Bevell

[The Q]

Back to more emotional language. He's not the worst player. I missed where they lined up Brian Walters, or sprinted out a backup tackle to catch the TD.

And FFS, they DID use Lynch as a fvcking decoy. How many times do I have to say it?

The only guys lined up over there who weren't expecting Lynch to run were Butler and Browner.

You don't get to make up your own reality Q. Well who the fuck am I kidding, you get to try. In your own brain you succeed.

You just don't get to make it everyone's reality.

You need to watch what Lynch does. Again.

There's no fake that he's running the ball. He runs away from Wilson from the beginning. Pretty clear that it's not a rushing play right off the bat.

 

[chf]

Stating facts is not whining.

Look it up.

Dictionary.com

2014 Superbowl Champions - New England Patriots.



It's all over the interwebs. Look it up. It's right there in front of you

 

[chf]

You need to watch what Lynch does. Again.

There's no fake that he's running the ball. He runs away from Wilson from the beginning. Pretty clear that it's not a rushing play right off the bat.

So why were the PATS in that formation then?

Heh.

AGAIN, Butler broke on the ball IMMEDIATELY.

 

[phredmojo]

2014 Superbowl Champions - New England Patriots.

View attachment 134823

It's all over the interwebs. Look it up. It's right there in front of you

What the fuck is wrong with his left eye? (right side in the picture)

 

[MKHawk]

2014 Superbowl Champions - New England Patriots.

View attachment 134823

It's all over the interwebs. Look it up. It's right there in front of you

That's just mean. I already live in a place surrounded by reminders of that game/play. This is supposed to be my safe space.

 

[MKHawk]

Q,

I have had many arguments back and forth with CHF about this play. I maintain it was a bad call because it played against everyone's strengths who was involved in the play:

Wilson's relative (for an NFL QB) inaccuracy on slants
Asking Kearse to win a physical matchup at the LoS (even worse, against the most physical corner in the league)
Asking Lockette to run a crisp route

To be fair to CHF, he's right that it turning into Chernobyl was not something I could have foreseen before the play. I still argue it was a bad call. My point has been, Seattle is a "we play to our strengths" team. I'm good with the pass call there (RPRX is better than RRPX ther, and in general), I'm simply pissed they picked something no one on the field was particularly good at. In game 3 of the season? Sure, you have to put a bunch of stuff on film. At that point in the ****ing Super Bowl? No. Do what you do well unless they do it better.

A couple of further points:

I do believe that if given 3 shots at it, Lynch would have scored, but a good portion of that is the homer in me. Part of the reason Seattle was in this situation needing a TD there is they failed on 3rd and short in the red zone in the 3rd quarter where NE sold out to stop Lynch on a RO hand-off and looped/crashed someone outside to encourage Wilson to hand it off to Lynch. A pass play on that play probably scores. Instead they end up with the only failed RZ attempt before Butler ruined everything.

Yes they should have targeted Baldwin. Hell, they should have targeted Baldwin all game long, he was getting open on Revis often. But I have to believe they went into the game intending to avoid Revis (with the poop TD the exception), because otherwise Baldwin would have had 7-8 catches in that game instead of 1. It's frustrating to look back on, but they weren't going to Baldwin there, they hadn't all game.

 

[chf]

That's just mean. I already live in a place surrounded by reminders of that game/play. This is supposed to be my safe space.

Consider it tough love.

 

[chf]

I thought about this conversation last night to avoid thinking about Dallas (the shooting happened less than 3 blocks from where I worked for four years).

I kept coming back to Q's assertion that Lockett was the worst player on the field. And also to MK's assertion that we do things that are our strengths.

It's interesting to read the bit about Baldwin/Revis, because that's a perfect example of teams playing the chess match of %'s. For this very same reason, many good QB's don't even LOOK to whomever Sherman is covering when they play us.

At any rate, I think we're all getting hung up on how we're interpreting the word 'bad' in 'was Bevell's a 'bad call?' Again, looking at %'s. Or how we define phrases like 'getting cute,' when again, looking at %'s.

I think anyone is on firm ground to say that the slant wasn't the BEST call, but I may be splitting hairs.

But to get back to my thoughts last night, it wasn't Lockett's physical play that resulted in the INTC and the Patriots winning, it was Lockett's MENTAL play.

Because if you read the stuff from Browner and Butler, it was them keying in on how Lockett was leaning prior to the snap. In other words he didn't disguise it. Thus they both jump the play right from the snap. They guess that that's what's coming and they react RIGHT AWAY. No waiting to read Lynch, no waiting to read Wilson to see if he was going to get the edge. Butler sprints for Lockett IMMEDIATELY.

So, if the very physical, freak special team gunner Lockett does his MENTAL job correctly, then the %'s call was perfect. A simple pitch and catch. Easy peasy, maybe Bulter gets one hand on Lockett in the endzone as we all jump around our living rooms, and post memes of angry faced Tom Brady on the sidelines. Brady's legacy is called further into question, Seattle becomes the second team in a LOOOOONG time to win BTB superbowls.

But because Lockett leans a little, Seattle fans want to run Bevell out of town, and some of the media and LOTS of fans of other teams (and no few Seahawk fans) declare it the worst call in NFL history.

So no Q, it wasn't Lockett's PHYSICAL attributes that torpedoed that play (as JMR pointed out it was the only pass from the 1 all year long that was picked), it was Lockett's mental play. Oh, and Butler having the ability to go get the ball and not drop it anyway, like a decent % of DB's would have done.

So it goes.

 

[gohusk]

I got no problem with Bevell. They gave Wilson the whole field to work with in the 2nd half and he was the best QB in the league over that period, even though we lost key guys. At this point I want him winning or losing games because he's proven that he's a winner.

 

[gohusk]

I've been bashing Bevell for a while, but my point is that I think that Wilson is a much better QB than Bevell is an OC and that clashed in key moments sometimes. Just let Wilson do his thing. All the other top tier QB's in the league have that freedom. Just give it to Wilson as well. He's proven that he's up to the challenge.

 

[MKHawk]

I thought about this conversation last night to avoid thinking about Dallas (the shooting happened less than 3 blocks from where I worked for four years).

I kept coming back to Q's assertion that Lockett was the worst player on the field. And also to MK's assertion that we do things that are our strengths.

It's interesting to read the bit about Baldwin/Revis, because that's a perfect example of teams playing the chess match of %'s. For this very same reason, many good QB's don't even LOOK to whomever Sherman is covering when they play us.

At any rate, I think we're all getting hung up on how we're interpreting the word 'bad' in 'was Bevell's a 'bad call?' Again, looking at %'s. Or how we define phrases like 'getting cute,' when again, looking at %'s.

I think anyone is on firm ground to say that the slant wasn't the BEST call, but I may be splitting hairs.

But to get back to my thoughts last night, it wasn't Lockett's physical play that resulted in the INTC and the Patriots winning, it was Lockett's MENTAL play.

Because if you read the stuff from Browner and Butler, it was them keying in on how Lockett was leaning prior to the snap. In other words he didn't disguise it. Thus they both jump the play right from the snap. They guess that that's what's coming and they react RIGHT AWAY. No waiting to read Lynch, no waiting to read Wilson to see if he was going to get the edge. Butler sprints for Lockett IMMEDIATELY.

So, if the very physical, freak special team gunner Lockett does his MENTAL job correctly, then the %'s call was perfect. A simple pitch and catch. Easy peasy, maybe Bulter gets one hand on Lockett in the endzone as we all jump around our living rooms, and post memes of angry faced Tom Brady on the sidelines. Brady's legacy is called further into question, Seattle becomes the second team in a LOOOOONG time to win BTB superbowls.

But because Lockett leans a little, Seattle fans want to run Bevell out of town, and some of the media and LOTS of fans of other teams (and no few Seahawk fans) declare it the worst call in NFL history.

So no Q, it wasn't Lockett's PHYSICAL attributes that torpedoed that play (as JMR pointed out it was the only pass from the 1 all year long that was picked), it was Lockett's mental play. Oh, and Butler having the ability to go get the ball and not drop it anyway, like a decent % of DB's would have done.

So it goes.

Fair points, but I'd argue that some of that reflects on Bevell for relying on a special teams gunner in that situation. Not that he had a lot of options by that point, but I'd be significantly less up in arms about that call if Matthews were clearing out and Kearse running the route.

 

[chf]

Fair points, but I'd argue that some of that reflects on Bevell for relying on a special teams gunner in that situation. Not that he had a lot of options by that point, but I'd be significantly less up in arms about that call if Matthews were clearing out and Kearse running the route.

Aren't you making some assumptions there though? Did Matthews practice that? Matthews is a big body, but is he a good blocker? And c'mon now. Lockett main function was special teams, something he excelled at, but it wasn't as if he never got reps at WR. He made some big plays during the season for us.

Plus again, getting back to that chess match, the guy the PATS should have LEAST EXPECTED to be getting the ball on that play was therefore Lockett.

Credit to the Pats for coaching up their DB's through repetition to recognize the formation, and Lockett's lean. For STILL essentially guessing right, and for STLL following it up with the athletic play to not only break it up, but pick it.

If that's Sherman or ET making that play, are we blaming the opposing signal caller for handing us the game? Fuck no. We're celebrating the cerebral and physical excellence (and film study fixation) that is Sherman and Thomas. So it should be.

Butler so far isn't getting even a bit of the credit he should be getting.

But I can meet you part way. Sure, Bevell made the call SOME of the blame goes to him. I guess we're disagreeing as to how much.

As I said, I think you're on firm ground to argue that it wasn't the BEST CALL. But 'worst' call sort of implies a greater than 1% chance of it going wrong (in my mind at least)

To use a D+D analogy, you're not expecting to roll a fumble (01) when you prepare to toss the dice. If something has a 99% chance of succeeding, as bets go, that's not remotely 'worst.' Wish I could go to Vegas with those kind of odds.

 

[chf]

I've been bashing Bevell for a while, but my point is that I think that Wilson is a much better QB than Bevell is an OC and that clashed in key moments sometimes. Just let Wilson do his thing. All the other top tier QB's in the league have that freedom. Just give it to Wilson as well. He's proven that he's up to the challenge.

But if you take Roeth for example, he was handcuffed far more severely in his first several seasons than Russ ever was. If I remember correctly, he was told not to even TRY to read the whole field. They just let him read half of it. So bringing QB's along slowly, even ones who start as rooks isn't unusual.

Carroll has commented on this a few times this off-season, that Wilson is now really coming into his own in terms of recognition and understanding. If that's true, we could be in for a fun ride for a while.

 

[MKHawk]

Aren't you making some assumptions there though? Did Matthews practice that? Matthews is a big body, but is he a good blocker? And c'mon now. Lockett main function was special teams, something he excelled at, but it wasn't as if he never got reps at WR. He made some big plays during the season for us.

Plus again, getting back to that chess match, the guy the PATS should have LEAST EXPECTED to be getting the ball on that play was therefore Lockett.

Credit to the Pats for coaching up their DB's through repetition to recognize the formation, and Lockett's lean. For STILL essentially guessing right, and for STLL following it up with the athletic play to not only break it up, but pick it.

If that's Sherman or ET making that play, are we blaming the opposing signal caller for handing us the game? Fuck no. We're celebrating the cerebral and physical excellence (and film study fixation) that is Sherman and Thomas. So it should be.

Butler so far isn't getting even a bit of the credit he should be getting.

But I can meet you part way. Sure, Bevell made the call SOME of the blame goes to him. I guess we're disagreeing as to how much.

As I said, I think you're on firm ground to argue that it wasn't the BEST CALL. But 'worst' call sort of implies a greater than 1% chance of it going wrong (in my mind at least)

To use a D+D analogy, you're not expecting to roll a fumble (01) when you prepare to toss the dice. If something has a 99% chance of succeeding, as bets go, that's not remotely 'worst.' Wish I could go to Vegas with those kind of odds.

Absolutely I'm making some assumptions. You know my stance on Kearse as a blocker and Lockette as a receiver, so they're assumptions I'm comfortable making.

With Lockette, I feel like by that Super Bowl, he had been in the league long enough that if he was going to show much as a receiver other than being fast and good in the air (that sounds more dismissive than I'm intending), he would have shown it. He had the raw tools (hence his success as a gunner and on the deep balls he caught), but never mastered the intricacies of the position. Unfortunately, the Harvin fiasco left us a receiver short, so everyone got bumped up a spot.

My take on this has stemmed from the coaches' insistence that that call was fine and they'd do it exactly the same way, which goes along with your 99% successful scenario. My argument has been that this play was not "great", or in line to be successful 99% of the time (note: I agree the potential for absolute disaster was very low, but the chances of the play succeeding and netting 6 points are appreciably lower than 99%), that there were issues with what the play asked our players to do, and it should be a learning experience.

I'll also cop to the fact that this probably bugs me more than probably anyone else here, and that I have a difficult time letting this go, because of where I live. The stars had aligned for my team to play the local team, and my team was going to win an absolute classic...and then you know what happened.

 

[The Q]

I thought about this conversation last night to avoid thinking about Dallas (the shooting happened less than 3 blocks from where I worked for four years).

I kept coming back to Q's assertion that Lockett was the worst player on the field. And also to MK's assertion that we do things that are our strengths.

It's interesting to read the bit about Baldwin/Revis, because that's a perfect example of teams playing the chess match of %'s. For this very same reason, many good QB's don't even LOOK to whomever Sherman is covering when they play us.

At any rate, I think we're all getting hung up on how we're interpreting the word 'bad' in 'was Bevell's a 'bad call?' Again, looking at %'s. Or how we define phrases like 'getting cute,' when again, looking at %'s.

I think anyone is on firm ground to say that the slant wasn't the BEST call, but I may be splitting hairs.

But to get back to my thoughts last night, it wasn't Lockett's physical play that resulted in the INTC and the Patriots winning, it was Lockett's MENTAL play.

Because if you read the stuff from Browner and Butler, it was them keying in on how Lockett was leaning prior to the snap. In other words he didn't disguise it. Thus they both jump the play right from the snap. They guess that that's what's coming and they react RIGHT AWAY. No waiting to read Lynch, no waiting to read Wilson to see if he was going to get the edge. Butler sprints for Lockett IMMEDIATELY.

So, if the very physical, freak special team gunner Lockett does his MENTAL job correctly, then the %'s call was perfect. A simple pitch and catch. Easy peasy, maybe Bulter gets one hand on Lockett in the endzone as we all jump around our living rooms, and post memes of angry faced Tom Brady on the sidelines. Brady's legacy is called further into question, Seattle becomes the second team in a LOOOOONG time to win BTB superbowls.

But because Lockett leans a little, Seattle fans want to run Bevell out of town, and some of the media and LOTS of fans of other teams (and no few Seahawk fans) declare it the worst call in NFL history.

So no Q, it wasn't Lockett's PHYSICAL attributes that torpedoed that play (as JMR pointed out it was the only pass from the 1 all year long that was picked), it was Lockett's mental play. Oh, and Butler having the ability to go get the ball and not drop it anyway, like a decent % of DB's would have done.

So it goes.

Being a physical freak doesn't make you a good football player or WR.

Derrious Hewyard Bay

Troy Williamson

etc. and so on and so forth.

 

[chf]

Absolutely I'm making some assumptions. You know my stance on Kearse as a blocker and Lockette as a receiver, so they're assumptions I'm comfortable making.

With Lockette, I feel like by that Super Bowl, he had been in the league long enough that if he was going to show much as a receiver other than being fast and good in the air (that sounds more dismissive than I'm intending), he would have shown it. He had the raw tools (hence his success as a gunner and on the deep balls he caught), but never mastered the intricacies of the position. Unfortunately, the Harvin fiasco left us a receiver short, so everyone got bumped up a spot.

My take on this has stemmed from the coaches' insistence that that call was fine and they'd do it exactly the same way, which goes along with your 99% successful scenario. My argument has been that this play was not "great", or in line to be successful 99% of the time (note: I agree the potential for absolute disaster was very low, but the chances of the play succeeding and netting 6 points are appreciably lower than 99%), that there were issues with what the play asked our players to do, and it should be a learning experience.

I'll also cop to the fact that this probably bugs me more than probably anyone else here, and that I have a difficult time letting this go, because of where I live. The stars had aligned for my team to play the local team, and my team was going to win an absolute classic...and then you know what happened.

As usual when we drill down, we're not all that far off. I'd certainly not argue that it was a 'great' call either, but as it was, even if the play fails, MOST OF THE TIME, the play still achieves what you want it to, which is to get the clock stopped. Preserving two more plays to come, for that desired outcome, to have all of us posting bewildered Brady memes.

My only problem is with the idea that there was no reason to MAKE that call. There was a clear thought process behind it. And like I say, if Lockett manages to not tip it off, it's either a ridiculously easy TD, or at worst a dropped ball, stopped clock and 3rd and goal. With a timeout preserved for 4th down.

 

[chf]

Being a physical freak doesn't make you a good football player or WR.

Derrious Hewyard Bay

Troy Williamson

etc. and so on and so forth.

He's not a shitty football player. End of story. He made a number of excellent WR plays during the year, and helped get the team to where it was.

You need to gild the lilly to sell your false narrative.

 

[The Q]

He's not a shitty football player. End of story. He made a number of excellent WR plays during the year, and helped get the team to where it was.

You need to gild the lilly to sell your false narrative.

He's a shitty WR.

And you put your season in his hands versus all the other players who were all better options to throw to.

Like MKH said (and I've said as well), you went away from all your strengths on that play.

That is what makes it a bad call.

 

[chf]

He's a shitty WR.

And you put your season in his hands versus all the other players who were all better options to throw to.

Like MKH said (and I've said as well), you went away from all your strengths on that play.

That is what makes it a bad call.

yep, sadly one can't have Marshawn rush every play of every game.

 

[The Q]

yep, sadly one can't have Marshawn rush every play of every game.

Didn't he just run for 5.5 yards against that same scary defense you're saying they should've thrown against?