What do Pete/John see in Bevell to keep him?

[gowazzu02]

Didn't read through all 98 posts but wanted to speak my mind on the topic-

Bevell's has or his offense has:
- been to the last two superbowls, winning one, and was one bad call from a second.
-Has a defense first HC that would be ticked off at open fee gunning turnover prone offense plays
- Lead the league in rushing how many years in a row now
- Has an offense line that is absolutely terrible, and been below average the last few years
-Has been lead by UDFA in WR the last few years
-Has a QB that every team passed on 3 times in the draft
-Has a QB that while has a unique skill set, does not have the NORMAL nfl qb skill set

For all the bashing he's really done a lot with a little amount of resources if you look at it objectively....

 

[Siouxhawk]

Didn't read through all 98 posts but wanted to speak my mind on the topic-

Bevell's has or his offense has:
- been to the last two superbowls, winning one, and was one bad call from a second.
-Has a defense first HC that would be ticked off at open fee gunning turnover prone offense plays
- Lead the league in rushing how many years in a row now
- Has an offense line that is absolutely terrible, and been below average the last few years
-Has been lead by UDFA in WR the last few years
-Has a QB that every team passed on 3 times in the draft
-Has a QB that while has a unique skill set, does not have the NORMAL nfl qb skill set

For all the bashing he's really done a lot with a little amount of resources if you look at it objectively....

But didn't you know that it's way more fun for all the Monday Mourning QBs to cherry pick stats and antidotes that make themselves seem far superior to us simple-folk fans and certainly the Seahawks coaching staff. They would rather do this and ignore all of the solid points you just made. I guess some people have to have a hobby, right?

 

[xgeoff]

I've been very outspoken in my criticism of Darell Bevell, and i continue to believe that we need someone new at OC. With that being said, I can understand why Pete feels comfortable with Bevell.

First of all, I really think a lot of the Offensive woes are due to the Offensive Line, and if anyone should go, it should be Cable before Bevell. The Offensive line was ranked 19th in the league by Pro Football Focus last year and the year before was 27th. So far this year they are 28th. This unit consistently underperforms.

When they do perform, which I think they did last year against Arizona, special things happen.

Where I am critical of Bevell, is in his play designs first and foremost, and secondly on his calls early on in games.

On the play design, the little 3yd outs that he has Jimmy Graham running, the jet sweeps he gave Percy Harvin, the WR screens, ack! They seem dumb to me, but I'm sure that there is good intent behind it and that Pete is on board with the things they are trying to do. What I see is that the Seahawks struggle in attacking down the field and deep over the middle, so the opposing defenses end up jumping routes and deliver big hits to our receivers on the short routes. Rarely do I see our receivers catch the ball in space.

This could be due to the Offensive line woes. The longer routes take more time to develop, and frankly Russ just may not have time to get them. In the Packers game there was a play on 3rd and 10 where Russ got great protection and Doug Baldwin ran a deep route. Wilson barely overthrew him, or we might have had a touchdown to put the game away.

Instead we punted, and the rest is history.

So this was an example of a good play, but tough to convert a deep route like this on 3rd and 10. And I just see some bizarre plays on what should be gimme downs. 3rd and 3, for example. I simply can't believe that we aren't calling plays where one option is Jimmy Graham in a short seam over the middle. Maybe even in combination with a run/pass option. I mean this is not really rocket science.

I have pointed out previously that although we struggled to get Percy Harvin the ball, the Bills and Jets have had no such problems.

And I'm not blind to the fact that Graham had 5 catches in the first game, and I don't want us to force Graham the ball. We tried that with Harvin, and it didn't really work. I listened to Bevell's press conference this week, and he came across as a very thoughtful guy. I can see him trying to work things out with the WR's, with Cable and the OL, and with Pete. I can see the collaboration that must take place behind the scenes and understand why Pete would favor keeping him on.

I'm also not blind to the fact that Bevell instituted a read option offense to take advantage of Russ' skillset. This was a really good thing, and he needs to get some credit for that as well.

But the plays, for whatever reason, are not stretching the opposing defenses, they're not fooling the opposing defenses, and they're not putting the right guys in positions to make plays.

The O-line is a huge factor, and our play calling seems to get much better in the 2nd half of games. Maybe if we ditched the script, maybe if the O-line did their job, maybe...

 

[kearly]

Kearly, are you really that well versed in the other 31 OCs that you can definitely say "no other OC in the league is more challenged by complexity"?

I'm not an X's and O's guy, but I've literally only heard the 'high school offense" critique for the Seahawks and nobody else. They don't even say that about the Panthers, and if there was a team that needed the offense to be spoon fed, it's that team.

It just seems so odd to me. Very few offenses in the NFL have as many playmakers as Seattle. And Wilson is one of the smarter, harder working QBs. I used to put the simplicity on Wilson because he was young, but now I think it's a Pete/Bevell thing. And it might even be more about Pete than Bevell, given that Pete stresses remarkable simplicity on defense too.

 

[kearly]

I think in football there is a spectrum for how to run an offense. Complexity versus Brute Force. One of the fun things about the recent SB was that it pitted the epitome of both styles against each other.

I think Bevell might not have a job many other places, but he keeps his job in Seattle because Pete Carroll wants the game to be more about athleticism than choreography. Pete wants it simple. Bevell is a simple OC.

What confuses me a bit though is that every offseason it feels like the team wants to add complexity. Harvin, Graham, Lockett, Richardson, those are all nuanced players that are not simply plug and play. You have to find a way to get them the ball, and it isn't easy. We just assume that Bevell doesn't know what he's doing, but maybe it would be more fair to say this is an organizational weakness. There is an awful lot of square pegs and round holes on our offense.

That said, some of Bevell's play calling and play design is just flat out dumb. It's not MMQB'ing to point out inherent flaws in the designs of plays or how they were used in improper situations in games. The smarter Bevell critics aren't whining about good plays that fail, but about tendencies that even a layman can see as sub-optimal.

 

[Spin Doctor]

Didn't read through all 98 posts but wanted to speak my mind on the topic-

Bevell's has or his offense has:
- been to the last two superbowls, winning one, and was one bad call from a second.
-Has a defense first HC that would be ticked off at open fee gunning turnover prone offense plays
- Lead the league in rushing how many years in a row now
- Has an offense line that is absolutely terrible, and been below average the last few years
-Has been lead by UDFA in WR the last few years
-Has a QB that every team passed on 3 times in the draft
-Has a QB that while has a unique skill set, does not have the NORMAL nfl qb skill set

For all the bashing he's really done a lot with a little amount of resources if you look at it objectively....

Little amount of resources, eh? The Seahawks have invested a heavily into our offense, I do not want to hear about "limited resources". In 2013 the Seahawks traded a first rounder for Percy Harvin, in 2015 they traded a first rounder away for Jimmy Graham. The Seahawks signed one of the best pass catching TE's at the time in Zach Miller. The Seahawks invested a considerable amount of capital into Sidney Rice, and they also have spent a considerable amount of high draft picks on offense. The Seahawks also had at the time one of the more dynamic WR's in Golden Tate, and one of the best third down/slot receivers in Doug Baldwin. We also have one of the best running backs in the NFL in Marshawn Lynch.

The Seahawks have thrown a lot of money and resources at our offense, yet our offense still looks like a dumpster fire. I'm not blaming Bevell for this entirely, some of it is on Wilson's limitations, and O-Line play however I do not see Bevell helping the situation. When your line is struggling against the Rams, whom have one of the most stacked D-Lines in the NFL, why do you keep calling empty sets? This is the kind of logic that Bevell's play calling follows. He outwits himself, and puts the offense in unfavorable situations.

I do not believe "but we were in the last two superbowls" is good logic here. Our offense went through huge stretches where it was carried by a defense that is quite frankly the best we've seen since the Buccaneers, and Ravens of the early 2000s. The Seahawks are 2 and 9 when 24 or more points are scored on the Seahawks. Our goal line, and third down stats look awful. Bevell is a weak link on this team, and each week he continues to demonstrate this fact with his head scratching decisions, and failure to adjust.

 

[Siouxhawk]

It most certainly does qualify as Monday Mouring QBing because you have the benefit of the doubt to pick away at every little thing that goes wrong without pointing out the right decisions. As a team that's won the NFC championship that last two years, I'd say we've been doing more things well than 30 of the other teams in the league.

For example, all the whining about not getting Graham the ball on Sunday doesn't account for the fact that our offense produced over a 70 percent accuracy percentage and hit on many of the first downs and our only two touchdowns through the air. But that gets discounted because the whining of the day has to be about Jimmy not getting the ball.

And when it all comes down to the brass tax, we are still a running team with Marshawn being the focal point. Plays called last Sunday were trying to get that spark ignited (even through the air), but breakdowns on the line, a couple of Marshawn drops and even Marshawn reading the wrong holes to attack didn't allow that to get clicking. The Packers had something to do with that too.

 

[Siouxhawk]

A dumpster fire? Really? The visiting team this week may qualify for that overexaggeration, but it certainly doesn't describe the Seahawks.

 

[hawksfansinceday1]

It most certainly does qualify as Monday Mouring QBing because you have the benefit of the doubt to pick away at every little thing that goes wrong without pointing out the right decisions. As a team that's won the NFC championship that last two years, I'd say we've been doing more things well than 30 of the other teams in the league.

For example, all the whining about not getting Graham the ball on Sunday doesn't account for the fact that our offense produced over a 70 percent accuracy percentage and hit on many of the first downs and our only two touchdowns through the air. But that gets discounted because the whining of the day has to be about Jimmy not getting the ball.

And when it all comes down to the brass tax, we are still a running team with Marshawn being the focal point. Plays called last Sunday were trying to get that spark ignited (even through the air), but breakdowns on the line, a couple of Marshawn drops and even Marshawn reading the wrong holes to attack didn't allow that to get clicking. The Packers had something to do with that too.

tacks not tax

 

[DavidSeven]

I'm not an X's and O's guy, but I've literally only heard the 'high school offense" critique for the Seahawks and nobody else.

The Philly press is actually saying this about Chip Kelly's offense. In fact, I heard a Philly radio guy use that exact phrase just the other day and also claimed that Chip only has four running plays in his playbook, which I can easily believe. Josh Huff said the Cowboys were calling out Chip's plays from the sidelines pre-snap, and the Seahawks made a similar comment about his offense last year. They run the most basic stuff in the league.

Complexity for the sake of complexity is what it is. Some coaches clearly believe in what they run at a fundamental level and don't want to get to get complicated just for the sake of it. Pete fired a prior OC for wanting complicated schemes, and Gus Bradley just fired an OC for the same reason.

In terms of infusing elements of complexity, I think a lot of that also comes from Pete. I think he's fine with gimmicks as long as it's easy to run -- so he likes college plays. Bevell's a pro-style west coast offense guy. He didn't run jet sweeps when he was with Harvin in Minnesota. Pete's the one who brought in read-option, the Auburn "pop" play, the Florida jet sweep, and, hell, he's probably the godfather of the bubble-screen as well.

The offense is Pete's show. Make no mistake.

 

[Siouxhawk]

Thanks. Phone autocorrect at its finest

 

[Scottemojo]

I'm not an X's and O's guy, but I've literally only heard the 'high school offense" critique for the Seahawks and nobody else.

The Philly press is actually saying this about Chip Kelly's offense. In fact, I heard a Philly radio guy use that exact phrase just the other day and also claimed that Chip only has four running plays in his playbook, which I can easily believe. Josh Huff said the Cowboys were calling out Chip's plays from the sidelines pre-snap, and the Seahawks made a similar comment about his offense last year. They run the most basic stuff in the league.

Complexity for the sake of complexity is what it is. Some coaches clearly believe in what they run at a fundamental level and don't want to get to get complicated just for the sake of it. Pete fired a prior OC for wanting complicated schemes, and Gus Bradley just fired an OC for the same reason.

In terms of infusing elements of complexity, I think a lot of that also comes from Pete. I think he's fine with gimmicks as long as it's easy to run -- so he likes college plays. Bevell's a pro-style west coast offense guy. He didn't run jet sweeps when he was with Harvin in Minnesota. Pete's the one who brought in read-option, the Auburn "pop" play, the Florida jet sweep, and, hell, he's probably the godfather of the bubble-screen as well.

The offense is Pete's show. Make no mistake.

I'm no expert, but I have watched a ton of Philly on my rewind, Chip fascinates me. His running game is super simple. Mostly he is going with 5 or 6 blockers, and he runs a lot of inside or outside zone.

But his passing game is anything but simple. I tend to think of it like Phil Jackson's triangle offense. He gets the defense to empty out zones and then runs a third pass catcher through that zone oftentimes, and it is crazy how open that 3rd guy is most of the time. You won't often fins examples of us running those 3 man things, and when we have they have been equally open. Marshawn wide open for a TD in the 2012 42-13 drubbing of the Niners springs to mind as a time when we used two to clear a zone and a third to clean it up.

But for the most part, Chip and Lazor in Miami think of a short run as a failed play. Our staff wants to tire a defense with contact, those two coaches want to tire through number of plays.

When Bevell calls a good game, and he will, I will give him all the credit he deserves. But when he stinks it up, he deserves criticism. He deserved all the criticism in the world for trying to design his offense around Harvin last year, because he did it at the expense of the run game and Lynch. Which was counter to the beat em up philosophy that is Pete's core. People can respond with "oh yea, two SBs" as their answer all day long, Pete and Bevell did not know how to incorporate Percy into the offense without losing running rhythm.

Getting Jimmy the ball should be a priority, but with in the framework of this philosophy it has to be off of play action because of the insistence that Jimmy is a tight end, and not just a tight end, but a tight end as it is narrowly defined in this offense.

I ersonally think treating him as an inline tight end is silly. Perhaps if they had kept a blocking TE on the roster they could think of Graham as a big WR, but they didn't. Instead they kept two FBs.

 

[kearly]

He deserved all the criticism in the world for trying to design his offense around Harvin last year, because he did it at the expense of the run game and Lynch. Which was counter to the beat em up philosophy that is Pete's core. People can respond with "oh yea, two SBs" as their answer all day long, Pete and Bevell did not know how to incorporate Percy into the offense without losing running rhythm.

There really hasn't been a player brought in from outside the organization who met expectations here, other than Lynch. And in the case of Lynch, he turned his career around thanks to Cable's system and mentoring.

I thought for sure Harvin would work here. Bevell had two good seasons with Harvin in Minnesota.

Obviously Seattle had to get rid of Harvin. He was a cancer. But all the same, I think the team could have fixed the on-field issues with Harvin if given more time. The team was still in the 'feeling out' phase with Harvin by the time they dumped him. Games like Minnesota in 2013, SB XLVIII, the Packers in week 1 last year, and the Redskins in 2014 (Harvin had 3 TDs called back!) showed that Harvin was a difference maker when he was clicking.

So while it's completely true that Harvin's fit in the offense was clunky, I think that's really just an inevitable reality for most players who move on to new offenses. There is going to be an adjustment period for both the player and the coaches. I'm not saying this to defend Harvin. I think if Harvin were a model citizen, he'd still be here and there's a good chance the wrinkles would have been ironed out by now. In other words, I blame Harvin, not the coaches, for his failure here.

On that same note, I anticipated that Seattle would bumble Graham's usage initially. I still loved the trade, because I don't think Graham will force his way off the team like Harvin did. He'll afford the team enough games to figure out how to use him properly. If they just pull their heads out of their asses and use him like BMW in 2010, he'll fit in this offense like a charm. This is also why I thought Zach Miller would be back. But hey, sometimes the Seahawks can be mysterious.

I enjoyed reading your insights on the Eagles. I'm not an X's and O's guy, but I did notice that the Eagles are one of the best teams in the league at getting open looks for their WRs, and IMO their WR group is full of #2 and #3 guys. That doesn't happen without some nuance in the schemes.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Obviously Seattle had to get rid of Harvin. He was a cancer. But all the same, I think the team could have fixed the on-field issues with Harvin if given more time. The team was still in the 'feeling out' phase with Harvin by the time they dumped him. Games like Minnesota in 2013, SB XLVIII, the Packers in week 1 last year, and the Redskins in 2014 (Harvin had 3 TDs called back!) showed that Harvin was a difference maker when he was clicking.

You can't fix anything the moment a player refuses to go on the field.

Pete is arguably the biggest "player's coach" in the league, and puts up with a LOT of crap from our players............but refuse to play? Nope, you're gone.

I think we did learn our lesson with Harvin, which is why you're not seeing a bunch of balls being forced into Graham possibly resulting in more interceptions.

Having said this I do think Russell needs to be more aware Graham. Quite a few times Graham had one on one coverage and Russell either didn't go to him, or didn't switch out of a run play. One on one? Go to Graham. Always.

 

[ctrcat]

Kearly, are you really that well versed in the other 31 OCs that you can definitely say "no other OC in the league is more challenged by complexity"?

I'm not an X's and O's guy, but I've literally only heard the 'high school offense" critique for the Seahawks and nobody else. They don't even say that about the Panthers, and if there was a team that needed the offense to be spoon fed, it's that team.

Depends on where you are. In the Carolinas, "high school offense" would be considered high praise for Mike Shula in recent years. He has called two good games however this year and shown little problem moving the ball against two decent D's with Ted Ginn as his #1 WR.

 

[DavidSeven]

Fair points above.

Couple things I'll add:

*I don't think Percy was as colossal a scheme failure as some portray. As Kearly notes, look back at the games against MN, NO, DEN 1, GB, DEN 2, WAS... he was a difference maker in each of those games. The other thing to note is that Marshawn Lynch played great in each of those games as well (besides maybe the SB), so I don't think I agree that using Harvin in this fashion hurt him.

The game against Dallas was a disaster, but you had receivers blocking for him who hated his guts at that point. If Harvin was as accepted and selfless as Tate, he'd still be here and the offense would likely be clicking with him as a gadget player. That being said, Harvin's personal baggage and history of milking injuries and loafing in practice made this a bad decision by PC/JS from the start IMO. Also, my speculative opinion is that Percy turned on Wilson because he was getting open but wasn't getting the ball. Same reason why Doug has thrown shade at Russell quite frequently during their time together.

*I predicted this problem with Graham was going to happen before the season started. I was one of the few beating the drum that we gave up too much in this deal (and Scotte too, I believe). Besides red-zone effectiveness, he just isn't a great fit for this offense. For whatever reason, we do not exploit skill advantages on the field. Adding another high-priced ball catcher just doesn't change this offense much between the 20s. Before the season started, this is the area I begged for Wilson to grow in. We can scheme up anything we want, but we're not going to scheme Graham wide open on multiple plays. That's not how Gronk gets his numbers, and that's not how Jimmy got them in NO. I will eat my words though if we suddenly become a team that can hone in on our best pass-catching talent.

 

[hawk45]

DavidSeven, Russ threw to Tate covered, he'll throw to Kearse covered, he'll throw to Willson covered, why would it not change our offense for the better to have a wideout (which is what Graham should be) with a height/wingspan advantage for him to throw to covered instead?

Not saying it's all on Bevell, but even if it is Russ learning to trust Graham, when he does do so surely that'll make a big difference?

Both Bevell and Russ need to learn to take advantages of skill mismatches, not just give up on the concept because we haven't done it well.

 

[kearly]

Obviously Seattle had to get rid of Harvin. He was a cancer. But all the same, I think the team could have fixed the on-field issues with Harvin if given more time. The team was still in the 'feeling out' phase with Harvin by the time they dumped him. Games like Minnesota in 2013, SB XLVIII, the Packers in week 1 last year, and the Redskins in 2014 (Harvin had 3 TDs called back!) showed that Harvin was a difference maker when he was clicking.

You can't fix anything the moment a player refuses to go on the field.

Pete is arguably the biggest "player's coach" in the league, and puts up with a LOT of crap from our players............but refuse to play? Nope, you're gone.

All true. You basically jumped in mid-point. If you read on, I said that Harvin is the reason Harvin didn't work here, and that his being a cancer is what screwed it up. Point being, if Harvin had been a model citizen it's reasonable to wonder if his lack of fit in the offense might have been corrected eventually.

I think we did learn our lesson with Harvin, which is why you're not seeing a bunch of balls being forced into Graham possibly resulting in more interceptions.

Having said this I do think Russell needs to be more aware Graham. Quite a few times Graham had one on one coverage and Russell either didn't go to him, or didn't switch out of a run play. One on one? Go to Graham. Always.

I get why you think that. At the same time, almost every good offense in the NFL has a guy they funnel their offense through. For Seattle and Minnesota, that player happens to be a RB. For Dallas it's Dez. For Pittsburgh it's Antonio Brown, and so on.

What gets tricky is when you want to funnel your offense through TWO players, and it's even tougher when those players are so unique and play different positions. Lynch needs the right kind of environment to be his best. Same thing with Wilson. Same thing with Harvin. Seattle was still in the midst of figuring out how to balance those three guys in the same offense when Harvin ended the experiment by quitting on the team. IIRC, Harvin only played in 8 total regular season Seahawks games.

With Graham, I see him as being more plug and play than Harvin was. He doesn't need certain playcalls or formations to be good. That said, the more the team uses him like a receiver and the less they use him like a TE, the more successful he'll be. And if they use him in a way that gets him running more routes, he's a guy that should lead the team in receptions.

 

[kearly]

The offense is Pete's show. Make no mistake.

I said before that I think the simplicity on offense is at least partially a Pete thing. It's possible that the square peg / round hole aspect of our offense is on Pete as well.

That said, I look at the Patriots, and their legendary head coach is a defense guy. You'd never know it, because the Patriots are so famous for their offense. I'm not the biggest fan of Josh McDaniels, but there's no question he helped transform that offense. He was in his 2nd year when the offense played at historic levels in 2007. When he returned in 2012, the offense surged again.

We've seen something like this in Seattle on Defense. When Dan Quinn took over for Gus Bradley, our defense immediately improved. Yes, Bennett and Avril helped with that, but Quinn's zone coverages were far more effective and his use of the blitz was far smarter. It may have been "Pete's defense," but Quinn's management of that defense was a cut above his predecessor.

There are coordinators in this league who are difference makers. There are a lot of petty complaints about Bevell's play design and situational wisdom, but my main beef with him is that he's never been a difference making OC despite having one of the more talented offenses in the league. Every time the Hawks try to do something new on offense, it either fails or gets off to a slow start. Very few NFL teams have added more talent on offense than Seattle since 2010, yet many of those talents have come here and withered. And even on the individual game level, Seattle's opening game plans on offense are some of the least effective in the league.

It's true that any Bevell replacement would probably keep things simple the way Pete likes it. But that doesn't excuse Bevell's failings. By ignoring them, Pete isn't even doing service to his always compete mantra. At some point, standards and expectations need to be assigned and met for Darrell Bevell. It feels like he has this job on tenure.