Seahawks Redzone

[mrt144]

And the prolific passing Saints saw Brees throwing the ball 250 more times a season, so of course Jimmy had more chances for touchdowns. But the Saints had a totally different offensive philosophy than us, so it doesn't really relate.
His numbers will come up a bit next season, but Doug, Lockett, Richardson and maybe Willson also will rightfully get their fair share of targets and the run game should be better, so Jimmy naturally won't see the kind of targets he had with the Saints

You do realize that Jermaine Kearse was targetted 3 times as much in the red zone as Jimmy Graham, right ? Also, Russ set a career high in attempts last year. It's not proportional.

On a side note, this is getting interesting. We have a thread about Seahawks Red Zone woes, and on one hand we have Anthony! who would abdicate Wilson if he killed a family member and have the smoking gun in his hand, and on the other hand we have Siouxhawk, who I'm pretty sure is related to Bevell. :duel: :3-1: :beach:

Not related to Bev, but thanks for asking.

Sure, Kearse got the red zone targets, but that's because he was the one primarily in single coverage. And for whatever reason, Russ and him had a hard time connecting. If they would've clicked, obviously our red zone efficiency would be much better.

You come dangerously close to asking a useful question. Next time.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Play calling is pathetic. But yeah, I'm sure it's because Wilson "sucks" in the Red Zone :?

 

[Anthony!]

To me this is really funny, we know most in here, the experts, and the media the oline sucks and has with regards to pass protection since Wilson has ben here. That alone would reduce redzone production alot. We also know that most in here, not all, but most think the play calling is really bad, even some experts have said that, again something that would effect the redzone. We also know we had little to no run game this year again something that would impact the redzone and we also know Wilson was hurt a lot this year another thing that would impact the redzone, and we know PC is very very risk aversive and even more so in the red zone which again will impact the redzone as tight window throws may not be allowwed. So we know what the problems are. Now for the big issue of those 5 things the only one we know that will be fixed by next season is Wilsons health. So while it might get better it still may not be great. Now if we can fix the oline and Wilson gets healthy that alone will increase the redzone alot. Get a decent run game and then even more. So if we can fix 3 of the 5 things we should be good. Big if but hey

 

[RolandDeschain]

Oh, now anybody picking on play calling is lazy. G

Its not lazy its a fact, point in case the SB against NE. Why in the heck do you lock the most dangerous QB in the NFL to a must throw timing pattern to your #5 WR? Answer you don't you roll him out and let him run or pass or throw it away, but not Bevel. In that case the play calling sucked as it does more often than not. How in the heck is JG not #1 target and first read in the redzone? That's play calling and I can go on and on and on. Play calling is a huge issue in the redzone.

I think you believe what I said to mean the opposite of what I said/meant. I'm NOT on Siouxhawk's side, I've been harping on Bevell around here for five damned years.

The Super Bowl play is a common one in most teams' arsenal. We have run it quite a bit. It was a couple of inches from being a TD -- a split second quicker to the spot by Ricardo, who actually had a hot hand in the game, or a little less lead on Russ' throw.

As for Jimmy, you do realize he was an option on many red zone plays, don't you? Double or triple bracket coverage against him left safer targets to others in Russ' mind. Kearse was often the target and we know how that transpired. Russ was just off this year, likely due to the injuries. Jimmy was coming back from his own injury and at times appeared to lack his full aggressiveness. I expect both will be up to full throttle next year.

Bunch formation that close to the goal line is not very smart, and with the particular personnel we had at the positions we had them at, it was downright idiotic. It STILL would have been idiotic even if it had worked.

 

[Siouxhawk]

If executed properly, it's a touchdown. Either a split second quicker to the spot or the trajectory of the throw is 8 inches to the right and it's a score or PI.

 

[RolandDeschain]

Every play call you can come up with is successful if "executed properly."

You could run up the gut 70 times in a row and do the same exact play all game long, and they're all successful if they're "executed properly."

Great defense of a stupid play call, formation, and personnel grouping you have there.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Well it's obvious if Lockette gets to the spot a split second sooner, Butler would have to go through him to get to the ball. But being the bigger player and having momentum, I could see Ricardo angling in for the score. It was a great play by Butler and Browner.

 

[HawkAroundTheClock]

Nobody asks this:

If Russell could zip it into super tight windows like Rodgers and Brees, wouldn't he just do it?

Even if it made Pete nervous, when Russ kept completing them for TDs, wouldn't Pete get used to it and accept it? What would he do, bench Russell for being too risky?

Perhaps it's ok to realize quick hits in a shortened field is not Russell's strength. He has an elite deep ball, amazing pocket awareness when given protection, and hall-of-fame level passing on the run. Maybe close-range is a relative weakness.

Maybe the staff needs to get more creative to make us less predictable in those situations. And maybe the line needs to block better. Still, if your QB has a relative deficiency in his game, good defenses will scheme for that and know how to bring pressure while bracketing your best receiving threats. That's why Kearse got so many targets in the RZ. Teams didn't worry so much about him and turns out they were right.

 

[cymatica]

Nobody asks this:

If Russell could zip it into super tight windows like Rodgers and Brees, wouldn't he just do it?

Even if it made Pete nervous, when Russ kept completing them for TDs, wouldn't Pete get used to it and accept it? What would he do, bench Russell for being too risky?

Perhaps it's ok to realize quick hits in a shortened field is not Russell's strength. He has an elite deep ball, amazing pocket awareness when given protection, and hall-of-fame level passing on the run. Maybe close-range is a relative weakness.

Maybe the staff needs to get more creative to make us less predictable in those situations. And maybe the line needs to block better. Still, if your QB has a relative deficiency in his game, good defenses will scheme for that and know how to bring pressure while bracketing your best receiving threats. That's why Kearse got so many targets in the RZ. Teams didn't worry so much about him and turns out they were right.

I think Wilson can make those throws. Either he is being coached to play it safe, or the o-line has ruined him.

Look at the sb48 game, he was putting some zip on throws in tight windows. Even with that defense, we probably lose that game with this years offense.

 

[Uncle Si]

Well it's obvious if Lockette gets to the spot a split second sooner, Butler would have to go through him to get to the ball. But being the bigger player and having momentum, I could see Ricardo angling in for the score. It was a great play by Butler and Browner.

Regardless of the play design, its execution or how often the Hawks or other teams have used it... it ignored using the strengths of one of the most physical running backs since Earl Campbell and one of the most mobile passing QBs since Steve Young.. from 2 yards out with the Super Bowl on the line.

It was a dumb call. It was contrary to the team's strengths. That's why people are still upset.

They attempted to address that "issue" by trading for a giant TE but have yet to upgrade the actual weakness in that area (OL and RB).

Its frustrating. It's certainly impacted the team and players negatively.

Yes, they win lots of games. But they have gone from Super Bowl favorite to playoff team in a very short span.

 

[Anthony!]

Every play call you can come up with is successful if "executed properly."

You could run up the gut 70 times in a row and do the same exact play all game long, and they're all successful if they're "executed properly."

Great defense of a stupid play call, formation, and personnel grouping you have there.

Even if we say if executed correctly any play call can work, the fact they are not executed correctly does not mean the OC is not to blame. Calling the wrong play with the wrong people is a play calling mistake point in case why would we make our #5 wr the primary and then have him going into the teeth of the defense, and have our then #2 wr trying to pick a guy who is bigger. SO even if you argue the play call was good as is, the personnel involved were wrong and that is still the OC. IF the premise of every play call is great if executed right that means no OC should ever get fired as every call they make is great just not executed properly. Which we all know is not true. LOcette himself said he had never run that play as the primary so why would you have him do it in the SB. IT was a dumb play call but worse it was the wrong personnel to be calling that play. Thats on Bevel

 

[Anthony!]

Nobody asks this:

If Russell could zip it into super tight windows like Rodgers and Brees, wouldn't he just do it?

Even if it made Pete nervous, when Russ kept completing them for TDs, wouldn't Pete get used to it and accept it? What would he do, bench Russell for being too risky?

Perhaps it's ok to realize quick hits in a shortened field is not Russell's strength. He has an elite deep ball, amazing pocket awareness when given protection, and hall-of-fame level passing on the run. Maybe close-range is a relative weakness.

Maybe the staff needs to get more creative to make us less predictable in those situations. And maybe the line needs to block better. Still, if your QB has a relative deficiency in his game, good defenses will scheme for that and know how to bring pressure while bracketing your best receiving threats. That's why Kearse got so many targets in the RZ. Teams didn't worry so much about him and turns out they were right.

I think Wilson can make those throws. Either he is being coached to play it safe, or the o-line has ruined him.

Look at the sb48 game, he was putting some zip on throws in tight windows. Even with that defense, we probably lose that game with this years offense.

Agreed he has shown he can do it, when allowed. PC has said plain out and simple he is risk adverse and has told Wilson at times not to take chances.

 

[Anthony!]

Well it's obvious if Lockette gets to the spot a split second sooner, Butler would have to go through him to get to the ball. But being the bigger player and having momentum, I could see Ricardo angling in for the score. It was a great play by Butler and Browner.

Regardless of the play design, its execution or how often the Hawks or other teams have used it... it ignored using the strengths of one of the most physical running backs since Earl Campbell and one of the most mobile passing QBs since Steve Young.. from 2 yards out with the Super Bowl on the line.

It was a dumb call. It was contrary to the team's strengths. That's why people are still upset.

They attempted to address that "issue" by trading for a giant TE but have yet to upgrade the actual weakness in that area (OL and RB).

Its frustrating. It's certainly impacted the team and players negatively.

Yes, they win lots of games. But they have gone from Super Bowl favorite to playoff team in a very short span.

I agree if you want to try a pass in that situation how about a role out giving WIlsonj the option of passing, running or throwing it away. No instead we try a timing pattern into the teeth of the defense with our#5 Wr. Not smart, ba play call period

 

[Siouxhawk]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

And really, there were about 20 other chances on both sides of the ball to win that game. Allowing Brady to complete 3rd and 14 and 3rd and 8 plays in a drive that resulted in Amendola's touchdown catch midway through the fourth quarter, cutting our lead to 3, was a crusher. Kearse (off his hands) and Marshawn (gave up on a catchable ball) both had chances to also seal the win in the fourth.

 

[mrt144]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

What factors lead to executing properly and what factors work against it? Your superficial understanding of cooperative work are laid bare without you even having to answer.

 

[Uncle Si]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

 

[Seymour]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

By that....I believe he means "if we executed Malcolm Butler properly".

 

[Siouxhawk]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

And it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say it wouldn't work and cost us 49, but Marshawn could have fumbled as well and you'd have the same end result and second guessing.

And as I said, the players in on that play were likely the ones practicing it for 2 weeks or longer leading up to the game. So all the coaches were in on it and knew what was coming. Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

 

[hawkfan68]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

And it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say it wouldn't work and cost us 49, but Marshawn could have fumbled as well and you'd have the same end result and second guessing.

And as I said, the players in on that play were likely the ones practicing it for 2 weeks or longer leading up to the game. So all the coaches were in on it and knew what was coming. Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

Separation is in the preparation. The Patriots were better prepared for that play than the Seahawks. They had the superior personnel in for the play and they executed it better. It was a bad play all around. It was a badly designed play from the get go, whether they practiced it for two weeks or not. You put your players in a position to succeed (in other words where their strength is). That play did not do that.

Moving aside from that play, I was listening to the ESPN station on the radio and I can't remember who they had on but he was stating how well coached and prepared the Pats are. That they are very disciplined and are able to anticipate what is going to happen before it does. They have been successful at this for a long time. They may adjustments each quarter on occasion and they usually are right. They do a great job of being on the same page. I can't say that the Seahawks are prepared to play like the Patriots do day in and day out. Yes, the Seahawks beat the Pats. That was one game. The Pats are still in the SB. The Seahawks are at home watching. The team is becoming less prepared for games as other teams are improving and catching on to what they are doing. Other teams have learned the Seahawk design and are becoming well equipped to stopping them. They are evolving, are the Seahawks and namely their coaching staff adapting to this? Right now, to me, it doesn't seem as though they are. They are trending the wrong way.

 

[Siouxhawk]

The players we had in for the topic of discussion easily could have made that work if executed properly, which is the tonic of every successful play. In fact, the personnel group was likely the same that had been in there practicing that particular package for 2 weeks.

If Ricardo gets to that spot a split second quicker, it's a touchdown. It's as simple as that.

Doesn't matter... it wasn't our strongest play call or using our best players to their strengths. It was a bad call and cost the team a Super Bowl. There really is no debate here.

You can breakdown why the play didn't work, but the fact is it asked role players to do important things in the biggest moment of the biggest game, and our QB to do something that's not his biggest attribute.

Bad. call.

And it's easy with 20/20 hindsight to say it wouldn't work and cost us 49, but Marshawn could have fumbled as well and you'd have the same end result and second guessing.

And as I said, the players in on that play were likely the ones practicing it for 2 weeks or longer leading up to the game. So all the coaches were in on it and knew what was coming. Only a brief hesitation by Ricardo off his break and a fantastic play by Butler in his coming-out party prevented a touchdown.

Separation is in the preparation. The Patriots were better prepared for that play than the Seahawks. They had the superior personnel in for the play and they executed it better. It was a bad play all around. It was a badly designed play from the get go, whether they practiced it for two weeks or not. You put your players in a position to succeed (in other words where their strength is). That play did not do that.

Your opinion. I say it if we run it 100 times, we score 90 touchdowns. You would probably say different. Same with handing it off to Marshawn. We will never know those answers. On that 1 play, the Patriots executed a little better than us.