Well done Darrell Bevell & Tom Cable

[JustTheTip]

1 out of 3. I would like to see more of what happened today from those 2 offensive coaches.
I would have very little to complain about these 2 if their gameplanning and playcalling was as good as it was today week in and week out.

Whose playcalling is good week in and week out though? Or let me rephrase that -- whose offensive gameplan works every week, whose players execute at a high level every week? To go along with the play calling working.

I get the sense there is a perception that there are teams out there churning out constant brilliance on offense.

Look at the Steelers today -- three points and a pasting. The Cards -- four picks for Palmer. The rams are set to beat SEA and TB in back-to-back weeks after losing 28-0 to the Niners. The Jets looked great @ Buffalo and today Fitzpatrick threw six interceptions.

This league is tough. Really tough. And Seattle's offense has been top-10 in DVOA for four years. Which is very impressive -- and working alongside a top defense is a great mix.

I would take inverting the percentage of poor games to good games.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Exactly what I was thinking as we watched Pittsburgh--one of the best offenses in the league--put up 3 points, with a healthy Big Ben.

I think this is what is known as, 'perspective'.

Still haven't addressed how much of it was Russell Wilson's doing.

(Unless I missed it somewhere, which is perfectly possible.)

 

[dogorama]

The simple fact is that when we open up the offense we are a much better and why people here can't see that is beyond me.

Am curious to see what the pass/run ratio was today, compared to in the Rams game.

It was about equal 32 to 31 passing and the Ram's game we passed more 35 to 26 but that doesn't tell much because we ran much more after Boykin took over, and we had the ball for more time 36min to 24min where it was equal TOP in the Ram's game.

The problems in games 1 and 2 weren't how much we ran, or how much we passed, but how we ran and how we passed. In the first two games, we ran like we did early last year when we thought we had Beastmode back, i.e., get push on the line and have Lynch bulldoze a few yds until he breaks one. Problem was, we didn't have a healthy Lynch and it was largely ineffective. Then, again to start off this year, the run plays are designed for an O-Line and running back we no longer have.

Same w/the passing, we were going to that dreaded bubble screen that isn't entirely ineffective UNLESS your opponent knows that's what you are going to do it and schemes for it. That is exactly what Miami's DC did and the Rams copied. Didn't matter though, we obstinately pursued that game plan in spite of any measurable rewards. Then, when I am wondering why we don't send C-Mike off tackle, they do! and voila! two good gainers, we have their D on its heels and then we do those two AC runs up the middle to leave us in 3rd and long (shit!).

Recall PC's press conf. where he's asked why we aren't using Graham differently? Remember his curt response? Either he was frustrated that his OC wasn't using him better, or guilty because he made a mistake, but the way that Graham was used today proves that the question wasn't a stupid one. I don't care what anyone says we were different today, we ran differently and we passed differently, and THAT is why we were successful.

Of course, it was a weaker defense so there is that too.

 

[Siouxhawk]

This game followed the pattern that Bevell and Cable have employed the last 4 years to make the Hawks successful in obtaining a win 65% of the time -- strong run game and explosive plays. That is the real trend for any of you trying to justify your trepidation over the first 2 weeks.

 

[Natethegreat]

The simple fact is that when we open up the offense we are a much better and why people here can't see that is beyond me.

Am curious to see what the pass/run ratio was today, compared to in the Rams game.

It was about equal 32 to 31 passing and the Ram's game we passed more 35 to 26 but that doesn't tell much because we ran much more after Boykin took over, and we had the ball for more time 36min to 24min where it was equal TOP in the Ram's game.

The problems in games 1 and 2 weren't how much we ran, or how much we passed, but how we ran and how we passed. In the first two games, we ran like we did early last year when we thought we had Beastmode back, i.e., get push on the line and have Lynch bulldoze a few yds until he breaks one. Problem was, we didn't have a healthy Lynch and it was largely ineffective. Then, again to start off this year, the run plays are designed for an O-Line and running back we no longer have.

Same w/the passing, we were going to that dreaded bubble screen that isn't entirely ineffective UNLESS your opponent knows that's what you are going to do it and schemes for it. That is exactly what Miami's DC did and the Rams copied. Didn't matter though, we obstinately pursued that game plan in spite of any measurable rewards. Then, when I am wondering why we don't send C-Mike off tackle, they do! and voila! two good gainers, we have their D on its heels and then we do those two AC runs up the middle to leave us in 3rd and long (shit!).

Recall PC's press conf. where he's asked why we aren't using Graham differently? Remember his curt response? Either he was frustrated that his OC wasn't using him better, or guilty because he made a mistake, but the way that Graham was used today proves that the question wasn't a stupid one. I don't care what anyone says we were different today, we ran differently and we passed differently, and THAT is why we were successful.

Of course, it was a weaker defense so there is that too.

So your saying that the unimaginative moron that is Bevell made good adjustments and that stubborn Pete let him? Kinda like last year when that worthless offensive coordinater made adjustments and turned our offense into the most effective offense in the NFL.
Or perhaps we could talk about Wilsons rookie year when they decided to implement the read option(despite Russ never having run it) and our offense took off.
This board can be really myopic.

 

[dogorama]

The simple fact is that when we open up the offense we are a much better and why people here can't see that is beyond me.

Am curious to see what the pass/run ratio was today, compared to in the Rams game.

It was about equal 32 to 31 passing and the Ram's game we passed more 35 to 26 but that doesn't tell much because we ran much more after Boykin took over, and we had the ball for more time 36min to 24min where it was equal TOP in the Ram's game.

The problems in games 1 and 2 weren't how much we ran, or how much we passed, but how we ran and how we passed. In the first two games, we ran like we did early last year when we thought we had Beastmode back, i.e., get push on the line and have Lynch bulldoze a few yds until he breaks one. Problem was, we didn't have a healthy Lynch and it was largely ineffective. Then, again to start off this year, the run plays are designed for an O-Line and running back we no longer have.

Same w/the passing, we were going to that dreaded bubble screen that isn't entirely ineffective UNLESS your opponent knows that's what you are going to do it and schemes for it. That is exactly what Miami's DC did and the Rams copied. Didn't matter though, we obstinately pursued that game plan in spite of any measurable rewards. Then, when I am wondering why we don't send C-Mike off tackle, they do! and voila! two good gainers, we have their D on its heels and then we do those two AC runs up the middle to leave us in 3rd and long (shit!).

Recall PC's press conf. where he's asked why we aren't using Graham differently? Remember his curt response? Either he was frustrated that his OC wasn't using him better, or guilty because he made a mistake, but the way that Graham was used today proves that the question wasn't a stupid one. I don't care what anyone says we were different today, we ran differently and we passed differently, and THAT is why we were successful.

Of course, it was a weaker defense so there is that too.

So your saying that the unimaginative moron that is Bevell made good adjustments and that stubborn Pete let him? Kinda like last year when that worthless offensive coordinater made adjustments and turned our offense into the most effective offense in the NFL.
Or perhaps we could talk about Wilsons rookie year when they decided to implement the read option(despite Russ never having run it) and our offense took off.
This board can be really myopic.

Who used the word "moron" or called anyone worthless? You people call people who criticize the play calling "haters" but you have to have an audience before you can be a hater. The real haters on the board are people like you who continue to use inflammatory language and attack people just because they have a different opinion than you. What is this? the former Soviet Union? All you do is create conflict. If you have a point to make then do it but save the abuse for the unfortunate people that have to see you day in - day out.

 

[dogorama]

The simple fact is that when we open up the offense we are a much better and why people here can't see that is beyond me.

Am curious to see what the pass/run ratio was today, compared to in the Rams game.

It was about equal 32 to 31 passing and the Ram's game we passed more 35 to 26 but that doesn't tell much because we ran much more after Boykin took over, and we had the ball for more time 36min to 24min where it was equal TOP in the Ram's game.

The problems in games 1 and 2 weren't how much we ran, or how much we passed, but how we ran and how we passed. In the first two games, we ran like we did early last year when we thought we had Beastmode back, i.e., get push on the line and have Lynch bulldoze a few yds until he breaks one. Problem was, we didn't have a healthy Lynch and it was largely ineffective. Then, again to start off this year, the run plays are designed for an O-Line and running back we no longer have.

Same w/the passing, we were going to that dreaded bubble screen that isn't entirely ineffective UNLESS your opponent knows that's what you are going to do it and schemes for it. That is exactly what Miami's DC did and the Rams copied. Didn't matter though, we obstinately pursued that game plan in spite of any measurable rewards. Then, when I am wondering why we don't send C-Mike off tackle, they do! and voila! two good gainers, we have their D on its heels and then we do those two AC runs up the middle to leave us in 3rd and long (shit!).

Recall PC's press conf. where he's asked why we aren't using Graham differently? Remember his curt response? Either he was frustrated that his OC wasn't using him better, or guilty because he made a mistake, but the way that Graham was used today proves that the question wasn't a stupid one. I don't care what anyone says we were different today, we ran differently and we passed differently, and THAT is why we were successful.

Of course, it was a weaker defense so there is that too.

So your saying that the unimaginative moron that is Bevell made good adjustments and that stubborn Pete let him? Kinda like last year when that worthless offensive coordinater made adjustments and turned our offense into the most effective offense in the NFL.
Or perhaps we could talk about Wilsons rookie year when they decided to implement the read option(despite Russ never having run it) and our offense took off.
This board can be really myopic.

BTW, we used the read option much more in the second half when we turned Wilson loose and opened up the offense. Even w/that we use it about half as much as the team that uses it the most and a third less than Carolina. The read option isn't anything new but it takes a special QB to run and that's what we have. We also had a special running back too. As for Bevell, he made adjustments when the season was already half over. Why didn't he do it earlier? Because he wasn't tired of losing yet? http://blogs.seattletimes.com/seahawks/ ... st-season/

 

[AgentDib]

I skipped many of the armchair QB threads last week but from what I saw it seemed very popular to put the offensive performance entirely on the coaching staff. In that spirit it makes sense to also chalk it up to the coaching staff when the offense excels so I can't fault the spirit of the thread.

In reality, of course, it's usually mostly on execution and our line deserves props for excellent run blocking against a weaker defensive line this week. CMike and Baldwin also played out of their minds and in retrospect I think Baldwin's back injury week 2 was a much bigger factor than any of us realized at the time.

Recall PC's press conf. where he's asked why we aren't using Graham differently? Remember his curt response? Either he was frustrated that his OC wasn't using him better, or guilty because he made a mistake

Or more simply he's just tired of the controversy around this issue from people who don't have the full information. Pete's been up front the whole time that they were going to work Jimmy back in and Miami was his preseason game 1 and LA was his preseason game 2. If you take an admission of poor usage from anything he said then that's because you're reading between the lines to satisfy your pre-existing narrative. In my experience Pete has been forthright about pretty much everything but injuries and there's just not much interpretation needed.

 

[dogorama]

I skipped many of the armchair QB threads last week but from what I saw it seemed very popular to put the offensive performance entirely on the coaching staff. In that spirit it makes sense to also chalk it up to the coaching staff when the offense excels so I can't fault the spirit of the thread.

In reality, of course, it's usually mostly on execution and our line deserves props for excellent run blocking against a weaker defensive line this week. CMike and Baldwin also played out of their minds and in retrospect I think Baldwin's back injury week 2 was a much bigger factor than any of us realized at the time.

Recall PC's press conf. where he's asked why we aren't using Graham differently? Remember his curt response? Either he was frustrated that his OC wasn't using him better, or guilty because he made a mistake

Or more simply he's just tired of the controversy around this issue from people who don't have the full information. Pete's been up front the whole time that they were going to work Jimmy back in and Miami was his preseason game 1 and LA was his preseason game 2. If you take an admission of poor usage from anything he said then that's because you're reading between the lines to satisfy your pre-existing narrative. In my experience Pete has been forthright about pretty much everything but injuries and there's just not much interpretation needed.

Reasonable post, but for your first assertion, of course, there will always be a player element involved but you also have to give your players a chance to win. I hate to keep harping on this, but if those two AC runs straight up a middle that was giving ZERO yds last week didn't bother someone, I would suggest that they score FLATLINER on the complacency scale. We had the Ram's defense on their heels and Bevell single-handedly killed that drive. That doesn't make me a Bevell hater, that makes me OBSERVANT.

IIRC, I've never said that Bevell should be fired or called him names, I have said that he should be less predictable, period. As for Graham, yes, that fits my narrative because the narrative was about a reporter asking a question that irritated PC. I also said they didn't use him "for whatever reason." Would that not include holding him back for the reasons you suggest? He may well, in fact, have been irritated because the reporter didn't have enough information but he played last week and they did NOT use him effectively AND, as such, it was not a dumb or even uninformed question given those simple facts.

We have great players at a number of different positions. We also have a middle-of-the-road offensive coordinator that just needs to give the players an opportunity to be great. Like today, and yes, that is just my opinion. Don't shoot me, I'm just the piano player.

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

Exactly what I was thinking as we watched Pittsburgh--one of the best offenses in the league--put up 3 points, with a healthy Big Ben.

I think this is what is known as, 'perspective'.

Still haven't addressed how much of it was Russell Wilson's doing.

(Unless I missed it somewhere, which is perfectly possible.)

What is their to address?

The Seahawks struggled badly when their elite mobile QB couldn't move and looked better when he could.

It's one of the worst things about last week -- that amid all the pitchforks and flaming torches, very few people were willing to just look at the laundry list of injuries and note how significant it was.

And if this is a point about 'well they're only good because of RW' -- yeah, and I bet if you go throw every top-10 offense for the last four years, they virtually all had really good QB's. You need one to be good. But it's also eerily close to an exercise in trying overly hard not to give an OC credit for bringing on a rookie QB and helping him develop into a great. Nobody seems to want to give Bevell ANY credit for how good Wilson was in 2012-13, his first two years in the league when he was learning his craft in the pro's. And nobody wants to give him credit for the record breaking run last season. Which would be a mistake.

 

[DavidSeven]

Bevell did a really nice job with Boykin. Set him up with some nice one-read plays and helped him be successful. We scored a TD against their 1st team. Our offense didn't skip a beat until Boykin's bad throw.

People wanted to crown Belichick and McDaniels as soon as Bissett scored a TD on TNF -- well, Bissett was taken in the 3rd round and has better natural talents, Boykin was undrafted and even more raw. Believe it or not, we also tailored our calls for the youngster.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

Nice blocking by Sowell, am beginning to like that guy

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Nathan_12thMan/status/780204538091360256[/tweet]

 

[Hawks46]

1 out of 3. I would like to see more of what happened today from those 2 offensive coaches.
I would have very little to complain about these 2 if their gameplanning and playcalling was as good as it was today week in and week out.

Whose playcalling is good week in and week out though? Or let me rephrase that -- whose offensive gameplan works every week, whose players execute at a high level every week? To go along with the play calling working.

I get the sense there is a perception that there are teams out there churning out constant brilliance on offense.

Look at the Steelers today -- three points and a pasting. The Cards -- four picks for Palmer. The rams are set to beat SEA and TB in back-to-back weeks after losing 28-0 to the Niners. The Jets looked great @ Buffalo and today Fitzpatrick threw six interceptions.

This league is tough. Really tough. And Seattle's offense has been top-10 in DVOA for four years. Which is very impressive -- and working alongside a top defense is a great mix.

I'd say the Patriots have done a masterful job of not only working their young QBs in, but changing game plans week to week. They lead the league in rushing so far.....this is the "pass happy" Patriots. In talking about them, analysts will point to their OL as a weakness. Half the league has a "weak" OL, good coordinators game plan around it.

I would say Dallas has been doing a good job, but I think that OL makes it a lot easier, Players executing and all.

Minnesota has also done a good job getting Bradford up to speed quickly.

I thought the game plan was good, but typically I do think the game plan is good. I think Bevell struggles with adjustments and making defenses make adjustments for us and not the other way around. I also think Bevell is annually out coached by a few people that know him well, and Fisher is one of them. Some of that is on Pete though.

Funny how when players execute the game plan is good. When the players don't execute, the game plan is crap.

 

[lukerguy]

I agree. I honestly don't believe this is a situation where you can say, "It just looked good because it worked".

There were many situations when I either said out loud or in my head "They're doing to (RUN/Pass) here.." and was wrong. I find their play calling often predictable, but last week was very different.

 

[Joyodongo]

1 out of 3. I would like to see more of what happened today from those 2 offensive coaches.
I would have very little to complain about these 2 if their gameplanning and playcalling was as good as it was today week in and week out.

Whose playcalling is good week in and week out though? Or let me rephrase that -- whose offensive gameplan works every week, whose players execute at a high level every week? To go along with the play calling working.

I get the sense there is a perception that there are teams out there churning out constant brilliance on offense.

Look at the Steelers today -- three points and a pasting. The Cards -- four picks for Palmer. The rams are set to beat SEA and TB in back-to-back weeks after losing 28-0 to the Niners. The Jets looked great @ Buffalo and today Fitzpatrick threw six interceptions.

This league is tough. Really tough. And Seattle's offense has been top-10 in DVOA for four years. Which is very impressive -- and working alongside a top defense is a great mix.

I'd say the Patriots have done a masterful job of not only working their young QBs in, but changing game plans week to week. They lead the league in rushing so far.....this is the "pass happy" Patriots. In talking about them, analysts will point to their OL as a weakness. Half the league has a "weak" OL, good coordinators game plan around it.

I would say Dallas has been doing a good job, but I think that OL makes it a lot easier, Players executing and all.

Minnesota has also done a good job getting Bradford up to speed quickly.

I thought the game plan was good, but typically I do think the game plan is good. I think Bevell struggles with adjustments and making defenses make adjustments for us and not the other way around. I also think Bevell is annually out coached by a few people that know him well, and Fisher is one of them. Some of that is on Pete though.

Funny how when players execute the game plan is good. When the players don't execute, the game plan is crap.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not very confident about the Bevell offensive game plan against the Jets with Boykin or with Russell starting. Can we please ask the Pats to lend us Josh McDaniels for a week to do it for him? For a week? No, I think 2 days will be enough ...

 

[canfan]

I'd love to be wrong, but I'm not very confident about the Bevell offensive game plan against the Jets with Boykin or with Russell starting. Can we please ask the Pats to lend us Josh McDaniels for a week to do it for him? For a week? No, I think 2 days will be enough ...

Just a side note on McDaniels. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm having trouble reconciling the Josh MacDaniels that everybody is praising for his masterful handling of a rookie QB in NE with the OC for the Rams in 2011 who stubbornly stuck to a gameplan in St Louis that seemed tailor made to getting Bradford killed and depended on long developing plays that made absolutely no consession to the fact that Bradford had no time to stand in the pocket. He ended up beat to a pulp and missed 5 games that year. Maybe I'd be happier if they would lend us Bellichek for a couple of days instead. After all, he's the puppet master pulling the strings on Josh, and rumour has it in another thread that he is the only real coach in the league anyway. :sarcasm_on:

 

[TwistedHusky]

So to clarify, this is a thread praising our OC for looking good against a team that they should look good against?

Further, this OC 'looked good' by finally doing a lot of the things that many of us were frustrated the OC was not doing?

Though, the run game looked leagues better.

I would be ecstatic to see that our OC tossed the tendencies and became more well-rounded and able to adapt. Let us hope this proved to be a turning point.

I remain skeptical but hopeful.

Let us hope you are right.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

So to clarify, this is a thread praising our OC for looking good against a team that they should look good against?

Further, this OC 'looked good' by finally doing a lot of the things that many of us were frustrated the OC was not doing?
..

Yep, that 300+ yds of first-half offense yesterday was a clear vindication of the much-smarter OC's here on .net!

Let's be glad Bevell finally listened..

 

[theENGLISHseahawk]

So to clarify, this is a thread praising our OC for looking good against a team that they should look good against?

Yep, to balance out all of the 'sky is falling, OH MY GOD FIRE HIM AND EVERYONE!' rhetoric from last week when the team lost to a divisional opponent they've consistently struggled against (while racking up double digit win seasons), that they match-up against poorly in terms of OFFvDEF personnel and with a clearly injured QB plus a laundry list of injury issues across the board on offense.

That is the point.

 

[Seymour]

Looks like winning is not the cure all that many claim. It hasn't cured the need for people with an agenda to push it onto anyone unsuspectingly reading threads like this.
Well done is right, wrong person is all! ukeface: