I'm so tired of bevell....

[AgentDib]

On the play in question, a FB could not have hurt, KC had 8 defenders vs our 6 blockers. The worst part is when the ball was snapped, we had 12 seconds to change the play. Which is what should have happened. Simple math, 8 beats 6.

I agree that the numbers did not look good but I do not follow your logic regarding the FB. We were in 11/zebra with Lynch in the backfield, Helfet on the left, Baldwin in the slot/zebra on the right, and Richardson/Kearse wide to the right. Baldwin was being defended by their best CB Smith, Kearse was being covered by their rookie CB Gaines, and Richardson was being defended on the sideline by ex-hawk S Ron Parker. Assuming that we pull Richardson for Moeaki, what would prevent Parker from playing the run or being replaced by a lineman? I think the FB is steadily being phased out as athleticism increases and players rally to the point of attack more quickly.

 

[DavidSeven]

I know Bevell won us a Super Bowl but man it feels like he is clueless at times.

Here is a quote that perfectly captures my feelings on watching his playcalling:http://www.footballoutsiders.com/audibles/2014/audibles-line-week-11

"Vince Verhei: OK, now I'm pissed. After the failed fourth-and-goal play, Seahawks force their first punt. They then have a fourth-and-1 in Kansas City territory. Now, I'm not sure Seattle has thrown a deep pass all game, so Kansas City crowds everyone up on the line, effectively running an 8-0-3 formation. There are corners covering the receivers, but there are no real safeties or linebackers, just everyone pressed up to the line. Also, Max Unger is out again. So what do they call? Read option? Bootleg keeper? Quick slant? Nope. Straight handoff to Lynch up the gut. Nobody is fooled, nobody is beaten, the play loses yardage. That play probably fails 99 times out of 100. That's a much worse call than the goal-line fade route."

Is that fair? You absolutely know that if Bevell had called a slant, bootleg or deep shot in that situation and failed to convert that he would be crucified here. KC also has better edge talent than many teams we've faced, so I'm not convinced that a QB keeper or Lynch to the edge is necessarily the perfect call there either. Maybe pitch-back option with Michael or Turbin could've worked better -- but we've already shown that look multiple times on 4th down.

Personally, I actually do like seeing passes on 4th-and-short. However, I dread them in ways because even if you convert 60-70% (which is great), your fanbase will kill you for not running Lynch (who, quite honestly, has never been elite in short yardage situations) on the 30-40% you fail.

Anyway, yadda yadda, he's okay, he sucks, etc.. I thought overall Bevell got the offense moving. I do wish we were better in the redzone, but honestly, with different calls I'm not sure we get better results. I can't ignore that we have terrible redzone talent and KC is league-best at goal line run defense. 2/5 on RZ opportunities is probably what the stats would extrapolate to if we ran simulations with those elements factored in.

I think the quote speaks more to the personnel and formation than the playcall. Lets be fair here.

Fair enough, but I don't really have a problem with the personnel. SEA was trying to threaten pass or QB keeper with the look they were in. KC went all in to stop the run/contain the edge anyway. The author says we should have ran read-option with Wilson keeping -- well, KC overloaded that side of the LOS with two extra guys, so I don't think that gets us anywhere.

Based on KC's formation, a run up the gut seems like a reasonable call. There's no linebackers or safeties sitting behind the first level for additional push. All the extra guys are there to contain the edge and/or force a quick throw. Sweezy just needs to not get blown up on his assignment, and Lynch has the yard.

One alternative is to bring in the FB. But then KC will sub in linebacker or extra linemen to absorb his block and you still get the same numbers at the LOS. Would we need to burn a TO to make that substitution? Doesn't seem worth it considering how valuable those TOs are if we fail to convert.

The other option is to throw a quick slant vs. one-on-one coverage, but I'm sure KC knows that we suck at executing slants and were happy to take their chances.

 

[kearly]

The soon to be fired Trestman for me.

I've had this thought probably a hundred times this season. Christine Michael would be a super stud for Trestman.

 

[Scottemojo]

The soon to be fired Trestman for me.

I've had this thought probably a hundred times this season. Christine Michael would be a super stud for Trestman.

I think he would be a QB guru for Russ.

 

[pehawk]

I think there's no way for Trestman. He just doesn't match the "ra ra" shtick, at all. I've been trying to come up with someone specific, but am left with a conglomerate different OC traits.

IIRC, Sark was Pete's first choice, right? So, I'm trying to think of an innovative, Saturday type guy, who still produces mean run games.

Then, at least IMO, they fired Bates when McDaniels came open. So, play action guys with power rush schemes..who aren't afraid to go hurried.

Then I think back on the Gibbs and Cable hires, so I naturally gravitate towards a Kubiak or Kubiak clone. To that, same thing for Kyle Shanohan. Kubiak and Kyle would be perfect here.

We need to clone; Sark, McDaniels, Kubiak and Kyle Shanohan. Or mate them. If it's the latter I want to watch, wearing a breathe-rite and running shorts.

 

[Zebulon Dak]

This thread just got way better.

 

[kearly]

The soon to be fired Trestman for me.

I've had this thought probably a hundred times this season. Christine Michael would be a super stud for Trestman.

I think he would be a QB guru for Russ.

That too.

Trestman's offense, at least in Chicago, has been all about using players to their strengths. I could go on and on, but I'll get to the point quickly- the reason I brought up Michael is that Trestman seems to have a real affinity for Matt Forte as a receiver. Look at Forte's numbers before and after Trestman. The receiving production shoots off the page.

I've seen Chicago games the last two years where Chicago was down three scores barely halfway through the game, and Matt Forte would still be the main part of their game plan. Trestman is highly reluctant to ditch the run when behind, and if he does, he makes up for it by throwing the ball to Forte. Because Forte is a very good receiver.

Hardly sounds like a revelation but it's fairly uncommon to see a coach who will lean on a RB to win him a game even in a very obvious shootout game situation.

I don't know if Michael can reach his potential in our current offense. But give him 5+ receptions every game and he might just end up on a Madden cover some day.

Trestman also loves utilizing big targets. I heard that's something Seattle should be looking into.

 

[LickMyNuts]

Chicago has better weapons than we do. Doesn't seem to be working out so far. What has MT done for JC?

 

[DavidSeven]

Man, Trestman called the dumbest 4th down play last Sunday.

4th and goal from the Vikings' 1 yard line. He goes empty backfield and has Cutler run a QB sweep to the left side. Of course, the play got blown up.

You go empty at the 1 when your RB is Matt Forte? You have Martellus Bennett, Brandon Marshall, and Alshon Jeffery, and you call an athletic QB run for Jay "I've never tried at anything" Cutler? I respect Trestman, but that play was a bigger head scratcher than either 4th down play that Bevell called. In fact, the only reason they scored in that game was because Cutler threw three absolute prayers to Marshall and Jefferey. Zero separation; zero scheme; just two ballin' receivers.

 

[pehawk]

Man, Trestman called the dumbest 4th down play last Sunday.

4th and goal from the Vikings' 1 yard line. He goes empty backfield and has Cutler run a QB sweep to the left side. Of course, the play got blown up.

You go empty at the 1 when your RB is Matt Forte? You have Martellus Bennett, Brandon Marshall, and Alshon Jeffery, and you call an athletic QB run for Jay "I've never tried at anything" Cutler? I respect Trestman, but that play was a bigger head scratcher than either 4th down play that Bevell called. In fact, the only reason they scored in that game was because Cutler threw three absolute prayers to Marshall and Jefferey. Zero separation; zero scheme; just two ballin' receivers.

Let's roll with Bevell gets a HC job this offseason, what would be a good OC hire in your opinion?

 

[DavidSeven]

Man, Trestman called the dumbest 4th down play last Sunday.

4th and goal from the Vikings' 1 yard line. He goes empty backfield and has Cutler run a QB sweep to the left side. Of course, the play got blown up.

You go empty at the 1 when your RB is Matt Forte? You have Martellus Bennett, Brandon Marshall, and Alshon Jeffery, and you call an athletic QB run for Jay "I've never tried at anything" Cutler? I respect Trestman, but that play was a bigger head scratcher than either 4th down play that Bevell called. In fact, the only reason they scored in that game was because Cutler threw three absolute prayers to Marshall and Jefferey. Zero separation; zero scheme; just two ballin' receivers.

Let's roll with Bevell gets a HC job this offseason, what would be a good OC hire in your opinion?

I actually do like Trestman, though I don't know that his HS chemistry teacher demeanor is a great fit for Pete's program. Offensively, I thought he was brilliant last year. However, the fact that he hasn't done anything meaningful with Cutler in spite of a good O-line, a great RB and all those weapons... that's concerning.

If Bevell had been hired away last year, my choice would've been Kubiak. Would've been seamless schematically, and I respect his body of work. He's doing well for Baltimore this year. I'd have to think about it for guys who would actually be available.

 

[NJSeahawk]

Man, Trestman called the dumbest 4th down play last Sunday.

4th and goal from the Vikings' 1 yard line. He goes empty backfield and has Cutler run a QB sweep to the left side. Of course, the play got blown up.

You go empty at the 1 when your RB is Matt Forte? You have Martellus Bennett, Brandon Marshall, and Alshon Jeffery, and you call an athletic QB run for Jay "I've never tried at anything" Cutler? I respect Trestman, but that play was a bigger head scratcher than either 4th down play that Bevell called. In fact, the only reason they scored in that game was because Cutler threw three absolute prayers to Marshall and Jefferey. Zero separation; zero scheme; just two ballin' receivers.

Let's roll with Bevell gets a HC job this offseason, what would be a good OC hire in your opinion?

Jeremy Bates :stirthepot:

 

[pehawk]

I liked Bates, a lot. He actually had worse personnel than Bevell does today, yet still had a good passing attack. Too bad he couldn't make it work.

I agree DavidSeven, that's my concern with Trestman, personality fit. He wouldn't vibe at all. I also would've loved Kubiak...or Shanohan.

 

[Mojambo]

I, too, was disappointed that they went away from Bates. He got a bad rap from peeps on here.

But then, that seemed more of a personality driven decision anyway.

 

[sam1313]

The problem is the way they ran the ball in those situations. If we line up Lynch behind a FB and power run, I think he makes the plays on both of those 4th down disasters. To say they ran the ball and were stopped is true, but the formation the play was run out of was idiotic. Look at how well the power look play action TD pass to Moeaki worked...THAT was what defined this team last year.

It's the new look of the offense that has been going on all season. The basic power run/ play action pass offense has been replaced with a finesse style spread with multiple bubble screens, and that is what has people scratching their heads. It's a hit or miss style of offense, and not what the team did successfully last year. Last year, was last year, and it's understood this isn't the same team...but I think that's what making most of us scratch our heads.

Bevell gets inside the 20 yard line and starts to systematically outthink himself. As the scoring percentage on those occasions has dropped, it almost seems as if he panics and pulls plays out of the back of the playbook. I'd rather see Lynch get the ball 4 times inside the 10 yard line and be able to say they went with who they are, but the Chiefs were better. You can't do that with the stupid crap Bevell called in this game. He was horrible. He let the Chiefs defense dictate what they did on offense...instead of forcing their will on the Chiefs.

That is the difference between the 2013 Hawks and the 2014 Hawks.

Last year, we were the one's who knock.

Really well put.

 

[hawknation2014]

Isn't Bates selling cars now? I wonder what Bevell's next profession will be . . .

 

[Zebulon Dak]

So Bates is better than Bevell, but we fired Bates and hired Bevell, now Bevell sucks ass and Bates is just out there not even coaching and we're just sticking it out with Bevell?

Nice. Good talk. Somebody should email Pete and make sure he understands what's going on because it seems just a little bit ridiculous.

 

[pehawk]

So Bates is better than Bevell, but we fired Bates and hired Bevell, now Bevell sucks ass and Bates is just out there not even coaching and we're just sticking it out with Bevell?

Nice. Good talk. Somebody should email Pete and make sure he understands what's going on because it seems just a little bit ridiculous.

I never disliked Bates, always appreciated him as an OC. Never said he was better than Bevell either. Never said we should hire him back. Also, I never criticized Bates. In fact the only coordinatorso I've ever criticized are Bevell and John Marshall.

Are you that desperate to paint Bevell critics in a negative light you're making things up now?

 

[Zebulon Dak]

Remember when everybody was all "fire Ray Rhodes! Marshall's better anyway!"? That was fun too.

 

[pehawk]

No I don't.