have a few moments of stupid decisions that become pivot points for winning or losing.

The salient issue seems to be holding the defenders to a higher standard than the coaches and offensive players. The second issue is the defense eventually getting tired of carrying the team while the team piles more and more on the defense.

While it is wonderful to have all these lofty expectations of being on a team, human nature does not work that way. If one side is forced to repeatedly carry another, there will be resentment if there is not at least some additional elements to offset it.

However, given the new situation, defense likely won't carry the offense as much. Moving forward, this should no longer be a problem.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

All of that was predictable. Browner was the most physical corner in the NFL. Unger had low snaps all the time. Lockette had very limited experience as a receiver. Not anticipating these things is where the criticism is warranted.

Lol.

It was literally the most unpredictable play we could have run. That's WHY we were all screaming at the TV "WHY DIDN'T YOU RUN LYNCH YOU IDIOTS!!"

- run Lynch and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- run Russell and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- roll out to Doug and it fails, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- slant to an underused WR on the goalline? About the most unpredictable play we had in the playbook

It Failed, THAT'S WHY we all hate the playcall. Absolutely nothing to do with the playcall itself, you can spin it anyway you want.

What I am saying was "predictable" was the poor receiving by Ricardo Lockette, a bad snap by Unger, a physical play by Browner to prevent the pick play, etc.

The play call itself was portrayed as unpredictable (because it was widely regarded as a poor decision) when it was anything but. Seahawks fan were all too accustomed to poor decisions by Bevell, including his abandonment of the run in critical moments.

Ultimately, the Seahawks chose to run a quick hitter BECAUSE Belichick refused to call a timeout (they wanted to run time off the clock and then quickly stop it). Bevell was suckered into a lower probability play by an all-time great coach who had his number.

Carroll and Bevell got outcoached, that was nothing new. Neither was or is known for their in game decision making skills.

But again, the beauty of football, and sports in general is this..................even if the other team knows what you're doing, you can still execute and be successful. Hell, it's how our defense thrived during it's heyday. We were just bigger, faster and stronger than the 11 players on the offensive side of the ball.

So you can explain all you want, poor execution lost that SB, not the playcall.

 

[hawknation2018]

All of that was predictable. Browner was the most physical corner in the NFL. Unger had low snaps all the time. Lockette had very limited experience as a receiver. Not anticipating these things is where the criticism is warranted.

Lol.

It was literally the most unpredictable play we could have run. That's WHY we were all screaming at the TV "WHY DIDN'T YOU RUN LYNCH YOU IDIOTS!!"

- run Lynch and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- run Russell and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- roll out to Doug and it fails, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- slant to an underused WR on the goalline? About the most unpredictable play we had in the playbook

It Failed, THAT'S WHY we all hate the playcall. Absolutely nothing to do with the playcall itself, you can spin it anyway you want.

What I am saying was "predictable" was the poor receiving by Ricardo Lockette, a bad snap by Unger, a physical play by Browner to prevent the pick play, etc.

The play call itself was portrayed as unpredictable (because it was widely regarded as a poor decision) when it was anything but. Seahawks fan were all too accustomed to poor decisions by Bevell, including his abandonment of the run in critical moments.

Ultimately, the Seahawks chose to run a quick hitter BECAUSE Belichick refused to call a timeout (they wanted to run time off the clock and then quickly stop it). Bevell was suckered into a lower probability play by an all-time great coach who had his number.

Carroll and Bevell got outcoached, that was nothing new. Neither was or is known for their in game decision making skills.

But again, the beauty of football, and sports in general is this..................even if the other team knows what you're doing, you can still execute and be successful. Hell, it's how our defense thrived during it's heyday. We were just bigger, faster and stronger than the 11 players on the offensive side of the ball.

So you can explain all you want, poor execution lost that SB, not the playcall.

And you expected more from Ricardo Lockette? I put more blame on the person who chooses to draw up a play for the worst WR on the roster than on the play of the WR, who is known to have limited skills.

Honestly don't know how anyone can defend that horrendous play call, but to each his own.

:2thumbs:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Lol.

It was literally the most unpredictable play we could have run. That's WHY we were all screaming at the TV "WHY DIDN'T YOU RUN LYNCH YOU IDIOTS!!"

- run Lynch and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- run Russell and get stuffed, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- roll out to Doug and it fails, we're all pissed because it's too predictable
- slant to an underused WR on the goalline? About the most unpredictable play we had in the playbook

It Failed, THAT'S WHY we all hate the playcall. Absolutely nothing to do with the playcall itself, you can spin it anyway you want.

What I am saying was "predictable" was the poor receiving by Ricardo Lockette, a bad snap by Unger, a physical play by Browner to prevent the pick play, etc.

The play call itself was portrayed as unpredictable (because it was widely regarded as a poor decision) when it was anything but. Seahawks fan were all too accustomed to poor decisions by Bevell, including his abandonment of the run in critical moments.

Ultimately, the Seahawks chose to run a quick hitter BECAUSE Belichick refused to call a timeout (they wanted to run time off the clock and then quickly stop it). Bevell was suckered into a lower probability play by an all-time great coach who had his number.

Carroll and Bevell got outcoached, that was nothing new. Neither was or is known for their in game decision making skills.

But again, the beauty of football, and sports in general is this..................even if the other team knows what you're doing, you can still execute and be successful. Hell, it's how our defense thrived during it's heyday. We were just bigger, faster and stronger than the 11 players on the offensive side of the ball.

So you can explain all you want, poor execution lost that SB, not the playcall.

And you expected more from Ricardo Lockette? I put more blame on the person who chooses to throw the ball to the worst WR on the roster than on the play of WR, who is known to have limited skills.

Honestly don't know how you can defend that horrendous play call, but to each his own.

:2thumbs:

Because Lockette was our biggest bodied receiver, so if you're running that play that's who you want to throw it to........someone who can shield the DB.

You act like there's some agreed upon steps of acceptable playcalls based on predictability in exact order or talent.

Being a hindsight fan must be awesome, you're never wrong. If that play works, we're all praising Pete and Bevell for running such an unpredictable play no one expected, not even the great Belichick!! But no, it didn't work, so we should have run Marshawn even though the Patriot's had their jumbo goal line defense in. Brilliant!!

 

[jlwaters1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we run that exact play to Lockette earlier in the year, and it worked?

If memory serves, we did run that exact play earlier in the year with Lockette and that was the reason Butler was ready for it. He got burned in practice the week leading up to the SB when NE was running that very play and heard about it loud and clear. So when he saw the formation in the SB he knew precisely what to do and where to be. That's why it looked so incredible.

He literally saw it coming.

And yet if the ball was thrown just 1 foot more inside it's either a TD or incompletion and there would have been nothing Butler could have done about it. (Or if Lockette would have attacked the ball instead of waiting for it like he did- the same result would have happened. )

The only Reason Butler was able to make the play was because of the lackadaisical effort of Lockette and Russell throwing too nice of a pass (he lead him perfectly.)

Disagree with the only reason statement. Browner recongnized what play was coming from the formation, he told Butler exactly where the pass was going. Which makes the play call worse than it normally would have been.

That definately helped him make the play, but that would have been moot if Lockette actually went to the ball instead of letting it come to him.

Everyone complains about the call, they seem to forget that we had issues all season punching in the ball in short situations, there was no guarantee Lynch would have plowed into the endzone.

 

[hawknation2018]

What I am saying was "predictable" was the poor receiving by Ricardo Lockette, a bad snap by Unger, a physical play by Browner to prevent the pick play, etc.

The play call itself was portrayed as unpredictable (because it was widely regarded as a poor decision) when it was anything but. Seahawks fan were all too accustomed to poor decisions by Bevell, including his abandonment of the run in critical moments.

Ultimately, the Seahawks chose to run a quick hitter BECAUSE Belichick refused to call a timeout (they wanted to run time off the clock and then quickly stop it). Bevell was suckered into a lower probability play by an all-time great coach who had his number.

Carroll and Bevell got outcoached, that was nothing new. Neither was or is known for their in game decision making skills.

But again, the beauty of football, and sports in general is this..................even if the other team knows what you're doing, you can still execute and be successful. Hell, it's how our defense thrived during it's heyday. We were just bigger, faster and stronger than the 11 players on the offensive side of the ball.

So you can explain all you want, poor execution lost that SB, not the playcall.

And you expected more from Ricardo Lockette? I put more blame on the person who chooses to throw the ball to the worst WR on the roster than on the play of WR, who is known to have limited skills.

Honestly don't know how you can defend that horrendous play call, but to each his own.

:2thumbs:

Because Lockette was our biggest bodied receiver, so if you're running that play that's who you want to throw it to........someone who can shield the DB.

You act like there's some agreed upon steps of acceptable playcalls based on predictability in exact order or talent.

Being a hindsight fan must be awesome, you're never wrong. If that play works, we're all praising Pete and Bevell for running such an unpredictable play no one expected, not even the great Belichick!! But no, it didn't work, so we should have run Marshawn even though the Patriot's had their jumbo goal line defense in. Brilliant!!

Whether that low probability play happened to be successful in that moment is irrelevant when evaluating the quality of the decision. It was significantly less likely to be successful than a host of other plays. In fact, it may have been the lowest probability play (and highest probability of a turnover) in the play book at the time.

I remember being pretty horrified when I saw them lineup in the shotgun (power runs from under center with Marshawn Lynch had like an 80% success rate that season, while the Patriots were ranked dead last in the NFL in conceding power runs 80% of the time). And I nearly threw up in my mouth when I saw it was a pass play . . . to Ricardo Lockette, one of the least talented WRs in the NFL at the time. Ricardo was on the roster for special teams, not for being a bigger bodied receiver who could shield off the DB.

 

[chris98251]

The issue was the play call and the fact that they did not have a option allowed out of it, Wilson seeing Kearse gets stuffed right away should have went to option 2, he did not have one and forced it, Lynch was in the flat wide open on the other side with only one defender within 15 yards, all Wilson had to do was look in see Kearse stuffed and then look to Lynch who is a good Receiver. One on one with a DB do you think they are going to stop Lynch from getting across the goal line with Momentum on his side?

 

[hawknation2018]

The issue was the play call and the fact that they did not have a option allowed out of it, Wilson seeing Kearse gets stuffed right away should have went to option 2, he did not have one and forced it, Lynch was in the flat wide open on the other side with only one defender within 15 yards, all Wilson had to do was look in see Kearse stuffed and then look to Lynch who is a good Receiver. One on one with a DB do you think they are going to stop Lynch from getting across the goal line with Momentum on his side?

That's a good point. Though on a quick hitter, when your No. 1 option is open as you release the ball, you have to make that throw on time. We can quibble about ball placement; however, a better receiver than Ricardo Lockette might have had a chance to make that play. Which begs the question why Ricardo Lockette was the No. 1 option. Bevell says Ricardo "could have been stronger to the ball." Bevell's brain should be have been stronger toward a more rational play call that didn't require a career special teamer to make a receiving play that he had never shown any aptitude for.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Everyone complains about the call, they seem to forget that we had issues all season punching in the ball in short situations, there was no guarantee Lynch would have plowed into the endzone.

Nope, any other play but the one Bevell called would have worked, without a doubt.

Lynch had a terrible first and goal success rate (3 out of 11 attempts?), as did our entire offense. Which was the main reason we traded Unger for Graham, our awful Red Zone offense.

But let's not have the facts get in the way of a good Bevell playcall beating.

 

[chris98251]

The issue was the play call and the fact that they did not have a option allowed out of it, Wilson seeing Kearse gets stuffed right away should have went to option 2, he did not have one and forced it, Lynch was in the flat wide open on the other side with only one defender within 15 yards, all Wilson had to do was look in see Kearse stuffed and then look to Lynch who is a good Receiver. One on one with a DB do you think they are going to stop Lynch from getting across the goal line with Momentum on his side?

That's a good point. Though on a quick hitter, when your No. 1 option is open as you release the ball, you have to make that throw on time. We can quibble about ball placement; however, a better receiver than Ricardo Lockette might have had a chance to make that play. Which begs the question why Ricardo Lockette was the No. 1 option. Bevell says Ricardo "could have been stronger to the ball." Bevell's brain should be have been stronger toward a more rational play call that didn't require a career special teamer to make a receiving play that he had never shown any aptitude for.

The fact the Pick was the key to that plays success and Wilson pre snap able to see Brandon right in Kearses face was a big tell even before the snap signals that there was no other option allowed to Wilson to use.

 

[pittpnthrs]

And you expected more from Ricardo Lockette? I put more blame on the person who chooses to throw the ball to the worst WR on the roster than on the play of WR, who is known to have limited skills.

Honestly don't know how you can defend that horrendous play call, but to each his own.

:2thumbs:

Because Lockette was our biggest bodied receiver, so if you're running that play that's who you want to throw it to........someone who can shield the DB.

You act like there's some agreed upon steps of acceptable playcalls based on predictability in exact order or talent.

Being a hindsight fan must be awesome, you're never wrong. If that play works, we're all praising Pete and Bevell for running such an unpredictable play no one expected, not even the great Belichick!! But no, it didn't work, so we should have run Marshawn even though the Patriot's had their jumbo goal line defense in. Brilliant!!

Ricardo Lockette being defended for that playcall? Come on. I dont care about his physical attributes, he was the worst WR at that position. That playcall played to every weakness the offense had at the time. Short QB throwing a quick hitter in a congested area, worst WR on the team being the target, trying to block the most physical corner in the league in Browner, etc,,, It was a horrible call. You speak of execution when that play was set up for failure before the ball was even snapped. If by some miracle it was successful, we as fans wouldnt be praising Pete and Bevell for running such an unpredictable play, we would be breathing a sigh of relief that something so stupid actually worked. Pete threw a jump ball to Matthews for a TD on 4th down instead of kicking a FG in that game too. I wasnt praising him for that dumb decision either although it worked.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

And you expected more from Ricardo Lockette? I put more blame on the person who chooses to throw the ball to the worst WR on the roster than on the play of WR, who is known to have limited skills.

Honestly don't know how you can defend that horrendous play call, but to each his own.

:2thumbs:

Because Lockette was our biggest bodied receiver, so if you're running that play that's who you want to throw it to........someone who can shield the DB.

You act like there's some agreed upon steps of acceptable playcalls based on predictability in exact order or talent.

Being a hindsight fan must be awesome, you're never wrong. If that play works, we're all praising Pete and Bevell for running such an unpredictable play no one expected, not even the great Belichick!! But no, it didn't work, so we should have run Marshawn even though the Patriot's had their jumbo goal line defense in. Brilliant!!

Ricardo Lockette being defended for that playcall? Come on. I dont care about his physical attributes, he was the worst WR at that position. That playcall played to every weakness the offense had at the time. Short QB throwing a quick hitter in a congested area, worst WR on the team being the target, trying to block the most physical corner in the league in Browner, etc,,, It was a horrible call. You speak of execution when that play was set up for failure before the ball was even snapped. If by some miracle it was successful, we as fans wouldnt be praising Pete and Bevell for running such an unpredictable play, we would be breathing a sigh of relief that something so stupid actually worked. Pete threw a jump ball to Matthews for a TD on 4th down instead of kicking a FG in that game too. I wasnt praising him for that dumb decision either although it worked.

If the formation and personnel was set up for failure before the ball was snapped, why did the play work earlier in the year?

 

[Seymour]

And you expected more from Ricardo Lockette? I put more blame on the person who chooses to throw the ball to the worst WR on the roster than on the play of WR, who is known to have limited skills.

Honestly don't know how you can defend that horrendous play call, but to each his own.

:2thumbs:

Because Lockette was our biggest bodied receiver, so if you're running that play that's who you want to throw it to........someone who can shield the DB.

You act like there's some agreed upon steps of acceptable playcalls based on predictability in exact order or talent.

Being a hindsight fan must be awesome, you're never wrong. If that play works, we're all praising Pete and Bevell for running such an unpredictable play no one expected, not even the great Belichick!! But no, it didn't work, so we should have run Marshawn even though the Patriot's had their jumbo goal line defense in. Brilliant!!

Ricardo Lockette being defended for that playcall? Come on. I dont care about his physical attributes, he was the worst WR at that position. That playcall played to every weakness the offense had at the time. Short QB throwing a quick hitter in a congested area, worst WR on the team being the target, trying to block the most physical corner in the league in Browner, etc,,, It was a horrible call. You speak of execution when that play was set up for failure before the ball was even snapped. If by some miracle it was successful, we as fans wouldnt be praising Pete and Bevell for running such an unpredictable play, we would be breathing a sigh of relief that something so stupid actually worked. Pete threw a jump ball to Matthews for a TD on 4th down instead of kicking a FG in that game too. I wasnt praising him for that dumb decision either although it worked.

If the formation and personnel was set up for failure before the ball was snapped, why did the play work earlier in the year?

Obviously for one because the other team didn't know that the play was coming the first time, when it's now a known fact NE did. THAT play earlier is what gave them the information (only play run from that exact formation) along with Browner. Also different defense is another obvious answer.

 

[Seymour]

Just saw a really good documentary about WW2 from space on history channel this weekend. I wonder why people won't "just shut up" about a war that ended 75 years ago?? :roll:

 

[Sgt. Largent]

This is the best take on this I've heard.

By one of the guys who actually ran the defense the Patriots were in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUSOawqFhkY

It was the best play call, because they would have stuffed Lynch if they ran it. That was the play the Patriots struggled to defend in their own practice. They were ready for it, but it was hard to defend.


Carole and Bevell made the EXACT RIGHT playcall.

Receivers didn't do their jobs. It was poor execution.

That's why people need to let this go.

Just shut up and admit you lost the game because you got outplayed. Period. Players shut up. Fans shut up.

Just shut up and move the hell on.

Facts have no place in this discussion. This is about painting a narrative that fits into people's hindsight opinions about playcalls and offensive coordinators.

 

[chris98251]

This is the best take on this I've heard.

By one of the guys who actually ran the defense the Patriots were in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUSOawqFhkY

It was the best play call, because they would have stuffed Lynch if they ran it. That was the play the Patriots struggled to defend in their own practice. They were ready for it, but it was hard to defend.


Carole and Bevell made the EXACT RIGHT playcall.

Receivers didn't do their jobs. It was poor execution.

That's why people need to let this go.

Just shut up and admit you lost the game because you got outplayed. Period. Players shut up. Fans shut up.

Just shut up and move the hell on.

If they had made the exact right play call with the exact right people this discussion would not be happening now would it.

Drops Mic !