Only 8 offensive coordinators have had their job +2 years

[JSeahawks]

Good enough not to be fired.
Not good enough to get hired away.

Not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing. I'm content with bevell but also believe there are a ton of guys who could do just as well. Russell Wilson is way more important to the offense then bevell is (or his replacement would be.)

This is such an odd thing to say when someone just posted about 24 teams changing coordinators (some more then once) within the last 2 years. I can think of some, but they are already either on successful programs or retired.

To me, it's all about the quarterback. Every coach and coordinator in this league (except for maybe one hired by Jed York) has a very bright football mind. They're not going to get to that position if they don't. I would bet that 95% of those oc's who didn't make it past year 2 would have if they'd had a Brady, roethlessberger, Wilson etc.

Coaches with good qbs look good, coaches with bad qb's look bad.

 

[Cartire]

Good enough not to be fired.
Not good enough to get hired away.

Not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing. I'm content with bevell but also believe there are a ton of guys who could do just as well. Russell Wilson is way more important to the offense then bevell is (or his replacement would be.)

This is such an odd thing to say when someone just posted about 24 teams changing coordinators (some more then once) within the last 2 years. I can think of some, but they are already either on successful programs or retired.

To me, it's all about the quarterback. Every coach and coordinator in this league (except for maybe one hired by Jed York) has a very bright football mind. They're not going to get to that position if they don't. I would bet that 95% of those oc's who didn't make it past year 2 would have if they'd had a Brady, roethlessberger, Wilson etc.

Coaches with good qbs look good, coaches with bad qb's look bad.

I agree with this.

 

[Seymour]

It seems to me like a long-tenured OC would be uncommon, simply for the fact that most either get fired or hired as a head coach somewhere else. You have to be good but not great to stay in that position for a long time. So the fact that only 8 have 2+ years tenure on their team makes sense to me.

And there is the dilemma. We have a OC that cannot get fired (Pete called the pass), and he cannot get hired. Bevell can have some slack for a while but I'm just tired of the length of time and grueling pain required for obvious change. I also consider him partially responsible for Percy since he had him in Minnesota and should have known he was a wing nut.

 

[DavidSeven]

Good enough not to be fired.
Not good enough to get hired away.

Not sure if that's a good thing or bad thing. I'm content with bevell but also believe there are a ton of guys who could do just as well. Russell Wilson is way more important to the offense then bevell is (or his replacement would be.)

This is such an odd thing to say when someone just posted about 24 teams changing coordinators (some more then once) within the last 2 years. I can think of some, but they are already either on successful programs or retired.

To me, it's all about the quarterback. Every coach and coordinator in this league (except for maybe one hired by Jed York) has a very bright football mind. They're not going to get to that position if they don't. I would bet that 95% of those oc's who didn't make it past year 2 would have if they'd had a Brady, roethlessberger, Wilson etc.

Coaches with good qbs look good, coaches with bad qb's look bad.

OC gets no credit for helping the young QB to be successful? Listen to Pete's press conference today, he said it would be ANOTHER THREE YEARS before Wilson really understands how to make the right line calls. That only comes from reps, and seeing all kinds of defenses and all kinds of blitz techniques. No coincidence that most elite QBs make a huge jump in year 7, almost without fail.

Our coaches have protected him from making a ton of mistakes these past four years. You cannot compare coaching Russell to coaching Brady or Ben; those guys are self-sufficient at this point. They can run an offense themselves and are given the leeway to do so. That wasn't true when they were younger, and it isn't true of Wilson now.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

You two are officially in contrarian mode.

 

[Recon_Hawk]

Seems many are in the mode that they know better than the head coach. That he's too "loyal" to a fault..yet he's one of the most successful coaches the last ten years. Yep that's it. Damn pete could have more championships if he only knew better than to stubbornly stick to those coordinators who won him only a few.

 

[SomersetHawk]

It's called having an opinion, and it's why football forums are fun places, for the most part. I fully expect Doug to make those kinds of comments, nothing surprises me about them, good pros blame failures on execution.

I hope our offense can sustain this level of play, it's been fun to see us evolve like this, and Bevell deserves credit; just like he'd previously deserved criticism.

 

[NOLAHawk]

If the Saints clean house as expected this offseason, it would make Bevell the longest tenured OC in the NFL alongside Carolina's OC.

The insane turnover at OC isn't really an endorsement of Bevell's performance since almost any coach other than Pete would have fired Bevell after the SB, but I think it's interesting to put into context just how hard it is to hold an OC job in this league.

Carmichael is Payton's tool. Like vitt he is there to undermine anyone else's input

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Bevell isnt still here because he is competent, he is here because Pete overly values continuity and we have had more DC/coach losses so that has meant sticking with failures (Cable and Bevell) on offense.

Bevell leaving for BYU would be a blessing for the Hawks. Our offense needs to be shaken up

What kind of ridiculous logic is this?

Pete Carroll, the best coach this team has ever had and the only one to deliver a Super Bowl title, is deliberately sabotaging his team because he'll "stick with failures" in the name of continuity?

Did you think before you wrote that?

 

[canfan]

How many of those O-coordinators had the luxury of a top 5 defense every year? Just one I'm aware of, and a HUGE advantage.

I went back to 2012 when RW came in rather than 2011, and you are correct. Including this year Seattle has never been worse than #3 in scoring defense. The only team matching Seattle for consistent D play over that span is New England who are a consistent top 10 defense right across the board. I thought Carolina would be there Carolina has been dominant but dropped a long way in 2014 when Cam was injured as their offense couldn't help them out much with TOP.

Now for the part you don't want to hear. During that same period, only 2 teams registered in the top 10 in scoring offense each and every year. They were New England and Seattle, with New England in the top 5 in scoring offense every year (never finishing lower than #4), and Seattle consistently placing between 8th and 10th in scoring offense. New England's offense was obviously being held back by unimaginative play calling on the defense and the only solution would be to fire the defensive coordinator. I mean, he is the only guy on the list to have the luxury of a top 5 offense every year right?

(One correction - I should have included New Orleans in the teams finishing in top 10 scoring offense every year - I thought they missed in 2013, but they were #10)

Orrr....you went back to 2012 because 2011 does not support your point, 26th in offense.

Putting Russell in there only also helps support the apologists side since he can improvise poor play calling with his legs.

I went back to 2012 because the team was significantly different with TJack under center...a QB who had ZERO 4th 1/4 game winning drives and whose most productive receiver was a rookie undrafted free agent. 2011 was also the strike year and Bevell's first season with the team. There were no mini camps and no ability to install the offense prior to the start of the year. The Seahawks had just moved on from their veteran QB and coming into camp the ONLY player who even knew the terminology, let alone the plays was TJack. I am not an apologist for Bevell - I think he is a good designer of offense but does not call a good game. In other words he is a decent strategist and a poor tactician. I was merely pointing out that your whole premise of correlating the defensive performance of the team to whether or not Bevell has a job is a red herring. He has consistently produced a top 10 offense and that is why Pete keeps him around. With the injuries that occur during the course of a year, the personnel changes that occur and the ebb and flow of the games, its incredibly hard to to remain in the top 1/3 of the league in either offense or defense as is demonstrated by how few teams achieve that level of consistency. Bevell may be far from perfect, but he and Wilson know each other well and Wilson is comfortable in this system. Ask Matt Ryan how much he is enjoying trading in his "stale" OC Dirk Koetter for the genius of Kyle Shanahan. The transition from one OC to another is not always seamless.

 

[JesterHawk]

Bevell isnt still here because he is competent, he is here because Pete overly values continuity and we have had more DC/coach losses so that has meant sticking with failures (Cable and Bevell) on offense.

Bevell leaving for BYU would be a blessing for the Hawks. Our offense needs to be shaken up

Yeah, Russell Wilson would probably be miles ahead in his advancement if we'd only changed Offensive Coordinators every year.

XOXO Jason Campbell

 

[Seymour]

..... I was merely pointing out that your whole premise of correlating the defensive performance of the team to whether or not Bevell has a job is a red herring......

What I said was, Bevell has had the luxury of a top 5 defense, and that is a huge advantage.

I did not say that was the main or only reason Bevell still had a job. I'm saying it helps him cover deficiencies and makes them more tolerable. It helps him, it does not "save him". Bottom line here is Pete still likes Bevell enough to keep him. He knows what he has with him, and with other coaching losses and overall team success he'll likely just stick with him. That just means people like me will need to vent frustration from time to time when we are forced to watch futility on offense when we know we have a MUCH better team then we are seeing.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Seymour and co know more than Pete Carroll, who is an incompetent bafoon only sticking with this offensive coordinator because he either over values consistency or because too many other coaching changes have occurred. They know the Seahawks could and would be better if only Carroll pulled the trigger. Which he's unwilling to do, thus sabotaging his own team and his legacy.

If only Carroll would listen.

:th2thumbs:

Deary me.

 

[AgentDib]

My problem with the Carroll Loyalty argument in particular is how uninformed it is when you look at Carroll's overall tenure here. It was a serious concern for many when he was first hired and that concern was promptly squashed by the dozens of moves Carroll made where demonstrated he would prioritize performance.

Perhaps they are just easily forgotten or some posters weren't following quite as closely at the beginning of the Carroll era. Taylor Mays, Lendale White, Jeremy Bates, Allen Bradford, Shareece Wright, Kevin Thomas are just a couple of names worth googling if you don't understand why they are relevant here.

 

[Seymour]

Seymour and co know more than Pete Carroll, who is an incompetent bafoon,,,,,

Wow. That is your interpretation of my point being made? Clearly it is useless to attempt a civil discussion on this topic with you. I do appreciate the warning.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Seymour and co know more than Pete Carroll, who is an incompetent bafoon,,,,,

Wow. That is your interpretation of my point being made? Clearly it is useless to attempt a civil discussion on this topic with you. I do appreciate the warning.

Your response is just a not-so-clever way of side-stepping the point I made, latching onto one sentence with a melodramatic tone to try and avoid the kind of civilised response you supposedly crave.

You implied that Carroll is sticking with Bevell because too many other coaches have departed (basically for consistency) and that the team is winning in spite of their OC -- so therefore 'he'll live with it'. In the same post you said you "knew" the Seahawks were better than what we're seeing.

It's a ridiculous theory. Carroll has shown to be one of the more ruthless coaches out there. The cutting of key players (you'll see another big one gone in a few weeks), the firing of Jeremy Bates after one season. He's also shown to be more than willing to move on from a big mistake (Cary Williams, Percy Harvin). And despite all of this evidence, you truly believe Carroll is supporting Bevell not because he truly believes he is the best man for the job -- but because he tolerates him?

Here's a better theory for you -- Carroll just thinks he's great. He's only ever spoken of him in the warmest terms (he's even quite fired up when he talks about the job DB has done). And if he wanted to move on -- he had the perfect excuse at the end of last season and would've done it by now if he felt it'd get even 5% more out of this team.

To imply Carroll is just tolerating Bevell is to imply he's incompetent if it's to the detriment of the teams performance -- which you quite clearly stated is the case ("we know we have a MUCH better team then we are seeing").

 

[Scottemojo]

Pete fired Bates after one year, so it isn't that Pete over values continuity.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Seymour and co know more than Pete Carroll, who is an incompetent bafoon,,,,,

Wow. That is your interpretation of my point being made? Clearly it is useless to attempt a civil discussion on this topic with you. I do appreciate the warning.

Your response is just a not-so-clever way of side-stepping the point I made, latching onto one sentence with a melodramatic tone to try and avoid the kind of civilised response you supposedly crave.

You implied that Carroll is sticking with Bevell because too many other coaches have departed (basically for consistency) and that the team is winning in spite of their OC -- so therefore 'he'll live with it'. In the same post you said you "knew" the Seahawks were better than what we're seeing.

It's a ridiculous theory. Carroll has shown to be one of the more ruthless coaches out there. The cutting of key players (you'll see another big one gone in a few weeks), the firing of Jeremy Bates after one season. He's also shown to be more than willing to move on from a big mistake (Cary Williams, Percy Harvin). And despite all of this evidence, you truly believe Carroll is supporting Bevell not because he truly believes he is the best man for the job -- but because he tolerates him?

Here's a better theory for you -- Carroll just thinks he's great. He's only ever spoken of him in the warmest terms (he's even quite fired up when he talks about the job DB has done). And if he wanted to move on -- he had the perfect excuse at the end of last season and would've done it by now if he felt it'd get even 5% more out of this team.

To imply Carroll is just tolerating Bevell is to imply he's incompetent if it's to the detriment of the teams performance -- which you quite clearly stated is the case ("we know we have a MUCH better team then we are seeing").

Zing! Excellent hitting the nail on the head post English that debunks the 'Pete's flaw is being too loyal' myth. There's no way on this green earth that Pete would knowingly retain a coach that is holding the organization back. With that knowledge, we can safely surmise that Bev has been a coveted asset to the team in its ascension to success.

 

[hawk45]

Bevell has things humming (minus indefensible two pt conversion calls, Bevell is still difficult to trust at the 2 yard line and in).
He had things humming at the end of Russ's first year also.
My concern is that, as happened then, defenses will make an adjustment to what is killing them. And we will flounder around for another 3 years in the passing game waiting for Bevell's counter move.
The other concern I have is we will get one of our stars back (Lynch or Graham) and that will throw the passing O into a tailspin once more.
Or that we will get a free agent which will have the same effect.
Pete may very well be to blame for limiting Bevell - the way Bevell and Pete have been limiting Russell - but isn't it a red flag when your offense gets worse when it tries to integrate a piece that should make it much, much better?
It isn't easy to integrate new pieces certainly, but it feels like this much difficulty with that piece doesn't happen with an OC who is of the irreplaceable sort.
I have no desire to jettison Bevell during this stretch, it is after this stretch where I fear we will once more be back to a passing offense so uninspiring that we will be again declaring Russell's hesitancy and perhaps height are just these awful limitations and gee whiz Bevell is doing yeoman's work to get what he gets out of him.

 

[canfan]

Bevell has things humming (minus indefensible two pt conversion calls, Bevell is still difficult to trust at the 2 yard line and in).
He had things humming at the end of Russ's first year also.
My concern is that, as happened then, defenses will make an adjustment to what is killing them. And we will flounder around for another 3 years in the passing game waiting for Bevell's counter move.
The other concern I have is we will get one of our stars back (Lynch or Graham) and that will throw the passing O into a tailspin once more.
Or that we will get a free agent which will have the same effect.
Pete may very well be to blame for limiting Bevell - the way Bevell and Pete have been limiting Russell - but isn't it a red flag when your offense gets worse when it tries to integrate a piece that should make it much, much better?
It isn't easy to integrate new pieces certainly, but it feels like this much difficulty with that piece doesn't happen with an OC who is of the irreplaceable sort.
I have no desire to jettison Bevell during this stretch, it is after this stretch where I fear we will once more be back to a passing offense so uninspiring that we will be again declaring Russell's hesitancy and perhaps height are just these awful limitations and gee whiz Bevell is doing yeoman's work to get what he gets out of him.

Just a couple of things I could not let pass here. So it took 3 years for Bevell to come up with a counter move to defenses after the run option introduction in 2012? Would those be the 2 years with SuperBowl appearances and this year's runup to the playoffs? Why that incompetent ba*&%$d! Also, you seem to be glossing over a couple of tiny points. A complete lack of offensive line continuity during that time (anybody else remember Carpenter being benched for one playoff game in 2013 and about 20 different line combinations due to injuries?) and Pete's willingness to play the young players and live with their mistakes so the team will have more experience and better depth at the end of the year. And as far as integrating Graham goes, he was a big part of the first 2 games of this 4 game stretch and was settling into a new offense and getting to know the QB. You could see the connection growing every week. Or are you also going to lay the blame at Bevell's feet for the walking, talking narcissist that is Percy Harvin?

Bevel has been "limiting Russell" over the last few years because he was a young QB trying to learn the league and needed to be protected while he learned. He is now entering a new phase of his career and defenses are going to find a QB who makes good presnap reads and decisions a little harder to deal with than the run option was.