Sturm wrote:Pete said the play failed because it was so loud, they missed an 'alert.' Whatever that is...

Since Giacomini and McQuistan both blocked the same guy, I'm guessing the "alert" was that there was going to be someone coming in unblocked. These protection calls are made at the line of scrimmage and in noisy stadiums they will use hand signals if it gets too loud. I'm just guessing that what pete means is that there was an alert called out pre-snap, but it wasn't heard, and nobody blocked the guy. If we'd gotten a blocker on that guy, we very well may have made that yard. That is basically why it broke down.

Sturm wrote:

HawkFan72 wrote:

purpleworld wrote:[quote="HawkFan72"](....That same play has worked every time this year and we have run it multiple times).

And Atlanta was ready for it....they scout too!

You think all the other teams hadn't prepared for it as well? Sometimes there are plays that are successful even when the other team knows it is coming. If you execute correctly, there is no way to stop it from getting 1 or 2 yards.

The Hawks just did not execute on that play. They let a blitzer come right through the running lane.

Pete said the play failed because it was so loud, they missed an 'alert.' Whatever that is...[/quote]
From what I heard, Wilson called a certain protection and the linemen didn't hear him. I think the announcers also said something about it and that's why they started using hand signals more after that.

kearly wrote:I think Bevell deserves a lot of credit. Most teams that run read-option in the NFL commit to it fairly strictly (SF with Kaepernick, Carolina, Washington, etc), and the offenses they run are very obviously dumbed down. Late in the season I thought Bevell did an awesome job of mixing read option with a traditional offense. The result was a whole lot of games over 400 or even 500 total yards. People talk about playcalling/predictability but that is just one aspect of what an OC brings to a team. How that OC fits the existing talent is what is most important, and Bevell fits it perfectly. And for the record, I think Bevell's playcalling is just fine. Most of the crying over his playcalling comes in brutal losses where the offense did it's job and the defense didn't, and MMQB'ing takes over.

Sure, Wilson made Bevell and not the other way around, but I'm fine with that. At the end of the day Bevell may not be the greatest OC in the game, but he fits Wilson as well as anyone would. If Andy Reid or Jon Gruden came in to run our offense, I don't think it would be a whole lot better, simply because Wilson and Bevell seem to have developed chemistry working together.

Plus One. I love Bevell and think he is very creative. IMHO, he is one of the best OCs in the league and our offense will demonstrate that belief next year when it ranks in the top 10.

ivotuk wrote:

kearly wrote:I think Bevell deserves a lot of credit. Most teams that run read-option in the NFL commit to it fairly strictly (SF with Kaepernick, Carolina, Washington, etc), and the offenses they run are very obviously dumbed down. Late in the season I thought Bevell did an awesome job of mixing read option with a traditional offense. The result was a whole lot of games over 400 or even 500 total yards. People talk about playcalling/predictability but that is just one aspect of what an OC brings to a team. How that OC fits the existing talent is what is most important, and Bevell fits it perfectly. And for the record, I think Bevell's playcalling is just fine. Most of the crying over his playcalling comes in brutal losses where the offense did it's job and the defense didn't, and MMQB'ing takes over.

Sure, Wilson made Bevell and not the other way around, but I'm fine with that. At the end of the day Bevell may not be the greatest OC in the game, but he fits Wilson as well as anyone would. If Andy Reid or Jon Gruden came in to run our offense, I don't think it would be a whole lot better, simply because Wilson and Bevell seem to have developed chemistry working together.

Plus One. I love Bevell and think he is very creative. IMHO, he is one of the best OCs in the league and our offense will demonstrate that belief next year when it ranks in the top 10.

Even with our "slow start" we were #9 in scoring in offense this year. I think if we continue at the rate we finished the season (which to me is more telling than our start), we should be in the top 5 at the very least next season.

Yes the NFL likes to use the yards per game to measure the stats, but I think that scoring is the most important part of both offense and defensive stats.

hawkmanj wrote:Good. We need continuity, especially for RW

Agreed, continuity will be very important for Wilson as he grows. Not happy we lost Bradley...but sooner or later we where going to lose both of them....i sure hope Quinn is better at play calling when there is 30 seconds left on the clock and the win is in danger.

Yards means your going the full length of the field on every possession, points and effciantcy is better, if we get what we want the defense should provide turnovers and good field position, shorter drives more points.

VancitySeahawk wrote:According to ESPN Bevell received a contract extension and a raise. He accepted and withdrew from the Arizona coaching race.

IMHO he is lucky to have a job here, his playcalling is craptastic at best. Him getting a raise is money NOT well spent. I think Bradley was the worst of the 2, but Bevell was a real close 2nd.

I agree, Wilson made Bevell. I feel like Bevell was slow to adjust in both playoff games, trying to stick with his brainiac game plan when in the end the solution was to press the "Easy" button and just hand it to Russell and say do your thing RW. That pisses me off. I also felt like by trying to spare RW from pressure early in the season they ended up putting him in pressure-PACKED situations where 4th quarter heroics was needed, time after time, starting with the very first game of the season. But I get they were trying to bring RW along slowly, I get that they couldn't bring themselves to believe in Russell's godliness quite so early, and I get that it was as much Pete as Bevell.

For those saying this is good because RW likes him, RW only spouts team-first sentiments so how would we know what Russell really thinks? And everyone here KNOWS Russell would be just fine no matter who was calling the plays, as long as when things didn't work out they turned it over to the Russell magic show and let him do his thing.

But if Russ doesn't have to learn a new playbook that's more time he can spend studying opposing defenses or working hard on other aspects, so I do buy the continuity aspect of it. I don't think Bevell is a make-or-break decision for this team, but I like that we kept him. I do have to say I agree with those who say that of all the read-option offenses, Bevell did the best job integrating it in such a fashion as to make it only a small part of a "real" NFL offense, but a part that could be leaned on heavily in crunch time to great effect. That's deserving of some praise. And his playcalling overall did get much better.

If I don't see a heaping helping of Zach Miller, throws to Turbin out of the backfield, targeting Rice more, and in general a more Russell-focused offense from the very beginning next year I'm going to take back all the nice things I said about Bevell though and call for his head.

Well Bevell is one part, Pete being a defensive guy gets forgotton in this but wasn't it him that was the one studing the offense of Washington and brought in the read option to be a compliment here as well.

I agree Chris that Pete may have been the idea man on the read option, but my guess is the particulars of integrating the read option were given to Bevell to handle, and he did a good job with those details.

I am wondering what credentials anyone here has to criticize Bevell? The dude is an NFL Offensive Coordinator for a reason. Not some high school junior varsity coordinator. If the Seahawks management are able to pick talented players consistently, then I think they know what they're doing when they sign an offensive coordinator too.

Good thing these are 'humble opinions' because that's all they're worth...

Not trying to be a jerk here.

Zowert wrote:I am wondering what credentials anyone here has to criticize Bevell? The dude is an NFL Offensive Coordinator for a reason. Not some high school junior varsity coordinator. If the Seahawks management are able to pick talented players consistently, then I think they know what they're doing when they sign an offensive coordinator too.

Good thing these are 'humble opinions' because that's all they're worth...

Not trying to be a jerk here.

They post on seahawks.net???

CALIHAWK1 wrote:

Zowert wrote:I am wondering what credentials anyone here has to criticize Bevell? The dude is an NFL Offensive Coordinator for a reason. Not some high school junior varsity coordinator. If the Seahawks management are able to pick talented players consistently, then I think they know what they're doing when they sign an offensive coordinator too.

Good thing these are 'humble opinions' because that's all they're worth...

Not trying to be a jerk here.

They post on seahawks.net???

I'm just saying.. I don't understand how or why so many people think negatively of Bevell when the guy is obviously doing something right. I mean, he still has a job and he was even being pursued as a potential head coach.

I too see nobody actually giving examples of how Bevell's play-calling was bad, except for sporadic instances. We were one of the hottest offenses in the league after Week 5.

Zowert, it is a time honored tradition to question the coordinators and coaches. Sure they are paid millions for their knowledge but there are those that are better than others. Most fans aren't allowed to look at the game within a game. Paranoia or trade secrets, coaches aren't going to walk folks through a gameplan or game film.

I usually will not question authority, since I am not in the position but others are free thinkers and figure they have seen enough Xs and Os over the years that they want to give their opinion. It isn't like folks are 100% wrong or guessing when they called out earlier play calling The coaches themselves admitted that they had reigned in the playbook because they didn't know the boundaries of their young QB. They even said they would to their credit. It just frustrated fans and observers nationwide when they did.

It is certainly a fact that others thought enough of the Seahawks coaches that both the OC and DC got several Head coaching interviews. Your point may be valid but fans have to have something to talk about and voice alternatives. Even if those may not be from professionally trained coaches. It is a little give and take.

If some are going overboard, maybe you can give a counter that they have to think about. The "you aren't a pro" argument isn't going to carry much weight but I guess it at least lets you get it off your chest. Just like the others wanted to do with their posts.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:I too see nobody actually giving examples of how Bevell's play-calling was bad, except for sporadic instances. We were one of the hottest offenses in the league after Week 5.

The numerous times at various points in .NET chat during games this year where I begged him not to run for a second or third time in a row because the defense would see it coming, and then watching Marshawn get 1-2 yards or get stuffed for a loss don't count? Sure, some of those ended up working, but not most. We had to punt because of stupid consecutive run plays this year more times than I can count. For the record, I'm not against consecutive run plays, it was more the constant up-the-gut stuff without changing it around some that killed me. Get creative if you're going to run three damn times in a row. Running to either side of the center 3 consecutive times is something that you simply cannot do.

It got old watching us march 80 yards down the field like it was nothing, repeatedly, 3 times as much in the second halves of games as in the first halves because we started calling better plays suited to our personnel and quarterback, then watching us go back to the boring, predictable, bland stuff to start the next game with. I'm also only referring to the second half of the season; I get that Papa Pete kept a leash on it the first half, I don't blame Bevell for that.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:I too see nobody actually giving examples of how Bevell's play-calling was bad, except for sporadic instances. We were one of the hottest offenses in the league after Week 5.

I will be compiling my list and checking it twice.
Serious question, Brandon. Do you think it was entirely necessary for Seattle to have the highest run split in the league?

I did give examples of Bevell's play calling stating that certain formations meant one or two plays only from those formations. Diags got after me for it, but I stand by the assertion. It was not until the Lions game that it was changed. Whether that was Pete saying, we need to stick to the basics on this stuff until Wilson gets to the point I want him at or not is the question.

When Pete stated that he opened up the offense is when all of that changed. I know that most fans out there do not understand the chess game that is play calling, so I will try to explain some of it. You show things to the opponents coordinator by formation and the routes you have your players run. It is like magic shows. You show them one hand while the other hand is doing the actual work. Bevell did a great job building on the plays he called early when he changed things up.

Now, my biggest criticism of Bevell that happened throughout the year is that quite a few of the plays he has end up with the receivers too close together. There were no fewer than 9 instances of one receiver catching or knocking down a pass that was intended for a different receiver. Part of that is that the other receiver in the pattern was isolated on one side of the field and we were trying to pull the safety to the side with the multiple receivers, but the isolated receiver still didn't get the separation desired to make the throw.

Scottemojo wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:I too see nobody actually giving examples of how Bevell's play-calling was bad, except for sporadic instances. We were one of the hottest offenses in the league after Week 5.

I will be compiling my list and checking it twice.
Serious question, Brandon. Do you think it was entirely necessary for Seattle to have the highest run split in the league?

Pete took responsibility for that early on.

Scottemojo wrote:

MontanaHawk05 wrote:I too see nobody actually giving examples of how Bevell's play-calling was bad, except for sporadic instances. We were one of the hottest offenses in the league after Week 5.

I will be compiling my list and checking it twice.
Serious question, Brandon. Do you think it was entirely necessary for Seattle to have the highest run split in the league?

Like CALIHAWK1 said, I think a lot of that had to do with protecting Wilson early on. I also wonder what that split would look like without so many of Wilson's passing attempts turning into scrambles for various reasons. Maybe your split accounted for that, but Wilson was one of the league's most scramblesque QB's.

I agree with BASF's assertion that play-calling lies more in the looks given than in the plays executed. Running three times in a row is not an inherently dumb idea. Just because a team runs to the left on one play doesn't magically make it more probable that they'll do it on the next play. So unless the formation is giving too much away, I place the blame for failed plays more execution than calling.

And honestly, I just don't remember nearly as much run-run-pass as Roland does from this season. I think a lot of us are fixated on such series because we hate them so much, and notice them more easily than we notice the alternative. In fact, towards the middle of the season I did some play-charting and saw that Seattle was passing on first down much more often (like 74% over some interval that I've now forgotten) than we were running.

This is a key move for the future of the Seahawks and Russell Wilson

I'm sure there will still be irrational hate towards Bevell, but those people can just hush since they're ignoring the facts anyways.

I'm glad we have him for at least another year. If we have the same or better success next season he will be a head coach somewhere IMO.

MontanaHawk05 wrote:And honestly, I just don't remember nearly as much run-run-pass as Roland does from this season. I think a lot of us are fixated on such series because we hate them so much, and notice them more easily than we notice the alternative. In fact, towards the middle of the season I did some play-charting and saw that Seattle was passing on first down much more often (like 74% over some interval that I've now forgotten) than we were running.

You're projecting. I never gave a number or percentage, I simply said it's too much. Chart the success of our run-run-pass sets of downs compared to any down we start with a pass on, I suspect you'll see a ginormous discrepancy.