Odds on Bevell to the Titans?

[Siouxhawk]

I really don't make him out to be an "OC god " I just think he's the right fit for our organization. Those numbers will take care of themselves the second half of the season.

Evidently you don't read what we do then. Your talk of him borders on idolation. Who am I kidding, it is idolation. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't try to defend him every. Single. Thread.

We could be ranked 32nd in points, yardage, red zone %, 3rd down conversions, and every other meaningful offensive stat and he'd likely still reply "but we just went to 2 Super Bowls".

I've gone on record saying before that the opposite would happen. If we were a lousy team and I felt Bevell was holding us back, you're darn right I'd join you naysayers. But I want to see the Hawks return to Gloryland and I see Bevell being the best guy to get it done. The Super Bowl reference does obviously come into play because he was an important part of that accomplishment and he knows what it takes from his players to get back there. We're not talking the Lions or Titans here folks.

 

[Hasselbeck]

Anyway barring Bev changing his name in the offseason to "Hue Jackson" or "Chip Kelly" .. there's no way in hell the Titans will be interested.

Bevell's best shot at a job came post 2012 when the offense was on fire and the zone-read was all the rage.

 

[edogg23]

Anyway barring Bev changing his name in the offseason to "Hue Jackson" or "Chip Kelly" .. there's no way in hell the Titans will be interested.

Bevell's best shot at a job came post 2012 when the offense was on fire and the zone-read was all the rage.

Agreed.

 

[OkieHawk]

I really don't make him out to be an "OC god " I just think he's the right fit for our organization. Those numbers will take care of themselves the second half of the season.

Evidently you don't read what we do then. Your talk of him borders on idolation. Who am I kidding, it is idolation. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't try to defend him every. Single. Thread.

And just like every thread where there's the same 4 or 5 people ripping him. What's the difference? To be fair, you're only an antagonist in 75% of those threads.

To be fair, I did the same thing to Anthony! as well.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

The numbers from 2012-2014 do not show that. They show a team that's fielded one of the best and most efficient offenses in the NFL over that stretch.

I don't think we've even been watching the same offense. Seattle has been very hot-and-cold on third down and in the red zone during Pete's entire tenure. Numbers alone can't point out how often Seattle has scraped by on improvisational plays earned long after the play broke down. Those plays make up a disproportionate chunk of Wilson's record, and Bevell cannot take credit for that. I will acknowledge that every good offense is carried by improvisational plays (Tony Romo's best plays are usually the same thing - most people don't realize that anything after three seconds is a broken play).

But if I don't know if the play calls were dumb, how do you know that Wilson is responsible for everything? My stance has been that Wilson is responsible for some and Bevell is responsible for some. The difference is, Wilson is the one we're stuck with. Bevell is not. Wilson is the one who shouldn't necessarily know better yet. Bevell is. And judging from this season's narrative, Wilson doesn't yet have full freedom to call the shots. It doesn't seem logical to put it all on him.

If I can't criticize Bevell's play-calls, I can criticize his play designs. Third down formations with all verts and no hot routes, etc. Talk about exposing the OL. Or it's experimental and it's biting us in the ass. There is rumble from around the league that the remedial nature of Seattle's passing offense is starting to hurt them. We're entirely predictable out of certain formations. Cincinnati's DBs were running our WR's routes for them. Go back to the SB interception - the real problem wasn't the play-call itself, the problem was that Patriots players said it was one of only a handful of red-zone plays they'd seen on our film. Boots and bubbles, verts and rubs. We've scarcely seen anything other than that until last Sunday. Predictability makes execution harder.

I held out against the anti-Bevell sentiment for a long time. He rewarded me with double fullbacks split out wide. Whatever Favre's carefully crafted media statements have said, I remember Wilson needing to tell Bevell that the read option was wide open in the 2012 Bears game, or Lynch flipping off the sidelines in one game and telling Wilson to take over in another. Between those, the weird play calls, and the bad play designs, I see a trickle of tiny little things building to a river.

There are times when the mob is right. They were right about Ruskell, and the fact that they called it impossibly early didn't make them wrong in the end. Of course Wilson is playing poorly in some ways this season, but he's always been one to seek new opportunities out, and Bevell has only JUST started to show the kind of adaptability - and I mean in the last seven days - that can protect Wilson.

If it makes you feel better to replace the word "Bevell" with "Carroll", then go ahead, because Bevell's tendencies seem to reflect Pete's philosophy. But losing Pete would be more damaging than losing Bevell. Yes, that's blatant scapegoat mentality. I don't care. Even if you can argue that Bevell is a decent play-caller and better than Greg Knapp, I think Wilson is a unique QB who needs better. Every team wants a guru. Wilson is the QB who could benefit most from one.

I simply do not see this offense reaching its maximum potential under Bevell. Fortunately for him, the number of other spurious factors - Wilson's poor play, the OL's poor play, the lack of receiving talent - are likely to keep him around.

 

[Siouxhawk]

I really don't make him out to be an "OC god " I just think he's the right fit for our organization. Those numbers will take care of themselves the second half of the season.

Evidently you don't read what we do then. Your talk of him borders on idolation. Who am I kidding, it is idolation. It wouldn't be so bad if you didn't try to defend him every. Single. Thread.

And just like every thread where there's the same 4 or 5 people ripping him. What's the difference? To be fair, you're only an antagonist in 75% of those threads.

To be fair, I did the same thing to Anthony! as well.

Yeah, where is Anthony! these days? His absence disturbs me.

 

[seahawks08]

I don't think Cable is going anywhere, he is revered as the best line coach to develop young players. The League recognizes the need for coaches very highly due to the talent that has been coming out from the college draft picks. Around NFL, the best Olines are the ones who have been together for a few years and understand their assignments very clearly and the schemes. We are put back a little bit due to the money spend on some deals this year that tilted talent around a little bit. I am sure they recognize this and hopefully will make some changes in the off season. Bevell has zero chance to be Titans head coach. I think based on all their hiring so long, they would want a seasoned head coach take the reigns and not a coordinator who might end up learning in their job.

 

[DavidSeven]

Numbers alone can't point out how often Seattle has scraped by on improvisational plays earned long after the play broke down. Those plays make up a disproportionate chunk of Wilson's record, and Bevell cannot take credit for that.

Your other points are valid, but I think you have to give the Bevell and Carroll a lot of credit for this. The scramble drill is schemed and coached as much as anything else in this offense. They have specific rules around it. After Wilson's rookie season, Bevell and Carroll said they set out to become the best scramble team in the NFL. They have succeeded in doing that by a wide margin. I've always contended that, since 2013, a lot of what they do is based on an idea of giving Russell space to run and our receivers space to improvise.

 

[hawknation2015]

Numbers alone can't point out how often Seattle has scraped by on improvisational plays earned long after the play broke down. Those plays make up a disproportionate chunk of Wilson's record, and Bevell cannot take credit for that.

Your other points are valid, but I think you have to give the Bevell and Carroll a lot of credit for this. The scramble drill is schemed and coached as much as anything else in this offense. They have specific rules around it. After Wilson's rookie season, Bevell and Carroll said they set out to become the best scramble team in the NFL. They have succeeded in doing that by a wide margin. I've always contended that, since 2013, a lot of what they do is based on an idea of giving Russell space to run and our receivers space to improvise.

Yet, it hasn't been much more effective than it was when Russell was a rookie.

 

[DavidSeven]

Numbers alone can't point out how often Seattle has scraped by on improvisational plays earned long after the play broke down. Those plays make up a disproportionate chunk of Wilson's record, and Bevell cannot take credit for that.

Your other points are valid, but I think you have to give the Bevell and Carroll a lot of credit for this. The scramble drill is schemed and coached as much as anything else in this offense. They have specific rules around it. After Wilson's rookie season, Bevell and Carroll said they set out to become the best scramble team in the NFL. They have succeeded in doing that by a wide margin. I've always contended that, since 2013, a lot of what they do is based on an idea of giving Russell space to run and our receivers space to improvise.

Yet, it hasn't been much more effective than it was when Russell was a rookie.

Russ rushed for 849 yards last season and the Seahawks were #1 in the NFL in explosive pass plays with a bunch of scrub receivers.

But yeah, totally not effective.

 

[hawknation2015]

Numbers alone can't point out how often Seattle has scraped by on improvisational plays earned long after the play broke down. Those plays make up a disproportionate chunk of Wilson's record, and Bevell cannot take credit for that.

Your other points are valid, but I think you have to give the Bevell and Carroll a lot of credit for this. The scramble drill is schemed and coached as much as anything else in this offense. They have specific rules around it. After Wilson's rookie season, Bevell and Carroll said they set out to become the best scramble team in the NFL. They have succeeded in doing that by a wide margin. I've always contended that, since 2013, a lot of what they do is based on an idea of giving Russell space to run and our receivers space to improvise.

Yet, it hasn't been much more effective than it was when Russell was a rookie.

Russ rushed for 849 yards last season and the Seahawks were #1 in the NFL in explosive pass plays with a bunch of scrub receivers.

But yeah, totally not effective.

Who said it wasn't effective? I wrote "it hasn't been much more effective than it was when Russell was a rookie."

My point was that it was already extremely effective when Russell was a rookie. He ran for 489 yards as a rookie and 539 yards in his 2nd year, after they supposedly implemented some schematic accompaniment to Russell's scrambling.

Meanwhile, Wilson's QB ratings has declined from 100.0 and 101.2 in his first two seasons to 95.0 over his 3rd and 4th seasons. We also averaged more points as an offense when Russell was a rookie than in Russell's 3rd and 4th years.

Tell me again how much better Bevell has made Russell.

 

[DavidSeven]

Who said it wasn't effective? I wrote "it hasn't been much more effective than it was when Russell was a rookie."

My point was that it was already extremely effective when Russell was a rookie. He ran for 489 yards as a rookie and 539 yards in his 2nd year, after they supposedly implemented some schematic accompaniment to Russell's scrambling.

Meanwhile, Wilson's QB ratings has declined from 100.0 and 101.2 in his first two seasons to 95.0 over his 3rd and 4th seasons.

Tell me again how much better Bevell has made Russell.

Running for 849 yards as a QB isn't "much more effective" than running for 489 yards? You're just making things up now.

Go look at how the other young QBs fared after the league figured out the read-option.

The fact that he's maintained consistency and even trended up in certain metrics puts him ahead of the game.

Kap and RG3 are on the verge of being booted out of the league. Ryan Tannehill and Andrew Luck are leading dumpster fires, largely because of their inconsistent play. Nick Foles is a shell of the guy we thought he was when first came on the scene.

But yeah, the only reason Russ is ahead of these guys is because he knows how to slide (*eyeroll*). Couldn't be the coaching at all.

 

[nanomoz]

One of the primary things separating Russ from a lot of other young, and perhaps more talented, QBs who came out since 2011 is the coaching. I really believe that. I think we would have found a way for Kap, RG3, and even Andrew Luck to be more successful than they have been on their current teams.

Just my opinion.

Wilson came into the league with most of his redeeming habits already present. He already knew when to slide and be content with a first down, and knew to slide feetfirst to avoid shots to the head. He already had the habit of keeping his eyes upfield when he scrambled. His mechanics were solid, his throwing on the run came from baseball, and he was built like a muscle hamster to help make him more durable than other scrambling QBs.

I would have to argue the opposite from you. I've seen disappointingly little development from Russell Wilson as a pure thrower. He's nowhere close to being a full-field reader; he's missing a lot of good matchups; he's struggling with blitzes; and this despite a primitive passing offense.

You could argue that a simplistic offense was better for a team with a lower talent threshold, and I acknowledge that any coordinator is limited by the talent at his fingertips (Bevell has very little in the WR corps).

But even then, you'd have a hard time convincing me that this team would be 53-27 with Tarvaris Jackson right now. You'd have to be able to give me a good explanation of Bevell's resume so far - stuff like play action on 4th and 14, deep sideline bombs to small receivers on 3rd and long, too often forgetting the presence of the best RB in the league - the little dozen boneheaded, inscrutable calls that happen every game. You'd also need to avoid both the "execution" argument, because bad scheme does make execution harder, and the "we're the fans and he's the coach" argument, because that went out the door with Greg Knapp. There are OC's in the NFL who are in over their head.

When there's a building narrative of players ignoring playcalls that stretches all the way back to the playcaller's last team, and an X-factor in the best QB in the business at salvaging broken plays, and a defense that consistently keeps the scoring bar remedially low, you really do need to convince me that Bevell is the reason for this team's not sucking. I personally don't think we're better than 7-9 without the natural-born improvisation of Russell Wilson. Hell, I think you take away one deep reception to Doug Baldwin from each SB year and we don't even make the big game. It was that close in each year.

And Bevell is going to need better than "not the primary problem" and "can occasionally call a good game" on his resume if he wants Tennessee to hire him. Unless they're really desperate, which I hope they are.

That was beautiful man. :thirishdrinkers:

Seriously. I got like emotional reading it. This is the straight dope.

 

[chet380]

...Bevell, whose play calling is universally disliked in Seattle.

If the "universe" is composed of you and the congregation of relentless Bevell-haters on this thread.

 

[hawknation2015]

...Bevell, whose play calling is universally disliked in Seattle.

If the "universe" is composed of you and the congregation of relentless Bevell-haters on this thread.

You really believe the criticisms of Bevell's play calling in Seattle are limited to a handful of people on this message board? LOL.

You need to get out more. :th2thumbs:

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

............If I can't criticize Bevell's play-calls, I can criticize his play designs. Third down formations with all verts and no hot routes, etc. Talk about exposing the OL. Or it's experimental and it's biting us in the ass. There is rumble from around the league that the remedial nature of Seattle's passing offense is starting to hurt them. We're entirely predictable out of certain formations. Cincinnati's DBs were running our WR's routes for them. Go back to the SB interception - the real problem wasn't the play-call itself, the problem was that Patriots players said it was one of only a handful of red-zone plays they'd seen on our film. Boots and bubbles, verts and rubs. We've scarcely seen anything other than that until last Sunday. Predictability makes execution harder.

I held out against the anti-Bevell sentiment for a long time. He rewarded me with double fullbacks split out wide. Whatever Favre's carefully crafted media statements have said, I remember Wilson needing to tell Bevell that the read option was wide open in the 2012 Bears game, or Lynch flipping off the sidelines in one game and telling Wilson to take over in another. Between those, the weird play calls, and the bad play designs, I see a trickle of tiny little things building to a river.

There are times when the mob is right. They were right about Ruskell, and the fact that they called it impossibly early didn't make them wrong in the end. Of course Wilson is playing poorly in some ways this season, but he's always been one to seek new opportunities out, and Bevell has only JUST started to show the kind of adaptability - and I mean in the last seven days - that can protect Wilson..............

The part of Montana's post is the part that bothers me the most about Bevell and his approach. I included the stuff about 2 FBs split out wide, and all verts on 3rd and 4 and that play in the SB and the other things because I feel they're valid as well. But by far the biggest issue I have with how things are done on offense is that since the Rams Monday night football game in '13, the book on stopping our offense by blitzing and immediately pressuring Russ is out yet we've seen little adaptability when it comes to dealing with blitzing until the game last Sunday. Many people here have begged for a rolling pocket and hot routes and the kind of things that slow pass rushes and beat blitzing. We saw little of that until FINALLY that stuff was utilized with nice results.

And before anyone comes back with the standard "we've made the last 2 Super Bowls" argument, we did so mostly on the back of a historically great defense and the legs of a once in a generation RB. That defense has slipped a bit and that RB is carrying the rock less and less and as a result, the team is going to have to have more production from its passing game. It hasn't happened yet and I have little faith that Bevell is the guy to make that happen. An example of why is seeing the Hawks trade for Graham, a red zone target that should be killing opponents yet the red zone offense has regressed from poor to horrid.



Oh, and I was one of the "leaders of the pack" when it came to terminating Timmmaaaaaay. Took a LOT of grief here for it too.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Those who discount the offense in our last two Super Bowl runs because we've had a mighty defense are being very short-sighted and unreasonable. The offense pulled its weight in the journey along the way. This isn't even debatable.
Blitz protection, in my estimation, has been hampered by the new role of Russ calling the pick-ups, and execution by a line that took a while to find itself with new players at three positions. Jimmy, who has been in on more snap counts than anyone aside from the line and Russell, was asked to do a little protecting himself just to save Russ from being blitzed to death. Putting Jimmy in just for pass plays would be a dead giveaway as to what was coming. I think that's why we've had a lot of 2 TE sets with Willson.
I also realize that the offense could've helped immensely by picking up a key first down or two in our earlier losses, but they did help build a lead into the fourth quarter and if the defense could've held firm and closed things out, even in 1 or 2 of those meltdowns, we could very well be 5-3 or even 6-2.
But I don't want to make this a defense thing at all. It's a team game and as I said earlier, both components (3 with special teams) have to be firing on all cylinders to make it into the Super Bowl. We've experienced that high level the last 2 years and I expect we're about to see the same thing unfold this season.

 

[hawknation2015]

Those who discount the offense in our last two Super Bowl runs because we've had a mighty defense are being very short-sighted and unreasonable. The offense pulled its weight in the journey along the way. This isn't even debatable.
Blitz protection, in my estimation, has been hampered by the new role of Russ calling the pick-ups, and execution by a line that took a while to find itself with new players at three positions. Jimmy, who has been in on more snap counts than anyone aside from the line and Russell, was asked to do a little protecting himself just to save Russ from being blitzed to death. Putting Jimmy in just for pass plays would be a dead giveaway as to what was coming. I think that's why we've had a lot of 2 TE sets with Willson.
I also realize that the offense could've helped immensely by picking up a key first down or two in our earlier losses, but they did help build a lead into the fourth quarter and if the defense could've held firm and closed things out, even in 1 or 2 of those meltdowns, we could very well be 5-3 or even 6-2.
But I don't want to make this a defense thing at all. It's a team game and as I said earlier, both components (3 with special teams) have to be firing on all cylinders to make it into the Super Bowl. We've experienced that high level the last 2 years and I expect we're about to see the same thing unfold this season.

For the most part, the offense has helped us win games in spite of Bevell, with Marshawn going off for a dozen broken tackles and/or Russell playing sandlot in the 4th Quarter.

 

[HawkGA]

To get away for a minute from the "will Bevell replace Carroll discussion," has a member of a staff ever been successfully elevated to the top job at that organization? The guy after Bill Walsh is probably the only example I can think of and he was dealt a pretty darn good hand to start with.

 

[hawknation2015]

To get away for a minute from the "will Bevell replace Carroll discussion," has a member of a staff ever been successfully elevated to the top job at that organization? The guy after Bill Walsh is probably the only example I can think of and he was dealt a pretty darn good hand to start with.

Yeah, it has happened before . . . typically with members of the coaching tree of an all-time great coach, ala DC George Seifert replacing Bill Walsh.

However, the idea that we would take an OC, whose play calling has been heavily scrutinized and who does not even represent the things that have been great about the Carroll Era -- i.e. the defense and running game -- makes zero sense, whatsoever.