Offense strategy is offensive

[pehawk]

I don't know. What I saw a few times in the Dallas game was a gassed defense, going right back on the field, after a quick 3 and out. A three and out constituting 3 minutes is better than one that took 50 seconds.

I know you're a Bevell flag waver, but, I'd like to see him, just once, understand the situation and adjust. I'm luke-warm on him as an OC in general, but on game day he is the WORST.

 

[Cartire]

I don't know. What I saw a few times in the Dallas game was a gassed defense, going right back on the field, after a quick 3 and out. A three and out constituting 3 minutes is better than one that took 50 seconds.

I know you're a Bevell flag waver, but, I'd like to see him, just once, understand the situation and adjust. I'm luke-warm on him as an OC in general, but on game day he is the WORST.

I dont know why you have to label everyone as one extreme or the other, while simultaneously giving yourself a middle ground option.

Ive stated I dont think Bevell is the best OC, but Ive said hes not the worst.

But people really believe its only the play calling, and not the execution. The plays are called based on defensive schemes and tendencies. The correct plays are called far more often then they are not. But the execution fails. A missed block, a bad route, a poor throw, a pass dropped, a player slipping, or even, a better athlete on the other side winning his battle. Those things happen far more often then the wrong play being called.

 

[pehawk]

I don't know. What I saw a few times in the Dallas game was a gassed defense, going right back on the field, after a quick 3 and out. A three and out constituting 3 minutes is better than one that took 50 seconds.

I know you're a Bevell flag waver, but, I'd like to see him, just once, understand the situation and adjust. I'm luke-warm on him as an OC in general, but on game day he is the WORST.

I dont know why you have to label everyone as one extreme or the other, while simultaneously giving yourself a middle ground option.

Ive stated I dont think Bevell is the best OC, but Ive said hes not the worst.

But people really believe its only the play calling, and not the execution. The plays are called based on defensive schemes and tendencies. The correct plays are called far more often then they are not. But the execution fails. A missed block, a bad route, a poor throw, a pass dropped, a player slipping, or even, a better athlete on the other side winning his battle. Those things happen far more often then the wrong play being called.

I was giving you shit Francis, lighten up.

My gripe is well before players have a chance to fail at execution. Bevell just cant adjust in game, at all. It's just not something he does.

Last night the Giants decided to just blitz Luck. What did Pep do? He countered by adjusting the routes and pace. That's not something we've ever seen Bevell do. It's pretty bad, man.

 

[Cartire]

I don't know. What I saw a few times in the Dallas game was a gassed defense, going right back on the field, after a quick 3 and out. A three and out constituting 3 minutes is better than one that took 50 seconds.

I know you're a Bevell flag waver, but, I'd like to see him, just once, understand the situation and adjust. I'm luke-warm on him as an OC in general, but on game day he is the WORST.

I dont know why you have to label everyone as one extreme or the other, while simultaneously giving yourself a middle ground option.

Ive stated I dont think Bevell is the best OC, but Ive said hes not the worst.

But people really believe its only the play calling, and not the execution. The plays are called based on defensive schemes and tendencies. The correct plays are called far more often then they are not. But the execution fails. A missed block, a bad route, a poor throw, a pass dropped, a player slipping, or even, a better athlete on the other side winning his battle. Those things happen far more often then the wrong play being called.

I was giving you shit Francis, lighten up.

My gripe is well before players have a chance to fail at execution. Bevell just cant adjust in game, at all. It's just not something he does.

Last night the Giants decided to just blitz Luck. What did Pep do? He countered by adjusting the routes and pace. That's not something we've ever seen Bevell do. It's pretty bad, man.

If i recall correctly, we used to pride ourselves all last year on our "second half adjustments".

 

[pehawk]

That's fair.

 

[scutterhawk]

I don't know if it's Wilson, the offensive line or play calling.

Really.

 

[scutterhawk]

Yep, because Wilson's 4 horrible throws and Willsons 3 horrible drops are Bevells fault.

And the 1.2 seconds of pocket before its collapsed.

Can people seriously learn something new to complain about. You're doing it wrong.

LOL! I'm not blaming Bevell for the poor line play, but I am just not seeing plays that put our receivers in positions where they are open as much as other teams do. I watch football all day on Sunday, and it just *seems* like other offenses are more imaginative and put their receivers in better situations to achieve separation and make plays.

I think the words that have escaped you, are "Anemic", and "Fragile".
I can almost see Bevel's playbook now....."Okay Russ, we don't got Percy no more, so, go out there and run around until you see someone wearing a Seahawks uniform waving his hands, and just toss it to him". LOL

 

[gulliver]

Uhhh, Its still a lead thing. If we had a comfortable lead, IE GB, WAS, and even DEN, we run more so that we can run the clock as well.

Leading through the first qtr of one game is still playing from behind for 3 qtrs. Neck and Neck is not a comfortable lead.

Oakland we ran 38 times to passing 35 times. So.... what are you talking about again?

So really were 4-0 in games where we rushed more then we passed. Teams run more when they have a lead and are trying to milk time. Teams pass more when they are needing to score faster.

So you're saying these games in which we were either leading, tied, or trailing by less than a TD, the game was already so out of control that we had *no choice* other than to throw out the balanced game plan and start airing it out?

There are bigger Bevell fans on this board than I, but even I give him more credit than that.

If you're an OC and you're THAT spastic--that you completely lose your cool unless you're up by 20+ points--you're not coaching in the NFL.

So answer the question. Do you think we would have won one of those three losses if we ran more?

Sure, given that we lost those games by an average of 6 points, I think it's better than a coin toss that we can pick up ONE extra score--thereby picking up 1 or 2 of those games--by changing our game plan to favor our strengths rather than trying to make something out of nothing with our incompetent pass pro. Definition of insanity, etc.

Are you saying you're looking into your crystal ball and you know we wouldn't have picked ANY additional scores (and therefore a win or two) by relying on our strength rather than our weakness? Because I'd like to chat about stocks.

Also, while you correctly amend my argument to reflect that the win against Oakland was slightly run-heavy and we in fact are 4-0 (!) when rushing more and 1-3 when passing more--and then you demand to know what my point is! My friend, you just helped prove it!

Further, you claim in your post below this one that you don't know why people have to be labeled one extreme or the other, and in the very next paragraph you accuse us of thinking it "only comes down to playcalling". In fact, nobody is really in that camp--that's a complete straw man--and indeed, the very first sentence I typed in this thread was, "...the truth is somewhere in between." That's called moderation.

 

[Cartire]

Uhhh, Its still a lead thing. If we had a comfortable lead, IE GB, WAS, and even DEN, we run more so that we can run the clock as well.

Leading through the first qtr of one game is still playing from behind for 3 qtrs. Neck and Neck is not a comfortable lead.

Oakland we ran 38 times to passing 35 times. So.... what are you talking about again?

So really were 4-0 in games where we rushed more then we passed. Teams run more when they have a lead and are trying to milk time. Teams pass more when they are needing to score faster.

So you're saying these games in which we were either leading, tied, or trailing by less than a TD, the game was already so out of control that we had *no choice* other than to throw out the balanced game plan and start airing it out?

There are bigger Bevell fans on this board than I, but even I give him more credit than that.

If you're an OC and you're THAT spastic--that you completely lose your cool unless you're up by 20+ points--you're not coaching in the NFL.

So answer the question. Do you think we would have won one of those three losses if we ran more?

Sure, given that we lost those games by an average of 6 points, I think it's better than a coin toss that we can pick up ONE extra score--thereby picking up 1 or 2 of those games--by changing our game plan to favor our strengths rather than trying to make something out of nothing with our incompetent pass pro. Definition of insanity, etc.

Are you saying you're looking into your crystal ball and you know we wouldn't have picked ANY additional scores (and therefore a win or two) by relying on our strength rather than our weakness? Because I'd like to chat about stocks.

Also, while you correctly amend my argument to reflect that the win against Oakland was slightly run-heavy and we in fact are 4-0 (!) when rushing more and 1-3 when passing more--and then you demand to know what my point is! My friend, you just helped prove it!

Further, you claim in your post below this one that you don't know why people have to be labeled one extreme or the other, and in the very next paragraph you accuse us of thinking it "only comes down to playcalling". In fact, nobody is really in that camp--that's a complete straw man--and indeed, the very first sentence I typed in this thread was, "...the truth is somewhere in between." That's called moderation.

Not gonna comment on all of it. But your entire camp for this whole 2nd page has been rush vs pass playcalls. So yea, i think im pretty on the line of saying, you think it only comes down to playcalling. Pretty spot on actually.

And once again, you are correlating. You are stating im helping your point, but im pointing out that when we have a lead, we will run it more, and vice versa. This is pretty common knowledge. Notice how runs increase in the last quarter when were winning and they decrease if were losing? Check the play-by-play in the 4th quarters of all our games. Then, for fun, do it with any random assortment of games for other teams.

In fact, check out the balance we do have through the first 3 quarters of all the losses. Pretty split down the middle. Only starts to change in the 4th.

 

[hawkfan68]

Agreed about the Colts, that Offensive coordinator truly understands passing the ball... noticed it last year when the Colts whooped us... possibly the best offensive performance against our secondary from 2012-2013 if i remember correctly... some of those plays were just beautifully drawn up nearly indefensible. There is a reason Luck leads the league in passing yards and it's not because he's the best passer, that Offensive coordinator knows how to get yards and get guys open.

And for the Seahawks Offense? We are pretty much the opposite of the Colts with our passing game. Our guys never seem to get open on a typical play, Wilson has an absurd amount of throw aways and he is often forced to place the ball where his receiver has like a 5% chance to make a play because the route is so bad and the defense reads it so incredibly easy.

What really bothers me is that we never seem to run the same plays that work. Like you see a back shoulder throw to Baldwin for about 10-12 yards, Baldwin can stop on a dime and box out a defender no problem and his speed is enough that the defender can't smother him or he'll get burned. This kind of play seems like it should be the bread and butter for Baldwin, I don't think I remember it ever not working even... but yet we run it maybe a few times a season...

It's almost like Bevell wants to be so creative and unpredictable with these unique formations and routes that he ignores the high percentage plays.

We very rarely run slants like the one we saw Luke Willson do VS. the raiders, even though that is also an extremely high percentage play just like the Baldwin back shoulder throws on the edge.

We have neglected our Offensive Line to such a degree that Wilson's height really is a factor because the defense bursts right through the middle or around the edges on NEARLY EVERY PLAY! Drew Brees has the most career yards per game (passing + rushing) compared to Manning, Luck, Brady, Aaron Rodgers, ETC... And DREW BREES IS 6'0'' TALL and WAY LESS ATHLETIC THAN WILSON... There is no reason Wilson couldn't put up big numbers when he's at his best I think he's clearly a top 5 QB in the league despite lack of offensive talent.

So I mainly blame our Offensive Line and Bevell's play calling. Bevell is like right on the verge of being a great offensive coordinator, he just can't get it together. He seems to have the knowledge and capability/creativity to call a great game he just seriously lacks common sense and adjusting to the defense, going for high probability plays, etc.

And there's just no dang excuse that we lost Tate, he was the one receiver we had that could really compensate for our terrible Offensive Line, and our terrible passing routes. Tate had the ability to come up with the ball or get open on broken plays no matter what the circumstances happened to be, he consistently had the best numbers on our team in the games where Wilson was under the most pressure. Tate was very under rated on our team because Bevell used him so terribly, that's the only reason... myself and at least a few others knew Tate was an elite NFL talent and we were devastated when we lost him... We could very easily be 7-1 right now if we had kept Tate, so many 3 and outs and broken plays where nobody stepped up like Tate did for Wilson's whole career

Pep Hamilton is the OC with the Colts....he was with Andrew Luck at Stanford. So they've together 6-7 years. That helps. Fleener also at Stanford with them too. With that said, the Colts offense is seemingly much better than the Seahawks currently. However, Wilson and Bevell have SB rings....Hamilton and Luck don't.

 

[m0ng0]

Bevell was good enough at calling plays to win a super bowl last year right? If Pete is good with Bevells play calls then so am I.

 

[justafan]

Wilson isnt the type of QB like Manning or Luck and stand in the pocket hitting his progressions.He is going to drop back bail out scramble to make plays outside the pocket.Thats how he is and it's good enough to win a Super Bowl but if ypu want a smooth efficient offense with 3 and 5 step drops throwing well run timing routes it's probably not going to happen as consistently as other QBs.

He also doesn't have the weapons or the line right now other QBs are playing with.People can talk about how talented we are but its not on the offensive side of the ball.I love Baldwin but no other WR on the team is blowing anyone away.This line we have right now is well below average.They will get healthy and improve but right now they are struggling.

I think the playcalling will start leaning on the run game more.I expect Lynch to see more than his fair share of touches the rest of the season.Wilson will play sandlot ball and we will win more than we lose.

 

[chris98251]

My take, Bevell is forcing things, he force fed Harvin to the point the rest of the offense was almost non existent, he is forcing plays now that maybe work when we have our starters inm but with all the replacements the timing and speed as well as skill needed isn't there.

I think his biggest failure is recognising along with Cable in preparation that they have to adjust to what we have on the field.

As I stated in other threads we are tipping plays also or he is so predictable in certain formations that the defense can get a jump start on some plays before the ball is snapped, ie the bubble screen.

Adjustments in play calling as well as getting out of a pattern is what is needed, Holmgren used to say that he needed his coaches to wake him up sometimes because he would fall in love with plays sometimes and call them in a given situation so often that everyone knew what was coming, I think Bevell has fallen into that kind of situation as well. Change personal, change the look of the formation, little things that can make a defense think.

Start making things easier to execute for the replacements, if they were as good as the starters they most likely would be on someone elses team starting, or at least a substantial player.

 

[jammerhawk]

The OLine is a hot steaming mess, and we get a another farging 'Bevell sucks' thread. Really?

Perhaps the focus should be elsewhere. Last season they won with a screwed up OLine and thankfully some of our troops are returning.

Expectations around here are occasionally genuinely out of sinc with reality.

 

[dontbelikethat]

Does "Team Sarc83" come with t-shirts?

How about this way of thinking...

Do people actually think that the reason we lost 3 games was because we didnt run enough?

St. Louis was purely special teams failure for that loss.
S.D. we barely ran, but we also barely had the ball. Running more would hardly have improved out performance on defense.
Cowboys is the only game where we could have run a tad more I guess. But running doesnt help our Defense stop a 3rd and 19 from converting.

The issue isnt us running enough.

Correlation =/= Causation

On the contrary though, I put those loses on that crappy gadget offense they were running with Harvin and those defensive/ST meltdowns (Rams game). I think even if they did run more, with that crap offensive philosophy, it wouldn't have done much. Now if they switched back to the Seahawk offense that they're running now, I think it's a different story. You could blame it on individual play calling, but I would say it's really more on offensive philosophy.

Also even though Lynch has good average YPC, seems like he gets stuffed sooo often for a loss or for minimal gain (not saying it's his fault though). It's been pretty noticeable to me and also gotta factor in penalties which make it hard to run when you're always trying to go from 1st & 15,etc. Gotta look at the in game situations instead of just labeling it so black and white, because as said early, correlation does not always equal causation.