Upon further review

Anthony! · Dec 23, 2013

So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. I have also recorded every game and between that and some analysis available on the internet I have been able to plot most of the plays no the road too. Here are some interesting things of note:

for the purposes of this we will compare NO and before, to the SF game on the road, then to the NY and then to the AZ at home

quick hitters - slants, picks, quick crosses.
From NO and before the number of quick hitters - slants, picks, quick crosses, to the SF game was a decrease of 78%
In the NY game there was only a decrease of 60% form NO and before levels
IN the AZ game they saw a decrease of 84% from NO and before levels.

Screens
From NO and before to SF game a decrease of 65%
From NO and before compared to NY game a decrease of 35%
From NO and before compared to AZ game a decrease of 82%

Intermediate passes
From NO and before to SF game a decrease of 52%
From NO and before compared to NY game a decrease of 42%
From NO and before compared to AZ game a decrease of 90%

Basically we have gone form a team utilizing everything to a team that is basically run or throw long. Usually even on long plays if its not there the WR cut it off, leaving them wide open in the intermediate routes, but in this game it only happened on the one long scoring drive. That all. Our play calling has become stale and predictable, and any time they score it is because they stop and let the players play.

FlyingGreg · Dec 23, 2013

I have no idea what Bevell is doing lately.

We don't use the tight ends, we rarely throw screens.... And where is Mike Rob in the passing game that was so effective last season?

It's odd.

SNDavidson · Dec 23, 2013

Seems like we're holding back til the playoffs. Guess we will find out next week.

Pandion Haliaetus · Dec 23, 2013

Awesome, but someone will be in to tell you that those numbers don't matter, Bevell's play-calling is just dandy, that this seemingly "vanilla" game plan the fans have been witnessing since the NO game is a result of playing three top 10 defenses, two of which that rank in the top 5.

However, when is the last time we even seen an FB catch a pass? The FB wheel route used to be a bread and butter game changer last season.

Designed Bootlegs and Roll-outs with WRs running Shallow Crossing Routes? Read Option looks? Gadget Plays? Half time Adjustments? Hurry up offense?

To me it has come down to these two conclusions:

1. Bevell just sucks, has become predictable, and should be fired for an OC that can instill this offense the discipline it needs to execute properly against quality defenses.

2. Dumbed down play-book, keeping the razzle dazzle under wraps, on top of facing quality defenses... while forcing your own defense to man up and own these last few games... to keep the team grounded and humble in preparation for Play-Offs.

If the 49ers win tonight, we surely see which one it is next week vs the Rams.

formido · Dec 23, 2013

Anthony!":1l2vfcqe said:
So between my friends and I we have been at every home game to date this year, and we have all been plotting the offensive plays called. I have also recorded every game and between that and some analysis available on the internet I have been able to plot most of the plays no the road too. Here are some interesting things of note:

for the purposes of this we will compare NO and before, to the SF game on the road, then to the NY and then to the AZ at home

quick hitters - slants, picks, quick crosses.
From NO and before the number of quick hitters - slants, picks, quick crosses, to the SF game was a decrease of 78%
In the NY game there was only a decrease of 60% form NO and before levels
IN the AZ game they saw a decrease of 84% from NO and before levels.

Screens
From NO and before to SF game a decrease of 65%
From NO and before compared to NY game a decrease of 35%
From NO and before compared to AZ game a decrease of 82%

Intermediate passes
From NO and before to SF game a decrease of 52%
From NO and before compared to NY game a decrease of 42%
From NO and before compared to AZ game a decrease of 90%

Basically we have gone form a team utilizing everything to a team that is basically run or throw long. Usually even on long plays if its not there the WR cut it off, leaving them wide open in the intermediate routes, but in this game it only happened on the one long scoring drive. That all. Our play calling has become stale and predictable, and any time they score it is because they stop and let the players play.

Great, great information. This confirms that play calling putting the team in extremely low leverage situations is far more to blame than Wilson, or anyone else's, execution. That matches my eye test.

TwistedHusky · Dec 23, 2013

IF we are "holding back for the playoffs" then we are too stupid to win a SB and deserve what we get.

I expect it is more that our stiflingly average OC has troubles against better defenses and struggles to make in game adjustments.

BASF · Dec 24, 2013

Thank you for taking the time to do this. Two questions though:

Are you only counting plays as where the ball is being thrown? That would affect the numbers quite a bit as the other routes could be being run, just the receivers are not getting enough separation for Wilson to throw to that receiver.

What distance are you counting as intermediate passes?

bellingerga · Dec 24, 2013

run between the tackles, run between the tackles, deep pass, punt, repeat.

Russ Willstrong · Dec 24, 2013

bellingerga":125jsutp said:
run between the tackles, run between the tackles, deep pass, punt, repeat.

Everyone outside of Seattle believes Lynch is our real offensive MVP, RW is overrated and that our OC is the hottest young coaching candidate. I hope people see that Bevell reverts to Wisconsin Badger style playcalling when he is outwitted. Time to be creative and trust each other more. Playoffs is around the corner.

James in PA · Dec 24, 2013

I noticed a ton of predictable 2nd down handoffs from the Hawks last game. I kept saying to myself on 2nd down, "I bet this is a handoff to Lynch for a short gain." And that would often be followed with, "OK, if I'm seeing this, Arizona is DEFINITELY seeing this." WTF. So frustrating.

ClumsyLurk · Dec 24, 2013

This is a good post, thank you Anthony.
How many more snaps did we have against NO and were these decreases in plays you outlined used further into drives?

Again, thanks for the OP

justafan · Dec 24, 2013

I appreciate the effort you put into this.I like going back and looking at play by play after the game and usually you find the perception rarely matches what actually happens.Run Run pass rarely happens,run pass mixture on 2nd down was about 50/50.They do nothing "every time".When looking at where the ball goes from the box score i cant tell what was audibled,where Wilsons read told him to go or if Wilson is just throwing deep on a broken play.There are options at different levels on almost every play so its impossible for me trying to plot where the pass goes without knowing exactly the route combination and who the 1st 2nd or 3rd read is and if Wilson followed the design of the play vs the defense played on that play,or if its a broken play and Wilson goes on his own.
I would like to see a more rhythm and timing to this passing game.

LickMyNuts · Dec 24, 2013

If we get the running game going against the Rams everything else will fall into place.

I wish that CM was a part of the plan. We need a more explosive edge runner to help set up some of the inside run game.

Seahawk Sailor · Dec 24, 2013

These last few games have been... interesting. And that's to say the least. We are a completely different team, and it's probably for a combination of reasons. It always is. Sometimes the reasons are more obvious than others, and sometimes they account for more, but there are always several contributing factors to a change in a team's behavior.

We don't know whether they're just playing far too conservatively, not showing their hand, and hoping to steal the single game they need to clinch, or whether it's something else. It could well be that. It could be that Lynch is hitting the aging running back wall at the same time Wilson is experiencing a sophomore slump of sorts. It could be missing Harvin and Rice. It's probably a lot of all of those factors.

I'm inclined to believe conservative play calling and a fear of taking chances play a bigger role than we might think, but I don't think it's necessarily just because they don't want to "show their hand" before the playoffs. Look at it this way: the traditional way to do things is to play balls-out until you get to a game that doesn't matter anymore, and then you rest everyone you possibly can before the playoff push. We see it all the time. We'll see it in every game next week of every playoff-bound team where there's nothing left to play for, albeit that won't be that many this year.

But here's the thing: Pete Carroll and John Schneider are outside-the-box thinkers. They're trend setters, not copycats. What if this is that strategy, but thrown on its head? What if instead of resting players, as Pete's already said he's not inclined to do, they're "resting" strategy? And what if they're doing it earlier than when things are all said and done? It's a gambler's play, for sure. We've already seen that it could come back to haunt us. We were the first to clinch the playoffs in the entire NFL. All we've had to do is win one more to clinch home field. Two more out of the last four; one more out of the last two. That's a pretty decent shot, if you look at it, to "steal" that one win we need. And it's not really even "stealing" a win. We're at home, a far easier place to play than on the road, and we're playing teams that although their defenses are really good, their offenses are not really anything to brag about.

If we'd have won the Arizona game, which we damned well could/should have, the strategy would have been perfect. We could have continued to "rest" strategy going into the playoffs. But doing it this way still allows us to play at 100% strength and effort as Pete has said he wants, should we need that last game to win home field. It's almost a win-win situation, the only caveat being that we now have to beat the Rams to not piss it all away.

If we don't, we stand to mirror the 2012 Houston Texans, who were 11-1 and firmly in control of their own destiny, only to fall to 12-4 to end the season and have to play on the road the second game of the playoffs. To a certain extent, their 2011 squad was in the same boat, but they were only 10-3 going into their final three games. Which they lost. And while going on the road in the playoffs is not a complete disaster, the odds are far better with home field and everybody damned well knows it.

Some people talk about how losing a game here and there is good for a team. Brings 'em back down to earth. Makes 'em hungrier to get back into a winning mode. Sorry, but I'm pulling the BS flag on that one. Losing is giving back a bit to mediocrity. Aw, shucks, we'll get 'em next time, Tiger. There's always next time to wrap up home field advantage. This one hurt, but it's okay, there's always winning on the road. Wow, this one hurt a little more. Oh well, there's always next year. Or the year after. Or after the rebuild. Or whenever.

Sorry, but I don't want that. "Win Forever" includes winning now. And if the above musings and ravings are anywhere close to the truth, this squad had better come out fired up and ready to take every last bit of dignity from the St. Louis Rams on Sunday. Like it or not, if we really want a legitimate shot at winning it all this year, this one's a playoff game.

Bigpumpkin · Dec 24, 2013

Anthony...Let's hope that Russell and Pete were working on those exact schemes at 4:30 on Monday morning.

FairWeatherFan · Dec 24, 2013

HawkNuts":3f1qezpo said:
If we get the running game going against the Rams everything else will fall into place.

That's the problem~! Because everything depends on the play action?! Way too one dimensional. :x

I see it as a play calling experiment that is backfiring. It appears that the coaching has decided that we have an opportunity to "try" to do more with less, so they are taking advantage of it. It's hindering RW's growth and causing strain on the rest of the offense.

JustTheTip · Dec 24, 2013

I'm with Seahawk Sailor on pretty much everything he said. I will also add that if they are playing vanilla to not tip their hand it makes Pete a liar when he says things like earn everything and 1-0 every week. You can't have it both ways Pete.

kf3339 · Dec 24, 2013

Seahawk Sailor":2hz1rsu9 said:
These last few games have been... interesting. And that's to say the least. We are a completely different team, and it's probably for a combination of reasons. It always is. Sometimes the reasons are more obvious than others, and sometimes they account for more, but there are always several contributing factors to a change in a team's behavior.

We don't know whether they're just playing far too conservatively, not showing their hand, and hoping to steal the single game they need to clinch, or whether it's something else. It could well be that. It could be that Lynch is hitting the aging running back wall at the same time Wilson is experiencing a sophomore slump of sorts. It could be missing Harvin and Rice. It's probably a lot of all of those factors.

I'm inclined to believe conservative play calling and a fear of taking chances play a bigger role than we might think, but I don't think it's necessarily just because they don't want to "show their hand" before the playoffs. Look at it this way: the traditional way to do things is to play balls-out until you get to a game that doesn't matter anymore, and then you rest everyone you possibly can before the playoff push. We see it all the time. We'll see it in every game next week of every playoff-bound team where there's nothing left to play for, albeit that won't be that many this year.

But here's the thing: Pete Carroll and John Schneider are outside-the-box thinkers. They're trend setters, not copycats. What if this is that strategy, but thrown on its head? What if instead of resting players, as Pete's already said he's not inclined to do, they're "resting" strategy? And what if they're doing it earlier than when things are all said and done? It's a gambler's play, for sure. We've already seen that it could come back to haunt us. We were the first to clinch the playoffs in the entire NFL. All we've had to do is win one more to clinch home field. Two more out of the last four; one more out of the last two. That's a pretty decent shot, if you look at it, to "steal" that one win we need. And it's not really even "stealing" a win. We're at home, a far easier place to play than on the road, and we're playing teams that although their defenses are really good, their offenses are not really anything to brag about.

If we'd have won the Arizona game, which we damned well could/should have, the strategy would have been perfect. We could have continued to "rest" strategy going into the playoffs. But doing it this way still allows us to play at 100% strength and effort as Pete has said he wants, should we need that last game to win home field. It's almost a win-win situation, the only caveat being that we now have to beat the Rams to not piss it all away.

If we don't, we stand to mirror the 2012 Houston Texans, who were 11-1 and firmly in control of their own destiny, only to fall to 12-4 to end the season and have to play on the road the second game of the playoffs. To a certain extent, their 2011 squad was in the same boat, but they were only 10-3 going into their final three games. Which they lost. And while going on the road in the playoffs is not a complete disaster, the odds are far better with home field and everybody damned well knows it.

Some people talk about how losing a game here and there is good for a team. Brings 'em back down to earth. Makes 'em hungrier to get back into a winning mode. Sorry, but I'm pulling the BS flag on that one. Losing is giving back a bit to mediocrity. Aw, shucks, we'll get 'em next time, Tiger. There's always next time to wrap up home field advantage. This one hurt, but it's okay, there's always winning on the road. Wow, this one hurt a little more. Oh well, there's always next year. Or the year after. Or after the rebuild. Or whenever.

Sorry, but I don't want that. "Win Forever" includes winning now. And if the above musings and ravings are anywhere close to the truth, this squad had better come out fired up and ready to take every last bit of dignity from the St. Louis Rams on Sunday. Like it or not, if we really want a legitimate shot at winning it all this year, this one's a playoff game.

:13:

chiltech500 · Dec 24, 2013

Is this equivalent to choking for Bevell. I personally have never believed he was that great.

Mjolnir · Dec 24, 2013

Great post Anthony.

My strictly unsubstantiated opinion: methinks Pete is putting the throttle on the offense a bit here. His primary concern on offense is no turnovers. Playing against very good defenses, I think he reverts to very conservative game planning and pretty much constrains Bevell. Perhaps he sees things in the film that indicates intermediate passing game is too risky as far as probability of a turnover. Pete really hates turnovers.

Pete is a defensive guy as we all know, and would rather put the control of the game in the defenses' hands. History has proven that this has worked for him more often than not, and he will play those odds.

I just hope that IF this is true, that he loosens up a bit in the playoffs.

Upon further review

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

New member

Moderator

Active member

New member

Member

Similar threads