Play call design

lukerguy · Sep 22, 2015

I thought this to be a noteworthy topic. It seems Bevell is called out often for his play calling, but what I think is even more lacking is the design of his plays-- especially in the red zone.

1) Did anyone watch the MNF game (JETS/COLTS)? Or the Pats Bills game? Did anyone see Decker start wide, come in motion, wait for the other WR to open up the inside slant with a corner route? Decker had a 2 yard buffer and an easy touchdown. The Pats had two TEs rest their pre-snap alignment (one was chandler, the other Gronk). The Bills defenders were trying to communicate how that changed their coverage. Gronk Scores on an in route and the bills defenders are left screaming at each other. How many motion plays do we have in a game? 1 or 2 max? Defenders can be dumb, even changing the pre-snap alignment slightly by adding motion puts a hint of doubt or confusion in the defense. It makes me wonder how perhaps even a little motion from lockett or Kearse could have changed the SB final play slightly as well.

2) Pete said on Brock and Salk "We tried to design a few plays for Graham to get open, but for a few different reasons it didn't work out". I'm assuming the first and foremost reason is because he wasn't open. Perhaps Bevell isn't as poor of a caller as he is a play designer?I remember watching Graham have 2/3 yards buffer at times in NO.

Sports Hernia · Sep 22, 2015

lukerguy":2w0579t5 said:
I thought this to be a noteworthy topic. It seems Bevell is called out often for his play calling, but what I think is even more lacking is the design of his plays-- especially in the red zone.

1) Did anyone watch the MNF game (JETS/COLTS)? Or the Pats Bills game? Did anyone see Decker start wide, come in motion, wait for the other WR to open up the inside slant with a corner route? Decker had a 2 yard buffer and an easy touchdown. The Pats had two TEs rest their pre-snap alignment (one was chandler, the other Gronk). The Bills defenders were trying to communicate how that changed their coverage. Gronk Scores on an in route and the bills defenders are left screaming at each other. How many motion plays do we have in a game? 1 or 2 max? Defenders can be dumb, even changing the pre-snap alignment slightly by adding motion puts a hint of doubt or confusion in the defense. It makes me wonder how perhaps even a little motion from lockett or Kearse could have changed the SB final play slightly as well.

2) Pete said on Brock and Salk "We tried to design a few plays for Graham to get open, but for a few different reasons it didn't work out". I'm assuming the first and foremost reason is because he wasn't open. Perhaps Bevell isn't as poor of a caller as he is a play designer?I remember watching Graham have 2/3 yards buffer at times in NO.

He might be a bad play designer but he is a worse playcaller. Next time I see a bubble screen or empty set (especially on 3rd down) I'm going to puke up a lung.

Basis4day · Sep 22, 2015

We might be getting into some semantics here, but my understanding of the offense is that Bevell calls the plays but the offense as a whole is designed by Cable.

bandiger · Sep 22, 2015

You're comparing a guy like Chan Gailey or Josh McDaniels, both are pretty much several tiers above vanilla Bevell.

Sgt. Largent · Sep 22, 2015

bandiger":22tq34an said:
You're comparing a guy like Chan Gailey or Josh McDaniels, both are pretty much several tiers above vanilla Bevell.

Err, the Jets ran about as conservative and plain vanilla of a game plan as you can call.

They did what we did when Russell was a rookie, low risk run based smashing Ivory up the middle and let Fitzpatrick dink and dunk.........and let their nasty D kick the Colts in the nuts.

Our problem is Pete and Darrell still think we can rely on our D to hold down the other team, when it's obvious this isn't the same D that only gives up 15 pts a game. So they're going to have to unleash Russell and let him throw it around more.

lukerguy · Sep 22, 2015

Once again, I'm not talking about the calling. I'm talking about the design of each play.

[youtube]f1gsBMNNNJM[/youtube]

In the Bevell era, when have you seen a guy in the red zone come in motion and open up with 3 yards to spare? Never.

Basis4day · Sep 22, 2015

lukerguy":3c57t10c said:
Once again, I'm not talking about the calling. I'm talking about the design of each play.

[youtube]f1gsBMNNNJM[/youtube]

In the Bevell era, when have you seen a guy in the red zone come in motion and open up with 3 yards to spare? Never.

[youtube]HqmmeCqWS4k[/youtube]

I'm not as versed in playcalling as some, but isn't this an example of what you are describing? McCoy comes in motion and waits for Sidney Rice to draw the coverage?

marko358 · Sep 22, 2015

Sports Hernia":2xjjrrzx said:
He might be a bad play designer but he is a worse playcaller. Next time I see a bubble screen or empty set (especially on 3rd down) I'm going to puke up a lung.

To script your very first play in a game as a screen!?! Get rid of this clown.

TwistedHusky · Sep 22, 2015

The odd part is that we are doing all this supposedly low risk stuff (low reward) for 4-5 yards and mixing in a few moonshots which does not fool anyone, because we have a philosophy to protect the ball. So we are trying to protect the QB.

The problem is that keeping all this stuff near the LOS, keeps the D near the LOS, which assures that our run game is never going to loosen. It also assures that all our TD attempts are crammed into 5 & 10 yard boxes, with all the defenders in that area. So much harder.

And the days of protecting the lead by being conservative are going to lead to more losses not wins, as you become that much more vulnerable to the way the ball bounces when you leave yourself no cushion for error/chance.

But the most baffling thing about how our offense is so overly conservative is that it assures the other team can race back ahead of us because once we get the lead we do a lot of stuff that is designed to use time instead of score - but if one run or pass gets no yardage, we pretty much set ourselves to lose that drive.

This puts Wilson in a position later where he HAS to score, and so he has to start forcing it in. And consequently he throws interceptions anyway.

This weirdly craptacular offense isn't low risk, just low reward and Wilson still is throwing interceptions, just closer to the LOS that gives the opposing side a shorter field. At least aggressive playcalling a 20 yd interception or 30 yd interception is more like a bad punt.

They need to take Wilson off the leash and he should NOT be trying to complete passes from the pocket anyway. His strength is throwing on the move.

Spin Doctor · Sep 22, 2015

TwistedHusky":3ngvgx1r said:
The odd part is that we are doing all this supposedly low risk stuff (low reward) for 4-5 yards and mixing in a few moonshots which does not fool anyone, because we have a philosophy to protect the ball. So we are trying to protect the QB.

The problem is that keeping all this stuff near the LOS, keeps the D near the LOS, which assures that our run game is never going to loosen. It also assures that all our TD attempts are crammed into 5 & 10 yard boxes, with all the defenders in that area. So much harder.

And the days of protecting the lead by being conservative are going to lead to more losses not wins, as you become that much more vulnerable to the way the ball bounces when you leave yourself no cushion for error/chance.

But the most baffling thing about how our offense is so overly conservative is that it assures the other team can race back ahead of us because once we get the lead we do a lot of stuff that is designed to use time instead of score - but if one run or pass gets no yardage, we pretty much set ourselves to lose that drive.

This puts Wilson in a position later where he HAS to score, and so he has to start forcing it in. And consequently he throws interceptions anyway.

This weirdly craptacular offense isn't low risk, just low reward and Wilson still is throwing interceptions, just closer to the LOS that gives the opposing side a shorter field. At least aggressive playcalling a 20 yd interception or 30 yd interception is more like a bad punt.

They need to take Wilson off the leash and he should NOT be trying to complete passes from the pocket anyway. His strength is throwing on the move.

I don't mind the dinking and dunking, in fact I think that this style of play call is needed until our line gets solidified. The problem that we are having here is that I don't think Wilson is particularly well suited to this type of play. It requires anticipation, great ball placement, and good pocket management to make this style work effectively. These are all things that Russell struggles in. I think he is better suited to a playbook more akin to what we saw from Bates in 2010. A lot of rollouts, and moving pockets, plays designed to keep Wilson on the move with a heavy dose of play action. Essentially the Shannahan style of playbook.

lukerguy · Sep 22, 2015

Basis4day":eawuiahq said:
[youtube]HqmmeCqWS4k[/youtube]

I'm not as versed in playcalling as some, but isn't this an example of what you are describing? McCoy comes in motion and waits for Sidney Rice to draw the coverage?

Exactly. Okay so you found one....and guess what...? it worked.. yet we see that 2-3 times a year in the red zone.

lukerguy · Sep 22, 2015

lukerguy":9soq6309 said:
Basis4day":9soq6309 said:

[youtube]HqmmeCqWS4k[/youtube]

I'm not as versed in playcalling as some, but isn't this an example of what you are describing? McCoy comes in motion and waits for Sidney Rice to draw the coverage?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Okay so you found one....and guess what? it worked.. yet we see that 2-3 times a year in the red zone.

Those motion concept routes are a dream for guys who can already get separations like Baldwin and Graham...yet I've rarely see them.

Basis4day · Sep 22, 2015

lukerguy":2ms5go1f said:
lukerguy":2ms5go1f said:

Basis4day":2ms5go1f said:

[youtube]HqmmeCqWS4k[/youtube]

I'm not as versed in playcalling as some, but isn't this an example of what you are describing? McCoy comes in motion and waits for Sidney Rice to draw the coverage?

Click to expand...

Exactly. Okay so you found one....and guess what? it worked.. yet we see that 2-3 times a year in the red zone.

Click to expand...

Those motion concept routes are a dream for guys who can already get separations like Baldwin and Graham...yet I've rarely see them.

I'd need to go back and watch some TD's on gamepass from Wilson's tenure, but i'd venture to say it happens a lot more often than you remember.

I get it. Losing exacerbates frustration. But the tape doesn't lie. Wilson has thrown for 75 tds in his career. Do you really think you've only seen this approx 10 times, even if it doesn't work?

WilsonMVP · Sep 22, 2015

Sports Hernia":rvwnwqxo said:
lukerguy":rvwnwqxo said:

I thought this to be a noteworthy topic. It seems Bevell is called out often for his play calling, but what I think is even more lacking is the design of his plays-- especially in the red zone.

1) Did anyone watch the MNF game (JETS/COLTS)? Or the Pats Bills game? Did anyone see Decker start wide, come in motion, wait for the other WR to open up the inside slant with a corner route? Decker had a 2 yard buffer and an easy touchdown. The Pats had two TEs rest their pre-snap alignment (one was chandler, the other Gronk). The Bills defenders were trying to communicate how that changed their coverage. Gronk Scores on an in route and the bills defenders are left screaming at each other. How many motion plays do we have in a game? 1 or 2 max? Defenders can be dumb, even changing the pre-snap alignment slightly by adding motion puts a hint of doubt or confusion in the defense. It makes me wonder how perhaps even a little motion from lockett or Kearse could have changed the SB final play slightly as well.

2) Pete said on Brock and Salk "We tried to design a few plays for Graham to get open, but for a few different reasons it didn't work out". I'm assuming the first and foremost reason is because he wasn't open. Perhaps Bevell isn't as poor of a caller as he is a play designer?I remember watching Graham have 2/3 yards buffer at times in NO.

Click to expand...

He might be a bad play designer but he is a worse playcaller. Next time I see a bubble screen or empty set (especially on 3rd down) I'm going to puke up a lung.

Empty set is fine....its NOT fine when its empty set on 3rd and 4 or less.

Sports Hernia · Sep 22, 2015

WilsonMVP":1n2einbe said:
Sports Hernia":1n2einbe said:

lukerguy":1n2einbe said:

I thought this to be a noteworthy topic. It seems Bevell is called out often for his play calling, but what I think is even more lacking is the design of his plays-- especially in the red zone.

1) Did anyone watch the MNF game (JETS/COLTS)? Or the Pats Bills game? Did anyone see Decker start wide, come in motion, wait for the other WR to open up the inside slant with a corner route? Decker had a 2 yard buffer and an easy touchdown. The Pats had two TEs rest their pre-snap alignment (one was chandler, the other Gronk). The Bills defenders were trying to communicate how that changed their coverage. Gronk Scores on an in route and the bills defenders are left screaming at each other. How many motion plays do we have in a game? 1 or 2 max? Defenders can be dumb, even changing the pre-snap alignment slightly by adding motion puts a hint of doubt or confusion in the defense. It makes me wonder how perhaps even a little motion from lockett or Kearse could have changed the SB final play slightly as well.

2) Pete said on Brock and Salk "We tried to design a few plays for Graham to get open, but for a few different reasons it didn't work out". I'm assuming the first and foremost reason is because he wasn't open. Perhaps Bevell isn't as poor of a caller as he is a play designer?I remember watching Graham have 2/3 yards buffer at times in NO.

Click to expand...

He might be a bad play designer but he is a worse playcaller. Next time I see a bubble screen or empty set (especially on 3rd down) I'm going to puke up a lung.

Click to expand...

Empty set is fine....its NOT fine when its empty set on 3rd and 4 or less.

The empty set is fine if you have a competent o-line that can give your QB time on a consistent basis, Seattle doesn't have that, thus making it a stupid formation with this team. With this team when a opponent sees an empty set its a green light for a full out blitz, and to come up bump the receivers at the line.

hawksfansinceday1 · Sep 22, 2015

Sgt. Largent":2kx10wkm said:
Our problem is Pete and Darrell still think we can rely on our D to hold down the other team, when it's obvious this isn't the same D that only gives up 15 pts a game. So they're going to have to unleash Russell and let him throw it around more.

THIS! And I think if Pete isn't already set to move in this direction, he will be soon.

Siouxhawk · Sep 22, 2015

Overreactions in full force again, I see.

News flash ... our offense is fine. We went to OT with the Rams and if not for a costly turnover against the Packers, we were marching toward getting the lead late in the fourth quarter.

Again, these were two very difficult teams we were facing and we are operating with an offensive line that showed a nice flash of progress in the second half of the Packers game.

Read what Danny wrote about Bev today. He has to incorporate ball-control, the West Coast and Russell's improvisational skills into one solid package. He's done that the last two years and the result is a Super Bowl berth with one win. He's the guy we need to run this offense and it's not even close.

Jimmy will be incorporated into the red zone plans, but he's not going to be force-fed. Guys like Willson and Matthews are showing they can be solid targets too. I like the tempo this offense is developing. We just need a little bit better production and run blocking to spring Marshawn into the second level and we'll be set.

If you're pushing the panic button, you drink way too much coffee or Surge.

Hawks46 · Sep 22, 2015

Siouxhawk":139cs0nl said:
Overreactions in full force again, I see.

News flash ... our offense is fine. We went to OT with the Rams and if not for a costly turnover against the Packers, we were marching toward getting the lead late in the fourth quarter.

Again, these were two very difficult teams we were facing and we are operating with an offensive line that showed a nice flash of progress in the second half of the Packers game.

Read what Danny wrote about Bev today. He has to incorporate ball-control, the West Coast and Russell's improvisational skills into one solid package. He's done that the last two years and the result is a Super Bowl berth with one win. He's the guy we need to run this offense and it's not even close.

Jimmy will be incorporated into the red zone plans, but he's not going to be force-fed. Guys like Willson and Matthews are showing they can be solid targets too. I like the tempo this offense is developing. We just need a little bit better production and run blocking to spring Marshawn into the second level and we'll be set.

If you're pushing the panic button, you drink way too much coffee or Surge.

I don't know what your definition of "fine" is, but our offense is pretty bad. Scoring 17 points is almost never good.

GB gave up what, 170 yards rushing to the Bears, one of the worst teams overall in the entire league. Then we went out and had one of our worst rushing games in the last 2 years against the same team.

Wilson is missing open WRs and still doesn't know how to get the ball to Graham.

Our run blocking is a work in progress, and that's being PC about it.

That said, we still almost won both games and didn't get smashed by anyone yet, although that was the worst loss in the Wilson era. And no, I'm not real pissed about it, as I called a 10 point loss in Aros's prediction thread. I'm not panicking, but things aren't "fine".

Siouxhawk · Sep 22, 2015

Hawks46":16izh9it said:
Siouxhawk":16izh9it said:

Overreactions in full force again, I see.

News flash ... our offense is fine. We went to OT with the Rams and if not for a costly turnover against the Packers, we were marching toward getting the lead late in the fourth quarter.

Again, these were two very difficult teams we were facing and we are operating with an offensive line that showed a nice flash of progress in the second half of the Packers game.

Read what Danny wrote about Bev today. He has to incorporate ball-control, the West Coast and Russell's improvisational skills into one solid package. He's done that the last two years and the result is a Super Bowl berth with one win. He's the guy we need to run this offense and it's not even close.

Jimmy will be incorporated into the red zone plans, but he's not going to be force-fed. Guys like Willson and Matthews are showing they can be solid targets too. I like the tempo this offense is developing. We just need a little bit better production and run blocking to spring Marshawn into the second level and we'll be set.

If you're pushing the panic button, you drink way too much coffee or Surge.

Click to expand...

I don't know what your definition of "fine" is, but our offense is pretty bad. Scoring 17 points is almost never good.

GB gave up what, 170 yards rushing to the Bears, one of the worst teams overall in the entire league. Then we went out and had one of our worst rushing games in the last 2 years against the same team.

Wilson is missing open WRs and still doesn't know how to get the ball to Graham.

Our run blocking is a work in progress, and that's being PC about it.

That said, we still almost won both games and didn't get smashed by anyone yet, although that was the worst loss in the Wilson era. And no, I'm not real pissed about it, as I called a 10 point loss in Aros's prediction thread. I'm not panicking, but things aren't "fine".

But they certainly aren't as bad as many are making it out to be. As I said, our line looked better in the second half against the Pack and that's huge. We need that continuity and that will be the biggest thing to offset our early doldrums.

Did you notice that when Russ had some time in the pocket, he did do just fine. That's when his passing was it's crispest. In the third, he started running the read option and designed keepers and that allowed us to take the lead on them into the fourth. After they scored, we were snakebitten by that damn interception (but still should have retained the ball since Britt came away from the pile with it.).

Relax. We will be just fine.

LymonHawk · Sep 22, 2015

lukerguy":y8vx0653 said:
I thought this to be a noteworthy topic. It seems Bevell is called out often for his play calling, but what I think is even more lacking is the design of his plays-- especially in the red zone.

1) Did anyone watch the MNF game (JETS/COLTS)? Or the Pats Bills game? Did anyone see Decker start wide, come in motion, wait for the other WR to open up the inside slant with a corner route? Decker had a 2 yard buffer and an easy touchdown. The Pats had two TEs rest their pre-snap alignment (one was chandler, the other Gronk). The Bills defenders were trying to communicate how that changed their coverage. Gronk Scores on an in route and the bills defenders are left screaming at each other. How many motion plays do we have in a game? 1 or 2 max? Defenders can be dumb, even changing the pre-snap alignment slightly by adding motion puts a hint of doubt or confusion in the defense. It makes me wonder how perhaps even a little motion from lockett or Kearse could have changed the SB final play slightly as well.

2) Pete said on Brock and Salk "We tried to design a few plays for Graham to get open, but for a few different reasons it didn't work out". I'm assuming the first and foremost reason is because he wasn't open. Perhaps Bevell isn't as poor of a caller as he is a play designer?I remember watching Graham have 2/3 yards buffer at times in NO.

Yesterday you claimed it was RW's fault and not Bevell's. Today you're blaming Bevell? Flip-flop?

"I used to want to blame Bevell, but now I think the offensive woes were a function of Russ not keeping the D honest with the read option. I was screaming at the TV all first half "KEEP IT". Sure enough as soon as he started to keep it, we started to score points. I think we would have easi..."

Play call design

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

New member

New member

Well-known member

Similar threads