Good Sheil article on Bevell and his play-calling goals

[Jville]

No Divas!

"We're really fortunate here. We don't have divas," Cable said. "We have tough guys. They love catching it and making all those flashy plays, but they're more than willing to block for us, and we really appreciate that."

Probe here and there to set up and find a weakness to attack.

"That’s football," Cable said. "You're looking at this to see whether you've got that. And it was there."

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

Also, Browner who played for us knew exactly what was coming and told Butler to go to that spot, which he did.

Why lament it?....Let's make new, better memories.

Color me skeptical that Browner 'knew exactly' what was coming, even if he did brag about it. And either way, Butler was lucky to get the shot at it that he did - which was a play dang close to PI anyhow.

To everyone's credit, the Hawks dang nearly won that game, after another terrific season.

 

[cymatica]

How could Pete not know the exact play and personnel grouping of the most important play of the SB?

Maybe Pete knew the exact personel, maybe he let's Bevell handle that responsibility. If you have a source that indicates that, then i would 100% agree with you. I would think, as an offensive coordinator, Bevell is given the responsibility of drawing up plays and personel packages, with Cable's help. Just about everything I read on here and elsewhere point at Pete having heavy influence in the defense, less on the offense.

Either way, not a great idea to use Lockette on the final play.

 

[nash72]

I understand the strategy of plays setting other plays up and so forth and how Pete wants to run the offense, but I'm still not totally on board with it all most of the time. The Hawks do a ton of things the CUTE way it seems when a conventional call is all that is needed to get a first down, TD, or whatever. I also hate the offense when it lays down and depends on the defense to hold the lead. I would rather they continue to attack so the majority of the games weren't so close. Admit it, we as Seahawk fans are hyper ventilating well into the 4th quarter 90% of the games they play.

Getting back to the offense, its Pete's style they run and we have been successful for some years now, but its the personnel and matchups that really baffle me sometimes. Take the WR screens everybody has been talking about, why even throw one to Kearse? Lockett and Baldwin run them better and Kearse is the best blocking WR we have. Makes little sense. The famous play that lost us the superbowl is another head scratcher. There is no way Ricardo Lockette should be seeing any kind of pass with a game of that magnitude is on the line. That was just an awful play call no matter how people want to sugarcoat it with percentages and so forth. People want to give Butler all the credit in the world when Browner told him what he needed to do before the play was even ran. He made the play, but how spectacular can it really be when you know whats coming beforehand? Oh well.

 

[Ambrose83]

I understand the strategy of plays setting other plays up and so forth and how Pete wants to run the offense, but I'm still not totally on board with it all most of the time. The Hawks do a ton of things the CUTE way it seems when a conventional call is all that is needed to get a first down, TD, or whatever. I also hate the offense when it lays down and depends on the defense to hold the lead. I would rather they continue to attack so the majority of the games weren't so close. Admit it, we as Seahawk fans are hyper ventilating well into the 4th quarter 90% of the games they play.

Getting back to the offense, its Pete's style they run and we have been successful for some years now, but its the personnel and matchups that really baffle me sometimes. Take the WR screens everybody has been talking about, why even throw one to Kearse? Lockett and Baldwin run them better and Kearse is the best blocking WR we have. Makes little sense. The famous play that lost us the superbowl is another head scratcher. There is no way Ricardo Lockette should be seeing any kind of pass with a game of that magnitude is on the line. That was just an awful play call no matter how people want to sugarcoat it with percentages and so forth. People want to give Butler all the credit in the world when Browner told him what he needed to do before the play was even ran. He made the play, but how spectacular can it really be when you know whats coming beforehand? Oh well.

Exactly... It's ridiculous in every way.... Kesrse jamming browner... Stupid... Locket being the wideout... Stupid.... Running a play that they said they knew from the formation and film study because it's literally the only play from that alignment we run... Shocker Butler had such a good break... We basically told them the play.... Stupid.... And lastly empty backfield and passing into the heart of a congested space.... Stupid.

 

[cymatica]

Exactly... It's ridiculous in every way.... Kesrse jamming browner... Stupid... Locket being the wideout... Stupid.... Running a play that they said they knew from the formation and film study because it's literally the only play from that alignment we run... Shocker Butler had such a good break... We basically told them the play.... Stupid.... And lastly empty backfield and passing into the heart of a congested space.... Stupid.

The funny things is, when Collinsworth talked to Bevell about that play, his answer for calling it was along the lines of 'you wouldn't expect it'.

 

[TwistedHusky]

Really baffled that this has not been clear to most watching the games at the start.

This has always been my criticism of Bevell.

True, setting up plays works for later. But the application of it is haphazard and inconsistent. You cannot depend on 'fooling' the other team consistently. And frankly, you wouldn't need to fool the other team and play catch up if you did not infuriatingly spend near a full half 'setting up' plays instead of just trying to score.

Obviously, his need to run specific plays that did very little in order to try to set up big plays for later is the root of the problem. Because in the meantime our defense gets worn down by an inconsistent offense and by the end can end up being exhausted.

Shaking my head on how people are looking at this as a good thing. The most effective friend to the defense is a keeping the opposing offense off the field, which inconsistent offenses struggle to do. Second would be getting a large enough lead that you turn the opposing offense one dimensional. Both are not in the cards with this approach.

This approach keeps games close, lets iffy calls sway the results more, and cannot be counted on. In the playoffs this is even more significant as a factor that leads to wins/losses.

The entire approach is terrible, and I do believe that with a good OC the Seahawks would be even better considering the pieces they give an OC to work with.

 

[Krieg's list]

The whole premise of the article (and this thread) is undermined by film and especially the last line from Tom Cable-- "You're looking at this to see whether you've got that. And it was there."

The initial plays weren't really setting anything up. They were used to confirm they would get the desired alignment and aggressive misplays from the defense out of a particular formation. The explosive plays were not dependent on the defense adjusting based on the success of the prior play. The film shows this and Cable explicitly states it. The plays almost certainly would have worked without the so-called setup plays. They knew the play would work later because it would have worked the first time. Not sure why they insist on calling the "conservative" plays first; seems to me that leading with the misdirection plays would benefit the base play later more than the other way around, but I have no basis for that opinion other than gut instinct. :lol:
But on Sunday, Carolina was just really bad defensively, so pretty much everything succeeded regardless.

I can't find video of the Rawls run on the flysweep action, but the Lockett run was really just a superbly executed play for a 10 yard gain that turned into a 75 yard TD thru a combination of Kuechly being out, an inexcusable whiff by the safety, and Lockett's deceptive speed.

[youtube]vawePIKKWOk[/youtube]

Baldwin would have been wide open on the Rawls run where he downblocked the first time:

[youtube]7LPclbm8wv0[/youtube]

It's the very first play in the video-- the DB commits to the run before the ball is handed to Rawls.

The Vannett play also took advantage of Klein replacing Kuechly, but good on Seattle for exploiting that weakness.

For the most part, the offense seems to be feast or famine based on the success of the running game, which is obviously problematic when playing teams that are stout against the run. I prefer controlled passing to setup the run rather than vice-versa, mainly because it's much harder to defend passes under the current rules than it is to take away the run. The offense was wildly successful when implementing such a style in the second half of last season. There must be some reason they have gone back to a run/play-action style, but I can't figure out what it is.

 

[HawKnPeppa]

This is good insight. People go crazy and say "why did Bevell call a deep route when we only needed 1 yard" blah blah blah. This is why.

But the other side of the sword is, it's also lost us games. It lost us two or three games last year when all we needed to do was convert another third down to ice the game in the fourth quarter.

That's the tunnel vision part that I don't care for. Patriots would not call an explosive in that situation.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

No. Just no.

If you run a bubble screen five times for no gain it doesn't set up anything. Nobody adjusts for something that wasn't working to begin with.

Yeah, almost like he's banging his head against the wall saying 'I've got to get this bubble screen going.' Or maybe he applies a running game-like philosophy of ''the more bubble screens I run, the better they'll produce.'' Ya need at least 22 touches, right?! [emoji6]

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

No. Just no.

If you run a bubble screen five times for no gain it doesn't set up anything. Nobody adjusts for something that wasn't working to begin with.

Which bubble screens are you talking about, like the 2-3 to Lockett last game for a combined 50-60 yards?

Amazing the selective agenda driven memory people have on here to prove their point that's factually false. Here's the fact, we are one of the top teams in the league running the WR bubble screen, because we have 2-3 shifty quick WR's and more importantly WR's that are the best blocking WR corp in the league.

Execution is what we were missing with a gimpy Lockett. Big difference with his legs underneath him.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

No. Just no.

If you run a bubble screen five times for no gain it doesn't set up anything. Nobody adjusts for something that wasn't working to begin with.

That depends on why it's not gaining any yards. If it's because the defense is biting hard, it's definitely opening up other plays. If it's because the execution is piss poor, then you're probably right.

It seems that people around here have been reflexively critical of the WR screen ever since the Percy Harvin debacle. To my eye, they've been pretty effective last year and this year. And if the defense insists on playing off the receivers (as they frequently do), it would be stupid not to go to that play once in a while.

This is a good point. The Seahawks have quietly become pretty good at the WR screen in the last two years. The speed of Lockett and the experience/willingness of Baldwin, Kearse, and our TE's go a long way towards helping in this area.

Well I noticed this year that our success in the screen game is due in a big part to playing to the strengths of our personnel. In watching some tape, you'll see that when we flex Jimmy out wide, many times it's to block for a screen. Some of our best screens were when Graham and Willson were on the same side; Jimmy flexed wide and Willson in the traditional Y spot for the TE. The ball is snapped and both players fly out there and block. Two TE's blocking CB's, safeties or LBers is usually overwhelming force. It works so well because Willson is fast enough to beat the LB to the spot. Graham is also athletic enough to block smaller quicker players in space. Kudos to Bevell to finally be calling plays tailored to his players' strengths.

It also makes it harder to defend because as a defense, you can't assume that Graham is just out there to block, especially when historically he's split out wide to create mismatches on smaller players in one on one's. Now you're creating formations that have multiple options and can disguise plays, which is one of my biggest pet peeves about Bevell: most of his stuff is painfully obvious.

My other big gripe about Bevell is situational play calling, and yes I'm not sure how much of that is on Russ. In particular, our red zone play calling is atrocious. maybe that is on Wilson.

This was helped by the continual progression of Jimmy's blocking.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

To be honest, this has been what he has been doing for 4 years and hasn't really changed his approach.

when we can't run or the offensive line is atrocious, his play designs can't really come to fruition.

People always thinks Russell bails out Bevell, but really Russell much more often bails out the offensive line.

BINGO!!

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Great article, thanks for posting Montana.

I like Sheil Kapadia, he's light-years better than what we had, and I think he's even slightly better than Sando, because he adds variety to his writing.

I LOVE the format of this particular article, and it actually reminds me of the breakdowns LaLoosh used to do, just not quite as good. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and they help bring words to life. especially words that are describing a football play. Just as important, what that picture is and at what point of the play that it's taken from. Sheil's got that down.

His only problem now is his deadpan, boring voice, but he's picked it up lately even with that. I've been impressed. He shows excitement instead of a Marvin-Like (the Paranoid Android), lackluster, depression laden, mechanical voice. At first he was that way, but now there's excitement in his voice. He likes what he's doing.

I'm sure ESPN thought they were dumping one of their worst "media men" on our doorstep. Haha! Jokes on them! When I look at other article by team associated writers, I see zero creativity. So thanks ESPN.

back to the article. This is what Pete, Darrell, and Cable have been trying to do all along, but it's impossible to call a game plan when your offensive line being shuffled around and is whiffing on their assignments, your QB is hobbled and is unable to play up to his abilities, and your running back is Christine Michael. Add to that, a recovering Graham, an injured Lockett, another injured tight end (Luke), and playing against some pretty good teams, and you have a recipe for disaster, that at first glance, looks like bad play calling.

But now that we're getting healthy, have Britt back and in his best position, and are actually staying on schedule on 1st and 2nd down, AND having success on 3rd down, the game plan looks much better.

So what it all comes down to, like Brock always says, it plays, players and execution. With 1 or 2 of those factors missing, our offense looks like garbage.

So glad to have our peeps back, and playing well. I think we go on a tear the rest of the year, and believe that we are easily the BEST team in the NFC, and maybe the NFL.

He IS pretty monotone! I wonder if that's a big reason he never gets hired as a head coach. Not a very motivating delivery.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Honestly, I don't have a problem with the bubble screens in and of themselves. They're the equivalent of a short hitch or out - take what the defense gives you. If the corners are six yards off the LOS, take the yards.

HOWEVER, I've seen too many bubble screens to guys who shouldn't be running them. Throwing them to Baldwin is defensible; throwing them to Kearse is not. The personnel involved in those screens (and in other plays) is what bothers me. I don't think that the surprise of throwing a bubble screen to Kearse is worth the fact that he sucks at running them unless I see more hard data that killing drives due to plays like bubble screens with sub-optimal personnel on the field is eventually linked to opening up a defense later in the game.

I don't like them thrown to Kearse either, but if you've noticed the past 5-6 weeks one of the first 5-6 plays every game has been a quick throw to Kearse out in the flat.

Me thinks Pete and Bevell have noticed a trend that Kearse's drops go down if he gets a quick throw to get his confidence going. Maybe he's got some issues with anxiety or the pressure of making a big catch later on in the game if he hasn't been involved early. That's when balls bounce off his hands.

So IMO it's more to get Kearse going, than something that's highly successful for yards.

Seems like Kearse has problems with balls delivered at anything but a fairly straight trajectory.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Great article, thanks for posting Montana.

I like Sheil Kapadia, he's light-years better than what we had, and I think he's even slightly better than Sando, because he adds variety to his writing.

I LOVE the format of this particular article, and it actually reminds me of the breakdowns LaLoosh used to do, just not quite as good. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and they help bring words to life. especially words that are describing a football play. Just as important, what that picture is and at what point of the play that it's taken from. Sheil's got that down.

His only problem now is his deadpan, boring voice, but he's picked it up lately even with that. I've been impressed. He shows excitement instead of a Marvin-Like (the Paranoid Android), lackluster, depression laden, mechanical voice. At first he was that way, but now there's excitement in his voice. He likes what he's doing.

I'm sure ESPN thought they were dumping one of their worst "media men" on our doorstep. Haha! Jokes on them! When I look at other article by team associated writers, I see zero creativity. So thanks ESPN.

back to the article. This is what Pete, Darrell, and Cable have been trying to do all along, but it's impossible to call a game plan when your offensive line being shuffled around and is whiffing on their assignments, your QB is hobbled and is unable to play up to his abilities, and your running back is Christine Michael. Add to that, a recovering Graham, an injured Lockett, another injured tight end (Luke), and playing against some pretty good teams, and you have a recipe for disaster, that at first glance, looks like bad play calling.

But now that we're getting healthy, have Britt back and in his best position, and are actually staying on schedule on 1st and 2nd down, AND having success on 3rd down, the game plan looks much better.

So what it all comes down to, like Brock always says, it plays, players and execution. With 1 or 2 of those factors missing, our offense looks like garbage.

So glad to have our peeps back, and playing well. I think we go on a tear the rest of the year, and believe that we are easily the BEST team in the NFC, and maybe the NFL.

It seems pretty obvious any team would struggle without having at least a couple of important components. With a healthy RW, a good running game and even slightly above average O-line performance we are a very good offense but remove even one of those components and the offense will struggle. Not just ours, any offense will struggle behind a poor Oline or without the help of a running game.

Looking at us this year we have struggled mightily on the O-line while having no real running game and a QB with two bad legs. It's a recipe for disaster. Expecting an OC to compensate for all that is pretty ridiculous and bordering on self entitlement or maybe just pure hate.

True.. but in Tampa the offense was healthy sans Britt and we scored 5 pts.... Show me any team not named the rams to have a game that bad this year....

Y'all act like Britt being out was a trivial thing. I don't believe the coach speak about Hunt for one minute. Hunt played OK for a rook, but the difference was night and day with Britt back in. Pete said as much in his post-Panther presser.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Correct. In fact, it lost us an Owl. I may not ever forgive that. In fact, that taints my view of everything Bevell does. I still can't believe that play call. The epitome of "out-cuting yourself"

If you listen to the coaches reasoning the play they called made sense and was not a bad call. The result is what sucked (and execution). Also the DB made a epic play on the ball. Some credit there as well. People still want to be pissed and blame someone.

I wonder if you polled all of the league current OC's how many would say it was a bad call. Maybe not what they might do but not a bad call given the situation.

If I blame them for anything, it would be not paying attention to matchups. You better account for Browner. He required special attention in that situation. Kearse loses that matchup 10 out if 10 times.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

Seems like Kearse has gotten some decent yardage on screens, actually.

It's all about blocking, execution and match-ups. A lot of teams throw screens to their lumbering TEs. It's not like every receiver screen in the NFL goes to a scatback or jitterbug receiver. That's actually far from the case.

That's the crux of it. If you're gonna run screens, the OL better be on point.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[HawKnPeppa]

I understand the strategy of plays setting other plays up and so forth and how Pete wants to run the offense, but I'm still not totally on board with it all most of the time. The Hawks do a ton of things the CUTE way it seems when a conventional call is all that is needed to get a first down, TD, or whatever. I also hate the offense when it lays down and depends on the defense to hold the lead. I would rather they continue to attack so the majority of the games weren't so close. Admit it, we as Seahawk fans are hyper ventilating well into the 4th quarter 90% of the games they play.

Getting back to the offense, its Pete's style they run and we have been successful for some years now, but its the personnel and matchups that really baffle me sometimes. Take the WR screens everybody has been talking about, why even throw one to Kearse? Lockett and Baldwin run them better and Kearse is the best blocking WR we have. Makes little sense. The famous play that lost us the superbowl is another head scratcher. There is no way Ricardo Lockette should be seeing any kind of pass with a game of that magnitude is on the line. That was just an awful play call no matter how people want to sugarcoat it with percentages and so forth. People want to give Butler all the credit in the world when Browner told him what he needed to do before the play was even ran. He made the play, but how spectacular can it really be when you know whats coming beforehand? Oh well.

OK Coach.

Sent from my SC-02H using Tapatalk

 

[RichNhansom]

Correct. In fact, it lost us an Owl. I may not ever forgive that. In fact, that taints my view of everything Bevell does. I still can't believe that play call. The epitome of "out-cuting yourself"

If you listen to the coaches reasoning the play they called made sense and was not a bad call. The result is what sucked (and execution). Also the DB made a epic play on the ball. Some credit there as well. People still want to be pissed and blame someone.

I wonder if you polled all of the league current OC's how many would say it was a bad call. Maybe not what they might do but not a bad call given the situation.

Maybe not but maybe they would.

Baldwin was being covered by Revis, Graham was doubled and Browner was covering Kearse. Butler was the weakest link and was going to shadow Lockette. I don't like the middle of the field either but it is a very high percentage play and a fade to Lockette really wasn't an option.

I was hoping for a running play also and I believe if the pass is incomplete the next play will be a run but there is no guarantee that Lynch doesn't fumble either. It's happened before at the goal line so in reality running wasn't any safer than the slant percentage wise and we were trying to get NE to burn their last time out to lower the chances of them doing what Atlanta did a couple years before when they had 31 seconds remaining.

To me this really just comes down to an excellent defensive play call by Billy and great execution by Browner and Butler.