FIRE BEVELL

[chf]

In a more serious response, people want to establish patterns. So when they have an established narrative, they tend to see every confirmation of that. And tend to not even notice stuff that goes against the narrative.

So if in one's mind Bevell is an idiot, every time we see a play fail, (or something we'd do differently) that sticks out like a sore thumb, and we think, 'See, Bevell IS an idiot.'

When something that goes against it happens, we don't even consciously think about it (usually), we just assign it to something else. (in this case, Wilson audibling out of what HAD to be a terrible Bevell call, or an athlete just making something positive out of dogshit.)

Thus the pattern survives safe in our own minds.

The 2016 Election season would be a great example of this dynamic at work.

But we ALL do it to some extent. It takes a lot of work to resist the allure. I know I fail at it, although I like to think I'm at least partially aware of the dynamic.

Another really excellent example of it would be the 'Vikings didn't overpay for Bradford' thread. There's a few in there that have admitted that Bradford has looked decent this year with the Vikes so far. And there's a few there on the other side that have admitted that Bradford had been a big bag o' average as a pro.

Most are entrenched behind their ideological bunkers (Bradford is either walking on water, who had dogshit around him in STL, or else Bradford is a talentless hack, and the Vikes got bent over a table.)

 

[MKHawk]

Meh, then don't. All good if you don't agree with anything. Still blows my mind that so many are at least using that ONE play as their entire crutch for hatred of an OC that has led arguably the best offense this team has ever seen. I really don't care if he is to 'blame' or not on that ONE play. He's clearly not the cancer some vocal members want to paint him as. It's more the global point.

We are now seeing this offense jump into another gear with Graham and Wilson finally getting on the same page. That's not play calling or even game planning and it's not an I told you so or why weren't they doing this earlier kind of thing. It took time for Wilson to get his timing with him and TRUST he will go get that ball. The shift has been with him, not the coaching staff. But even now people STILL want Bevell gone despite what they have brewing and I am simply baffled by it. Dumbfounded.

I didn't want to be the guy who pulled us back down this rabbit hole, but since we're there already, okay.

I hated the Bevell hire, I was unimpressed with him in Minnesota, and when they signed Tarvaris Jackson soon after, I was even more pissed. I was mostly wrong about Bevell, I can't deny the strides Russ has made under his tutelage. Some of that, obviously, is Russ. But not all.

 

[WizardHawk]

I didn't want to be the guy who pulled us back down this rabbit hole, but since we're there already, okay.

I hated the Bevell hire, I was unimpressed with him in Minnesota, and when they signed Tarvaris Jackson soon after, I was even more pissed. I was mostly wrong about Bevell, I can't deny the strides Russ has made under his tutelage. Some of that, obviously, is Russ. But not all.

Wouldn't disagree with any of that. I've never said saint the guy. Only that he's low lying fruit for any failed play or game and there is more involved. At this point whether or not I like him doesn't matter. The team is doing better than it ever has and the problems they do have appear to not be related to play caller or game planning which is all I put on him.

 

[MKHawk]

Here's a question for the Bevell critics - because I hear a LOT of 'I'd still hate that call even if it scored a TD and we won our second Lombardi!'

The Wilson throw from his own goal line, where he drops it from the clouds past decent coverage, to Graham.
Why does no-one hate Bevell for that call?

That call was fucking risky. Given the score, and our D, WTF is Bevell doing calling a deep pass with Russ's heels in his own endzone?

Wonky ankle, bum knee, doesn't get enough on that throw, and it's picked, and NY get the ball in Seattle territory with the chance to go up 10-0 at home. OR, the Jets solid D line sacks Russ for the safety, and re-injures his ankle, and The jets get the ball with a chance to go up 12-0.

Why isn't that a TERRIBLE call? Why don't we all HATE that call despite the good outcome?

Because we ALL only second guess on hindsight.

Because Bevell TRUSTED his burgeoning all-pro, top five QB to make a great play, and he made a great play.

Which was (apologies for breaking my promise), why he TRUSTED him to complete a slant vs stacked run coverage for our second Lombardi.

Sadly, Butler made an all-world play. Garrett McIntyre did not.

That call played to Russell's strengths. He throws a beautiful deep ball. Totally different pass.

And it's not that Russ can't complete a slant, but it doesn't play to his strengths (not Kearse's attempting to win a physical matchup w/Browner, nor Lockette running a crisp route)

 

[MKHawk]

Or the pass call at the end of the 1st half of that Super Bowl. Pretty risky move there. We get no points on that drive and the game may have been over. But no one criticizes Bevell for that call. Why? Because it worked.

I don't believe any fans that say that they would be critical of any play that worked.

Also not a slant pass.

 

[MKHawk]

Well in defence of some of the 'haters' like MKHawk, his problem wasn't the pass call so much as the slant.

Also, the Miami one was to Baldwin. The SB one was to a gunner.

 

[MKHawk]

They used that slant play a few times in the season in short yardage situations and worked every time. Just the breaks it went astray in the SB.

This is true, but the receiver splits were always much wider (I'm guessing because they were further away than the 2 yard line? Not sure). And it was never to Lockette (often to Lynch or Miller I think).

This brings up another thing that's always bugged me about that Super Bowl: I'm not sure Russ ever targeted the tight end. Other than Collins, the Pats' LBs were not good in coverage.

 

[MKHawk]

The biggest fuckup that Pete should be getting roasted for is clock management on that drive. Thus needing to pass to keep the timeout.

Nobody says BOO about that though.

That ol' hindsight dealio again.

This is absolutely true. They had 3 time outs at the start of that drive. They called zero timeouts while the clock was running during that drive. And they had 1 timeout by the time that play happened.

 

[flyerhawk]

Also not a slant pass.

So what? The play was DESIGNED to clear out the middle. The players did not properly execute the play. If they did, it was an easy TD.

 

[MKHawk]

So what? The play was DESIGNED to clear out the middle. The players did not properly execute the play. If they did, it was an easy TD.

The fact that it was a slant pass is my entire problem with the play.

My contention is that the SB play call actively played away from the strengths of all of the participants involved. Russ isn't that accurate on short slants. Kearse loses physical matchups against regular CBs, let alone against the most physical DB in the league. Lockette is a gunner, not a receiver, he's not going to run precise routes.

Yes the execution failed, but I'd argue that shouldn't have come as a shock (the interception, okay, surprise, but that the play didn't succeed and score? Not a surprise).

 

[chf]

That call played to Russell's strengths. He throws a beautiful deep ball. Totally different pass.

And it's not that Russ can't complete a slant, but it doesn't play to his strengths (not Kearse's attempting to win a physical matchup w/Browner, nor Lockette running a crisp route)

And you and I have covered this ground before too. (I was more thinking of some of the other posters when I asked) The slant has a much lower downside than the deep ball, at least % wise. The deep ball (nevermind how good Russ is at throwing it), has a higher failure rate.

Plus, Russ has all those other factors, ankle, knee. And standing in his own endzone.

Not to mention that you can't throw deep from the Pats 1 yd line.

But yeah, as I'm typing out my question, I'm thinking, 'here's how MK answer this.'

You'd have to agree though, that it was a freaking gutsy call, and Bevell made it (assuming Russ didn't audible of course).

 

[chf]

This is true, but the receiver splits were always much wider (I'm guessing because they were further away than the 2 yard line? Not sure). And it was never to Lockette (often to Lynch or Miller I think).

This brings up another thing that's always bugged me about that Super Bowl: I'm not sure Russ ever targeted the tight end. Other than Collins, the Pats' LBs were not good in coverage.

I remember Lockett catching some slants actually. At least one. Too lazy/busy today to go through game play charts though.

 

[chf]

The fact that it was a slant pass is my entire problem with the play.

My contention is that the SB play call actively played away from the strengths of all of the participants involved. Russ isn't that accurate on short slants. Kearse loses physical matchups against regular CBs, let alone against the most physical DB in the league. Lockette is a gunner, not a receiver, he's not going to run precise routes.

Yes the execution failed, but I'd argue that shouldn't have come as a shock (the interception, okay, surprise, but that the play didn't succeed and score? Not a surprise).

I'd love to be able to ask Pete specifically about Kearse's blocking ability. Would LOOOOOVE that. Because there's smart people who seem to have 180 degree opinions on that.

 

[Uhsplit]

I was squashed at the outcome of that SB. I have not pointed the finger of blame because I feel the Seahawks win or lose as a team. Against The Rams I was disappointed that CM fumbled the ball costing us a great chance at 4-0, but I do not point the finger of blame at him.
Shit happens, win some lose some. Together.

 

[MKHawk]

And you and I have covered this ground before too. (I was more thinking of some of the other posters when I asked) The slant has a much lower downside than the deep ball, at least % wise. The deep ball (nevermind how good Russ is at throwing it), has a higher failure rate.

Plus, Russ has all those other factors, ankle, knee. And standing in his own endzone.

Not to mention that you can't throw deep from the Pats 1 yd line.

But yeah, as I'm typing out my question, I'm thinking, 'here's how MK answer this.'

You'd have to agree though, that it was a freaking gutsy call, and Bevell made it (assuming Russ didn't audible of course).

Heh, I tried to stay away...

As to the bolded, I agree completely.

 

[chf]

I was squashed at the outcome of that SB. I have not pointed the finger of blame because I feel the Seahawks win or lose as a team. Against The Rams I was disappointed that CM fumbled the ball costing us a great chance at 4-0, but I do not point the finger of blame at him.
Shit happens, win some lose some. Together.

Absolutely. It's just that seeing it play out like that is pretty rare. The all or nothing, 1 yd to glory/heartbreak. So many narratives. All based on 1 yd. We get that, and Russ wins his 2nd Lombardi, and is being talked about in rarified air, Pete/John as the architects of a dynasty.

We don't, and we get all this angst instead.

 

[flyerhawk]

My contention is that the SB play call actively played away from the strengths of all of the participants involved. Russ isn't that accurate on short slants. Kearse loses physical matchups against regular CBs, let alone against the most physical DB in the league. Lockette is a gunner, not a receiver, he's not going to run precise routes.

And you don't know all the variables that they were factoring in when they made that play call. Maybe Baldwin was gassed or banged up. Maybe that specific play had each specific player doing those roles in practice and they felt most confident sticking to what they practiced.

Yes the execution failed, but I'd argue that shouldn't have come as a shock (the interception, okay, surprise, but that the play didn't succeed and score? Not a surprise).

But it was the interception that made the play appear like such a bad play. It was actually a low risk play but there is always some risk.

 

[flyerhawk]

I was squashed at the outcome of that SB. I have not pointed the finger of blame because I feel the Seahawks win or lose as a team. Against The Rams I was disappointed that CM fumbled the ball costing us a great chance at 4-0, but I do not point the finger of blame at him.
Shit happens, win some lose some. Together.

And some people probably DID blame Bevell for trusting CM in that situation, given his history for fumbling.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

And some people probably DID blame Bevell for trusting CM in that situation, given his history for fumbling.

No need for blame, but I wasn't shocked that CM fumbled.

 

[Screamin12th]

The fact that it was a slant pass is my entire problem with the play.

then every OC in the league sucks. It's the most common pass play at the goal line and one of the most successful. Had they Thrown a fade i would have lost my shit. When working with only 10 yards there is not a lot you can do as far as route progression.

Now after saying that, i would have did a role out with a TE over the top and a RB or WR short at the goal line.

Reasons the slant didn't work and there are a few. Russ threw the ball high, that needed to be at waist level, Kearse got zero push on browner. He was stonewalled, Butler had a clean pass because Kearse got stone walled.