Wilson needs a decent start

[olyfan63]

Bevell also takes direction from Pete for the parameters of the game plan.
A lot of the ire directed at Bevell, I believe, is a result of him implementing Pete's direction.
Pete finally changed the direction when we were 4-5 to take off the training wheels, and the resulting offensive explosion got us to the playoffs. Now, which version of the Seahawks offense will we see Sunday, that is the question.

 

[samwize77]

I'd rather start off slow and finish strong. How many times have we seen a Seahawk team just roll right down the field on their first possession and then tank the rest of the game. It gets your hopes up for something good then you get crushed! On a positive note, PC's teams haven't done this much if at all.

 

[MysterMatt]

Yes, I hope to see a really strong finish, which is our style, but that shouldn't rule out the need to have a good start as well. The thing is, I don't put that on just Russell or Bevell. Sometimes the issue really is just good ol' execution, and that includes our OL and skill positions. I want to see effective blocking, no dropped passes, and NO STUPID PENALTIES.

Sustained drives with no points are frustrating, but even if we establish an advantage in field position...which ultimately translates to points...then that's okay too.

 

[Ozzy]

I agree with most of what has been said but we can feel our opponent out and still be a little more creative early on. Seeing 4 of our first 6 scripted plays being designed for Jackson and Kearse was frustrating. Maybe Minnesota on film struggles against wheel routes I don't know, it was still hard to watch. Feel them out, but get Lockett, Doug and even use Willson's speed as a mismatch early on. That's what I'm hoping for.

 

[Anthony!]

I am fine with the feeling out and all, but lets get into passing rhythm early and not wait till the 2nd half when it could be harder.

 

[Vancanhawksfan]

As for Minnesota's gameplan - Bridgewater WAS completing short passes, you're correct, the problem is that you need 10-15 plays just to get into position for a field goal, in conditions like that it's difficult to move the ball upfield, and in fact, Minnesota's points game from 2 drives that started in our half, and another drive that started on the MIN 46 that was immediately followed by a 15 yard rushing the passer penalty on 1st down.
The final drive Minnesota actually threw the ball downfield somewhat, completed one and had another extended due to DPI.

Throwing the ball long in that kind of game was EXACTLY the right idea, because you complete one pass you pretty much guarantee yourself a good shot at 3 points, given the game was always going to be low scoring, complete 3 or 4 of them and you're in a good position to win the game.
On the other hand, you could complete 17 short passes like Bridgewater did and go absolutely nowhere all game, because he really needed to complete 25+

I agree with you regarding the long pass.

In this kind of game relying on numerous short completion passes to advance down the field is unrealistic. In addition we are down to our 3rd, 4th, 5th running backs - and had a game plan set up to use Marshawn who pulled the pin on us at the last second.

This game was always going to be about field position, and throwing deep balls can result in a number of things:

1. completion putting you deep in enemy territory and in FG range,
2. pass interference putting you deep in enemy territory and in FG range,
3. an interception resulting in a turnover deep in enemy territory, which is as good as a punt in conditions where even punting is a challenge, or
4. an incompletion

Throwing deep was also necessary to keep the defence honest and creeping up too much to the line of scrimmage.

I'd give Bevell a bit of a pass on this game, both because of the crap conditions as well as Marshawn bailing on us. The game plan had to have been centered on Lynch all week going in.