Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking

[Optimus25]

Lockett did have a jet sweep that got a first down. I think it was on the TD drive.

I was saying those were the things I was asking for bevell to run three weeks ago. And of course he got a first down. It’s amazing how easy football can be when you put the ball in the hands of the fast and good players.

Ball gets in Lockett’s hands. TD drive. Not a coincidence. Exactly my point three weeks ago.

 

[Ozzy]

We controlled the rhythm and tempo of the game. Had some really nice drives that gave us a time of possession big advantage and good field position. Defense had plenty of rest and oftentimes started with the Rams' backs to their own endzone. Ultimately the defense was tasked with protecting the lead and they did that. If you've paid attention to the Seahawks, that's how we produce wins.

Sioux were you ok with the last offensive possession? I have a dozen or more really smart football guys that were absolutely baffled by the play calling there when you could of sealed a win. I know you love Bevell but I think you admitting when he does make mistakes would go a long way in people being more receptive of what he does do right.

Yes, I'm fine with it because it is what Pete dictates. We had the 3 in the bag, meaning they would have to score a touchdown to win. The identity of our team is defense, so we were forcing the Rams to drive 75 yards with a minute left on the clock. That's what we're built to do, close out those games. It worked and we picked up a tremendous win.

Also, Doug was inches from making a toe drag that would have been a first down to seal the win.

Not being a jerk but that line of thinking is absolutely nuts to me. Even if you rely on your defense why would you not but your team in the best possible position to win? There isn't a coach in the league(outside of our staff maybe) who wouldn't rather be up 10. I guarantee New England goes for the 7 there. Even with our defense I still think its smart to take a shot at the end zone there. I'm even fine blaming Pete over Bevell or a combination of both but regardless it was a dumb decision and it should of cost them. We got luck on the Cupp miss. I can't think of a single argument as to why you essentially quit there and settle. For the record most of the football minds online thought it was a bad idea as well.

 

[Ozzy]

To each their own. I liked the decision to make the kick and leave them a minute with no timeouts to drive the length of the field for a needed touchdown. We gave them the middle of the field. They had 1 good crack at the end zone, but we prevailed. Couldn't be more pleased with the win.

Sioux so you would rather be up 6 then 10 there with a little over a minute left? Am I understanding you right? I'm honestly baffled by this. Again not being a jerk or meaning to but I can't figure this one out....

 

[Ad Hawk]

To each their own. I liked the decision to make the kick and leave them a minute with no timeouts to drive the length of the field for a needed touchdown. We gave them the middle of the field. They had 1 good crack at the end zone, but we prevailed. Couldn't be more pleased with the win.

Sioux so you would rather be up 6 then 10 there with a little over a minute left? Am I understanding you right? I'm honestly baffled by this. Again not being a jerk or meaning to but I can't figure this one out....

Anyone would rather have 10 than 6 points. Don't be ridiculous.

But the point is this: How in the world are you able to guarantee 10 points? That's the crazy part of your argument. There's not only no guarantee or getting 10, but the potential of a pick and failure to even get the 3 goes up exponentially by attempting longer passes into the EZ. Running the ball kept it on the ground. It's not like they didn't go for more yards, they just didn't convert it.

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

 

[pittpnthrs]

It is baffling. Rather than scoring a TD and putting the game out of reach, he would rather play for the 3? Am I reading that right? Thats such a loser mentality that its perplexing. We really should have lost yesterday to be honest. That should emphasize how bad that line of thinking is or was.

 

[RolandDeschain]

I'm just shocked we actually threw a jump ball to Graham for a TD. Amazing how that works isnt it.

I about soiled my pants when I saw that. It's almost like we watched it happen every other week in New Orleans for five years and then decided to try something that was obviously successful ourselves.

Such a rare event, I'm almost at a loss for words...

 

[pittpnthrs]

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.

 

[Ad Hawk]

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.

You can want creativity, that's fine. But you'd better back up your generalities with specifics.

The rest--assuming what the staff actually feels or wants?--you have no ability to know. You can speculate all you want, but you'll be called on it all day for what it is: your uneducated opinion. I mean uneducated in the most honorable way, though. You may be a long-time fan, player, or even coach, but you're not on the hawks staff so you have no clue what's in their head.

The results aren't acceptable to you. So sorry. The win must not be acceptable either, then. Their philosophy worked this time, as it has often, even when you don't like it. They're not above critique, I agree. But they won yesterday; you didn't.

 

[Ozzy]

To each their own. I liked the decision to make the kick and leave them a minute with no timeouts to drive the length of the field for a needed touchdown. We gave them the middle of the field. They had 1 good crack at the end zone, but we prevailed. Couldn't be more pleased with the win.

Sioux so you would rather be up 6 then 10 there with a little over a minute left? Am I understanding you right? I'm honestly baffled by this. Again not being a jerk or meaning to but I can't figure this one out....

Anyone would rather have 10 than 6 points. Don't be ridiculous.

But the point is this: How in the world are you able to guarantee 10 points? That's the crazy part of your argument. There's not only no guarantee or getting 10, but the potential of a pick and failure to even get the 3 goes up exponentially by attempting longer passes into the EZ. Running the ball kept it on the ground. It's not like they didn't go for more yards, they just didn't convert it.

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

You can't guarantee it but you can guarantee you wont get it if you don't even try. So with you reasoning since you can't be 100% you just fold and say lets settle for the 3 with 3 downs to take a shot even though the 3 itself isn't guaranteed? I'm even more baffled then I was before. I'll say it again....almost every other coach in the league or any level of football would of taken a calculated shot at the end zone to end the game and try to win it right there, especially with a veteran QB.

 

[Ozzy]

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.

Exactly. It was the equivalence of not even trying. I'm not even suggesting we blame Bevell, maybe its on Pete or more likely a combination of both but regardless it was a weird decision. We gave ourselves almost zero chance to be successful there.

 

[pittpnthrs]

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.

You can want creativity, that's fine. But you'd better back up your generalities with specifics.

The rest--assuming what the staff actually feels or wants?--you have no ability to know. You can speculate all you want, but you'll be called on it all day for what it is: your uneducated opinion. I mean uneducated in the most honorable way, though. You may be a long-time fan, player, or even coach, but you're not on the hawks staff so you have no clue what's in their head.

The results aren't acceptable to you. So sorry. The win must not be acceptable either, then. Their philosophy worked this time, as it has often, even when you don't like it. They're not above critique, I agree. But they won yesterday; you didn't.

Your right, I dont know how they feel. All I can do is relay my feelings and opinions from what I see and I saw them running the same play twice with the second one getting them practically nothing. If thats acceptable to you than so be it, but its pretty laughable when thinking about it.

I'm stoked we won yesterday, but it could have been a whole lot easier than the game going down to the last play. Win or lose, this offense still stinks. I'm sure you would agree with that, but maybe not.

 

[iigakusei]

I think it is too simple to place all the blame on Bevell, but our offense is a complete trainwreck. I only hope it can get better after the bye.

 

[Ad Hawk]

What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.

I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.

Exactly. It was the equivalence of not even trying. I'm not even suggesting we blame Bevell, maybe its on Pete or more likely a combination of both but regardless it was a weird decision. We gave ourselves almost zero chance to be successful there.

No, not at all the equivalent. That's only in your own mind.

Trying and not getting something against people trying to stop you isn't the same as not trying.

Could they have called something different? Perhaps, but why didn't the called play get them 2 yards? If that's execution, then perhaps any call they had made could have suffered the same because of ineptitude of the line, backs, or otherwise.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Actually burning that last time out was huge in that sequence. It prevented at least another shot at the end zone by the Rams.

I'm with AdHawk firmly on this one. The end of the game fit the Hawks' identity under Pete to a T.

And it's quite presumptive to think we'd automatically score a TD there. Too many bad things could happen, including stopping the clock.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It is baffling. Rather than scoring a TD and putting the game out of reach, he would rather play for the 3? Am I reading that right? Thats such a loser mentality that its perplexing. We really should have lost yesterday to be honest. That should emphasize how bad that line of thinking is or was.

I was frustrated as well, but in Pete's mind he still trusts the D to hold a lead late in the 4th, so yeah the playcalls are conservative.

And with Russell already throwing a pick, a gimpy Doug and not 100% yet Lockett it's hard to blame him.

Remember, the Rams front 7 is the teeth of their defense. So combo with our terrible line, it's hard to find high percentage short routes and runs to put it in the endzone without taking risks.

I don't like it either, but I get it from a HC/playcall point of view.

 

[Seymour]

Actually burning that last time out was huge in that sequence. It prevented at least another shot at the end zone by the Rams.

I'm with AdHawk firmly on this one. The end of the game fit the Hawks' identity under Pete to a T.

And it's quite presumptive to think we'd automatically score a TD there. Too many bad things could happen, including stopping the clock.

No it didn't. They turned the ball over on downs, and did not run out of time.

 

[Palmegranite]

To each their own. I liked the decision to make the kick and leave them a minute with no timeouts to drive the length of the field for a needed touchdown. We gave them the middle of the field. They had 1 good crack at the end zone, but we prevailed. Couldn't be more pleased with the win.

Sioux so you would rather be up 6 then 10 there with a little over a minute left? Am I understanding you right? I'm honestly baffled by this. Again not being a jerk or meaning to but I can't figure this one out....

Buffalo made the same decision 2 weeks ago, kicking a field goal, going up by 6 and daring the opposition to counter with a TD. They also won their game. Seems like a sound choice to me.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

I was really on the fence about it. I see getting the 3 and making them score a TD. But also, not sure why they can't roll Russ out to see if he can get the first down w/his speed. 1st down and the game is over

 

[Seymour]

No question that taking the 3 is the right move there. Your offense had ZERO 1st downs the entire 4th Q, so why bet on them making this and have 3 points with 1 timeout tie the game and give them the MoJo?

 

[Siouxhawk]

Actually burning that last time out was huge in that sequence. It prevented at least another shot at the end zone by the Rams.

I'm with AdHawk firmly on this one. The end of the game fit the Hawks' identity under Pete to a T.

And it's quite presumptive to think we'd automatically score a TD there. Too many bad things could happen, including stopping the clock.

No it didn't. They turned the ball over on downs, and did not run out of time.

If they had that time out in their back pocket, it changes things for them strategy wise.