Seahawks.NET AMAZON STOREFRONT

Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking

The Essential Online Seattle Football Fan Forum Community. There simply is NO substitute. LANGUAGE RATING: PG-13
Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:18 pm
  • Its such a catch 22 IMO. Blame bevell for his play calling and that's fine but also he is playing without a full deck. The same people defending Russ and hating bevell is strange to me. The offensive line is the main issue. It always has been with this regime. Russ and Bevell don't get a full deck like DC's on the defensive side.

    I'd never want to be a OC on this team or QB or WR or RB. The offensive line was ranked 31st. Its payroll was 31st. You get what you pay for. The Seahawks pay the most in the NFL for defense. You get 8 pro bowlers and top defense year in and out. Its why New DC's are solid here. (Players more then the DC) My favorite DC was Quinn and I liked how he mixed it up.

    Its like Phil Jackson. How great was he? Was he good? Yes. Great? Idk. He had MJ and Kobe and Shaq. The DC's have the best defensive players in the NFL.

    Again, I understand the blame game. People wanna blame Russ, Bevell, Cable,etc. Its really what you pay for. You pay for crap, you usually get crap. However, winning a SB and being in playoffs shows it was a smart choice compared to paying for best O line like Dallas.
    Shanegotyou11
    NET Bench Warmer
     
    Posts: 24
    Joined: Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:08 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:25 pm
  • Siouxhawk wrote:
    Seymour wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Actually burning that last time out was huge in that sequence. It prevented at least another shot at the end zone by the Rams.

    I'm with AdHawk firmly on this one. The end of the game fit the Hawks' identity under Pete to a T.

    And it's quite presumptive to think we'd automatically score a TD there. Too many bad things could happen, including stopping the clock.


    No it didn't. They turned the ball over on downs, and did not run out of time.

    If they had that time out in their back pocket, it changes things for them strategy wise.


    What I said was a fact. What you said is 100% BS speculation.
    If a meteor fell on the stadium we would also not have a team. Should we plan the funeral now then?
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2500
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 4:57 pm
  • Ad Hawk wrote:
    austinslater25 wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Ad Hawk wrote:What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.


    I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.


    Exactly. It was the equivalence of not even trying. I'm not even suggesting we blame Bevell, maybe its on Pete or more likely a combination of both but regardless it was a weird decision. We gave ourselves almost zero chance to be successful there.


    No, not at all the equivalent. That's only in your own mind.

    Trying and not getting something against people trying to stop you isn't the same as not trying.

    Could they have called something different? Perhaps, but why didn't the called play get them 2 yards? If that's execution, then perhaps any call they had made could have suffered the same because of ineptitude of the line, backs, or otherwise.


    It was only in my mind that they lined up in the same formation and ran the same exact play that got us 2 yards when we needed 5? Do you and Bevell think that was going to catch the Rams off guard or something? It was a horrible display of play calling. How or why are you trying to defend that?
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 184
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:53 pm
  • Seymour wrote:No it didn't. They turned the ball over on downs, and did not run out of time.

    How dare you intercede with facts like this?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 30792
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Bothell, WA


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:56 pm
  • Siouxhawk wrote:Delusional? I think the real head-scratcher is the usual sect of supposed know-it-alls who bellyache right away in the aftermath of a game you could sense us taking control of. And a big game at that. Time after time Bevell called successful plays to move the chains and grind the clock. This while operating behind a line that sometimes looked superb and gave Russ loads of protection, other times inexplicably whiffing on a blitz that left Russ a sitting duck.

    Just have to say that the stance of those grumbling like this is hard to take serious anymore.


    Yes, and this post is absolutely delusional. The Seahawks offense had a grand total of 0 first downs in the 4th Quarter. When exactly Siouxhawk did you feel like we were taking over the game? Was it when our last 4 drives netted 19 yards and burned 1:25, 1:03, 1:45, and 1:37 off the clock?

    What are you going to tell me next? Are you going to tell me that netting 57 feet or 684 inches is better than 19 yards?

    19 yards in the 4th Quarter

    I never have claimed to know it all. I know that 0 first downs in a quarter when you have 4 drives is ass. I know that time after time the offense can't get out of its own way.
    BEVELL IS THE DEVIL
    User avatar
    bevellisthedevil
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1162
    Joined: Sun Dec 13, 2009 10:43 pm
    Location: davenport


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 5:57 pm
  • WilsonMVP wrote:
    Scorpion05 wrote:
    WilsonMVP wrote:
    bevellisthedevil wrote:13 possessions - 241 yards for an average of 18.5 yards per possession and a grand total of 16 points. In addition, the defense got the ball back to the offense with 5 turnovers.

    Turnover #1 - We got the ball at our own 20 8 plays 29 yards punt
    Turnover #2 - we got the ball at their 30 4 plays 15 yards intercepted
    Turnover #2- We got the ball at our own 29 3 plays -2 yards punt
    Turnover #3 We got the ball at their 46 3 plays 8 yards punt
    Turnover #4 We got the ball at their 20 4 plays 3 yards field goal YESSSS! a field goal

    So we get 5 turnovers and run a total of 22 plays and gain 53 yards and score 1 field goal and somehow the offense did its job? There are way too many delusional people on this site. Its entertaining but delusional.

    How is any of that acceptable to anyone? How is 5 turnovers, 3 in Rams territory and netting 3 total points even remotely close to acceptable?


    Sad thing is the defense and special teams literally set them up for 6 points at least, and they couldnt even do that right. And also had a turnover which put the rams in FG range I believe.

    Also outside of the last 2 drives before the half and the drive after the half the offense was so bad.....taking those 3 out...

    6 plays 4 yards 2:56 PUNT
    8 plays 29 yards 4:16 PUNT
    1 Play 0 yards :11 INT
    3 Plays 3 yards 1:47 PUNT
    4 Plays 15 yards 2:01 INT
    3 plays -2 yards 2:20 PUNT
    3 plays 3 yards 1:03 PUNT
    3 plays 8 yards 1:45 PUNT
    4 plays 3 yards 1:37 FG

    You guys have GOT to be kidding me with being happy about this offensive performance. This is the same crap that happens almost every game. Defense keeps us in it, or gets turnovers and the offense usually does JUST ENOUGH to win the game, with like, 2 drives, usually at the end of the half or end of the game. Its pissing me off

    SEVEN DRIVES that didnt even get 10 yards, ONLY ONE OF THOSE past 5 yards

    Our offense decided to only show up for last half of the 2nd quarter and starting 3rd quarter. Outside of that they were on a milk carton.. MISSING


    What you said is accurate, except for the whole leaving out 3 good drives thing you just did

    Most teams win based on just that. 3 or 4 good drives. Most football games end in a score of say, 17-10, or in the low 20s. Every now and then, both teams score 30. So what would have been adequate for you, maybe one more TD? Fine, that'd be great

    We scored 16 points. So basically your logic is, because we didn't score 28, or 30, our offense is horrible? It needs work sure, all I'm saying is...let's not pretend as if this was a 9-3 game. The score card is pretty common with what happens across the league consistently. This does not mean some of us are satisfied, of course we have a high scoring offense. A high scoring offense would make us a perfect team. But let's not pretend as if us not scoring almost 30 points is out of the norm

    What I was truly disappointed in was the last drive. We should have iced the game. That was pitiful


    3 of those points came because of the defense getting a turnover. They ALSO turned the ball over after special teams handed them FG range position at Rams 30 yard line, and they ALSO handed the rams 3 points by throwing an interception setting the rams up at the SEATTLE 19. In the past two games we have allowed 28 points.....8 of those have been directly because of the offense and then the defense itself has scored 2TD and set up a FG by INT


    Okay

    So basically your point is, against a talented defense familiar with us we turned the ball over twice, and they turned the ball over. Fine. Sounds like a typical football game to me

    Teams with as little invested on offense as we do rarely have as much success as we do. We have a longggggg way to go, but we're not exactly a putrid, game managing Trent Dilfer like offense. We have a certain style of play, and we're conservative. We're not risk taking. We take our deep shots and other times we're careful. We need improvement running the ball(we lost our starting RB). The Rams offense is a classic example of a team who's high scoring but takes risks, which will catch up to them. Mark my words, no matter how much points the Rams score a game they will not be on our level. Great teams are built on defense and solid offensive play

    Last week we were great on offense. This week we were below average on offense but made key plays when needed. Great teams can win ugly(like this week) and win great(like last week) and we have had enough evidence of that over the years(2015 Broncos, 2013 Seahawks, etc.)
    Scorpion05
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 196
    Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 10:05 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:23 pm
  • Scorpion05 wrote:Okay

    So basically your point is, against a talented defense familiar with us we turned the ball over twice, and they turned the ball over. Fine. Sounds like a typical football game to me

    Teams with as little invested on offense as we do rarely have as much success as we do. We have a longggggg way to go, but we're not exactly a putrid, game managing Trent Dilfer like offense. We have a certain style of play, and we're conservative. We're not risk taking. We take our deep shots and other times we're careful. We need improvement running the ball(we lost our starting RB). The Rams offense is a classic example of a team who's high scoring but takes risks, which will catch up to them. Mark my words, no matter how much points the Rams score a game they will not be on our level. Great teams are built on defense and solid offensive play

    Actually, the Trent Dilfer-led Ravens in 2000 (who won the Super Bowl that season) averaged 20.8 points per game for the regular season, and this was in an era when offenses scored fewer points in general AND this includes Dilfer coming in to replace the QB that started the season, Tony Banks, after four straight games without an offensive touchdown; yet despite that incredible month of no TDs scored by the offense, they still finished with a 20.8 average on the regular season. For the games Dilfer was the starting QB in (eight regular-season games starting at their loss to Pittsburgh), they averaged 24.875 points per game.

    We are currently averaging 22 points per game in a higher-scoring era with a better QB. At present, we should aspire to Trent Dilfer-like offensive capabilities, as sad as that is.

    Scorpion05 wrote:Last week we were great on offense. This week we were below average on offense but made key plays when needed. Great teams can win ugly(like this week) and win great(like last week) and we have had enough evidence of that over the years(2015 Broncos, 2013 Seahawks, etc.)

    "Great" is stretching it; that final score was bolstered MIGHTILY by two defensive touchdowns. The NFL average offensive score for a game for the 2016 season was 22.7 points per game, and our offense scored 32 points at home against one of the worst teams in the league this year with what, a 3rd-string QB? We may as well have the Seahawks play against a college defense, then we can discuss how great the offense looks all the time.

    This game is too complicated to EVER judge by final scores.

    Anyone who thinks the offense "took good strides" in this game is delusional. Our defense got FIVE TURNOVERS for our offense and we scored 16 points. If anyone knows how to quickly find some stats on games where one team gets five+ turnovers, post the scores, because most teams that get that much of a competitive edge throughout the game absolutely DESTROY the opposition, not barely win. (Excluding any games where both teams have like 4-5 turnovers, as that's obviously a largely nullifying factor.)

    ...You know, like how the Seahawks did in that turnover-fest we call the 58-0 Seahawks win over the Cardinals from 2012.
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 30792
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Bothell, WA


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:03 pm
  • So that last series if we were playing the Packers, or the Patriots and gave them the time we gave the Rams would have been ok ?

    And they are not even the best ranked offense this year.
    Image

    To Be P/C or Not P/C That is the Question..........Seahawks kick Ass !!!!
    Check your PM's, Thank you for everything Radish RIP My Friend. :les:
    Member of the 38 club.
    User avatar
    chris98251
    .NET Hijacker
     
    Posts: 21654
    Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 10:52 pm
    Location: Renton Wa.


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:16 pm
  • bevellisthedevil wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Delusional? I think the real head-scratcher is the usual sect of supposed know-it-alls who bellyache right away in the aftermath of a game you could sense us taking control of. And a big game at that. Time after time Bevell called successful plays to move the chains and grind the clock. This while operating behind a line that sometimes looked superb and gave Russ loads of protection, other times inexplicably whiffing on a blitz that left Russ a sitting duck.

    Just have to say that the stance of those grumbling like this is hard to take serious anymore.


    Yes, and this post is absolutely delusional. The Seahawks offense had a grand total of 0 first downs in the 4th Quarter. When exactly Siouxhawk did you feel like we were taking over the game? Was it when our last 4 drives netted 19 yards and burned 1:25, 1:03, 1:45, and 1:37 off the clock?

    What are you going to tell me next? Are you going to tell me that netting 57 feet or 684 inches is better than 19 yards?

    19 yards in the 4th Quarter

    I never have claimed to know it all. I know that 0 first downs in a quarter when you have 4 drives is ass. I know that time after time the offense can't get out of its own way.

    And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3387
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:21 pm
  • bevellisthedevil wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Delusional? I think the real head-scratcher is the usual sect of supposed know-it-alls who bellyache right away in the aftermath of a game you could sense us taking control of. And a big game at that. Time after time Bevell called successful plays to move the chains and grind the clock. This while operating behind a line that sometimes looked superb and gave Russ loads of protection, other times inexplicably whiffing on a blitz that left Russ a sitting duck.

    Just have to say that the stance of those grumbling like this is hard to take serious anymore.


    Yes, and this post is absolutely delusional. The Seahawks offense had a grand total of 0 first downs in the 4th Quarter. When exactly Siouxhawk did you feel like we were taking over the game? Was it when our last 4 drives netted 19 yards and burned 1:25, 1:03, 1:45, and 1:37 off the clock?

    What are you going to tell me next? Are you going to tell me that netting 57 feet or 684 inches is better than 19 yards?


    19 yards in the 4th Quarter

    I never have claimed to know it all. I know that 0 first downs in a quarter when you have 4 drives is ass. I know that time after time the offense can't get out of its own way.


    I'm sitting here laughing my ass off at your comment. Hilarious. Thanks, I needed that :mrgreen:
    adeltaY
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 270
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:27 pm
  • Siouxhawk wrote:And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.


    Then why did we attempt any passes in the 4th? Should have run it every single down if Pete's plan was to just run the clock. And why no zone read even when we did run? That would take one defender out of the RBs way or Russ could pull it and likely convert a first down.

    Also, looks like we were running out of condensed/tight formations most of the game, which brought TEN players into the box. RBs had no chance. Why the heck can't we spread it out and run from the shotgun? Our OL isn't good enough to run from under center with any semblance of consistency, nor our our RBs it seems.
    adeltaY
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 270
    Joined: Tue Oct 11, 2016 8:22 pm
    Location: Portland, OR


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:33 pm
  • adeltaY wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.


    Then why did we attempt any passes in the 4th? Should have run it every single down if Pete's plan was to just run the clock. And why no zone read even when we did run? That would take one defender out of the RBs way or Russ could pull it and likely convert a first down.

    Also, looks like we were running out of condensed/tight formations most of the game, which brought TEN players into the box. RBs had no chance. Why the heck can't we spread it out and run from the shotgun? Our OL isn't good enough to run from under center with any semblance of consistency, nor our our RBs it seems.

    Different time and field possession circumstances. I was referring to that last drive in the response you quoted. At that point, Pete wanted the 6-point lead and his defense to close it out. Mission accomplished.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3387
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:44 pm
  • RolandDeschain wrote:
    Scorpion05 wrote:Okay

    So basically your point is, against a talented defense familiar with us we turned the ball over twice, and they turned the ball over. Fine. Sounds like a typical football game to me

    Teams with as little invested on offense as we do rarely have as much success as we do. We have a longggggg way to go, but we're not exactly a putrid, game managing Trent Dilfer like offense. We have a certain style of play, and we're conservative. We're not risk taking. We take our deep shots and other times we're careful. We need improvement running the ball(we lost our starting RB). The Rams offense is a classic example of a team who's high scoring but takes risks, which will catch up to them. Mark my words, no matter how much points the Rams score a game they will not be on our level. Great teams are built on defense and solid offensive play

    Actually, the Trent Dilfer-led Ravens in 2000 (who won the Super Bowl that season) averaged 20.8 points per game for the regular season, and this was in an era when offenses scored fewer points in general AND this includes Dilfer coming in to replace the QB that started the season, Tony Banks, after four straight games without an offensive touchdown; yet despite that incredible month of no TDs scored by the offense, they still finished with a 20.8 average on the regular season. For the games Dilfer was the starting QB in (eight regular-season games starting at their loss to Pittsburgh), they averaged 24.875 points per game.

    We are currently averaging 22 points per game in a higher-scoring era with a better QB. At present, we should aspire to Trent Dilfer-like offensive capabilities, as sad as that is.

    Scorpion05 wrote:Last week we were great on offense. This week we were below average on offense but made key plays when needed. Great teams can win ugly(like this week) and win great(like last week) and we have had enough evidence of that over the years(2015 Broncos, 2013 Seahawks, etc.)

    "Great" is stretching it; that final score was bolstered MIGHTILY by two defensive touchdowns. The NFL average offensive score for a game for the 2016 season was 22.7 points per game, and our offense scored 32 points at home against one of the worst teams in the league this year with what, a 3rd-string QB? We may as well have the Seahawks play against a college defense, then we can discuss how great the offense looks all the time.

    This game is too complicated to EVER judge by final scores.

    Anyone who thinks the offense "took good strides" in this game is delusional. Our defense got FIVE TURNOVERS for our offense and we scored 16 points. If anyone knows how to quickly find some stats on games where one team gets five+ turnovers, post the scores, because most teams that get that much of a competitive edge throughout the game absolutely DESTROY the opposition, not barely win. (Excluding any games where both teams have like 4-5 turnovers, as that's obviously a largely nullifying factor.)

    ...You know, like how the Seahawks did in that turnover-fest we call the 58-0 Seahawks win over the Cardinals from 2012.


    How about NFCCG against the Pack where we gave them plenty of turnovers, and they--at the hands of the great Aaron Rodgers--only netted 19 pts? Yes it was wild, and took the crazy onside kick, but we won that game, too.

    You're correct that this game is too complicated to judge by final scores, and that includes all aspects of the game. Our 16 points won the game because that's the type of ball PC plays.

    There's nothing average about the scores opponents put up against us because our D tends to be that good; but that requires we don't need to score as many to win. It appears we play the percentages well overall.
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1501
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:34 am
  • Forget about the 3 or even going for a TD, all we needed was a 1st down and the game was over. Of course we failed to do so. Love that we won, but people failing to recognize the issues is just mind boggling.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 184
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:36 am
  • Ad Hawk wrote:
    austinslater25 wrote:
    pittpnthrs wrote:
    Ad Hawk wrote:What play would you have called that would have guaranteed a TD there? And it better be a sure thing with no chance at interception, able to still burn the clock even if it falls incomplete, and leaves the Rams with no time left on the clock.


    I dont think taking a shot to the endzone is the subject here. Its more on the fact that we ran the same exact play twice with Rawls and then brought in a 3 TE set that had nobody even close to being open. It almost felt like the staff wasnt even trying there. A little more creativity and willingness to move the ball forward is what i'm asking for.


    Exactly. It was the equivalence of not even trying. I'm not even suggesting we blame Bevell, maybe its on Pete or more likely a combination of both but regardless it was a weird decision. We gave ourselves almost zero chance to be successful there.


    No, not at all the equivalent. That's only in your own mind.

    Trying and not getting something against people trying to stop you isn't the same as not trying.

    Could they have called something different? Perhaps, but why didn't the called play get them 2 yards? If that's execution, then perhaps any call they had made could have suffered the same because of ineptitude of the line, backs, or otherwise.


    So its in the mind of myself and almost a dozen offensive minds, scouts, ex coaches etc. Again we closed shop and didn't even attempt a shot in the end zone. It was dumb and should of cost us. Ironically we still gave them too much time even with the 2 running plays. You also ask why didn't the play net more than 2 yards and are surprised by the execution......we weren't able to run all day, if we were running the play expecting more isn't it odd to expect it there when you couldn't run all day?

    Sioux I'll say it again. I think if you showed at least a little objectivity with Bevell people would be more receptive of your arguments because you're not always wrong but when you defend every single decision it makes it tough. I get you love Bevell but its ok to admit he might of gotten this call or that call wrong, doesn't make him a bad OC(I think he is but regardless) just makes him like every other OC, even the great ones.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6323
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:40 am
  • Siouxhawk wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.


    Then why did we attempt any passes in the 4th? Should have run it every single down if Pete's plan was to just run the clock. And why no zone read even when we did run? That would take one defender out of the RBs way or Russ could pull it and likely convert a first down.

    Also, looks like we were running out of condensed/tight formations most of the game, which brought TEN players into the box. RBs had no chance. Why the heck can't we spread it out and run from the shotgun? Our OL isn't good enough to run from under center with any semblance of consistency, nor our our RBs it seems.

    Different time and field possession circumstances. I was referring to that last drive in the response you quoted. At that point, Pete wanted the 6-point lead and his defense to close it out. Mission accomplished.


    This is mind boggling. You're right Pete wanted a 6 pt lead. Where there is disagreement is was the final sequence of plays the right calls. Like another poster said above a first down also seals the game. We couldn't run all day and still went with 2 running plays, a 3 TE set that was doomed from the beginning and gave the Rams a chance to win the game. I love Pete like you love Bevell but it was a bad decision. As great as Pete is, he's human like any other coach and I would hope he would play it differently in the future.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6323
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:57 am
  • austinslater25 wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:
    adeltaY wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.


    Then why did we attempt any passes in the 4th? Should have run it every single down if Pete's plan was to just run the clock. And why no zone read even when we did run? That would take one defender out of the RBs way or Russ could pull it and likely convert a first down.

    Also, looks like we were running out of condensed/tight formations most of the game, which brought TEN players into the box. RBs had no chance. Why the heck can't we spread it out and run from the shotgun? Our OL isn't good enough to run from under center with any semblance of consistency, nor our our RBs it seems.

    Different time and field possession circumstances. I was referring to that last drive in the response you quoted. At that point, Pete wanted the 6-point lead and his defense to close it out. Mission accomplished.


    This is mind boggling. You're right Pete wanted a 6 pt lead. Where there is disagreement is was the final sequence of plays the right calls. Like another poster said above a first down also seals the game. We couldn't run all day and still went with 2 running plays, a 3 TE set that was doomed from the beginning and gave the Rams a chance to win the game. I love Pete like you love Bevell but it was a bad decision. As great as Pete is, he's human like any other coach and I would hope he would play it differently in the future.


    On 710 Pete said he REALLY wanted to go for it on 4th and 2 but was talked out of it. Bevell crapping his pants next to him was probably begging for the FG.
    User avatar
    Smellyman
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 4005
    Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 6:58 pm
    Location: Taipei


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:07 am
  • I missed that interview, that's fascinating on multiple levels.
    User avatar
    austinslater25
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6323
    Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 2:05 pm
    Location: Tri-Cities, Washington


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:21 am
  • Alot of people on this site told me the offense was fine vs the Rams though and that I should just be happy with a win and get over our awful scoring output amd our unwillingness to put the game away.
    User avatar
    NFSeahawks628
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3787
    Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 12:33 pm
    Location: Born: Tacoma, WA Current Location: Tally, Seminole Country (Road Hawk)


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:28 am
  • I like how the narrative by some is the zero first downs in the 4th quarter was all part of the plan.
    User avatar
    mistaowen
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3083
    Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:54 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:57 am
  • The ridiculous conservative crap after those turnovers is typical for Bevellriffic
    R.I.P. THE EDGAR, YOU WILL BE MISSED......
    User avatar
    SoulfishHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6226
    Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:59 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 8:47 am
  • I hope someone can prove me wrong. I FELT during the game that there was zero quick rhythm/timing throws. Was it how the rams were playing us with the OLB's? I felt that Bevel did not change game plans when attacking the safeties deep was not working.
    "If we lose ... this place will be a Carnival of Stupidity." FlyingGreg
    Fudwamper
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 942
    Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:06 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:05 am
  • Fudwamper wrote:I hope someone can prove me wrong. I FELT during the game that there was zero quick rhythm/timing throws. Was it how the rams were playing us with the OLB's? I felt that Bevel did not change game plans when attacking the safeties deep was not working.


    Makes sense. "It's not about them, it's about us." According to Pete that is. Paradigms like that, keep us stuck in yesterday.
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2500
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 9:39 am
  • mistaowen wrote:I like how the narrative by some is the zero first downs in the 4th quarter was all part of the plan.


    Not part of the plan, but definitely some SUPER conservative protect from turnovers type of playcalling out of Pete and Bevell.

    When Pete starts using pronouns like "We" after games when talking about the defense? That tells you his mentality of get a lead late, play conservative and trust your D to hold the lead is never going to change.

    Drives me crazy, but for people thinking it's all on Bevell when we continue to just run the ball into 8-9 boxes and don't take shots downfield? Not true, it's Pete.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11996
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:14 am
  • How is this even still a discussion? Bevell is objectively terrible. There's a reason our defensive staff has been picked clean over the years while Bevell has never gotten a second interview from a professional team. The whole league knows the score up here.

    Case in point: if Bevell coached on a different team, posting the numbers he's posting here, would you be clamoring for Pete to hire him? Would you even know his name?

    Exactly.

    If you still support Bevell, you just support anything with a Seahawks logo on it.
    User avatar
    WindCityHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2127
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:51 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:18 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mistaowen wrote:I like how the narrative by some is the zero first downs in the 4th quarter was all part of the plan.


    Not part of the plan, but definitely some SUPER conservative protect from turnovers type of playcalling out of Pete and Bevell.

    When Pete starts using pronouns like "We" after games when talking about the defense? That tells you his mentality of get a lead late, play conservative and trust your D to hold the lead is never going to change.

    Drives me crazy, but for people thinking it's all on Bevell when we continue to just run the ball into 8-9 boxes and don't take shots downfield? Not true, it's Pete.


    Agree completely. It's what Pete wants, so he keeps Bevell. This thread should say "fire Pete" and with him the whole coaching staff.

    Until PC leaves, I will appreciate the fact that he has helped us to a greater win record than any coach in previous Hawks' history; he's also the one that assembled all this talent with Schneider and has coached it (the D especially) to a level that competes with the best and often brings home a win.

    I won't be joining the "fire Pete" bandwagon.
    ____________
    BLUE and GREEN...
    User avatar
    Ad Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1501
    Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 8:25 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:30 am
  • WindCityHawk wrote:How is this even still a discussion? Bevell is objectively terrible. There's a reason our defensive staff has been picked clean over the years while Bevell has never gotten a second interview from a professional team. The whole league knows the score up here.

    Case in point: if Bevell coached on a different team, posting the numbers he's posting here, would you be clamoring for Pete to hire him? Would you even know his name?

    Exactly.

    If you still support Bevell, you just support anything with a Seahawks logo on it.

    This is all nonsense. Virtually every fanbase in the NFL hates their offensive coordinator and is convinced he's holding the team back. The only reason he's "objectively terrible" is because this place is a hive mind echo chamber and everybody agrees with each other, reinforcing beliefs like this.

    How can you say he is "objectively" bad? Even if our offensive is inefficient, how could you possibly isolate the failure to him? How do you differentiate between playcalling and on-the field execution (quarterback play, porous offensive line, etc). That's just it, you can't, so trotting out lazy narratives like "Bevell is holding us back" is an incredibly weak and anything but "objective".

    And no, I'm sorry, but "omg did u see how good wilson did in the 2-minute drill, thats what the offense looks like w/o Bevell!!" is not sound reasoning.
    User avatar
    JimmyG
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 172
    Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 12:42 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:48 am
  • JimmyG wrote:This is all nonsense. Virtually every fanbase in the NFL hates their offensive coordinator and is convinced he's holding the team back. The only reason he's "objectively terrible" is because this place is a hive mind echo chamber and everybody agrees with each other, reinforcing beliefs like this.

    How can you say he is "objectively" bad? Even if our offensive is inefficient, how could you possibly isolate the failure to him? How do you differentiate between playcalling and on-the field execution (quarterback play, porous offensive line, etc). That's just it, you can't, so trotting out lazy narratives like "Bevell is holding us back" is an incredibly weak and anything but "objective".

    And no, I'm sorry, but "omg did u see how good wilson did in the 2-minute drill, thats what the offense looks like w/o Bevell!!" is not sound reasoning.



    You must be new here, there is no satiating the Bevell parrots with logic and reason.

    The fact is we (Bevell, Pete, Russell) run the same offense as half the teams in the league, including one of the best offenses in the league right now, the Chiefs.

    Amazing how awesome your offense looks when you have a great O-line, good QB and dynamic playmakers at the skill positions. Suddenly you're a genius playcaller. Everyone in KC was calling for Reid's head the past 2-3 years. Now they have Hunt and Hill, and they're rolling and Reid and the offense look like geniuses.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11996
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 10:53 am
  • Why is everyone talking about scoring a TD on the final drive? If I remember correctly there was about 1:10 left and the Rams had one time out, all the Hawks needed was a first down and they could kneel to a win.

    The team was extremely lucky to win this game and the offensive play is mind-numbingly bad. You can't rely on five turnovers to win. ET makes an all-world play at the beginning of the game, to eventually save the game.
    potatohead
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 101
    Joined: Mon Jan 07, 2013 11:26 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:12 am
  • Siouxhawk wrote:
    bevellisthedevil wrote:
    Siouxhawk wrote:Delusional? I think the real head-scratcher is the usual sect of supposed know-it-alls who bellyache right away in the aftermath of a game you could sense us taking control of. And a big game at that. Time after time Bevell called successful plays to move the chains and grind the clock. This while operating behind a line that sometimes looked superb and gave Russ loads of protection, other times inexplicably whiffing on a blitz that left Russ a sitting duck.

    Just have to say that the stance of those grumbling like this is hard to take serious anymore.


    Yes, and this post is absolutely delusional. The Seahawks offense had a grand total of 0 first downs in the 4th Quarter. When exactly Siouxhawk did you feel like we were taking over the game? Was it when our last 4 drives netted 19 yards and burned 1:25, 1:03, 1:45, and 1:37 off the clock?

    What are you going to tell me next? Are you going to tell me that netting 57 feet or 684 inches is better than 19 yards?

    19 yards in the 4th Quarter

    I never have claimed to know it all. I know that 0 first downs in a quarter when you have 4 drives is ass. I know that time after time the offense can't get out of its own way.

    And I know the offense did exactly what Pete wanted it to do on that last possession, which is grind the clock, exhaust their time outs, force them to score a touchdown to win and make them go 75 yards against our signature defense. I rather liked the outcome. We're in first place in the division with a favorable schedule ahead and that's really all that matters.


    19 yards and a game winning TD dropped in the end zone. This was not a signature Hawks win. Those were the dismantlings of the 9ers and Saints on national TV. Or even last week.

    It’s simply naively stupid to suggest that because the team won the game plan was executed. The ends don’t always justify the means. And in this case there is not an argument to be had.
    User avatar
    Uncle Si
    * NET Hottie *
     
    Posts: 12330
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 8:34 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:16 am
  • Uncle Si wrote:...19 yards and a game winning TD dropped in the end zone. This was not a signature Hawks win. Those were the dismantlings of the 9ers and Saints on national TV. Or even last week.

    It’s simply naively stupid to suggest that because the team won the game plan was executed. The ends don’t always justify the means. And in this case there is not an argument to be had.


    Well sure it is!
    It is a Helen Keller signature win. :irishdrinkers:
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2500
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:18 am
  • WindCityHawk wrote:Bevell is objectively terrible


    You probably can't quote a single good reason you think that, except for "the play".

    I could. And I still don't think he's the real problem.
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15596
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 11:21 am
  • The last series of downs before the final FG has me convinced.
    User avatar
    pittpnthrs
    NET Rookie
     
    Posts: 184
    Joined: Fri May 19, 2017 10:19 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:33 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JimmyG wrote:This is all nonsense. Virtually every fanbase in the NFL hates their offensive coordinator and is convinced he's holding the team back. The only reason he's "objectively terrible" is because this place is a hive mind echo chamber and everybody agrees with each other, reinforcing beliefs like this.

    How can you say he is "objectively" bad? Even if our offensive is inefficient, how could you possibly isolate the failure to him? How do you differentiate between playcalling and on-the field execution (quarterback play, porous offensive line, etc). That's just it, you can't, so trotting out lazy narratives like "Bevell is holding us back" is an incredibly weak and anything but "objective".

    And no, I'm sorry, but "omg did u see how good wilson did in the 2-minute drill, thats what the offense looks like w/o Bevell!!" is not sound reasoning.



    You must be new here, there is no satiating the Bevell parrots with logic and reason.

    The fact is we (Bevell, Pete, Russell) run the same offense as half the teams in the league, including one of the best offenses in the league right now, the Chiefs.

    Amazing how awesome your offense looks when you have a great O-line, good QB and dynamic playmakers at the skill positions. Suddenly you're a genius playcaller. Everyone in KC was calling for Reid's head the past 2-3 years. Now they have Hunt and Hill, and they're rolling and Reid and the offense look like geniuses.


    Tell me that the shovel pass to Kelce being a staple hasn't made you jealous.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3185
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 2:28 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    WindCityHawk wrote:Bevell is objectively terrible


    You probably can't quote a single good reason you think that, except for "the play".

    I could. And I still don't think he's the real problem.


    Maybe you're right. I guess all the "surprise" plays like long bombs on 3rd and 2 are actually really smart. And his refusal to adapt his scheme to his personnel isn't bull-headed stubbornness, but rather some admirable adherence to conviction. And I guess other teams don't even try to hire him away because they're intimidated by his football prowess.

    Or (but it can't be this) he's a stubborn old mule who only outsmarts himself and he's only still on the team because of his rapport with Wilson because omg they were both Badger quarterbacks.

    But by all means, let's keep banging this drum until this coaching staff dissolves and Bevell gets picked up as a QB coach somewhere and never organizes another offense again, and you and Sioux wonder why, lol.

    The dude's a step above Greg Knapp, I'll give him that.
    User avatar
    WindCityHawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2127
    Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2010 4:51 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Tue Oct 10, 2017 3:21 pm
  • WindCityHawk wrote:
    MontanaHawk05 wrote:
    WindCityHawk wrote:Bevell is objectively terrible


    You probably can't quote a single good reason you think that, except for "the play".

    I could. And I still don't think he's the real problem.


    Maybe you're right. I guess all the "surprise" plays like long bombs on 3rd and 2 are actually really smart. And his refusal to adapt his scheme to his personnel isn't bull-headed stubbornness, but rather some admirable adherence to conviction.


    I'll give you the long bombs on 3rd and 2. I saw one the other day. But he has backed WAY off those, as well as the sheer quantity of WR screens.

    As far as adapting scheme - after the bye in 2015, the Seahawks came out with a pass-first offense with spread concepts that we hadn't run before. Not novel or revolutionary, but functional. It was an attempt to protect Wilson by giving him ways to get rid of the ball quickly. Baldwin had 9 catches that first game. Graham had 3 big catches the following game before he got hurt. So in the department of adaptation, Bevell has a pass grade fro me.

    Problem is, Pete won't let him run it in the first half. This last Rams game was a nice exception and I think it caught Wade Phillips off guard that we ran such a drive that early.

    Ugh. I sound like a Bevell apologist now. Can we both agree, WindCityHawk, to stay away from our respective extremes so that neither of us gets shoved towards either cliff? :D
    GO HAWKS!!!

    Visit my Seahawks blog at 17power.blogspot.com!
    User avatar
    MontanaHawk05
    * 17Power Blogger *
     
    Posts: 15596
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:46 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:30 am
  • mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JimmyG wrote:This is all nonsense. Virtually every fanbase in the NFL hates their offensive coordinator and is convinced he's holding the team back. The only reason he's "objectively terrible" is because this place is a hive mind echo chamber and everybody agrees with each other, reinforcing beliefs like this.

    How can you say he is "objectively" bad? Even if our offensive is inefficient, how could you possibly isolate the failure to him? How do you differentiate between playcalling and on-the field execution (quarterback play, porous offensive line, etc). That's just it, you can't, so trotting out lazy narratives like "Bevell is holding us back" is an incredibly weak and anything but "objective".

    And no, I'm sorry, but "omg did u see how good wilson did in the 2-minute drill, thats what the offense looks like w/o Bevell!!" is not sound reasoning.



    You must be new here, there is no satiating the Bevell parrots with logic and reason.

    The fact is we (Bevell, Pete, Russell) run the same offense as half the teams in the league, including one of the best offenses in the league right now, the Chiefs.

    Amazing how awesome your offense looks when you have a great O-line, good QB and dynamic playmakers at the skill positions. Suddenly you're a genius playcaller. Everyone in KC was calling for Reid's head the past 2-3 years. Now they have Hunt and Hill, and they're rolling and Reid and the offense look like geniuses.


    Tell me that the shovel pass to Kelce being a staple hasn't made you jealous.


    Yes to Kelce, the most uniquely dynamic TE in the entire league. You think Jimmy or Willson could pull off that play? I don't.

    That's my point, talent matters, and for Bevell's ENTIRE stint in Seattle he hasn't had much to work with.

    - 40% of the cap space for the offense
    - conservative ball control run first coach dictating scheme
    - small slight WR corp
    - No Lynch for three years
    - worst O-line in the league for what now 3 years running?

    I'm frustrated and tried with this offense too, it SHOULD be better. But blaming the O-coordinator is bush league fans picking the low hanging fruit blame. That's what every fan base does, and it's just not correct.

    We have a systemic problem with the entire offensive philosophy. Pete refuses to change how he wants the offense to operate. He wants it to be like it was with Lynch and a good O-line in 2012-2013, ball control, punishing, physical shorten the game with 4-5 explosive plays type of offense............and it's JUST.NOT.WORKING.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11996
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Wed Oct 11, 2017 3:26 pm
  • JimmyG wrote:
    WindCityHawk wrote:How is this even still a discussion? Bevell is objectively terrible. There's a reason our defensive staff has been picked clean over the years while Bevell has never gotten a second interview from a professional team. The whole league knows the score up here.

    Case in point: if Bevell coached on a different team, posting the numbers he's posting here, would you be clamoring for Pete to hire him? Would you even know his name?

    Exactly.

    If you still support Bevell, you just support anything with a Seahawks logo on it.

    This is all nonsense. Virtually every fanbase in the NFL hates their offensive coordinator and is convinced he's holding the team back. The only reason he's "objectively terrible" is because this place is a hive mind echo chamber and everybody agrees with each other, reinforcing beliefs like this.

    How can you say he is "objectively" bad? Even if our offensive is inefficient, how could you possibly isolate the failure to him? How do you differentiate between playcalling and on-the field execution (quarterback play, porous offensive line, etc). That's just it, you can't, so trotting out lazy narratives like "Bevell is holding us back" is an incredibly weak and anything but "objective".

    And no, I'm sorry, but "omg did u see how good wilson did in the 2-minute drill, thats what the offense looks like w/o Bevell!!" is not sound reasoning.

    One helluva post JimmyG! You bring some sound wisdom to this board.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3387
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Wed Oct 11, 2017 6:44 pm
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JimmyG wrote:This is all nonsense. Virtually every fanbase in the NFL hates their offensive coordinator and is convinced he's holding the team back. The only reason he's "objectively terrible" is because this place is a hive mind echo chamber and everybody agrees with each other, reinforcing beliefs like this.

    How can you say he is "objectively" bad? Even if our offensive is inefficient, how could you possibly isolate the failure to him? How do you differentiate between playcalling and on-the field execution (quarterback play, porous offensive line, etc). That's just it, you can't, so trotting out lazy narratives like "Bevell is holding us back" is an incredibly weak and anything but "objective".

    And no, I'm sorry, but "omg did u see how good wilson did in the 2-minute drill, thats what the offense looks like w/o Bevell!!" is not sound reasoning.



    You must be new here, there is no satiating the Bevell parrots with logic and reason.

    The fact is we (Bevell, Pete, Russell) run the same offense as half the teams in the league, including one of the best offenses in the league right now, the Chiefs.

    Amazing how awesome your offense looks when you have a great O-line, good QB and dynamic playmakers at the skill positions. Suddenly you're a genius playcaller. Everyone in KC was calling for Reid's head the past 2-3 years. Now they have Hunt and Hill, and they're rolling and Reid and the offense look like geniuses.


    Tell me that the shovel pass to Kelce being a staple hasn't made you jealous.


    Yes to Kelce, the most uniquely dynamic TE in the entire league. You think Jimmy or Willson could pull off that play? I don't.

    That's my point, talent matters, and for Bevell's ENTIRE stint in Seattle he hasn't had much to work with.

    - 40% of the cap space for the offense
    - conservative ball control run first coach dictating scheme
    - small slight WR corp
    - No Lynch for three years
    - worst O-line in the league for what now 3 years running?

    I'm frustrated and tried with this offense too, it SHOULD be better. But blaming the O-coordinator is bush league fans picking the low hanging fruit blame. That's what every fan base does, and it's just not correct.

    We have a systemic problem with the entire offensive philosophy. Pete refuses to change how he wants the offense to operate. He wants it to be like it was with Lynch and a good O-line in 2012-2013, ball control, punishing, physical shorten the game with 4-5 explosive plays type of offense............and it's JUST.NOT.WORKING.


    This is the essence of the entire issue. It's far past the point of a Bevell matter--it is on Carroll now. He's almost obsessed with his idea of how an offense should operate, but he's still stuck with a 2013 mindset and reality no longer supports formula.

    Ray Roberts was on Brock and Salk this morning talking about how the personnel we have perform substanially better in up tempo, spread formations. Splitting Graham wide, looking for 1 on 1 matchups and most importantly operating quicker because Wilson gets in a rhythm and plays at a high level in a short, quick passing attack. So it's not just eager fans observing serious flaws with Pete's offensive ideology.
    User avatar
    West TX Hawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1488
    Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2013 8:24 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Wed Oct 11, 2017 7:36 pm
  • MontanaHawk05 wrote:Problem is, Pete won't let him run it in the first half.

    Evidence?
    Image
    "VICTORYYYYYYY!" -Johnny Drama
    User avatar
    RolandDeschain
    *NET FCC Liaison*
     
    Posts: 30792
    Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
    Location: Bothell, WA


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 7:48 am
  • West TX Hawk wrote:
    Ray Roberts was on Brock and Salk this morning talking about how the personnel we have perform substanially better in up tempo, spread formations. Splitting Graham wide, looking for 1 on 1 matchups and most importantly operating quicker because Wilson gets in a rhythm and plays at a high level in a short, quick passing attack. So it's not just eager fans observing serious flaws with Pete's offensive ideology.


    I've been saying this for three years.

    We no longer have the personnel to run Pete's offensive scheme. Russell is a VERY good tempo rhythm passer that gets hotter and hotter the more his confidence grows as the game goes along.

    So how does it make sense to keep him in a slow plodding stagnant run the play clock down to 2 seconds, then hand it off style of offense?

    He's arguably the best athletic accurate QB in the entire freakin' league who's now in his prime. Take the damn chains off and change the scheme!

    But no, Pete isn't capable of this sort of wholesale philosophical scheme change. He's just not.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11996
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:01 am
  • I kind of think Pete is coming around a little bit though. When's the last time they cracked out a razzle-dazzle receiver pass like McEvoy attempted in the first quarter Sunday? I think he's loosening up and that's good so that D coordinators are kept guessing.

    Now I don't think we'll get carried away and get too gadgety, but like Sarge said, let's alternate the tempo and mix in some new looks to make our offense a little more dynamic. Maybe teams won't stack the box with 7 or 8 players when they expect run as much then. That would work to our advantage on offense as Rawls and Lacy will discover a few more open gaps to run through.
    User avatar
    Siouxhawk
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3387
    Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 5:46 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:09 am
  • Siouxhawk wrote:I kind of think Pete is coming around a little bit though. When's the last time they cracked out a razzle-dazzle receiver pass like McEvoy attempted in the first quarter Sunday? I think he's loosening up and that's good so that D coordinators are kept guessing.

    Now I don't think we'll get carried away and get too gadgety, but like Sarge said, let's alternate the tempo and mix in some new looks to make our offense a little more dynamic. Maybe teams won't stack the box with 7 or 8 players when they expect run as much then. That would work to our advantage on offense as Rawls and Lacy will discover a few more open gaps to run through.



    Pete's always had his bag of tricks, sneak onsides, Ryan throwing TD's, etc.

    And is he really coming around? Or is he coming around kicking and screaming? Pass plays have been up four years straight now, but IMO that's not a product of any enlightened philosophical scheme change............it's because the run game is a disaster, so we have no choice.

    Big difference.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11996
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:15 am
  • We all love to hate on Bevell, but until we have an offensive line that is even serviceable the blame falls on PC/JS and Cable for not being able to put it together. I just don't see how a jockey is supposed to ride a broken race horse to the promised land.

    Could Bevell call better plays and have our offense running more of an up-tempo spread offense? Not with Pete breathing down his neck and banging the "we want to run the ball" drum the entirety of the pre-season. Pete wants our identity to be something that, at this point, we just simply don't have the personnel to achieve.
    User avatar
    JGfromtheNW
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 1407
    Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 9:37 am
    Location: Wenatchee


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:32 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JimmyG wrote:This is all nonsense. Virtually every fanbase in the NFL hates their offensive coordinator and is convinced he's holding the team back. The only reason he's "objectively terrible" is because this place is a hive mind echo chamber and everybody agrees with each other, reinforcing beliefs like this.

    How can you say he is "objectively" bad? Even if our offensive is inefficient, how could you possibly isolate the failure to him? How do you differentiate between playcalling and on-the field execution (quarterback play, porous offensive line, etc). That's just it, you can't, so trotting out lazy narratives like "Bevell is holding us back" is an incredibly weak and anything but "objective".

    And no, I'm sorry, but "omg did u see how good wilson did in the 2-minute drill, thats what the offense looks like w/o Bevell!!" is not sound reasoning.



    You must be new here, there is no satiating the Bevell parrots with logic and reason.

    The fact is we (Bevell, Pete, Russell) run the same offense as half the teams in the league, including one of the best offenses in the league right now, the Chiefs.

    Amazing how awesome your offense looks when you have a great O-line, good QB and dynamic playmakers at the skill positions. Suddenly you're a genius playcaller. Everyone in KC was calling for Reid's head the past 2-3 years. Now they have Hunt and Hill, and they're rolling and Reid and the offense look like geniuses.


    Tell me that the shovel pass to Kelce being a staple hasn't made you jealous.


    Yes to Kelce, the most uniquely dynamic TE in the entire league. You think Jimmy or Willson could pull off that play? I don't.

    That's my point, talent matters, and for Bevell's ENTIRE stint in Seattle he hasn't had much to work with.


    To me, that the OC and Reid have a play that capitalizes on everything Kelce can do, in a relatively novel way, is the KIND of play I'd love to have on hand and I don't feel like we do. Some might call it a gimmick but do gimmicks work so wonderfully so often? I call it harnessing potential and making stuff happen.
    mrt144
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 3185
    Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 1:21 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:46 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    mrt144 wrote:
    Sgt. Largent wrote:
    JimmyG wrote:This is all nonsense. Virtually every fanbase in the NFL hates their offensive coordinator and is convinced he's holding the team back. The only reason he's "objectively terrible" is because this place is a hive mind echo chamber and everybody agrees with each other, reinforcing beliefs like this.

    How can you say he is "objectively" bad? Even if our offensive is inefficient, how could you possibly isolate the failure to him? How do you differentiate between playcalling and on-the field execution (quarterback play, porous offensive line, etc). That's just it, you can't, so trotting out lazy narratives like "Bevell is holding us back" is an incredibly weak and anything but "objective".

    And no, I'm sorry, but "omg did u see how good wilson did in the 2-minute drill, thats what the offense looks like w/o Bevell!!" is not sound reasoning.



    You must be new here, there is no satiating the Bevell parrots with logic and reason.

    The fact is we (Bevell, Pete, Russell) run the same offense as half the teams in the league, including one of the best offenses in the league right now, the Chiefs.

    Amazing how awesome your offense looks when you have a great O-line, good QB and dynamic playmakers at the skill positions. Suddenly you're a genius playcaller. Everyone in KC was calling for Reid's head the past 2-3 years. Now they have Hunt and Hill, and they're rolling and Reid and the offense look like geniuses.


    Tell me that the shovel pass to Kelce being a staple hasn't made you jealous.


    Yes to Kelce, the most uniquely dynamic TE in the entire league. You think Jimmy or Willson could pull off that play? I don't.

    That's my point, talent matters, and for Bevell's ENTIRE stint in Seattle he hasn't had much to work with.

    - 40% of the cap space for the offense
    - conservative ball control run first coach dictating scheme
    - small slight WR corp
    - No Lynch for three years
    - worst O-line in the league for what now 3 years running?

    I'm frustrated and tried with this offense too, it SHOULD be better. But blaming the O-coordinator is bush league fans picking the low hanging fruit blame. That's what every fan base does, and it's just not correct.

    We have a systemic problem with the entire offensive philosophy. Pete refuses to change how he wants the offense to operate. He wants it to be like it was with Lynch and a good O-line in 2012-2013, ball control, punishing, physical shorten the game with 4-5 explosive plays type of offense............and it's JUST.NOT.WORKING.


    Comparing Kelce, Gronk, or whomever is useless. Kelce and Gronk are central pieces in their respective offenses. Graham will never be a central piece in the Seahawk offense. Whether that is on Bevell or PC, it doesn't make a difference. If Graham was on the Pats or Chiefs, he would be a monster. Because they look and use the TE position in a different way.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6580
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:51 am
  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    Comparing Kelce, Gronk, or whomever is useless. Kelce and Gronk are central pieces in their respective offenses. Graham will never be a central piece in the Seahawk offense. Whether that is on Bevell or PC, it doesn't make a difference. If Graham was on the Pats or Chiefs, he would be a monster. Because they look and use the TE position in a different way.


    They also have a coach, coordinator and QB that can successfully run those schemes.

    Do we? You can have great players, but if your head coach refuses to allow your coordinator and QB to wholesale change your offensive scheme to better take advantage of a TE like Graham, then who's fault is that? Sure ain't Bevell's.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11996
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:07 am
  • Sgt. Largent wrote:
    hawkfan68 wrote:
    Comparing Kelce, Gronk, or whomever is useless. Kelce and Gronk are central pieces in their respective offenses. Graham will never be a central piece in the Seahawk offense. Whether that is on Bevell or PC, it doesn't make a difference. If Graham was on the Pats or Chiefs, he would be a monster. Because they look and use the TE position in a different way.


    They also have a coach, coordinator and QB that can successfully run those schemes.

    Do we? You can have great players, but if your head coach refuses to allow your coordinator and QB to wholesale change your offensive scheme to better take advantage of a TE like Graham, then who's fault is that? Sure ain't Bevell's.


    Here's the thing....why acquire Graham in the first place then? Does PC make decisions out of the cloud and not consult with Bevell/Cable in the process? I do believe that Bevell/Cable have some input with PC. PC didn't use TE much prior to Graham. So there isn't much of a change there. Graham was a central piece in the Saints offense. He is not here.

    Prior to Graham, they went and traded for Percy Harvin. A player that Bevell had prior experience and knew well. Do you honestly believe that Bevell didn't have any influence on Harvin acquisition? I'm sure he did. After acquiring Harvin, he couldn't get him to fit in.

    It's not all on Bevell but he definitely has a hand in it. It's on the entire offensive brain trust. They make terrible decisions when it comes to the offensive side of the ball.
    Last edited by hawkfan68 on Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:31 am, edited 3 times in total.
    User avatar
    hawkfan68
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 6580
    Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2007 11:10 am
    Location: Sammamish, WA


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:12 am
  • hawkfan68 wrote:Here's the thing....why acquire Graham in the first place then?


    Image
    User avatar
    Seymour
    NET Veteran
     
    Posts: 2500
    Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 4:41 pm


Re: Weekly fire Bevell Wishful thinking
Thu Oct 12, 2017 9:37 am
  • hawkfan68 wrote:
    It's not all on Bevell but he definitely has a hand in it. It's on the entire offensive brain trust. They make terrible decisions when it comes to the offensive side of the ball.


    Of course, this is a team game. When the team fails, it's a group effort.

    And I have no idea why we traded for Graham if we weren't going to change some of our scheming and offensive philosophy. I guess Pete and John saw that we sucked in the red zone, and thought they could figure out how to use Graham to improve that.

    But when you're not dynamic passing offense with the skill players at WR to compliment Graham, you get what we see, Graham being double and triple bracketed inside the red zone.
    If there is no Seahawk football in heaven, then we will never die.
    User avatar
    Sgt. Largent
    NET Pro Bowler
     
    Posts: 11996
    Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2012 10:10 am


PreviousNext


It is currently Wed Oct 18, 2017 4:08 pm

Please REGISTER to become a member

Return to [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Information