This team will never make another SB with Bevell

[StoneCold]

My 2 cents:
Bevell is the one who called The Play. I don't care what Pete says. He wanted to look smart and stick it to Marshawn. The team knows this and has never forgotten. Bevell is the type of guy that always wants to let you know that he is the smartest guy in the room. Only he is not. More and more players are just totally fed up with his stupid play calls and it shows. Bevell IS the problem because the players have no faith/respect in his abilities. The OP is correct. This team can only go so far based on talent. They will not get over the hump as long as Bevell is here.

This post is so full of conjecture it's almost like fake news.

 

[StoneCold]

Record under Bevel. 63-32-1.

 

[WindCityHawk]

Record under Bevel. 63-32-1.

Reductive and grossly simplified. The same could be said about our record under a number of assistant position coaches, or while wearing certain cleats.

How many games have we won because we out-schemed the opposing defense? How many games have we won because an opponent had no answer for our offensive game plan? Got a number in your head?

Now consider how many games we've won because of our smothering defense.

Or how many we've won from Russ and Marshawn's ability to make something out of nothing.

We don't win games because of Bevell. We win in spite of him. Russ is famous for salvaging broken plays. You don't get famous for that unless you're given a whole lot of broken plays.

 

[hawk45]

To my eyes the offense this year has produced when there has been a scoche of blocking and suffered when there hasn't. Both of the last two games have been good examples.
First half last week we saw all the supposed pressure beaters. Roll out got Russ killed. Read option got Russ killed. In addition to everything else that got him killed. Line starts blocking on second half and O produces.
Bevell has some mind blowing calls such as the screen to Graham a few games back. I'm not crowning him best OC ever and if a Hue Jackson came free I'd want us to snap him up. But bevell is such a distant second to cable in terms of coaches I want fired that he's not even on the same page.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Record under Bevel. 63-32-1.

And this is all that matters and people who don't understand this just don't have a clue.

Our offense has a distinct role in the success of this team and that's play turnover free ball, maintain favorable field position and take points any way we can. Our coaches also enjoy striking with the expolsive play, so that's the fun factor. Bevell understands that role and has thus become the best Offensive Coordinator in Seahawks history. His time with the Vikings has yielded over 100 wins on his coaching career.

Because Pete has molded this team around a ferocious defense that has been rock-solid over the years, the role of the offense is complementary, yes, but still majorly important. We have to score points. That's why this year is a great illustration of Bevell's importance. Our offensive line is arguably the worst in the last 5 years. Russ has been running for his life this season. And then he was injured. That's a lot of bad snuff to potentially sabotage a play from working.

But guess what? Bevell and Co. figured it out. Russ was releasing the ball at a faster rate than any time in his career. Sure we had some stinkers, but those were speed bumps in the road and aggregate result was a 10-win season (fifth time in a row for that, all with Bevell) and a home playoff game. This season might be his best work of the six he's been here when it's all said and done.

And when the offensive line shows glimpses of what it can be, the offense Bevell designs thrives. If you can't see that, you're just not paying attention.

I'm a Seahawks fan and I believe with Bevell as the OC, it's the best fit for producing wins. The proof is in the pudding. I loved seeing this team go to the Super Bowl twice in the last 3 years. I see in another post that the Broncos may be interested in him now. I think he really likes his job here and enjoys working with Pete. I've written here that I wouldn't be surprised if he ends up taking over from Pete when he decides to retire. I bet he would get the endorsement from him. His players, from comments I've heard from leaders like Doug and Russell, love him, so I'm sure they'd voice their opinion that he continue in that role. It's a winning history that I hope continues.

 

[StoneCold]

Record under Bevel. 63-32-1.

Reductive and grossly simplified. The same could be said about our record under a number of assistant position coaches, or while wearing certain cleats.

How many games have we won because we out-schemed the opposing defense? How many games have we won because an opponent had no answer for our offensive game plan? Got a number in your head?

Now consider how many games we've won because of our smothering defense.

Or how many we've won from Russ and Marshawn's ability to make something out of nothing.

We don't win games because of Bevell. We win in spite of him. Russ is famous for salvaging broken plays. You don't get famous for that unless you're given a whole lot of broken plays.

A similar attack has been levied against Russell in the past. He only wins because of the defense. Wins and losses are all that matter in this league. If we don't miss the field goal in AZ, if Michael doesn't fumble against the Rams. , if , if. We were closer to 12-4 than 8-8 and I for one am glad for that. I don't understand or like every play Bevel calls, but I also don't understand all the hate he gets.

 

[Hawk-Lock]

Oh look, another useless "lets hate on Bevell" thread.

 

[seedhawk]

How about, keeping DB as our OC, move his butt up to the box, and hire someone better equipped to call plays? Cuz, while we have had a top 5 run game during his tenure, and good DVOA rankings, his best year with us we were like 16th or 17th in total offense. Not numbers other teams will chase after.

 

[nash72]

Record under Bevel. 63-32-1.

Think about how much better that record could be with a competent OC. I would love to know how many quarters the Seahawks have played with Bevell as OC in which they did absolutely nothing like yesterdays game for example in which the Hawks mustered 10 yards of total offense in the 1st quarter or when they are 1 for 12 on 3rd downs and so forth. That's just not normal for NFL teams to go through stretches like that almost every single game. The credit Bevell receives for the teams record is bloated to say the least. Its no wonder why no other teams wants the guy.

 

[randomation]

Serious question is Sioux actually DB? I can't think of any other reason to continue defending him.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Serious question is Sioux actually DB? I can't think of any other reason to continue defending him.

Yes, you caught me. I'm actually Darrell. I like to check into .net during my marijuana breaks out here at Renton. Gotta go ... We're breaking down film study on how we exploited the Niners with Luke. Maybe we can use that against the Lions. I'd design a pass to Jimmy, but he stole my parking spot at VMAC and I refuse to draw up any more plays for him. See ya.

 

[Seahawk Sailor]

If anyone is shown the door, it should be Cable and his science experiments at the OL first.

Word.

Funny how much better Bevell's play calling starts looking when the line actually blocks.

Bevell's play calling has been stupid for a long time, and was stupid when our line was much better. Lynch being such a badass as to overcome it a lot of the time doesn't change that fact. You guys are pretending Bevell's stupidity is something recent. I'm on record here bitching about it for like four years now.

...We need to get rid of Cable too, I'm not saying otherwise, but give us a stellar O-line and Bevell's still a crappy OC with the situational awareness of a potato who can't make decent adjustments when what he's trying to do isn't working. That part is NOT RELATED TO THE OFFENSIVE LINE. IT'S A CHALLENGE EVERY OC FACES OFF AND ON.

This is true. Bevell isn't a great OC in my opinion. But with even a decent line, we win a lot of games, dominate a bunch of 'em, and win/get to Super Bowls. That's not terrible. Which means, also in my opinion, that while he's not a great OC, he's not a terrible, horrible one. Average, I'd say. Maybe adequate. We get irritated at his play calling because an average link in an otherwise incredible team is the weakest link and the reason for failures.

And we just don't see it, but other teams run the same stupid plays we bitch about Bevell for. I specifically watched week before last's Broncos-Chiefs game with his play calling in mind, and the Broncos might as well have had Bevell as their OC already.

The problem with this is that with an average OC, when you have zero offensive line, his limited play calling abilities become a serious liability and a much larger problem for the team. He no longer has an entire team to cover and compensate for his deficiencies. Suddenly his adequate play calling (that sometimes works and sometimes breaks down) makes the offense look inept and terrible.

This is why I say Cable is a bit more the immediate problem. Fix the offensive line and we're an adequate offense with a great defense--something we know from experience that wins championships. Fix the play calling and leave the offensive line a mess, and you end up needing a lot of luck to stay in games, needing to get more creative with trick plays, and still look inept, not to mention risking getting your $20-million-dollar-a-year quarterback killed each play.

 

[Bigpumpkin]

We all agree that we have a broken link in the chain that binds the Hawks together as a team.

We cannot agree which link is broken.....or if there is more than just one link. In the end, it really matters to most here. However, here we are with a "broken team" limping along at the end of the season.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

What most of us want--what I want, certainly--is to just do away with the ridiculous, zero-chance plays like empty backfields on 3rd and 2 which loudly broadcast, "HEY, WE'RE GOING TO PASS!" to the defense. Or the relentless use of Jimmy as an $8M decoy. We've seen what he can do as a receiver and jump ball specialist! And the screens, oh Lord, the screens.

All incorrect criticisms. The Seahawks have actually performed fairly well out of empty backfields, dating all the way back to 2013. This is probably because it gives Wilson more targets. Using Jimmy as a decoy got Luke Willson a touchdown last week. And the screens have been positive plays (5-7 yards a pop or something like that) for quite a while now as our receivers gain experience and comfort. It's just that nobody bothered to sit down and chart them out.

Where I criticize "Bevell" is the philosophy. It happened in the Bucs game: suddenly Russell was standing much longer in the pocket, needing much more from his OL, and stopped getting it. It was then I knew that "Bevell" had done it again: he had given in and reverted to long-developing plays, lusting for the deep shot at the expense of staying on the field. Once again "Bevell" was choosing to expose Wilson and the line, hoping that he'd get one of those miracle 40-yard bombs to Doug Baldwin and make it all justified.

Then, in the second half against the Cards, "Bevell" went back to that quick-rhythm passing offense that helped keep Wilson clean, and suddenly we were moving the chains again. Linebackers had to cover flats and slants instead of brazenly blitzing all day, and immediately the offensive line had an easier time of it as a result.

Same thing happened in the 49ers game, only "Bevell" reacted sooner - as in, the second quarter. Suddenly, the protection looked better, and the Seahawks were producing again. The difference? "Bevell" once again went back to the get-the-ball-out offense that he implemented in mid-2015, and the protection suddenly looked fine.

Wondering why I keep saying "Bevell"?

Because we all know the one who is really running this team and has to be dragged kicking and screaming from the long-bomb offense into a wiser, get-the-ball-out offensive approach. We know who's the one who has waxed romantic about the statistical value of a long completion (worth two three-and-outs, or something I read from advanced stats).

Pete Carroll.

And that's why it's useless to criticize Bevell. He's just a surrogate for Pete. As long as it's Pete, our fortunes will be dependent on our O-line unless Pete is willing to swallow his pride and lead with the pass.

 

[RolandDeschain]

That has never, ever been proven. He could have been flipping the bird to Carroll, Sherm Smith, a teammate, a fan in the stands, the popcorn salesman or even the artist of a song that popped into his head. There's no telling with Marshawn and he never told. Marshawn got along with Bevell as well as he did any coach on the staff.

Delusion
A delusion is a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary. As a pathology, it is distinct from a belief based on false or incomplete information, confabulation, dogma, illusion, or other effects of perception.

 

[seahawkfreak]

What most of us want--what I want, certainly--is to just do away with the ridiculous, zero-chance plays like empty backfields on 3rd and 2 which loudly broadcast, "HEY, WE'RE GOING TO PASS!" to the defense. Or the relentless use of Jimmy as an $8M decoy. We've seen what he can do as a receiver and jump ball specialist! And the screens, oh Lord, the screens.

All incorrect criticisms. The Seahawks have actually performed fairly well out of empty backfields, dating all the way back to 2013. This is probably because it gives Wilson more targets. Using Jimmy as a decoy got Luke Willson a touchdown last week. And the screens have been positive plays (5-7 yards a pop or something like that) for quite a while now as our receivers gain experience and comfort. It's just that nobody bothered to sit down and chart them out.

He wasn't criticizing the empty backfields per se, he was condemning using it on third and short. The offense is amplifying loud and clear, "we are not running the ball" so "send the house because we also do not have a RB to help pass protect". I'm not advocating the run or pass on 3rd and short, just don't let the defense know what you are doing. Is running the ball such and inconceivable thought on 3rd and 2 (yes I know the OLine sucks but believe or not our RBs average more than 3 yards a carry)? The timing of this play calling is not fooling anyone and you just made everyone's job harder. What makes this decision making even worse is throwing away a drive right after getting good field position after an opponents turnover.

Also, if "nobody [has] bothered to sit down and chart them out" how do you know our screen passes have averaged "5-7 yards a pop or something like that"? To me they really have not been all that successful, I could be wrong but you have not presented any solid evidence to change my mind. In fact I haven't really seen anything consistently effective all year. Anything averaging 5-7 yards would be embraced.

 

[Vancanhawksfan]

During Bevell's tenure in 4 the last 6 years (including this year) the Seahawks have ranked in the top 10 in scoring offense. This year the Hawks were ranked 18th as Wilson struggled due to injuries and a porous offensive line that everyone can agree is severely undermanned, and in Bevell's first year they were ranked 23rd in scoring.

Let's also not forget that Darrell Bevell gets nearly full credit for the drafting of Russ Wilson. He attended Wilson's pro-day when only a handful of scouts attended, and Carroll stated that they drafted Wilson as "Darrell's project" even thought the Seahawks already had Matt Flynn and Tavaris Jackson.

 

[Ozzy]

I thought it was JS who told Pete you have to watch this guy and that he was on John's radar long before the draft? I'm sure Bevell agreed and Pete had to as well. Not saying you're wrong I've just heard it was Schnieder who was driving the Wilson train.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

What most of us want--what I want, certainly--is to just do away with the ridiculous, zero-chance plays like empty backfields on 3rd and 2 which loudly broadcast, "HEY, WE'RE GOING TO PASS!" to the defense. Or the relentless use of Jimmy as an $8M decoy. We've seen what he can do as a receiver and jump ball specialist! And the screens, oh Lord, the screens.

All incorrect criticisms. The Seahawks have actually performed fairly well out of empty backfields, dating all the way back to 2013. This is probably because it gives Wilson more targets. Using Jimmy as a decoy got Luke Willson a touchdown last week. And the screens have been positive plays (5-7 yards a pop or something like that) for quite a while now as our receivers gain experience and comfort. It's just that nobody bothered to sit down and chart them out.

He wasn't criticizing the empty backfields per se, he was condemning using it on third and short. The offense is amplifying loud and clear, "we are not running the ball" so "send the house because we also do not have a RB to help pass protect". I'm not advocating the run or pass on 3rd and short, just don't let the defense know what you are doing. Is running the ball such and inconceivable thought on 3rd and 2 (yes I know the OLine sucks but believe or not our RBs average more than 3 yards a carry)? The timing of this play calling is not fooling anyone and you just made everyone's job harder. What makes this decision making even worse is throwing away a drive right after getting good field position after an opponents turnover.

Also, if "nobody [has] bothered to sit down and chart them out" how do you know our screen passes have averaged "5-7 yards a pop or something like that"? To me they really have not been all that successful, I could be wrong but you have not presented any solid evidence to change my mind. In fact I haven't really seen anything consistently effective all year. Anything averaging 5-7 yards would be embraced.

The evidence is too numerous to post. Get Game Pass and watch some games. Plenty of bubble screens get adequate yardage, and plenty of 3rd and 2 empty backfield plays get first downs despite the telegraphing of their play-calling. 3rd and short is by definition hard to defend anyway.

 

[seahawkfreak]

What most of us want--what I want, certainly--is to just do away with the ridiculous, zero-chance plays like empty backfields on 3rd and 2 which loudly broadcast, "HEY, WE'RE GOING TO PASS!" to the defense. Or the relentless use of Jimmy as an $8M decoy. We've seen what he can do as a receiver and jump ball specialist! And the screens, oh Lord, the screens.

All incorrect criticisms. The Seahawks have actually performed fairly well out of empty backfields, dating all the way back to 2013. This is probably because it gives Wilson more targets. Using Jimmy as a decoy got Luke Willson a touchdown last week. And the screens have been positive plays (5-7 yards a pop or something like that) for quite a while now as our receivers gain experience and comfort. It's just that nobody bothered to sit down and chart them out.

He wasn't criticizing the empty backfields per se, he was condemning using it on third and short. The offense is amplifying loud and clear, "we are not running the ball" so "send the house because we also do not have a RB to help pass protect". I'm not advocating the run or pass on 3rd and short, just don't let the defense know what you are doing. Is running the ball such and inconceivable thought on 3rd and 2 (yes I know the OLine sucks but believe or not our RBs average more than 3 yards a carry)? The timing of this play calling is not fooling anyone and you just made everyone's job harder. What makes this decision making even worse is throwing away a drive right after getting good field position after an opponents turnover.

Also, if "nobody [has] bothered to sit down and chart them out" how do you know our screen passes have averaged "5-7 yards a pop or something like that"? To me they really have not been all that successful, I could be wrong but you have not presented any solid evidence to change my mind. In fact I haven't really seen anything consistently effective all year. Anything averaging 5-7 yards would be embraced.

The evidence is too numerous to post. Get Game Pass and watch some games. Plenty of bubble screens get adequate yardage, and plenty of 3rd and 2 empty backfield plays get first downs despite the telegraphing of their play-calling. 3rd and short is by definition hard to defend anyway.

Again, you are not making your argument by using subjective terms like "plenty". How many is plenty to you, 2,10,50 times? I honestly cannot agree or disagree with what you think is sufficient success if there is nothing to base it on.

Let me attack it from a different perspective. My real issue is how successful Seattle is converting 3rd downs and how many first downs the team gets a game. I think it is woeful and inept. I also put the onus on Bevell's choice of play calling that has caused this.

Seattle 1st downs per game: 22nd [urltargetblank]https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/first-downs-per-game[/urltargetblank]
Seattle 3r down conversion rate: 16th [urltargetblank]https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/third-down-conversion-pct[/urltargetblank]