Good Job Bevell

[AbsolutNET]

He did a fantastic job on third down. He showed a few things we haven't seen much of lately, and it was all successful. I think it does go to show how much of what he wanted to do was based on Percy and Sydney. Obviously getting #11 back was huge, and Doug's emergence helped him go back to some things he had in mind for Syndey

 

[DavidSeven]

He got lucky.

Yeah those play designs for the sweeps to Harvin and the long pass to Baldwin were awful. He's so lucky to have gained any yards.

I don't remember seeing Bevel running that sweep. That was a play Harvin brought with him from Minnesota.

That's wrong. Harvin said in a post-game interview that he hadn't run that play since Florida and that Seattle installed it for him at the pro-level. So, no, it wasn't brought over from Minnesota.

 

[AbsolutNET]

I figured my "I didn't see Bevel running the ball" comment made it pretty clear I was just having fun with criticizing him after winning the super bowl.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Not last year from when the play was designed.

It's just a variation of the sweeps that they ran in Minnesota back in 2009 and 2010, as you can see on this highlight video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyI44U2RKek

But go ahead and continue to beat on Bevell, it's not like the dude just helped us win a SB or anything.

 

[mistaowen]

As a usual Bevell disliker, I'd say he called a solid game. He attacked the Broncos weaknesses which is something he did not do in a handful of games and instead would try to force 'our identity'. Rather than continue trying to force the running game that wasn't working, we kept the pedal down and torched their pedestrian secondary. Other games we seemed to force the running game with a lead that resulted in long, obvious 3rd down passes late in games.

Since he seems to be with us next year, I hope we are able to adapt our offensive identity mid-game like we did in the Superb Owl more often.

 

[Sarlacc83]

It seems like having Percy Harvin playing, even on snaps where he's not on the field, results in Bevell calling better plays for all our other guys. We practically completed more quick slants this game than the rest of the year combined. If we're stuck with him, I hope he has learned that he needs to call every game more like the Super Bowl.

It really annoyed me that this was his best game as a Seahawks offensive coordinator, to be honest. Congrats to the job he did, but why in the hell didn't we get some more of that in our three losses this year? We had a real shot at going 19-0.

I'm hoping desperately that he maintains the improvement in the 2014 regular season, but we'll see what happens.

Yeah, damn Bevell! Calling his best game in the Super Bowl was STUPID! And his other great games were against the Saints and the 49ers! DUMB! FIRE HIM!

(Seattle was not going 19-0 this year without Rice and Harvin. Some people are still having a horse to water moment.)

 

[Anthony!]

He called a good game in the superbowl. Yea, he was dealt a good hand that evening but still, good job. Hopefully he can take this positive momentum and dislay a higher level of consistency next year as we go for back to back titles.

Agreed the offensive game plan was good, inventive, multiple pass routes, rub routes, verticals, check downs, the kind of offense we were playing up to the regular season NO game, and hopefully will from now on.

 

[RolandDeschain]

(Seattle was not going 19-0 this year without Rice and Harvin. Some people are still having a horse to water moment.)

The ignorance in your statement that our three losses were not very winnable games, even without Rice and Harvin, is astounding.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

"Superbowl XLVIII: Bevell Unchained"

 

[Cartire]

(Seattle was not going 19-0 this year without Rice and Harvin. Some people are still having a horse to water moment.)

The ignorance in your statement that our three losses were not very winnable games, even without Rice and Harvin, is astounding.

Pretty sure the offense was great against Indy. That was a pure defensive and SP loss.

...oh wait, still Bevells fault. I forgot.

 

[Sarlacc83]

(Seattle was not going 19-0 this year without Rice and Harvin. Some people are still having a horse to water moment.)

The ignorance in your statement that our three losses were not very winnable games, even without Rice and Harvin, is astounding.

Wow. Reading comprehension is your friend. You PROVED my point. They were winnable, but they weren't won. In 2 cases because of: Waiiiiiit for it: WR play.l

Indy game -> Didn't have Harvin, but didn't matter.Got screwed by bad officiating.

SF -> Needed our wide receivers in red zone.

Arizona game -> Needed receivers to step up because Lynch wasn't getting yards. Weren't winning that game without Harvin or Rice, and it was already shown IN ARIZONA, that Rice made a huge difference.

Hell, even the Houston game showed the major issue with the WR corp, and they could've lost that game. So...maybe you should go take a nap or something.

 

[TheWalrus]

I loved the aggressive play calling in the 2nd half.

Not to nitpick but I will say this. I was ticked about the 2 plays called after the redzone penalty in the 1st quarter. It was 1st and goal from the 16 yard line. We ran the ball on 1st down and got stuffed, and threw a WR screen to Percy that was incomplete and challenged.

In my opinion, when you have a situation like that, you have to throw the ball on 1st down. If you run the ball there and get 5 to 7 yards it still presents a tough situation of 2nd & Goal from the 8,9, or 10 yard line. They needed to have more confidence in Wilson in that situation to allow him to make some pocket throws on 1st and 2nd down.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Congrats to the job he did, but why in the hell didn't we get some more of that in our three losses this year? We had a real shot at going 19-0.

Yep. Some people really will complain no matter what.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It really annoyed me that this was his best game as a Seahawks offensive coordinator, to be honest. Congrats to the job he did, but why in the hell didn't we get some more of that in our three losses this year? We had a real shot at going 19-0..

You mean if you have the most dynamic player in the league actually on the field it helps your offense become more efficient and dangerous?

 

[TDOTSEAHAWK]

LOL to this thread.

So when Bevell has his offensive line and his most explosive player against a middle of the road defense - he is a good playcaller.

When he has a beat up offensive line (or injuries) and is without his most explosive WR playing against 3-4 top-5 defenses - he is a bad playcaller.

Or even more importantly, when we have a good offensive performance - he is a good playcaller. When we have a bad offensive performance - we have a bad playcaller.

Methinks there may be confounding factors on the discussion as to whether he is a good playcaller or not - as I have always maintained.

It is also a discussion that will never have any real testable evidence and is just who can spout the most pseudoscience.

At the end of the day, from a wholistic point of view, the fact that he has been the passing game coordinator and has helped the 3rd round Wilson along in his first two years to be an eilte player with regards to passing game efficiency without all of his weapons for much of the time means that he is at least an above average coordinator by any measurement.

 

[kearly]

Bevell didn't get lucky and he didn't do anything all that different from what he normally does. Against average defenses that fail to game plan against Bevell's tendencies and who lack the athletic talent to corral Wilson, Seattle's offense is going to dominate. Period. Especially if Percy Harvin is on the field making DCs freak out all the time.

Let's get an OC who can counter the blitz or get so many weapons that auto-blitzing becomes unthinkable. Losing Harvin for most of the season hurt Seattle far more than anyone could have imagined, and they still went 16-3 with a championship.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Let's get an OC who can counter the blitz or get so many weapons that auto-blitzing becomes unthinkable. Losing Harvin for most of the season hurt Seattle far more than anyone could have imagined, and they still went 16-3 with a championship.

You answered your own statement.

You counter the blitz with the fear of speed and explosiveness. Teams blitz less with guys like Harvin on the field because it means less defenders out in coverage and the possibility of getting torched.

I read somewhere after we obtained Harvin that teams blitzed the Viking's something insane like 65% less when Harvin was on the field.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Bevell didn't get lucky and he didn't do anything all that different from what he normally does. Against average defenses that fail to game plan against Bevell's tendencies and who lack the athletic talent to corral Wilson, Seattle's offense is going to dominate. Period. Especially if Percy Harvin is on the field making DCs freak out all the time.

Let's get an OC who can counter the blitz or get so many weapons that auto-blitzing becomes unthinkable. Losing Harvin for most of the season hurt Seattle far more than anyone could have imagined, and they still went 16-3 with a championship.

That's not Bevell. That's Wilson. I said it before, and I'll say it again: The 49ers blitzed Wilson because they knew he'd hang onto the ball rather than use a hot read. It's also blame on Carroll, who obviously didn't correct the issue, and instead. Pete wanted a sack rather than a turnover because he trusted his defense and his big play offense - which is why he called Wilson "exquisite". If you want Bevell gone, you're basically undermining Pete's authority for not getting rid of Super Bowl winning OC.

Furthermore, when Seattle holds Brees and Manning to paltry numbers, we shout and yell about how awesome the LOB is. When #2, 3, and 4 ranked defenses do the same to our offense, it's all about how crappy Bevell is. That's completely ridiculous. You don't blow out elite defenses every time. They wouldn't be elite if you did.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Wow. Reading comprehension is your friend.

Well, it's not yours.

You PROVED my point. They were winnable, but they weren't won. In 2 cases because of: Waiiiiiit for it: WR play.l

Waiiiiiiit for it: We lost Indy far more because of special teams. Huge momentum change when we were spanking them by allowing a punt attempt to get blocked and returned for a TD. Our defense also actually held up fairly well for most of the game; a couple of lucky and great plays with Luck and T.Y. Hilton really broke our backs, but play the game over and that doesn't happen even one more time out of 10 replays.

Indy game -> Didn't have Harvin, but didn't matter.Got screwed by bad officiating.

Officiating had some really ridiculous calls in Luck's favor, no doubt about it. Not one of the top couple of reasons we lost, though.

SF -> Needed our wide receivers in red zone.

What we needed was to try and actually pass deep some that game. By "deep", I am referring to passes more than 20 yards in the air. We tried that what, once? The final play of the game. Can't complete deep passes if you don't even try, and not getting separation be damned.

Arizona game -> Needed receivers to step up because Lynch wasn't getting yards. Weren't winning that game without Harvin or Rice, and it was already shown IN ARIZONA, that Rice made a huge difference.

Lol, not having Rice = can't beat Arizona? Really? Ok. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Hell, even the Houston game showed the major issue with the WR corp, and they could've lost that game. So...maybe you should go take a nap or something.

WR corps, WR corps, WR corps, WR corps, WR corps, WR corps. It really sucks that they're the big impediment to Bevell calling passing plays with a little creativity. NOT.

Yep. Some people really will complain no matter what.

You've spent most of your membership time on .NET being the apotheosis of this, and every long-time member knows it. Take it easy there with poking that stick.

You mean if you have the most dynamic player in the league actually on the field it helps your offense become more efficient and dangerous?

You're missing the point. Bevell's play calling was better including on downs when Percy wasn't even on the field. Tate & Baldwin saw 50 snaps in the Super Bowl. Percy saw 29. I may have to go back and count how many successfully completed slants we had when Percy wasn't even on the field; we'll see.

he didn't do anything all that different from what he normally does.

Disagree. More slants and also, we were not AS predictable in terms of when we ran versus when we passed; as in, on what downs. A simplistic/basic change, but one I was glad to see.

 

[Sarlacc83]

Wow. Reading comprehension is your friend.

Well, it's not yours.

You PROVED my point. They were winnable, but they weren't won. In 2 cases because of: Waiiiiiit for it: WR play.l

Waiiiiiiit for it: We lost Indy far more because of special teams. Huge momentum change when we were spanking them by allowing a punt attempt to get blocked and returned for a TD. Our defense also actually held up fairly well for most of the game; a couple of lucky and great plays with Luck and T.Y. Hilton really broke our backs, but play the game over and that doesn't happen even one more time out of 10 replays.

Indy game -> Didn't have Harvin, but didn't matter.Got screwed by bad officiating.

Officiating had some really ridiculous calls in Luck's favor, no doubt about it. Not one of the top couple of reasons we lost, though.

SF -> Needed our wide receivers in red zone.

What we needed was to try and actually pass deep some that game. By "deep", I am referring to passes more than 20 yards in the air. We tried that what, once? The final play of the game. Can't complete deep passes if you don't even try, and not getting separation be damned.

Arizona game -> Needed receivers to step up because Lynch wasn't getting yards. Weren't winning that game without Harvin or Rice, and it was already shown IN ARIZONA, that Rice made a huge difference.

Lol, not having Rice = can't beat Arizona? Really? Ok. Well, you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Hell, even the Houston game showed the major issue with the WR corp, and they could've lost that game. So...maybe you should go take a nap or something.

WR corps, WR corps, WR corps, WR corps, WR corps, WR corps. It really sucks that they're the big impediment to Bevell calling passing plays with a little creativity. NOT.

Disagree. More slants and also, we were not AS predictable in terms of when we ran versus when we passed; as in, on what downs. A simplistic/basic change, but one I was glad to see.

Are you serious with that? You just proved my point again. Even YOU admitted we didn't lose because of offense in Indy, thereby negating your point about 16-0. My god, you don't even know what you're arguing at this point; you're just going for pure contradiction.

Oh, and slants, slants, slants. You mean the ones the throws were dropped a bunch of times? Also, the fact that you can't understand the difference between 34 points against Arizona with Rice v. 10 w/o him means that it's not worth discussing the issue with you because your confirmation bias has destroyed any semblance of an argument you might have had. It's embarrassing how easy it is to dismiss your comments, though it gets tiring when I continue to demolish them only to have you pull a Warner. I'm still waiting for my list of 5 Offensive coordinators who are better than Bevell.