Why are so many clamoring for coaching changes?

[Sports Hernia]

Interesting that none of our coaches even got a sniff for head jobs this year....

That says a lot actually. Their phones should be ringing off the hook as of now........... Right???

 

[rcaido]

I'm going to throw this story out there and people can take it how they want.

So I work in corrections. I've worked at two different facilities. Darrell Bevell came in for a tour of my previous facility before training camp started last season. One of the Lieutenants, who is a huge Giants fan, grilled him a little bit when he came into the shift office. He asked him if it was his call to throw a pass from the one-yard line. Bevell laughed, and simply said, "Considering where I am, I am going to plead the fifth on that one." When I heard that, I accepted that PC saying that the final play call was his really was true. It wasn't Bevell who wanted that slant from the one - it was Pete. I mean, if it wasn't, I think Bevell would have owned it the second that question came out of the Lieutenant's mouth.

Take that for what you will. I think Bevell does some really good things. I also think that Pete overrules him at times. Not all the time, but a decent amount, and maybe less now after last year's SB loss. I might be wrong as I'm going off of secondhand information.

I want to keep Bevell, and I want Pete to completely hand him the keys to the offense. That's what my gut tells me.

Please dont hand the keys to Bevell, i love my Seahawks.

You have nothing to stand on that supports that statement. Has Pete ever said the offense completely belongs to Bevell?

So that's kind of the point of this thread. You obviously don't like Bevell. What's your solution? Who are you bringing in to guide this offense?

Keep it the way it is...Just fix the offensive line & we should be good.

 

[Seahawkfan80]

Interesting that none of our coaches even got a sniff for head jobs this year....

That says a lot actually. Their phones should be ringing off the hook as of now........... Right???

I would say in theory, that one might be. The games in the offseason were more important at the time tho. I think someone was being looked at for a college job if I recall correctly.

But they may be holding out til Wednesday...yanno....sweating them out. LOL 8)

 

[Optimus25]

I have went from anti Bevell at all costs to hoping he stays but maybe somehow Pete and co. change the offense enough to get him less agitating to my brain.

Here's my anti Bevell problems, the most condensed version...

Starting this game with a lazy ass RO was about as stupid as it gets. Their defense was playing with house money from that fluke eighty yard run, they were ready to unleash the pressure and get after us. Should have started with a quick slant to opposite Norman. If that didn't work should have thrown a quick fade the same direction on second down, and if nothing then on third roll russ out and look for something to develop on third. Just my two cents, but when you know their secondary is banged why are we starting the game by attacking the teeth of their defense?.

Very first play of the season that we targeted Jimmy was nice. At St Louis, we motion him across a formation and isolate him far left, setting up a simple eight yard out. Where the hell did that go for the other six or seven games Jimmy played?. On that note, The formation the patriots use is brilliant, where they line up heavy set but then motion Gronk and another TE out wide. It creates a difficult situation for a defense to try to do anything in that moment besides single cover. I just don't see anything like this from Bevell. Hell I'll take Jimmy over Gronk, are we too proud to imitate?

Not one Damn jet sweep with lockett. When you got the weapon hell at least fake it to set up a dive.

Our second down conversion attempts have been asinine.

When we play los Angeles, our offense reminds me of the fly slamming into the window. We don't change a thing. We keep trying to play our way when we know Damn well they over match us when we try to pound and strike. But nothing seems to change. Maybe there were a lot of mistakes in that game but the fact is we are one of the only teams in the league to get stone walled by them this often, and we should have the familiarity to game plan better. Win those games and our seeding is way better off.

That's all i got because i don't want to open more wounds.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

Interesting that none of our coaches even got a sniff for head jobs this year....

What assistant of ours is exciting to a team?

We have good assistants, but other than Richard none of them are very sexy as the new young hot coordinator..........Cable and Bevell have been around the block 20 times in this league.

Maybe in a couple years if our defense gets back to 2013 levels? Then maybe Richard starts getting serious looks, but as of now he's still young and learning how to coach.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Take that for what you will. I think Bevell does some really good things. I also think that Pete overrules him at times. Not all the time, but a decent amount, and maybe less now after last year's SB loss. I might be wrong as I'm going off of secondhand information.

I want to keep Bevell, and I want Pete to completely hand him the keys to the offense. That's what my gut tells me.

If you can provide justification for the following things, then you strengthen your argument to keep Bevell.

1. Low percentage deep bombs on 3rd and 2 when one more first down is needed to close the game.

2. Screen passes to Bryan Walters.

3. Non-Lockett wide receivers in the backfield.

4. Jimmy Graham used to block on crucial 3rd-and-longs.

5. Play action on 3rd and 10+ when nobody in their right mind expects Seattle to run.

6. Fullbacks used as receivers in 5-wide formations.

7. Eight-game stretches featuring too many 3rd-and-long plays without hot routes or staggered reads.

8. Using third-string tight ends to block Pro bowl pass rushers.

9. An established tendency to drop what's working in favor of one of the above.

10. Taking the entire first half to adjust (Fieldgulls had a good article on that somewhere).

11. Abandoning the run too quickly.

12. Continuing, even in the season's second half, to open the game with slow-developing plays.

13. Taking absolutely forever to get the offense back up to the line for a play, making us one of the league's slowest offenses.

There are people who just want a scapegoat. There are also people who criticize Bevell based on established, visible-on-tape tendencies that don't put this offense in the best position to succeed. It's disappointing to see these tendencies go un-addressed by contrarian Bevell supporters (you know who you are). There are reasons Bevell gets flak.

Now, you could argue that some of these decisions are due to personnel shortcomings. You could also argue that Pete is the one really at the wheel, and that his "can you win in the 1st quarter" philosophy led him to bury the playbook until the second half of the season. I personally lean that direction.

I also agree that Bevell has (finally) shown enough to where it's not worth killing our continuity to replace him.

But whether it's Pete or Bevell who called these plays, it's also arguable that #1 and #7 played a big role in our losses and our status as a sixth seed, and that the rest continuously chipped away at our drive efficiency. Until the bye, our offensive gameplan was not playing to our strengths but putting the burden squarely on a brand-new offensive line that couldn't deliver in protection. There ARE ways around that, and Bevell wasn't using them. We saw what happened once the playbook was altered. Everyone looked better. It strains credulity to think that everyone just suddenly "got it" over the bye. It's much more likely that Pete and Bevell finally decided to call a system that put our players in a position to succeed.

Those are my criticisms. Bizarre play designs, bad decision-making on third and long, questionable philosophy for the season. Perhaps Bevell is growing same as everyone else, and perhaps we will see Seattle storm out of the game offensively next year instead of piddling around and trusting in Russ's magic.

And just because I can't come up with a better OC right now, doesn't mean those concerns are invalid. If you put a gun to my head, I'd be curious what Paul Chryst is doing.

 

[Ozzy]

Watching Lockett as the blocking WR for Kearse on multiple bubble screens earlier this year is a head scratcher.

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

This is my attempt to explain one possible aspect of why some of us will be so consistently in favor of pursuing coaching changes and also why some will be so consistently opposed:

I've been learning about socioeconomic status (working class, middle class, upper class, etc.) and some of the tendencies that correlate with people who have grown up in various situations. To paraphrase it simply, people seem to have a tendency to share some similar values as their parents and our parents will tend to encourage behaviors which are beneficial for the culture of their profession as well as the profession their parents had. The most relevant classes for most football fans would probably be the upper-middle class, middle class, and working class.

The upper-middle and middle classes are noted to involve more white collar work where independence, initiative, and regularly using skills provided by one's education are encouraged. The working class is noted to involve a more explicit honesty as well as emphasizing conformity and obedience. For me this was incredible to read about because it's essentially saying that when we're presented with a situation, people with what initially seems like little or no connection to each other in our country will tend to make similar kinds of decisions when faced with similar situations.

Every off-season we seem to be presented with such a situation when we make a personal choice about the general direction the team should go in the off-season. The directions we choose generally seem to fall between two extremes. The first extreme would be to decide that we should fire everyone, sell the team to a better owner, and begin a complete and total rebuild. The second extreme would be to express one's complete and utter confidence in the staff and how we should change very little or nothing about how we approach an upcoming season ("In PC and JS we trust").

After reading about the tendencies related to socioeconomic status, these two extremes are especially interesting. Even if ultimately insane at the time, saying we should be blowing the entire team up for a total rebuild is a supremely independent statement to make and would take a great deal of initiative to put into practice. On the other hand, stating one's complete trust and confidence in the current regime would appear to be similarly supreme in obedience and conformity. Granted, we all tend to fall somewhere in the middle and if socioeconomic status does impact our decision, it's likely one small piece of a much larger puzzle.

Nonetheless, our attitudes toward an off-season will generally be slanted closer to independence or obedience. It's incredible to think that we may be proclaiming what seems best for the team based not on what may actually be best for the team but what's best for acting according to values we might not even know we currently have. These values could be the kind that we didn't really choose because we may have been born into a situation where we would be deeply influenced into having them.

Why are so many clamoring for coaching changes? Perhaps we're doing it in part because we value our independence above so much else and this is a way for us to express how independent we think we are. Similarly, if we're valuing obedience, we may be expressing our trust and admiration for the coaching staff to signify what a loyal team-player we think we are. If true, this would be consistent with other research suggesting how greatly we value our own expression.

 

[DavidSeven]

Interesting that none of our coaches even got a sniff for head jobs this year....

Neither did the Patriots staff. Obviously, Bill should fire 'em all.

 

[Siouxhawk]

This was a big transition year for us in making Russ the focal point of the offense and Bev was the point person for making that happen. I believe he succeeded and we will see the positive dividends of that going forward. We do need our offensive line play to take one more big step to handle the maulers on teams like the Rams and Panthers and we will be amazing

 

[scutterhawk]

Past four years - four playoff appearances, two SB appearances, one SB win.

I think it would be a mistake to let Bevell and Cable go. I do think that Tom Cable needs to rethink his philosophy a bit, and I think that happens no matter what based on Pete's comments today. There's going to be a bit of a roster churn going on this offseason. I have been pretty hard on Bevell, but the truth is he's probably one of the best offensive coordinators out there. We don't know what goes on behind the scenes, but I'd be willing to bet that he gets handcuffed by Pete a lot.

I don't want this to be too long - but I guess I just don't get the dissent with our coaching staff. The results have been amazing. RW just had his best statistical season ever, yet I see so many still calling for the head of the man that helped make it possible. For me, it comes down to this - and I am not going to pretend I know, but when listening to mic'd up segments, I would be willing to bet my house that Russ doesn't want Bevell to go anywhere.

I'll just say this - if you complain about Bevell and Cable, if you want them gone, provide some logical replacements. The grass is rarely greener on the other side. If nothing else, this coaching staff knows each other, and the 53 men on the active roster know them as well. Do we really want these guys gone? I mean, really? Give me some names that you would bring in to replace them with if that's the case.

With what John Schneider, Pete Carroll and his entire coaching staff have accomplished over the last 5 years, and some people wanting to mess with the culmination of chemistry that they have successfully implemented?
My take is, Bevell has to shape his play calls, not only around what Pete would like implemented, but to fit plays to the abilities of the players with his plan, the same goes for Cable and the other coaches...The pieces have to FIT, for the play to be successful.
In other words, Pete wanted a Run First Offense, but when Lynch went down, the Offensive brain trust had to chuck a lot of their drawn up run game plans, (O-Line run push/blocking Etc.) and mentally retool for another tangent.
Challenge is, the Offensive Line has to be able to mentally switch gears and learn how to provide protection for the passing game.
It's a given, that being relatively young and inexperienced, AND going up against 1st round talent, like the Rams employ, that these young guys are going to get their asses handed to them pretty regularly, so Bevell has to work with whatever players (and their limited capabilities) that he has at hand, and all the while, he has to draw up a game play that makes all the pieces fit.
It's highly unlikely that a lot of these plays would even work with just any other Quarterback in the League, but with Russell Wilson's extraordinary abilities, Bevell is able to dial up some plays that he wouldn't ordinarily even try.
Bad Coaching, isn't the problem, Players not executing IS.

 

[Zorn76]

Take that for what you will. I think Bevell does some really good things. I also think that Pete overrules him at times. Not all the time, but a decent amount, and maybe less now after last year's SB loss. I might be wrong as I'm going off of secondhand information.

I want to keep Bevell, and I want Pete to completely hand him the keys to the offense. That's what my gut tells me.

If you can provide justification for the following things, then you strengthen your argument to keep Bevell.

1. Low percentage deep bombs on 3rd and 2 when one more first down is needed to close the game.

2. Screen passes to Bryan Walters.

3. Non-Lockett wide receivers in the backfield.

4. Jimmy Graham used to block on crucial 3rd-and-longs.

5. Play action on 3rd and 10+ when nobody in their right mind expects Seattle to run.

6. Fullbacks used as receivers in 5-wide formations.

7. Eight-game stretches featuring too many 3rd-and-long plays without hot routes or staggered reads.

8. Using third-string tight ends to block Pro bowl pass rushers.

9. An established tendency to drop what's working in favor of one of the above.

10. Taking the entire first half to adjust (Fieldgulls had a good article on that somewhere).

11. Abandoning the run too quickly.

12. Continuing, even in the season's second half, to open the game with slow-developing plays.

13. Taking absolutely forever to get the offense back up to the line for a play, making us one of the league's slowest offenses.

There are people who just want a scapegoat. There are also people who criticize Bevell based on established, visible-on-tape tendencies that don't put this offense in the best position to succeed. It's disappointing to see these tendencies go un-addressed by contrarian Bevell supporters (you know who you are). There are reasons Bevell gets flak.

Now, you could argue that some of these decisions are due to personnel shortcomings. You could also argue that Pete is the one really at the wheel, and that his "can you win in the 1st quarter" philosophy led him to bury the playbook until the second half of the season. I personally lean that direction.

I also agree that Bevell has (finally) shown enough to where it's not worth killing our continuity to replace him.

But whether it's Pete or Bevell who called these plays, it's also arguable that #1 and #7 played a big role in our losses and our status as a #6 seed, and that the rest continuously chipped away at our drive efficiency. Until the bye, our offensive gameplan was not playing to our strengths but putting the burden squarely on a brand-new offensive line that couldn't deliver in protection. There ARE ways around that, and Bevell wasn't using them. We saw what happened once the playbook was altered. Everyone looked better. It strains credulity to think that everyone just suddenly "got it" over the bye. It's much more likely that Pete and Bevell finally decided to call a system that put our players in a position to succeed.

Those are my criticisms. Bizarre play designs, bad decision-making on third and long, questionable philosophy for the season. Perhaps Bevell is growing same as everyone else, and perhaps we will see Seattle storm out of the game offensively next year instead of piddling around and trusting in Russ's magic.

And just because I can't come up with a better OC right now, doesn't mean those concerns are invalid. If you put a gun to my head, I'd be curious what Paul Chryst is doing.

:thirishdrinkers:

Bravo!

 

[LymonHawk]

This is my attempt to explain one possible aspect of why some of us will be so consistently in favor of pursuing coaching changes and also why some will be so consistently opposed:

I've been learning about socioeconomic status (working class, middle class, upper class, etc.) and some of the tendencies that correlate with people who have grown up in various situations. To paraphrase it simply, people seem to have a tendency to share some similar values as their parents and our parents will tend to encourage behaviors which are beneficial for the culture of their profession as well as the profession their parents had. The most relevant classes for most football fans would probably be the upper-middle class, middle class, and working class.

The upper-middle and middle classes are noted to involve more white collar work where independence, initiative, and regularly using skills provided by one's education are encouraged. The working class is noted to involve a more explicit honesty as well as emphasizing conformity and obedience. For me this was incredible to read about because it's essentially saying that when we're presented with a situation, people with what initially seems like little or no connection to each other in our country will tend to make similar kinds of decisions when faced with similar situations.

Every off-season we seem to be presented with such a situation when we make a personal choice about the general direction the team should go in the off-season. The directions we choose generally seem to fall between two extremes. The first extreme would be to decide that we should fire everyone, sell the team to a better owner, and begin a complete and total rebuild. The second extreme would be to express one's complete and utter confidence in the staff and how we should change very little or nothing about how we approach an upcoming season ("In PC and JS we trust").

After reading about the tendencies related to socioeconomic status, these two extremes are especially interesting. Even if ultimately insane at the time, saying we should be blowing the entire team up for a total rebuild is a supremely independent statement to make and would take a great deal of initiative to put into practice. On the other hand, stating one's complete trust and confidence in the current regime would appear to be similarly supreme in obedience and conformity. Granted, we all tend to fall somewhere in the middle and if socioeconomic status does impact our decision, it's likely one small piece of a much larger puzzle.

Nonetheless, our attitudes toward an off-season will generally be slanted closer to independence or obedience. It's incredible to think that we may be proclaiming what seems best for the team based not on what may actually be best for the team but what's best for acting according to values we might not even know we currently have. These values could be the kind that we didn't really choose because we may have been born into a situation where we would be deeply influenced into having them.

Why are so many clamoring for coaching changes? Perhaps we're doing it in part because we value our independence above so much else and this is a way for us to express how independent we think we are. Similarly, if we're valuing obedience, we may be expressing our trust and admiration for the coaching staff to signify what a loyal team-player we think we are. If true, this would be consistent with other research suggesting how greatly we value our own expression.

Psych 101? LOL!

 

[LymonHawk]

Take that for what you will. I think Bevell does some really good things. I also think that Pete overrules him at times. Not all the time, but a decent amount, and maybe less now after last year's SB loss. I might be wrong as I'm going off of secondhand information.

I want to keep Bevell, and I want Pete to completely hand him the keys to the offense. That's what my gut tells me.

If you can provide justification for the following things, then you strengthen your argument to keep Bevell.

1. Low percentage deep bombs on 3rd and 2 when one more first down is needed to close the game.

2. Screen passes to Bryan Walters.

3. Non-Lockett wide receivers in the backfield.

4. Jimmy Graham used to block on crucial 3rd-and-longs.

5. Play action on 3rd and 10+ when nobody in their right mind expects Seattle to run.

6. Fullbacks used as receivers in 5-wide formations.

7. Eight-game stretches featuring too many 3rd-and-long plays without hot routes or staggered reads.

8. Using third-string tight ends to block Pro bowl pass rushers.

9. An established tendency to drop what's working in favor of one of the above.

10. Taking the entire first half to adjust (Fieldgulls had a good article on that somewhere).

11. Abandoning the run too quickly.

12. Continuing, even in the season's second half, to open the game with slow-developing plays.

13. Taking absolutely forever to get the offense back up to the line for a play, making us one of the league's slowest offenses.

There are people who just want a scapegoat. There are also people who criticize Bevell based on established, visible-on-tape tendencies that don't put this offense in the best position to succeed. It's disappointing to see these tendencies go un-addressed by contrarian Bevell supporters (you know who you are). There are reasons Bevell gets flak.

Now, you could argue that some of these decisions are due to personnel shortcomings. You could also argue that Pete is the one really at the wheel, and that his "can you win in the 1st quarter" philosophy led him to bury the playbook until the second half of the season. I personally lean that direction.

I also agree that Bevell has (finally) shown enough to where it's not worth killing our continuity to replace him.

But whether it's Pete or Bevell who called these plays, it's also arguable that #1 and #7 played a big role in our losses and our status as a sixth seed, and that the rest continuously chipped away at our drive efficiency. Until the bye, our offensive gameplan was not playing to our strengths but putting the burden squarely on a brand-new offensive line that couldn't deliver in protection. There ARE ways around that, and Bevell wasn't using them. We saw what happened once the playbook was altered. Everyone looked better. It strains credulity to think that everyone just suddenly "got it" over the bye. It's much more likely that Pete and Bevell finally decided to call a system that put our players in a position to succeed.

Those are my criticisms. Bizarre play designs, bad decision-making on third and long, questionable philosophy for the season. Perhaps Bevell is growing same as everyone else, and perhaps we will see Seattle storm out of the game offensively next year instead of piddling around and trusting in Russ's magic.

And just because I can't come up with a better OC right now, doesn't mean those concerns are invalid. If you put a gun to my head, I'd be curious what Paul Chryst is doing.

If it's all about coaching and play design; why aren't you an NFL QB?

 

[keatonisballin]

Past accolades don't excuse the fact the coaches didn't properly prepare the players, and called a terrible first half of football. It's also concerning how often they get embarrassed in the first halves of playoff games.

When you have an All World defense that will hold any team to 10 or less points in the first half, stale and predictable playcalling gets excused. But when they give up points like a mortal defense, the offense doesn't have time to screw around and waste valuable possessions. The lack of killer instinct screwed this team all season and if we had actually came out in the beginning of the game with our foot on the gas and scored something, we would have won. We did it against AZ week 17 so it's not some impossible feat. First play of the game with Lynch back, oh what a surprise, run up the middle. So unexpected. We saw what happens when we actually exploit a teams weaknesses and work around our own. Instead we started the game trying to shove a square peg into a round hole.

Whether it was Carroll or Bevell or Cable or whoever, the coaches didn't prepare the team properly. And we all know if Bevells plan doesn't go 100% according to plan, he has no idea how to adapt. Luckily we have Russell Wilson who can literally turn the bleakest most depressing game in recent memory into a great almost comeback win. Like I've said for years, this team is great despite Bevell not because of him. In years past it was Russell and Lynch who made him look good. Now it will be Russell, Rawls and Dougie.

 

[MontanaHawk05]

Take that for what you will. I think Bevell does some really good things. I also think that Pete overrules him at times. Not all the time, but a decent amount, and maybe less now after last year's SB loss. I might be wrong as I'm going off of secondhand information.

I want to keep Bevell, and I want Pete to completely hand him the keys to the offense. That's what my gut tells me.

If you can provide justification for the following things, then you strengthen your argument to keep Bevell.

1. Low percentage deep bombs on 3rd and 2 when one more first down is needed to close the game.

2. Screen passes to Bryan Walters.

3. Non-Lockett wide receivers in the backfield.

4. Jimmy Graham used to block on crucial 3rd-and-longs.

5. Play action on 3rd and 10+ when nobody in their right mind expects Seattle to run.

6. Fullbacks used as receivers in 5-wide formations.

7. Eight-game stretches featuring too many 3rd-and-long plays without hot routes or staggered reads.

8. Using third-string tight ends to block Pro bowl pass rushers.

9. An established tendency to drop what's working in favor of one of the above.

10. Taking the entire first half to adjust (Fieldgulls had a good article on that somewhere).

11. Abandoning the run too quickly.

12. Continuing, even in the season's second half, to open the game with slow-developing plays.

13. Taking absolutely forever to get the offense back up to the line for a play, making us one of the league's slowest offenses.

There are people who just want a scapegoat. There are also people who criticize Bevell based on established, visible-on-tape tendencies that don't put this offense in the best position to succeed. It's disappointing to see these tendencies go un-addressed by contrarian Bevell supporters (you know who you are). There are reasons Bevell gets flak.

Now, you could argue that some of these decisions are due to personnel shortcomings. You could also argue that Pete is the one really at the wheel, and that his "can you win in the 1st quarter" philosophy led him to bury the playbook until the second half of the season. I personally lean that direction.

I also agree that Bevell has (finally) shown enough to where it's not worth killing our continuity to replace him.

But whether it's Pete or Bevell who called these plays, it's also arguable that #1 and #7 played a big role in our losses and our status as a sixth seed, and that the rest continuously chipped away at our drive efficiency. Until the bye, our offensive gameplan was not playing to our strengths but putting the burden squarely on a brand-new offensive line that couldn't deliver in protection. There ARE ways around that, and Bevell wasn't using them. We saw what happened once the playbook was altered. Everyone looked better. It strains credulity to think that everyone just suddenly "got it" over the bye. It's much more likely that Pete and Bevell finally decided to call a system that put our players in a position to succeed.

Those are my criticisms. Bizarre play designs, bad decision-making on third and long, questionable philosophy for the season. Perhaps Bevell is growing same as everyone else, and perhaps we will see Seattle storm out of the game offensively next year instead of piddling around and trusting in Russ's magic.

And just because I can't come up with a better OC right now, doesn't mean those concerns are invalid. If you put a gun to my head, I'd be curious what Paul Chryst is doing.

If it's all about coaching and play design; why aren't you an NFL QB?

Who would be around to give you grief if I were?

 

[chris98251]

Take that for what you will. I think Bevell does some really good things. I also think that Pete overrules him at times. Not all the time, but a decent amount, and maybe less now after last year's SB loss. I might be wrong as I'm going off of secondhand information.

I want to keep Bevell, and I want Pete to completely hand him the keys to the offense. That's what my gut tells me.

If you can provide justification for the following things, then you strengthen your argument to keep Bevell.

1. Low percentage deep bombs on 3rd and 2 when one more first down is needed to close the game.

2. Screen passes to Bryan Walters.

3. Non-Lockett wide receivers in the backfield.

4. Jimmy Graham used to block on crucial 3rd-and-longs.

5. Play action on 3rd and 10+ when nobody in their right mind expects Seattle to run.

6. Fullbacks used as receivers in 5-wide formations.

7. Eight-game stretches featuring too many 3rd-and-long plays without hot routes or staggered reads.

8. Using third-string tight ends to block Pro bowl pass rushers.

9. An established tendency to drop what's working in favor of one of the above.

10. Taking the entire first half to adjust (Fieldgulls had a good article on that somewhere).

11. Abandoning the run too quickly.

12. Continuing, even in the season's second half, to open the game with slow-developing plays.

13. Taking absolutely forever to get the offense back up to the line for a play, making us one of the league's slowest offenses.

There are people who just want a scapegoat. There are also people who criticize Bevell based on established, visible-on-tape tendencies that don't put this offense in the best position to succeed. It's disappointing to see these tendencies go un-addressed by contrarian Bevell supporters (you know who you are). There are reasons Bevell gets flak.

Now, you could argue that some of these decisions are due to personnel shortcomings. You could also argue that Pete is the one really at the wheel, and that his "can you win in the 1st quarter" philosophy led him to bury the playbook until the second half of the season. I personally lean that direction.

I also agree that Bevell has (finally) shown enough to where it's not worth killing our continuity to replace him.

But whether it's Pete or Bevell who called these plays, it's also arguable that #1 and #7 played a big role in our losses and our status as a sixth seed, and that the rest continuously chipped away at our drive efficiency. Until the bye, our offensive gameplan was not playing to our strengths but putting the burden squarely on a brand-new offensive line that couldn't deliver in protection. There ARE ways around that, and Bevell wasn't using them. We saw what happened once the playbook was altered. Everyone looked better. It strains credulity to think that everyone just suddenly "got it" over the bye. It's much more likely that Pete and Bevell finally decided to call a system that put our players in a position to succeed.

Those are my criticisms. Bizarre play designs, bad decision-making on third and long, questionable philosophy for the season. Perhaps Bevell is growing same as everyone else, and perhaps we will see Seattle storm out of the game offensively next year instead of piddling around and trusting in Russ's magic.

And just because I can't come up with a better OC right now, doesn't mean those concerns are invalid. If you put a gun to my head, I'd be curious what Paul Chryst is doing.

If it's all about coaching and play design; why aren't you an NFL QB?

Who would be around to give you grief if I were?

I have a list...................

 

[BirdsCommaAngry]

Psych 101? LOL!

200 or 211. If you have a problem, you are welcome to articulate it.

 

[Rob12]

If you can provide justification for the following things, then you strengthen your argument to keep Bevell.

1. Low percentage deep bombs on 3rd and 2 when one more first down is needed to close the game.

2. Screen passes to Bryan Walters.

3. Non-Lockett wide receivers in the backfield.

4. Jimmy Graham used to block on crucial 3rd-and-longs.

5. Play action on 3rd and 10+ when nobody in their right mind expects Seattle to run.

6. Fullbacks used as receivers in 5-wide formations.

7. Eight-game stretches featuring too many 3rd-and-long plays without hot routes or staggered reads.

8. Using third-string tight ends to block Pro bowl pass rushers.

9. An established tendency to drop what's working in favor of one of the above.

10. Taking the entire first half to adjust (Fieldgulls had a good article on that somewhere).

11. Abandoning the run too quickly.

12. Continuing, even in the season's second half, to open the game with slow-developing plays.

13. Taking absolutely forever to get the offense back up to the line for a play, making us one of the league's slowest offenses.

There are people who just want a scapegoat. There are also people who criticize Bevell based on established, visible-on-tape tendencies that don't put this offense in the best position to succeed. It's disappointing to see these tendencies go un-addressed by contrarian Bevell supporters (you know who you are). There are reasons Bevell gets flak.

Now, you could argue that some of these decisions are due to personnel shortcomings. You could also argue that Pete is the one really at the wheel, and that his "can you win in the 1st quarter" philosophy led him to bury the playbook until the second half of the season. I personally lean that direction.

I also agree that Bevell has (finally) shown enough to where it's not worth killing our continuity to replace him.

But whether it's Pete or Bevell who called these plays, it's also arguable that #1 and #7 played a big role in our losses and our status as a sixth seed, and that the rest continuously chipped away at our drive efficiency. Until the bye, our offensive gameplan was not playing to our strengths but putting the burden squarely on a brand-new offensive line that couldn't deliver in protection. There ARE ways around that, and Bevell wasn't using them. We saw what happened once the playbook was altered. Everyone looked better. It strains credulity to think that everyone just suddenly "got it" over the bye. It's much more likely that Pete and Bevell finally decided to call a system that put our players in a position to succeed.

Those are my criticisms. Bizarre play designs, bad decision-making on third and long, questionable philosophy for the season. Perhaps Bevell is growing same as everyone else, and perhaps we will see Seattle storm out of the game offensively next year instead of piddling around and trusting in Russ's magic.

And just because I can't come up with a better OC right now, doesn't mean those concerns are invalid. If you put a gun to my head, I'd be curious what Paul Chryst is doing.

Great post, Montana. But let me ask you a question - how many of those questions you asked could be answered by Pete?

Do you think Bevell has the keys to the offense, or do you think it's more like a 16-year-old asking his dad for the keys to his brand new truck?

 

[MontanaHawk05]

If you can provide justification for the following things, then you strengthen your argument to keep Bevell.

1. Low percentage deep bombs on 3rd and 2 when one more first down is needed to close the game.

2. Screen passes to Bryan Walters.

3. Non-Lockett wide receivers in the backfield.

4. Jimmy Graham used to block on crucial 3rd-and-longs.

5. Play action on 3rd and 10+ when nobody in their right mind expects Seattle to run.

6. Fullbacks used as receivers in 5-wide formations.

7. Eight-game stretches featuring too many 3rd-and-long plays without hot routes or staggered reads.

8. Using third-string tight ends to block Pro bowl pass rushers.

9. An established tendency to drop what's working in favor of one of the above.

10. Taking the entire first half to adjust (Fieldgulls had a good article on that somewhere).

11. Abandoning the run too quickly.

12. Continuing, even in the season's second half, to open the game with slow-developing plays.

13. Taking absolutely forever to get the offense back up to the line for a play, making us one of the league's slowest offenses.

There are people who just want a scapegoat. There are also people who criticize Bevell based on established, visible-on-tape tendencies that don't put this offense in the best position to succeed. It's disappointing to see these tendencies go un-addressed by contrarian Bevell supporters (you know who you are). There are reasons Bevell gets flak.

Now, you could argue that some of these decisions are due to personnel shortcomings. You could also argue that Pete is the one really at the wheel, and that his "can you win in the 1st quarter" philosophy led him to bury the playbook until the second half of the season. I personally lean that direction.

I also agree that Bevell has (finally) shown enough to where it's not worth killing our continuity to replace him.

But whether it's Pete or Bevell who called these plays, it's also arguable that #1 and #7 played a big role in our losses and our status as a sixth seed, and that the rest continuously chipped away at our drive efficiency. Until the bye, our offensive gameplan was not playing to our strengths but putting the burden squarely on a brand-new offensive line that couldn't deliver in protection. There ARE ways around that, and Bevell wasn't using them. We saw what happened once the playbook was altered. Everyone looked better. It strains credulity to think that everyone just suddenly "got it" over the bye. It's much more likely that Pete and Bevell finally decided to call a system that put our players in a position to succeed.

Those are my criticisms. Bizarre play designs, bad decision-making on third and long, questionable philosophy for the season. Perhaps Bevell is growing same as everyone else, and perhaps we will see Seattle storm out of the game offensively next year instead of piddling around and trusting in Russ's magic.

And just because I can't come up with a better OC right now, doesn't mean those concerns are invalid. If you put a gun to my head, I'd be curious what Paul Chryst is doing.

Great post, Montana. But let me ask you a question - how many of those questions you asked could be answered by Pete?

Potentially all of them, and I fully acknowledge that. Bevell's not the one who came up with "It's about how you finish".

But I also question how much of a hand Pete had in designing those weird play formations. That's something we'll probably never know.

If it is Pete mostly calling these shots, then Bevell's sticking around because he's a good yes man, not because he's a good OC.