Offense is killing the Defense

[Anthony!]

Every play that Russell has to make with help from his receivers in a "scramble drill" shows it's not the players that aren't doing their jobs right, it shows the person in charge designing and calling plays, isn't smart enough to use the pieces he has to work with, & is incapeable of accepting responsibility to fix it, since Bevell doesn't think it's his designs that are bad, he won't adjust as much as he needs to.
Next man up is the mantra the team preaches.

This is just completely wrong. This is the lazy "a failed play is the result of a bad call by the OC" nonsense that is trotted out every other post on this board.

Cris Collinsworth specifically mentioned something about this during the broadcast. He said (paraphrasing), "when I like at the tape, I often see Wilson's first and second reads open but he routinely displays a reluctance to throw it. He's almost overly-conservative and safe with the ball. This sometimes leads to him holding on to the ball too long..."

Let's look at a hypothetical example here:

Wilson drops back to pass. His primary read is open, but he hesitates to throw the ball (under the entire PC tenure we've preached ball safety, i.e. win the turnover battle / limit interceptions). After a few seconds, the protection starts to break down (linemen can only block so long). Wilson starts scrambling around, and starts embarrassing pass rushers with his amazing agility. The "scramble drill" that you mentioned kicks in, and he completes a pass to an open receiver.

Here's how you should look at this: the playcall was fine, Wilson's read was open. The pass blocking was fine, they gave him ample time to hit the first/second read. The scramble drill was unnecessary, but it worked out well anyway; Wilson is obviously comfortable with that style of play, so who cares, it worked out.

Here's how 99% of fans would evaluate that play: wow, what a terrible play call, Wilson had no one to throw to (wrong, his first read was open)! Wow, what terrible pass blocking, the line sucks so bad, they gave him no time to throw (wrong, he did get adequate pass blocking, he just held the ball for an unreasonable amount of time)! Wilson had no choice but to run for his life!

Playcalling is only half the battle. Actually executing the play as it was designed is on the players. Not every scramble drill is the result of a poor play call, often it's the result of Wilson being hesitant and resorting to something that he shouldn't have.

Obviously our line sucks, but there are many plays where we actually do provide adequate blocking and Wilson still holds it too long or takes off and runs outside the pocket. Sometimes Wilson shares the blame, it's not always on the OL/OC.

Wilson is very unique because he can turn a broken play into a positive gain -- not many QBs can do that. However, a broken play does not always mean a bad playcall, sometimes he just fails to execute as a conventional QB.

So much deflection good lord

got to protect the OC that says broken plays are past of the game plan lol

 

[JimmyG]

So much deflection good lord

It's not deflection, it's actually attempting to objectively look at what happens. But, by all means, please resort to the braindead "omg its all bevellz fault" arguments. I love seeing the shared delusion on this board. Just because everybody trots out the same lazy excuse and pats each other on the back doesn't make it true.

 

[JimmyG]

got to protect the OC that says broken plays are past of the game plan lol

I am far from a Bevell apologist. I just know that if he's fired and we bring in someone new, people are still going to cry about the new OC holding us back. Almost all fans complain about their OC.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Every play that Russell has to make with help from his receivers in a "scramble drill" shows it's not the players that aren't doing their jobs right, it shows the person in charge designing and calling plays, isn't smart enough to use the pieces he has to work with, & is incapeable of accepting responsibility to fix it, since Bevell doesn't think it's his designs that are bad, he won't adjust as much as he needs to.
Next man up is the mantra the team preaches.

This is just completely wrong. This is the lazy "a failed play is the result of a bad call by the OC" nonsense that is trotted out every other post on this board.

Cris Collinsworth specifically mentioned something about this during the broadcast. He said (paraphrasing), "when I like at the tape, I often see Wilson's first and second reads open but he routinely displays a reluctance to throw it. He's almost overly-conservative and safe with the ball. This sometimes leads to him holding on to the ball too long..."

Let's look at a hypothetical example here:

Wilson drops back to pass. His primary read is open, but he hesitates to throw the ball (under the entire PC tenure we've preached ball safety, i.e. win the turnover battle / limit interceptions). After a few seconds, the protection starts to break down (linemen can only block so long). Wilson starts scrambling around, and starts embarrassing pass rushers with his amazing agility. The "scramble drill" that you mentioned kicks in, and he completes a pass to an open receiver.

Here's how you should look at this: the playcall was fine, Wilson's read was open. The pass blocking was fine, they gave him ample time to hit the first/second read. The scramble drill was unnecessary, but it worked out well anyway; Wilson is obviously comfortable with that style of play, so who cares, it worked out.

Here's how 99% of fans would evaluate that play: wow, what a terrible play call, Wilson had no one to throw to (wrong, his first read was open)! Wow, what terrible pass blocking, the line sucks so bad, they gave him no time to throw (wrong, he did get adequate pass blocking, he just held the ball for an unreasonable amount of time)! Wilson had no choice but to run for his life!

Playcalling is only half the battle. Actually executing the play as it was designed is on the players. Not every scramble drill is the result of a poor play call, often it's the result of Wilson being hesitant and resorting to something that he shouldn't have.

Obviously our line sucks, but there are many plays where we actually do provide adequate blocking and Wilson still holds it too long or takes off and runs outside the pocket. Sometimes Wilson shares the blame, it's not always on the OL/OC.

Wilson is very unique because he can turn a broken play into a positive gain -- not many QBs can do that. However, a broken play does not always mean a bad playcall, sometimes he just fails to execute as a conventional QB.

This is a fantastic summation JimmyG. Our first and second reads we're open. We also had open underneath routes. Russ was passing them up to either go for the chunk play or the scramble. This happened a lot. But he also did complete many throws as the play was designed.

I think the biggest issue is Russ is gunshy from all the hits he's taken recently and bails at the first sign of trouble. He does that little head bob where it looks like he's preparing for a sack and then goes into scramble mode. He's the best at doing that and making a big play happen, but we don't know the results had he stepped up in the pocket to buy an extra second and throw to the open receiver.

It also helps when we are facing a 3rd-and-4 as opposed to a 3rd-and-14 because of yet another penalty. Your odds of succeeding are greatly diminished.

 

[Siouxhawk]

And yes, it's hard to take anything the Bevell bashers write with any seriousness anymore. They are beyond hope with their vitriol and offer anything of little substance, cherry picking stats that they think will support their lost narrative.

The fact of the matter is that Bev works with less than many of his peers given the vast imbalance of resources on our team between defense and offense. He also works within Pete's confined risk-adverse offense. And he makes it work. I only point out the obvious and I get slandered because it goes against the grain of the echo chamber of false assumptions. Or as JimmyG stated, lazy analysis because some people need a scapegoat. And that's even when we win. Which we have been doing at nearly at a 70 percent clip since Bevell's been aboard.

 

[cymatica]

And yes, it's hard to take anything the Bevell bashers write with any seriousness anymore. They are beyond hope with their vitriol and offer anything of little substance, cherry picking stats that they think will support their lost narrative

The fact of the matter is that Bev works with less than many of his peers given the vast imbalance of resources on our team between defense and offense. He also works within Pete's confined risk-adverse offense. And he makes it work. I only point out the obvious and I get slandered because it goes against the grain of the echo chamber of false assumptions. Or as JimmyG stated, lazy analysis because some people need a scapegoat. And that's even when we win. Which we have been doing at nearly at a 70 percent clip since Bevell's been aboard.

Funny that's all you do in support of Bevell.

"We have the screen in our playbook, we just never run it for whatever reason." that was Wilson(paraphrasing) after the Texans game I think. I don't buy the "our oline cant run a screen excuse." The playcaller needs to find a way to incorporate common sense plays into the gameplan.

 

[Siouxhawk]

And yes, it's hard to take anything the Bevell bashers write with any seriousness anymore. They are beyond hope with their vitriol and offer anything of little substance, cherry picking stats that they think will support their lost narrative

The fact of the matter is that Bev works with less than many of his peers given the vast imbalance of resources on our team between defense and offense. He also works within Pete's confined risk-adverse offense. And he makes it work. I only point out the obvious and I get slandered because it goes against the grain of the echo chamber of false assumptions. Or as JimmyG stated, lazy analysis because some people need a scapegoat. And that's even when we win. Which we have been doing at nearly at a 70 percent clip since Bevell's been aboard.

Funny that's all you do in support of Bevell.

"We have the screen in our playbook, we just never run it for whatever reason." that was Wilson(paraphrasing) after the Texans game I think. I don't buy the "our oline cant run a screen excuse." The playcaller needs to find a way to incorporate common sense plays into the gameplan.

He does all the time. If you can't see it, it's on you.

 

[cymatica]

And yes, it's hard to take anything the Bevell bashers write with any seriousness anymore. They are beyond hope with their vitriol and offer anything of little substance, cherry picking stats that they think will support their lost narrative

The fact of the matter is that Bev works with less than many of his peers given the vast imbalance of resources on our team between defense and offense. He also works within Pete's confined risk-adverse offense. And he makes it work. I only point out the obvious and I get slandered because it goes against the grain of the echo chamber of false assumptions. Or as JimmyG stated, lazy analysis because some people need a scapegoat. And that's even when we win. Which we have been doing at nearly at a 70 percent clip since Bevell's been aboard.

Funny that's all you do in support of Bevell.

"We have the screen in our playbook, we just never run it for whatever reason." that was Wilson(paraphrasing) after the Texans game I think. I don't buy the "our oline cant run a screen excuse." The playcaller needs to find a way to incorporate common sense plays into the gameplan.

He does all the time. If you can't see it, it's on you.

Hb screen? No you are flat out wrong. Wilson even said himself they hardly ever run it.

 

[Siouxhawk]

And yes, it's hard to take anything the Bevell bashers write with any seriousness anymore. They are beyond hope with their vitriol and offer anything of little substance, cherry picking stats that they think will support their lost narrative

The fact of the matter is that Bev works with less than many of his peers given the vast imbalance of resources on our team between defense and offense. He also works within Pete's confined risk-adverse offense. And he makes it work. I only point out the obvious and I get slandered because it goes against the grain of the echo chamber of false assumptions. Or as JimmyG stated, lazy analysis because some people need a scapegoat. And that's even when we win. Which we have been doing at nearly at a 70 percent clip since Bevell's been aboard.

Funny that's all you do in support of Bevell.

"We have the screen in our playbook, we just never run it for whatever reason." that was Wilson(paraphrasing) after the Texans game I think. I don't buy the "our oline cant run a screen excuse." The playcaller needs to find a way to incorporate common sense plays into the gameplan.

He does all the time. If you can't see it, it's on you.

Hb screen? No you are flat out wrong. Wilson even said himself they hardly ever run it.

Rawls or McKissick gained about 4 on a hb screen Thursday. We countered their pressure game well enough. On those screens, you still need blocking to engage and release. Problem is, our line can't even get that initial engage, so defenders are blowing up the play before it can happen.

 

[cymatica]

Funny that's all you do in support of Bevell.

"We have the screen in our playbook, we just never run it for whatever reason." that was Wilson(paraphrasing) after the Texans game I think. I don't buy the "our oline cant run a screen excuse." The playcaller needs to find a way to incorporate common sense plays into the gameplan.

He does all the time. If you can't see it, it's on you.

Hb screen? No you are flat out wrong. Wilson even said himself they hardly ever run it.

Rawls or McKissick gained about 4 on a hb screen Thursday. We countered their pressure game well enough. On those screens, you still need blocking to engage and release. Problem is, our line can't even get that initial engage, so defenders are blowing up the play before it can happen.

Cool where were those in the greenbay game? How many we run all season?

I wasn't refering to the az game either but i find it funny you think running 1 hb screen last game refutes the fact that we pretty much never ran that play, all season when it would have helped.

 

[Siouxhawk]

He does all the time. If you can't see it, it's on you.

Hb screen? No you are flat out wrong. Wilson even said himself they hardly ever run it.

Rawls or McKissick gained about 4 on a hb screen Thursday. We countered their pressure game well enough. On those screens, you still need blocking to engage and release. Problem is, our line can't even get that initial engage, so defenders are blowing up the play before it can happen.

Cool where were those in the greenbay game? How many we run all season?

I wasn't refering to the az game either but i find it funny you think running 1 hb screen last game refutes the fact that we pretty much never ran that play, all season when it would have helped.

Well, we've won 6 of 8 since, so obviously we're tracking in the right direction. Seems like we had a ton of pressure against the Packers and we tried to get our run game going, to no avail. We've had 3 big line changes since then and that's part of the adjustment process.

 

[chris98251]

Hb screen? No you are flat out wrong. Wilson even said himself they hardly ever run it.

Rawls or McKissick gained about 4 on a hb screen Thursday. We countered their pressure game well enough. On those screens, you still need blocking to engage and release. Problem is, our line can't even get that initial engage, so defenders are blowing up the play before it can happen.

Cool where were those in the greenbay game? How many we run all season?

I wasn't refering to the az game either but i find it funny you think running 1 hb screen last game refutes the fact that we pretty much never ran that play, all season when it would have helped.

Well, we've won 6 of 8 since, so obviously we're tracking in the right direction. Seems like we had a ton of pressure against the Packers and we tried to get our run game going, to no avail. We've had 3 big line changes since then and that's part of the adjustment process.

You didn't answer his question, We don't run the HB screen, one time every dozen games is not running it.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Rawls or McKissick gained about 4 on a hb screen Thursday. We countered their pressure game well enough. On those screens, you still need blocking to engage and release. Problem is, our line can't even get that initial engage, so defenders are blowing up the play before it can happen.

Cool where were those in the greenbay game? How many we run all season?

I wasn't refering to the az game either but i find it funny you think running 1 hb screen last game refutes the fact that we pretty much never ran that play, all season when it would have helped.

Well, we've won 6 of 8 since, so obviously we're tracking in the right direction. Seems like we had a ton of pressure against the Packers and we tried to get our run game going, to no avail. We've had 3 big line changes since then and that's part of the adjustment process.

You didn't answer his question, We don't run the HB screen, one time every dozen games is not running it.

Why do you think the hb screen is such a panacea? Perhaps it is dictated by the defense we are playing and our own personnel -- as I said, can our line engage well enough to give the play time to set up? At this point Id say no. We have other short to medium routes we can use to neutralize pressure, as we displayed Thursday.

 

[cymatica]

Cool where were those in the greenbay game? How many we run all season?

I wasn't refering to the az game either but i find it funny you think running 1 hb screen last game refutes the fact that we pretty much never ran that play, all season when it would have helped.

Well, we've won 6 of 8 since, so obviously we're tracking in the right direction. Seems like we had a ton of pressure against the Packers and we tried to get our run game going, to no avail. We've had 3 big line changes since then and that's part of the adjustment process.

You didn't answer his question, We don't run the HB screen, one time every dozen games is not running it.

Why do you think the hb screen is such a panacea? Perhaps it is dictated by the defense we are playing and our own personnel -- as I said, can our line engage well enough to give the play time to set up? At this point Id say no. We have other short to medium routes we can use to neutralize pressure, as we displayed Thursday.

Yes sometimes we see those routes....finally.

On the hb screen, again, Wilson already alluded to it. The few screens we ran the oline looked fine so i don't buy that argument. They have the play ready, just don't call it.

Your obsession with defending Bevell at all costs is weird. Perhaps he is not perfect. Perhaps he has some responsibility for the slow starts on offense. And you cannot argue that 3 and out on your first drive, all the time, is a good thing.

 

[chris98251]

Cool where were those in the greenbay game? How many we run all season?

I wasn't refering to the az game either but i find it funny you think running 1 hb screen last game refutes the fact that we pretty much never ran that play, all season when it would have helped.

Well, we've won 6 of 8 since, so obviously we're tracking in the right direction. Seems like we had a ton of pressure against the Packers and we tried to get our run game going, to no avail. We've had 3 big line changes since then and that's part of the adjustment process.

You didn't answer his question, We don't run the HB screen, one time every dozen games is not running it.

Why do you think the hb screen is such a panacea? Perhaps it is dictated by the defense we are playing and our own personnel -- as I said, can our line engage well enough to give the play time to set up? At this point Id say no. We have other short to medium routes we can use to neutralize pressure, as we displayed Thursday.

Any HB that can catch the ball can run it, in fact Micky K and Prosise are perfect for it, the misdirection and fake are what makes them work as well as a TE and FB or blocker that can pull and lead.

We don't have a FB at the moment but Reese was ideal, we still didn't run it, Graham or Vannett would also be very good as well as Pocic or another of our by Cable and Petes own word are very Atheletic guys.