Decreased offensive versatility: cause?

byau · Jun 11, 2015

Been rewatching the entire Russell Wilson era (2012, 2013, 2014) on Game Rewind (condensed version) and when watching back-to-back-to-back, at least for me it seems there is a lot less offensive versatility in the passing game.

I have no numbers to back any of this up, just watching it. Running a bit more variety of plays, running plays (both of the running and passing variety) for our fullback M-Rob, a few flea-flickers here and there, and even our WR were throwing the ball downfield.

So curious: first, do you agree or disagree?

If you agree: what do you think might be the root cause?

1) Sidney Rice and Golden Tate in 2012 were mad ballin
2) Russell's play has changed and gotten more stagnant or more paranoid (perhaps related to point 1)
3) Bevell's playcalling has changed and gotten more stagnant or more paranoid (perhaps related to point 1 and point 2)
4) Other .....?

If you disagree: tell me why I'm off my rocker

Just curious.

Mostly because after reading the great article on Lockett (posted here: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=110534 ) and a few other discussions about Jimmy, I'm almost inclined to think about points 2) and 3): Russell and Bevell have gotten a bit lazy in the mental game, relying on Russell's backyard ball to get us out of scrapes. And now bringing in physical talent like Lockett and Jimmy - will it make it even worse with Russell and Bevell using these new talents as crutches?

Is this overthinking it? Maybe bringing in physical talent like Lockett and JG will make things much easier and why complicate things and get cute if it can be easy?

What think y'all?

Anthony! · Jun 11, 2015

byau":n6k6tir6 said:
Been rewatching the entire Russell Wilson era (2012, 2013, 2014) on Game Rewind (condensed version) and when watching back-to-back-to-back, at least for me it seems there is a lot less offensive versatility in the passing game.

I have no numbers to back any of this up, just watching it. Running a bit more variety of plays, running plays (both of the running and passing variety) for our fullback M-Rob, a few flea-flickers here and there, and even our WR were throwing the ball downfield.

So curious: first, do you agree or disagree?

If you agree: what do you think might be the root cause?

1) Sidney Rice and Golden Tate in 2012 were mad ballin
2) Russell's play has changed and gotten more stagnant or more paranoid (perhaps related to point 1)
3) Bevell's playcalling has changed and gotten more stagnant or more paranoid (perhaps related to point 1 and point 2)
4) Other .....?

If you disagree: tell me why I'm off my rocker

Just curious.

Mostly because after reading the great article on Lockett (posted here: http://seahawks.net/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=110534 ) and a few other discussions about Jimmy, I'm almost inclined to think about points 2) and 3): Russell and Bevell have gotten a bit lazy in the mental game, relying on Russell's backyard ball to get us out of scrapes. And now bringing in physical talent like Lockett and Jimmy - will it make it even worse with Russell and Bevell using these new talents as crutches?

Is this overthinking it? Maybe bringing in physical talent like Lockett and JG will make things much easier and why complicate things and get cute if it can be easy?

What think y'all?

I agree and a lot of it has to do with talent or lack there of at WR. I think it has little to of with Russ than it does with lack of talent, I mean how many times have we heard no one is open, add to that PC TO adversity, and poor oline play and there you go. I suspect that will change now that we have some better weapons and bigger weapons. We have seen what Russ can do with good weapons, as long as the game plan is called right given what he has now we should be fine.

Tical21 · Jun 11, 2015

I think the biggest reason is that defenses have become more predictable against us. We're going to see a lot of man coverage. No reason to get cute or fancy.

Throwdown · Jun 11, 2015

At times I wish Russ would cut loose, but I also hate INTs so
I completely understand

theincrediblesok · Jun 11, 2015

I think it has to do with our WR corp, Sidney Rice was great and so was Golden Tate who both could be considered #1 and #2 on any pass happy teams. Add that we used TE alot more back then with Miller who was able to produce 5 TD in 2013 when we actually used a TE to catch.

We also thrown Kearse and Willson into starting roles and I don't think they were really ready for what it's like to be game planned for and defenses finding ways to negate them out of the game. I think the major thing was really the Percy plays. During the offseason I believe Bevell had created majority of his playbooks for Percy, after the Cowboys game they really had to start going back to their bread and butter, problem was our depth for offensive weapons from 2013 to 2014 you can definitely see the drop off. I also think Miller would of really helped out as I was watching the 2012 season and we were using the middle of the field more than what people were stating.

With Percy and his bubble screen plays, teams are already stacking the box to stop Wilson and Lynch so it was easy when they knew that Percy was not lining up as a WR to stay where they were to stop the run. Those plays pretty much played right into the hands of the defense as they were already there to stop Lynch or Wilson. Teams are not scared of playing against Doug or Kearse. With Graham though, as long as you lined him up as a TE or WR and not as a RB then that opens up so much room for Marshawn as Graham will get double team away from Lynch or Wilson where they have running lanes and one less man to handle. This is going to be a fun season.

Attyla the Hawk · Jun 11, 2015

Couple things:

1. Rice and Robinson were quality players. Rice was particularly good at the scramble drill. Regardless of stats, his size and style really did serve to open up opportunities elsewhere.

2. Harvin effect. Seattle was at a significant disadvantage when the decision was made that we would not be able to use him other than in plays that were generally built solely for him and not well integrated with our offense as a whole. Lots of prep time in the offseason tossed in the crapper. Lots of retarded development with young players in efforts to feature him for trade or to rehabilitate a failing roster move.

3. Loss of talent. Tate in 2013 was a big part of our offfense. In truth, Seattle didn't really begin to replace that quality until the end of the year with Richardson. We also lost Zach Miller, which coupled with Tate's departure, really decimated the middle third options that Seattle had shown to execute in the 2013 season. Finally, we lost Coleman early as well, and that robbed us of a quality fullback option in the passing game. Those are lots of wrinkles in the passing attack that evaporated.

4. Loss of effectiveness with the read option. It wasn't implemented until late in 2013. By 2014, defensive coordinators around the league really zeroed in on that play. Seattle definitely fared better than other RO adherents. Precisely because Wilson was/is capable of playing in a varied offensive scheme. But for sure teams played that aspect differently in 2014.

In all, I think Seattle did exceptionally well considering the number of setbacks thrown in our path during the 2014 season. And I'm also very encouraged that we've bolstered the team so that we can now consider our receiving group to be better than the one we had in 2013. Graham and Lockett should be able to provide great quality in areas we relied on heavily duing the 2013 season.

Anthony! · Jun 11, 2015

Attyla the Hawk":3c05d19w said:
Couple things:

1. Rice and Robinson were quality players. Rice was particularly good at the scramble drill. Regardless of stats, his size and style really did serve to open up opportunities elsewhere.

2. Harvin effect. Seattle was at a significant disadvantage when the decision was made that we would not be able to use him other than in plays that were generally built solely for him and not well integrated with our offense as a whole. Lots of prep time in the offseason tossed in the crapper. Lots of retarded development with young players in efforts to feature him for trade or to rehabilitate a failing roster move.

3. Loss of talent. Tate in 2013 was a big part of our offfense. In truth, Seattle didn't really begin to replace that quality until the end of the year with Richardson. We also lost Zach Miller, which coupled with Tate's departure, really decimated the middle third options that Seattle had shown to execute in the 2013 season. Finally, we lost Coleman early as well, and that robbed us of a quality fullback option in the passing game. Those are lots of wrinkles in the passing attack that evaporated.

4. Loss of effectiveness with the read option. It wasn't implemented until late in 2013. By 2014, defensive coordinators around the league really zeroed in on that play. Seattle definitely fared better than other RO adherents. Precisely because Wilson was/is capable of playing in a varied offensive scheme. But for sure teams played that aspect differently in 2014.

In all, I think Seattle did exceptionally well considering the number of setbacks thrown in our path during the 2014 season. And I'm also very encouraged that we've bolstered the team so that we can now consider our receiving group to be better than the one we had in 2013. Graham and Lockett should be able to provide great quality in areas we relied on heavily duing the 2013 season.

Agreed and add in a few big targets we have, we can actually send out Graham at 6-7, Wilson at 6-5, Matthews at 6-5, and Norwood at 6-2 and a great catch radius. OR we can go with combination of 2 bigs and 2 quicks with Baldwin and Lockett and if Richardson comes back get even quicker. Many possibilities. Notice no Kearse, not sure were he fits any more

Largent80 · Jun 11, 2015

While Wilson is terrified of throwing interceptions, he threw one to end the super bowl, but to WHO?
Lockette?.......why was he even on the field then?
Ask the coaches, not us.

DavidSeven · Jun 11, 2015

(1) Our receivers were better in 2012 than they were in 2014. Rice and Tate were respectable outside threats and Miller was a capable TE. Robinson could reliably catch passes and run for short yardage. I like Baldwin, but he is not a legit outside receiver -- he makes his money from the slot. Jermaine Kearse is Jermaine Kearse, i.e. just a guy. Tukuafu is a pure bulldozer that provides limited benefit to the passing game. To say our TEs last year were suspect at best is putting it lightly. Also, in 2012, Okung, Unger and Breno mostly stayed healthy, which was huge. How much versatility can you manufacture with zero protection and arguably the league's worst receiving weapons?

(2) The tape is out, and teams have a better understanding of how to defend Russell Wilson. Yes, Russell has a dynamic impact on the offense, but he also has limitations that very easy to spot. He doesn't go to certain areas of the field. He doesn't lead receivers open. That's just him; he compensates for it in other respects, but teams still have a better understanding of how to defend him than they did two years ago. That means they get simple on us -- load up the box and man up our guys. There is less opportunity now than there was before of exploiting them if they wanted to get cute.

To his and BEVELL's credit, this hasn't stopped Seattle from scoring points. They were the #1 DVOA offense in 2012 with average weapons. In 2014, they were still effective with absolutely terrible weapons. I see it only improving from here.

McGruff · Jun 11, 2015

Don't know that this has been posted, but . . .

2014 - 375 yards per game and 25 points per game
2013 - 339 yards per game and 26 points per game
2012 - 350 yards per game and 26 points per game

Points went down a tad, mostly due to redzone ineffiency, but not much, and overall yards was significantly higher in 2014 over the previous two years.

In short, creativity may have gone down, but productivity went up. Trick play, or play diversity/versatility does not make for a good offense. Execution of the routine does.

lobohawk · Jun 11, 2015

Also, Wilson has expanded his role as a runner. His yardage there pushed him over 4000 total and had to impact the passing volume.

brimsalabim · Jun 11, 2015

Russell Wilson ...Lazy? I don't think so. I do believe he is loath to stray from a game plan though.

Smoke · Jun 11, 2015

don't forget, our offensive line has been a mash unit as well.

vin.couve12 · Jun 11, 2015

We never had much diversity in playcalling at all. Stating that Sidney Rice was "great" is also revisionist history. He was good on an out route and it Wilson put the ball in exactly the right place on the sideline then maybe, maybe he'd get it, but we got equal production from other players to the point where he became a loss in ROI. This was not the same acrobatic, high flying player he was in MN. He never was that same player. Good, yes, but no better than what we have now. Maybe most importantly, many people were up in arms with his sometimes apparent lack of effort with the ball in the air.

Our offense is really about simple concepts repeated over and over out of different formations. The only time we really did have more diversity in playcalling was when Harvin came aboard, which had it's pros, but definitely also had it's cons. We got better when we went back to the simplified approach.

I would urge people to have an even keel here. When we won the SB there was NOTHING wrong. When we didn't win the SB then EVERYTHING is under heavy scrutiny. Neither is the truth.

ImTheScientist · Jun 11, 2015

Fire Bevell

byau · Jun 12, 2015

Very cool thoughts posted so far. Nice

Particularly...

McGruff":lczgm5t9 said:
Don't know that this has been posted, but . . .

2014 - 375 yards per game and 25 points per game
2013 - 339 yards per game and 26 points per game
2012 - 350 yards per game and 26 points per game

Points went down a tad, mostly due to redzone ineffiency, but not much, and overall yards was significantly higher in 2014 over the previous two years.

In short, creativity may have gone down, but productivity went up. Trick play, or play diversity/versatility does not make for a good offense. Execution of the routine does.

I was waiting for someone to bring in some numbers (thank you!) to see how they compared with my eye-test.

Which begs another question, does it even matter that we are less versatile? Because we saw what happened when Bevell tried to get too cute with Harvin.

The production numbers you post seem to go along with that idea - yes possibly less versatile which still overall leads to better production numbers.

i.e. I could be a victim of looking for the more spectacular offense and sexy passing game just because it's more fun when in reality it hinders our production, esp without a Rice or Tate to deliver on the other end. But without that talent to deliver, we could be simplifying things to what the can be done well and the numbers are there to prove it.

byau · Jun 12, 2015

vin.couve12":3ihkcron said:
We never had much diversity in playcalling at all. Stating that Sidney Rice was "great" is also revisionist history.

Wouldn't agree with revisionist, how about just my opinion and my own eye test? I've been watching two to three games a day now when I can get some media time in, starting back Game 1 in 2012 and now almost done with 2014. And it's definitely what I am seeing

Which is pretty much what prompted my OP

Largent80 · Jun 12, 2015

Would it be safe to say that we are adapting to what we have in the player department ?

Anthony! · Jun 12, 2015

Largent80":1zaurit9 said:
While Wilson is terrified of throwing interceptions, he threw one to end the super bowl, but to WHO?
Lockette?.......why was he even on the field then?
Ask the coaches, not us.

Yeah I am still bewildered how you can take the most dangerous QB in the league and tie him into a timing patter were all he can do his catch and throw, and then compound it by doing it right into the teeth of the defense, I mean they were expecting run so why run a very short pass play into were they were expecting a run, then use a WR who has 15 targets all season. If anything it should have been to the out and let RW role out and have options, run, throw, throw it away. Just a stupid call.

hawknation2015 · Jun 12, 2015

Until this point in his career, Wilson has been very hesitant to throw into tight windows. I think that has a chance to change with the addition of jump ball artist Jimmy Graham.

Decreased offensive versatility: cause?

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

New member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

Member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Similar threads