Register    Login    Forum    Search    FAQ    Contact Us  Your donations are greatly appreciated! Donate  Chat Room

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:13 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 3076
Location: Anchorage, AK
Scottemojo wrote:
I don't think many on this board want Seattle to lose their identity as a physical team. But did the Niners lose their identity as a physical team when they opened the Chicago game by throwing the ball all over the place? No, they didn't. But they did get an early lead by taking advantage of Chicago's weaknesses.


Your post was great and to tie in to the end here. So your statement is that we should do the same against Chicago as you said we should do against Miami (I completely agree)

Watch us come out and run straight up the middle against Chicago.........over and over and over and over and over and over and over again..........


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:14 am 
* NET Baller *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 8:02 am
Posts: 17342
Location: Graham, WA
People in hell want ice water...

_________________
Image
3elieve


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:52 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10041
mikeak wrote:
Scottemojo wrote:
I don't think many on this board want Seattle to lose their identity as a physical team. But did the Niners lose their identity as a physical team when they opened the Chicago game by throwing the ball all over the place? No, they didn't. But they did get an early lead by taking advantage of Chicago's weaknesses.


Your post was great and to tie in to the end here. So your statement is that we should do the same against Chicago as you said we should do against Miami (I completely agree)

Watch us come out and run straight up the middle against Chicago.........over and over and over and over and over and over and over again..........

I have not watched Chicago as much as I have Miami, so I don't know that. I do know that Chicago has not been easy to pass on this year. I also know they are a little banged up in the front 7.

I don't think having a game plan biased one way or the other is the answer. I like being multiple. Kaepernick was making call changes in his first start based on the looks the Chicago D was giving him. If Chicago had not shown defensively such a commitment to run stopping, I don't doubt that we would have seen the Niners run a lot more to start that game. That is what I mean by multiple. Their personnel groups said run, and they could have, but they had pass options out of all those run sets, and they used those options when the Bears responded with obvious run biased defense.

Pete has said more than once that he does not want to see his quarterback throw the ball 40 times a game. Pete has said more than once he values controlling the clock. He says repeatedly that good execution is the key on offense. He also says he wants a "multiple" offense. Those first three statements feel at odds to me with the last one. The statements about executing the plays being the key to offense are kinda bullshit anyway, because they ignore that there are some mismatches on the field you can't defeat purely through execution (see Paul Soliei and Randy Starks in the Miami game). Those guys get paid too, and their job is to mess up your execution. Execution has to come with exploiting matchups, and continuous running into the middle of Miami's D was ignoring several matchup problems. And failed to exploit some pretty easy passing matchup wins, particularly on first down.
So yeah, the play calling was bad, but the game plan was worse, because it was predicated on our defense winning the day.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 9:57 am 
* Master Chief *
* Master Chief *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 6:19 am
Posts: 7407
Location: CVN-68
It's a conservative-based offense, designed to control the clock and limit turnovers.

And it's not going to change.

As always, it comes down to a few plays - even when the play calling is suspect. We are losing games by very narrow margins. Going backwards on our last possession was a death knell. Baldwin not making that catch hurt.

_________________
@SeahawkGreg

Image

"I will be thrilled with 10 wins.... If we win 14 games, I will tattoo my nuts green and blue!" --13thMan


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:05 am 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:37 am
Posts: 492
mikeak wrote:
justafan wrote:
You could blame the play call or you could blame Unger for being driven 4 yrds into the backfield before the play even develops,or you could blame Carp for allowing the backside DE running untouched right in front of him to tackle Lynch from behind,same with Breno allowing his guy making backside plays for no gain..untouched,maybe blame Robinson for running right by the LB filling the gap allowing him to make a tackle for no gain.
.


I am sorry but did this just happen on the last play or throughout the game?.......that is what I thought - so WHY WASN'T THE PLAYCALLING CHANGED BASED ON HOW THESE GUYS WERE DOMINATED?

justafan wrote:
They are not the tough physical oline people make them out to be.The Oline and Oline coach were the root of the problem Sunday not the playcalls.


And Bevell should have adjusted the playcalling accordingly first BEFORE the game based on film and expecting to be dominated and secondly during the game............ That last drive kept putting Wilson in third and long over and over again until we couldn't convert.


Like I said before they passed almost 60% of the time.I doubt that was the plan going in.I guess he needed to call plays that gain yardage with poor blocking or that overcome stupid penalties.The last play Wilson got sacked by a 3 man rush.I wonder which play he should have called there.
What film?The film of Tenn,Buff. and Indy who all ran the ball and beat Miami?.The film of the Rams hanging 162 yards rushing on them?
There was no reason for the coaches to believe we couldnt run on them unless you think these teams are better than the Hawks are.
That last drive was supposed to eat up time.And it was doing just that.They had a 3rd and 4 and a 3rd and 5.Any good QB should like those situations.Lynch had a couple 5 yrd runs and was looking good.
Those last 2 plays had nothing to do with running the ball to often.It was sad execution on the 2 pass plays.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:15 am 
* NET Sage *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 4299
If Bevell gets canned, there are going to be some interesting offensive coordinator candidates available.

- Tom Cable (currently on staff, not totally sold on him as a full time OC though)
- Norv Turner (GREAT OC.. awful head coach)
- Andy Reid (would he subject himself to a year of OC though? not sure)
- Ken Whisenhunt (as the Cardinals continue to freefall, his seat gets hotter)
- Rob Chudzinski (If Rivera is canned, the whole staff is likely going with him.. Chudzinski is not a bad coordinator though)

Of these.. the idea of Norv Turner having full control of the offense has me the most excited. Especially with a young QB.

_________________
February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:21 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10041
@justafan. I watched all three of those Miami games you reference. They all passed the ball with success on Miami before they ran it well, and in the case of Tennessee, Locker ran for a large chunk of those yards in the first quarter while scrambling. All three of those teams opened with a lot of first down passing.

Also, those last two bad plays before the third down sack were as much about Miami knowing they only had to defend 6 yards of field to keep us out of field goal range. That was abundantly clear by then. And the last pass play? What do you think the success rate on third and 16 is in the NFL? It is less than 20%.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:23 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10041
Hasselbeck wrote:
If Bevell gets canned, there are going to be some interesting offensive coordinator candidates available.

- Tom Cable (currently on staff, not totally sold on him as a full time OC though)
- Norv Turner (GREAT OC.. awful head coach)
- Andy Reid (would he subject himself to a year of OC though? not sure)
- Ken Whisenhunt (as the Cardinals continue to freefall, his seat gets hotter)
- Rob Chudzinski (If Rivera is canned, the whole staff is likely going with him.. Chudzinski is not a bad coordinator though)

Of these.. the idea of Norv Turner having full control of the offense has me the most excited. Especially with a young QB.


Which of those guys can you see Pete actually wanting? Maybe Chud, but none of the rest, with the obvious exception of Cable.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:32 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:04 am
Posts: 599
seahawk2k wrote:
I don't think the Hawks are timid in the passing game at all. This team takes more shots downfield than any Seahawks team since 1997.

The offensive line got manhandled, made a lot of good play calls look bad. A lot of this criticism is hindsight, I rarely see threads on this board the week leading up to a game advocating a certain type of game plan.

All year the recipe for Seahawks victories has involved sticking with the running game. When they pound the ball, they win. Sunday was the exception, not the rule. I think its asinine that we want to start chucking the ball all over the place cause we struggled to run the ball for one game. You want your defense to wear down even more in the fourth quarter? Become a pass first offense.

BTW, we aren't having this conversation if when it was 14-7 Wilson doesn't miss Sydney Rice who was wide open on a shallow cross on 3rd and 4 and instead chose to throw a low percentage go route on the sideline. Tate was the clear out route, Rice should've been the read there, and Wilson knew he missed it when he got to the sideline. He makes that play I really don't think we are having this conversation right now. Luckily, Wilson recognizes and fixes his errors quickly.



I am still playing that over in my mind....

Does anyone remember in "Flash Gordon" back in the 80's, the football fight, queen is jamming...you are just pumped up...and that dip shit hits him in the head with the egg?

16-16...woo...record setting! There Warren Moon on the radio!!

FLUNKing BAM...metal egg in the head. Drive stalls...game over essentially


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:36 am 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:37 am
Posts: 492
We did throw the ball with success prior to that drive.I am just not in the blame the playcall camp.I think most plays fail because of execution.If it is a matchup problem the QB has some responsibility to get us into a better play.
I just get tired of people blaming playcalls on both sides of the ball when we lose.It doesn't matter who the coordinaters are people will want them fired.Its always been that way and always will be.
I wish we had more info on what freedom Wilson has with audibles.I think with time he will get us into different plays when its called for.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:39 am 
*NET FCC Liaison*
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 22636
Location: Kirkland, WA
Pstark3 wrote:
Then again wilson and receivers arent always going to connect and then you'll be calling for bevells head for not mashing up the middle with Lynch

must suck being a scapegoat


Oh, give me a break; trying to run as much as we did in the 4th quarter after having horrible results trying to run for the first three is squarely the fault of the offensive coordinator calling the plays. If we had tried in the first half a lot like we did, and then tried a lot less in the second half, THAT would be the sign of an intelligent play-caller. Instead, we kept bashing our head against a brick wall until the final whistle blew. Hell, on the last running play of the game, Bevell was probably thinking "Their defense has to get tired enough to allow good runs at SOME point, we can still do this!"

...

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:43 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10041
justafan wrote:
We did throw the ball with success prior to that drive.I am just not in the blame the playcall camp.I think most plays fail because of execution.If it is a matchup problem the QB has some responsibility to get us into a better play.
I just get tired of people blaming playcalls on both sides of the ball when we lose.It doesn't matter who the coordinaters are people will want them fired.Its always been that way and always will be.
I wish we had more info on what freedom Wilson has with audibles.I think with time he will get us into different plays when its called for.

I don't want anybody fired.
There is plenty of blame to go around on both play calls and execution. For example, in what world can Leroy Hill cover Devone Bess on a crossing route, even if he executes perfectly? A mismatch is a mismatch, and not exploiting them can fall at the feet of playcalling.

Pete has blamed playcalling in the past. Just ask Mr. Bates.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:44 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 5:01 pm
Posts: 3181
I'm not really worried about the playcalls so much as the the type of call. We base most of our passing game off of the threat of the run. Even if the run game isn't working, sticking with it will keep defenses honest, and give our WRs an easier time getting separation. And, like stated above, this was the first time we didn't start to maul a defense in the 4th quarter. Every defense, even SF's started to wilt under our rush attack in the 4th.

My problem with the run calls were that we ran right at the strength of the Dolphin's defense, who are 2 DT's that go 355 lbs, and 305 lbs. Instead of running right at them, why not run off Tackle ? Get the big guys running sideline to sideline. If you can't wear them out going right at them, make the fat asses run. Hell, it works against us. I also would've liked to see us run a lot of 2 TE sets, where we run out of one set, then pass out of the same formation. Also, quicken the tempo so they can't get their big guys off the field. Do this at the beginning of the game, make those guys play more snaps than they like to, and get them in personnel groupings they don't want to be in. This was something I did mention before we played the game as well. We've been hearing about our awesome 2 TE sets since we had Miller and Carlson, but I haven't seen it all that much.

Miami also got us that way a lot. You saw a lot of plass plays with Mebane, Branch, and Bryant in there, with only Clemmons getting any sort of pass rush. This is one reason our pass rush suffered, and why our big guys wore down. I know we play a ball control offense, but I'd really like to see us mix it up a bit with some uptempo stuff, ala the Patriots.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:44 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2010 11:04 am
Posts: 599
Scottemojo wrote:
MontanaHawk05 wrote:
Carroll is the one masterminding this offense, not Bevell. Things will be no different with anyone else.

Which is why I am not calling for the OC's head. It was a flawed gameplan. The calls at the end of the game were atrocious, though.



The beginning was worse

The throw to lynch on the screen was a rookie mistake...decent gall, bad execution. We would still have been ok for another play after that if not 3rd an forever


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:46 am 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8820
Location: Granite Falls, WA
I don't blame the offense much in this game. The defense allowed long drives to end the game that absolutely killed us.

Leon gave us the lead, then we gave it right back. They went head to head with us and beat our defense down when it mattered. This was not a great offense we yielded 180 plus yards on the ground to.

That is the troubling issue.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:49 am 
*Scott of Smacksville*
*Scott of Smacksville*
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 9:14 am
Posts: 10041
Tech Worlds wrote:
I don't blame the offense much in this game. The defense allowed long drives to end the game that absolutely killed us.

Leon gave us the lead, then we gave it right back. They went head to head with us and beat our defense down when it mattered. This was not a great offense we yielded 180 plus yards on the ground to.

That is the troubling issue.

Truth.

_________________
SEAHAWKS.NET. We All We Got, We All We Need


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:07 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
justafan wrote:
mikeak wrote:

Like I said before they passed almost 60% of the time.I doubt that was the plan going in.I guess he needed to call plays that gain yardage with poor blocking or that overcome stupid penalties.The last play Wilson got sacked by a 3 man rush.I wonder which play he should have called there.
What film?The film of Tenn,Buff. and Indy who all ran the ball and beat Miami?.The film of the Rams hanging 162 yards rushing on them?
There was no reason for the coaches to believe we couldnt run on them unless you think these teams are better than the Hawks are.
That last drive was supposed to eat up time.And it was doing just that.They had a 3rd and 4 and a 3rd and 5.Any good QB should like those situations.Lynch had a couple 5 yrd runs and was looking good.
Those last 2 plays had nothing to do with running the ball to often.It was sad execution on the 2 pass plays.


Please check your stats. They ran 56 actual plays: passed it 27 times and ran it 27 times. I don't get how you arrived at 60%. Russ Wilson was sacked twice and and scrambled a few times but the option plays that were obvious run plays. We had more than 21 run plays and fewer than 32 pass plays that you stated we had.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:16 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
Posts: 1290
Location: Olympia
I have not re-watched the game, so this is just a feeling, maybe the X & O watchers can confirm or disconfirm. It felt like we threw an overabundance of passes near or behind the line of scrimmage. It seemed those bubble screens and read-options worked in games previously because they were change-of-pace and targeted specific weaknesses or tendencies of the defenses we were facing. In the Dolphin game it felt like we were trying to force those because they had 'become part of our offense' and worked previously. It's possible I came away with this impression just because they didn't work at crucial moments, I dunno. Any evidence either way on this?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:20 am 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:37 am
Posts: 492
Russ Willstrong wrote:
justafan wrote:
mikeak wrote:

Like I said before they passed almost 60% of the time.I doubt that was the plan going in.I guess he needed to call plays that gain yardage with poor blocking or that overcome stupid penalties.The last play Wilson got sacked by a 3 man rush.I wonder which play he should have called there.
What film?The film of Tenn,Buff. and Indy who all ran the ball and beat Miami?.The film of the Rams hanging 162 yards rushing on them?
There was no reason for the coaches to believe we couldnt run on them unless you think these teams are better than the Hawks are.
That last drive was supposed to eat up time.And it was doing just that.They had a 3rd and 4 and a 3rd and 5.Any good QB should like those situations.Lynch had a couple 5 yrd runs and was looking good.
Those last 2 plays had nothing to do with running the ball to often.It was sad execution on the 2 pass plays.


Please check your stats. They ran 56 actual plays: passed it 27 times and ran it 27 times. I don't get how you arrived at 60%. Russ Wilson was sacked twice and and scrambled a few times but the option plays that were obvious run plays. We had more than 21 run plays and fewer than 32 pass plays that you stated we had.


Lynch ran 19 times and Turbin ran it 2, and rice 1.Wilson dropped back 34 times passing 27 , running 5 times and 2 sacks.Lets say 32 pass plays.I will give you 2 options that i dont remember.That is somewhere around .5714285714% of the 56 plays called...almost 60%


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:20 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
Yea it's easy to take the 5 Wilson 'run' plays and assume they were qb scrambles on passing plays--just not the case. Lynch+Turbin's+Rice's carries > 21 runs you stated earlier. And that's nowhere near the 60/40% ratio you seem to think we had.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:25 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
I find it deceptive when you say we PASSED IT 32 times when we actually didn't. Then this thing about rounding up. LOL!


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:27 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 10:07 am
Posts: 3486
Location: Spokane, Wa
seahawk2k wrote:
For the record, this was the first time all year that the Seahawks stubbornly stuck with the running game and the defense didn't wear down at the end of the game. Unless you watched the All 22 and saw virtually no deep routes called, how can you make the criticism? Why are we always so quick to blame Bevell when Miami just flat out played with more intensity and executed better?

I'm also willing to bet that the insistance on running the football stemmed at least partially from playing in South Florida heat and they wanted to keep the defense fresh.



The defense wasn't very fresh at the end of the game.Ihad to dvr the game Sunday because I was at work and finally got around to watching last night.A lot of little things stuck out to me but the one that I can't get out of my mind is Mr Trufant on
Miami's game winning drive.We had a shitty rookie qb pinned on his own 10 yard line with a little over 1 minute to go ....

Shouldn't be a problem.

Enter #23. Poor guy, I've always been a fan of his. Hell, I even have his jersey. But #15 for the Dolphins ripped him a new one for two huuuuuuge gains and it was game over. I hate to say this but I think Trufant is the weak link.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:31 am 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
Yep, the game stats still say WE HAD 27 PASSING ATTEMPTS. Total runs including Wilson's were 27. You can count drop backs plays all you want but an option read IS NOT a drop back.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:36 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 12, 2012 9:53 am
Posts: 2288
Mitch in the morning had a pretty ridiculous stat but I don't remember it exactly. It was something like an average of 2.1 ypc on first down runs in the Miami game. Take out one 16 yard run we got with a blatant hold, and the average was like 1.5 ypc on first down runs. And Bevell kept calling them. Gonna get ugly on sunday if he makes the same calls.

Sorry about the imperfect memory


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:41 am 
* NET Sage *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 4:55 pm
Posts: 4299
Scottemojo wrote:
Hasselbeck wrote:
If Bevell gets canned, there are going to be some interesting offensive coordinator candidates available.

- Tom Cable (currently on staff, not totally sold on him as a full time OC though)
- Norv Turner (GREAT OC.. awful head coach)
- Andy Reid (would he subject himself to a year of OC though? not sure)
- Ken Whisenhunt (as the Cardinals continue to freefall, his seat gets hotter)
- Rob Chudzinski (If Rivera is canned, the whole staff is likely going with him.. Chudzinski is not a bad coordinator though)

Of these.. the idea of Norv Turner having full control of the offense has me the most excited. Especially with a young QB.


Which of those guys can you see Pete actually wanting? Maybe Chud, but none of the rest, with the obvious exception of Cable.


I can see him wanting any of them provided they help him keep his HC job.

Hiring a Turner or Whiz makes a lot of sense.

_________________
February 2, 2014... the day the dream was finally realized


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:44 am 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:37 am
Posts: 492
Russ Willstrong wrote:
Yep, the game stats still say WE HAD 27 PASSING ATTEMPTS. Total runs including Wilson's were 27. You can count drop backs plays all you want but an option read IS NOT a drop back.


You are right.The zone read was called. 1 play may have been a QB draw but the rest were scrambles or sacks which are called pass plays.i never counted those 2 as passes.Just because pass plays break down doesnt mean they weren't pass plays.Should we not count some of the run plays actual run plays because the oline didnt block.If you want to argue about 2 percent and change knock yourself out.If you want to call me dishonest for rounding up enjoy yourself.
How about this.People thought we ran too many plays with Lynch and Turbin.Thats 21 time which is .375% I rounded that up to 40 in an earlier post.I lied on that one also


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:56 am 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 22, 2012 4:12 pm
Posts: 1394
Location: Seattle (From Spokane)
Tech Worlds wrote:
I don't blame the offense much in this game. The defense allowed long drives to end the game that absolutely killed us.

Leon gave us the lead, then we gave it right back. They went head to head with us and beat our defense down when it mattered. This was not a great offense we yielded 180 plus yards on the ground to.

That is the troubling issue.

Good point. As bad as the offensive play calling may or may not have been, the defense had multiple opportunities to put this game away, and they couldn't do it. It'd make more sense to be concerned with defensive play calling at this point.

_________________
Tru2RedNGold25 wrote:
Us as Niners fan have every right to rep Niners all day everyday when we have the hardware to back it up do can u guys say that???


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:02 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
justafan wrote:
Russ Willstrong wrote:
Yep, the game stats still say WE HAD 27 PASSING ATTEMPTS. Total runs including Wilson's were 27. You can count drop backs plays all you want but an option read IS NOT a drop back.


You are right.The zone read was called. 1 play may have been a QB draw but the rest were scrambles or sacks which are called pass plays.i never counted those 2 as passes.Just because pass plays break down doesnt mean they weren't pass plays.Should we not count some of the run plays actual run plays because the oline didnt block.If you want to argue about 2 percent and change knock yourself out.If you want to call me dishonest for rounding up enjoy yourself.
How about this.People thought we ran too many plays with Lynch and Turbin.Thats 21 time which is .375% I rounded that up to 40 in an earlier post.I lied on that one also


Calm down dude. Just correcting you that we PASSED 27 times is all. Not going to spend any time debating with you about what is a pass play so spin it how you please if it helps you get over the loss and the regressed playcalling.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:06 pm 
NET Rookie
Offline

Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2010 3:42 pm
Posts: 281
justafan wrote:
They did put the game in Wilsons hands.We had 32 pass plays vs 21 run plays.the run was starting to work better in the 4th Qtr, a 16 yrd run a couple of 5 yrd runs.the last drive they were running the 5 min offense trying to burn up some clock but the game ended up in Wilsons hands.He should have grounded that messed up screen pass and it looked like he bailed out of the pocket early on that last play.There was a pocket.


Grounding the screen pass still puts us in 3rd and long and allows the Dolphins defense to play the pass just like they did. Maybe Wilson could have stayed in the pocket a bit longer, but who knows if it would have made a difference. Bevell went conservative when we still needed a first down to get into field goal range. The running game and screen game had not been working all game, there was NO reason to call those on first and second down when their defense might be playing for those. Let Wilson throw the ball on 1st and 2nd down, and not some little screen pass. Do what had been working the entire second half!

Bevell (or Carroll, or whoever the fuck is calling the plays) blew that drive, not Wilson.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:09 pm 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:37 am
Posts: 492
Watch the game again and tell me what you see.If you still have trouble understanding the % of pass plays and run plays called let me know.Math can be kinda tricky sometimes.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:29 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
What's disappointing was that we had the talent and the coaching to get us this win. We just took the fins too lightly coming off our bye. We knew they were very good against the run but in retrospect we underestimated them BIG TIME.
Offense came out flat and recovered but couldn't finish the task on the final drive. Defense looked lost and winded late in the game. Conservative playcalling by coaches with the decision to stick with obvious run plays on early downs resulting in obvious passing 3rd downs. I felt our team loss some gusto when PC decided to punt on a 4th-and-1 on their 37 yardline. Our morale never recovered and when we flopped on our final drive setting up the fins for a final drive for the win--the dolphins uncharacteristicly developed a taste for blood and finished the job.
Playoff contenders need an edge to win games on the road. We just don't have that edge yet.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 12:44 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
justafan wrote:
Watch the game again and tell me what you see.If you still have trouble understanding the % of pass plays and run plays called let me know.Math can be kinda tricky sometimes.


You're obviously right dude. We passed it 32 times despite the stats saying we made only 27 passing attempts and like you say let's just round that percentage of pass plays up to 60%. Hell, I'll do you one better and say it's almost 2/3 like you say. Then again, 60% is closer to 100% than 0% so let's just say 100% of plays were passes. Yep, dot math really helped me with my understanding of statistics just as it has for you.
Funny how math is so tricky and subjective right? It's a wonder they even teach it in schools. :sarcasm_off:


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:00 pm 
* Capt'n Dom *
* Capt'n Dom *
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:40 am
Posts: 8820
Location: Granite Falls, WA
Russ Willstrong wrote:
Yea it's easy to take the 5 Wilson 'run' plays and assume they were qb scrambles on passing plays--just not the case. Lynch+Turbin's+Rice's carries > 21 runs you stated earlier. And that's nowhere near the 60/40% ratio you seem to think we had.


The 5 Wilson run plays were not all designed runs. Maybe one or 2 were. The others were drop back passes.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:36 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
Tech Worlds wrote:
Russ Willstrong wrote:
Yea it's easy to take the 5 Wilson 'run' plays and assume they were qb scrambles on passing plays--just not the case. Lynch+Turbin's+Rice's carries > 21 runs you stated earlier. And that's nowhere near the 60/40% ratio you seem to think we had.


The 5 Wilson run plays were not all designed runs. Maybe one or 2 were. The others were drop back passes.


I never said the 5 Wilson runs were all designed runs. I said they can't all be counted as drop back passing plays as justafan implied. There were one or two zone read option plays (one where Wilson nearly got killed two yards behind the line of scrimmage). Several scrambles off passing plays. Bottom line is he NEVER passed 32 times and run merely 21 times as stated by justafan and even if he did pass for 40 I'd been okay. Also there's no need to round up percentages just to support your opinions.

I just suppose there are fans who felt we didn't call enough run plays in this game. You one of them?


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 1:50 pm 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:37 am
Posts: 492
@willstrong I already admitted I made a mistake.I forgot about the zone read and the QB draw.
That puts it at 32 designed pass plays.27 passes 3 scrambles and 2 sacks.24 designed run plays.57.1% vs 42.9% runs.Even though the main argument was about Lynch and Turbin getting to many carries.37.5% of all plays.
Now excuse me while I punch myself in the junk for even discussing this with you.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:09 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
justafan wrote:
@willstrong I already admitted I made a mistake.I forgot about the zone read and the QB draw.
That puts it at 32 designed pass plays.27 passes 3 scrambles and 2 sacks.24 designed run plays.57.1% vs 42.9% runs.Even though the main argument was about Lynch and Turbin getting to many carries.37.5% of all plays.
Now excuse me while I punch myself in the junk for even discussing this with you.


No need. We can agree to disagree about Bevell's playcalling. I just felt that 27 attempted passes were not sufficient to get it done-even if we called >30 intended passing plays to get those 27 throws. We stuck with the run plays on early downs for way too long hoping fins would wear down and we were wrong. We knew the fins strengths/weakness and eventually began to exploit the defense with Wilson's accuracy and mobility but couldn't sustain.
Big eye-opener was that even with Wilson having a hot hand he only made 1 more throw than Tannehill. What's also frustrating is that Wilson threw for less than 30 times on a day when our run game nonexistent.
What's going to happen if we get into the playoffs and in a game where Lynch is held in check? I just hope we can make in game adjustments necessary to get to the playoffs.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:30 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 6:24 pm
Posts: 3076
Location: Anchorage, AK
justafan wrote:
@willstrong I already admitted I made a mistake.I forgot about the zone read and the QB draw.
That puts it at 32 designed pass plays.27 passes 3 scrambles and 2 sacks.24 designed run plays.57.1% vs 42.9% runs.Even though the main argument was about Lynch and Turbin getting to many carries.37.5% of all plays.
Now excuse me while I punch myself in the junk for even discussing this with you.


And those passing plays had 16 completed in a row. How many POSITIVE run plays did we have in a row? I almost want to bet we had more negative run plays in a row...........

Point being we should have started the game airing it out. It was pointed out on this website BEFORE the game as that was the Miami weakness. Once the pass got established the running game could possibly have opened it up.

That is what people don't like about the game plan.......... I recall at least two run, run, pass for first down on the last drive which we had to score on but I think there were 3 or 4.......not sure if someone has the game on the DVR they can confirm if they feel like it


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:46 pm 
NET Starter
Offline

Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2011 6:37 am
Posts: 492
ESPN has a play by play in the boxscore if you wanted to see.It was 9 plays with 4 of them being runs.They did start one series run run which left a 3rd and 4.I dont have a problem with them running and throwing safe passes on that drive.They were trying to burn up the 5 mins and not give miami any time to do what they did to us.Unfortunately it didnt work.
Some people blame playcalling I just think execution sucked more


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:08 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
Posts: 1290
Location: Olympia
So back to the "playcaller" part of the OP, who can say they have studied Bevell in his pre-Seahawk days? I have not, but it kind of seemed like his name got some buzz primarily after that one great Brett Favre year in MN. Is that accurate? What was Bevell known for before that season? What's the consensus on the Vikings' offensive success of 2009? How much of it was Bevell's system/playcalling and how much of it was Favre being one of the all-time best improvisors at the QB position?

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 3:47 pm 
NET Ring Of Honor
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 12:38 pm
Posts: 21063
Location: NFL WORLD CHAMPIONS 2013-2014
justafan wrote:
You could blame the play call or you could blame Unger for being driven 4 yrds into the backfield before the play even develops,or you could blame Carp for allowing the backside DE running untouched right in front of him to tackle Lynch from behind,same with Breno allowing his guy making backside plays for no gain..untouched,maybe blame Robinson for running right by the LB filling the gap allowing him to make a tackle for no gain.
The dolphins played a tough game but this Oline consistently failed at getting any push at the point of attack rarely getting helmets on the lbs. or backside DEs allowing them to fly around and make plays.
Carp played soft slow and stupid.I don't know if he is still hurt but he can't cut block for s**t,just seems to lean on players and gets caught standing around too often.Breno isn't the answer at RT and RGs weren't much better.I know people don't want to draft Olineman again but this unit needs help.They are not the tough physical oline people make them out to be.The Oline and Oline coach were the root of the problem Sunday not the playcalls.


Part of the problem but not the root. This problem is multi faceted. And the plays called in the last drive were game losers and not game winners. The dolphins said wtf we might as well sling it, they can't stop it. We were doing the same but stopped when it was winning time. I want bevell g o n e.

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:05 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:54 pm
Posts: 1551
The biggest issue I had was how consistently we ran it on first down with 8-10 players in the box. It was obvious, we never went away from it, and it led to 1.8 YPC on first down. Then on the screen passes, the Dolphins were all up close to the line, so of course we aren't going to get a positive play, even if they weren't blitzing.

1) We call games not to lose instead of trying to win. I can guarentee if the Pats or Packers were in our situation at the end of the game Brady/Rodgers are throwing it down the field to score a touchdown, not milk the clock and hope we can get in FG range.

2) We are too conservative. Again, if the Pats/Packers were on their 38 yard line with a 4th and 1 like we had a few times, they are going to go for it. Instead we punt it to be safe. It's great whoever makes the decision to do that trusts our defense, but equal trust needs to be in our offense.

3) Stop sticking with what isn't working even if it is 'who we are.' The perfect example in this thread was the 49ers game where they aired it out on the Bears. RW was TORCHING their defense in the second half and yet we continued to run directly at their best players up in the middle. Marshawn's best run of the day was when we actually kicked it outside.... The blame can be placed on our O-line, sure, they didn't play well, but then why did we stick with it if they were frequently getting beat?

4) If Bevell is going to call a soft game, I hope RW is allowed to call his own audibles from here on out. When they have 9 defenders in the box and Bevell calls in a run up the middle, I really really hope RW has the ability to audible into a quick slant or out. Keep doing those plays until they stop loading the box, then run it up the middle all you want. It sounds like it is common sense, but I have yet to see that happen.

Also, please bring Norv Turner in to be our O coordinator/QB coach. He would do wonders for RW and could focus only on offense.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:47 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2011 4:08 pm
Posts: 904
Unless Pete has Bevell on a tight leash, in which case this is Pete's fault, Bevell gets the majority of the blame for this game. Yes o-line play stunk, but those matchups weren't changing so change the plays.

The only good thing we have that came from Minnesota is Rice.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 4:52 pm 
*NET FCC Liaison*
User avatar
Online

Joined: Fri May 01, 2009 8:39 am
Posts: 22636
Location: Kirkland, WA
CaptainSkybeard wrote:
The only good thing we have that came from Minnesota is Rice.


And the movie Fargo. Don't forget that.

_________________
Sam Bradford is a game changer.

*He can change a win into a loss.
*He can change a loss into a win by getting injured.
*RedAlice is right.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 5:57 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
CaptainSkybeard wrote:
Unless Pete has Bevell on a tight leash, in which case this is Pete's fault, Bevell gets the majority of the blame for this game. Yes o-line play stunk, but those matchups weren't changing so change the plays.

The only good thing we have that came from Minnesota is Rice.


Rice was definitely a good pickup and hopefully he'll stay healthy for a long time. I'm still holding hope that Bevell will develop into a very good offensive coordinator. He's got the mind and the pedigree. He just needs to open up his offense like he did with Brett Favre. There were some good signs in recent games that he is headed that route. I'm a Bevell critic but I've watched and cheered for his teams since I lived most of my life in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

His coaching influences can be traced to Barry Alvarez (UW-Madison), Brad Childress (Minnesota) and indirectly to Holmgren's WC offense (via Mike Sherman and Childress). A son of a coach, Bevell was a bright young qb coming out of highschool and developed a relationship with Childress who recruited him while coach at NAU. Prior to Childress's stint at NAU he was an assistant coach at Madison for Barry Alvarez. Needless to say that Bevell got Childress's blessings when he chose to walk on at UW-Madison and eventually starting all 4 years culminating in two Rose Bowl appearances and two passing records. He was a very efficient game-manager type qb in college and the Alvarez passing game/offense was as frustrating to watch many of these Bevell offenses. Wisconsin had an excuse because they couldn't recruit top passers despite having some very good talents at offensive line, running back and receivers. The offense was predicated on a physically superior line and great running talent. The game-manager type quarterback was necessary because the philosophy was ball-control and to minimize turnovers--sound familiar? During Bevell's stint as OC in Minnesota the offensive philosophy was still to establish the run first and win the time of possession. After Brett Favre arrived in Minnesota to immense fanfare and huge expections we saw early struggles similar to what Seattle has seen this year. There was similar talk in Minnesota even with a HOF quarterback about how much should we open the passing game and what was the best run/pass ratios. This talk isn't new to Bevell's ears. In Minnesota he eventually worked with Brett to open up the offense which resulted in some very creative plays for Brett, Rice and Harvin.
That is why I hold onto hope. I just have to weather this dull playcalling and hope it doesn't do in the Seahawks as it did the Vikings in the NFC championship against and aggressive Saints team.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:08 pm 
NET Veteran
Offline

Joined: Tue Aug 28, 2012 5:31 am
Posts: 568
Oh and although the Wisconsin badgers were okay with a game-manager type qb for all those years, last year badger fans were gifted a great talent in Russell Wilson and now realize how much we've been missing on offense. Wisconsin's offense hasn't been the same this year without RW. Now there's talk in some forums about firing the OC and maybe getting Bevell back to Madtown as OC with coach Beleima which won't happen.


Top 
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I want a new playcaller
 Post Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 6:23 pm 
NET Veteran
User avatar
Offline

Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 7:30 pm
Posts: 1290
Location: Olympia
Cool. Many thanks for the background, Willstrong. It's funny how things make more sense when you get a little history. :)

_________________
Image


Top 
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 66 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Board index » SEAHAWKS.NET - THE VOICE OF THE 12TH MAN » [ THE OFFICIAL NET NATION FAN FORUM ]



 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Seahawks.NET is an independent fan site and not associated with the Seattle Seahawks or the NFL (National Football League).
All content within this Seahawks fan page is provided by, and for, Seattle Seahawks fans. Copyright © Seahawks.NET.