I don't think any teams are gonna take Bevell

[chf]

I would a scratch my head in celebration .. If the opposition had Beast mode on the 1 yard line with 3 play's to pound it in with the title on the line, I would a sent a thank you letter to the opposing coach for giving Sherman that opportunity....

Kind of ironic really, because if NE was going to beat Seattle, it was with Brady throwing the ball. This year in the playoffs, NE couldn't gain a 1st down via the run to save their lives.

 

[MKHawk]

A slant there against that defensive alignment is a high percentage play. Just tip your hat to butler and move on. If Richard Sherman made that play we would go on and on about how it was a ballsy, gritty and smart play.

If we had Tom Brady throwing the slant to Julian Edelman, that's a completely different story. If Sherman steps in front of it and picks it off, then yes, it's frustrating as hell, but we would have put our best foot forward and simply gotten beat. That's not what happened in XLIX.

 

[MKHawk]

We've been over this ground before, and doubtless will again, but you can run the slant 100 times, and get the same result maybe 2 or 3 times (INTC).

Heck even if you give Butler the leeway to guess correctly every time out, he STILL only knocks that ball down most of the time.

Either our QB is what all his critics say he is (horribly over-rated), or entrusting him to throw a slant isn't a 'complete failure.'

Now having said that MK, I give you full marks for at least recognizing that a pass in that situation was the proper thing to do.

They need 1 yard to win the Super Bowl, you call what you do best in that situation. That's not a slant pass. Not with this offense and those players. That's why I say it was a complete failure: it's not playing to the players' strengths, and there's no reason not to in that situation.

Also, I give you full marks for acknowledging there were countless better pass play options the coaching staff could and should have went with over the slant pass.

 

[chf]

They need 1 yard to win the Super Bowl, you call what you do best in that situation. That's not a slant pass. Not with this offense and those players. That's why I say it was a complete failure: it's not playing to the players' strengths, and there's no reason not to in that situation.

Also, I give you full marks for acknowledging there were countless better pass play options the coaching staff could and should have went with over the slant pass.

And 95 times out of a hundred, it's incomplete, and we have 3rd and 4th down with the clock stopped.

Only in hindsight is it a complete failure.

But yep, in my mind I was expecting them to get Russ to the edge, much like that play against the Cardinals.

 

[MKHawk]

I guess I see it as, if there are a handful of plays that would have substantially higher success rates in that situation, it's a failure to call the play with the much lower expected success rate.

Do what you do best in that situation. Don't get cute. Caroll, Bevell, et al got cute.

 

[chf]

I guess I see it as, if there are a handful of plays that would have substantially higher success rates in that situation, it's a failure to call the play with the much lower expected success rate.

Do what you do best in that situation. Don't get cute. Caroll, Bevell, et al got cute.

And if they'd called a halfback pass or something like that, then I'd agree with the bolded emphasis. But AGAIN, a slant isn't exactly a high risk play. If our supposed top 5 QB is indeed top 5 ,then that's a play that is simply in your go to list.

I suppose we're quibbling on what the definition of 'substantial' is.

The rate of INTC on slant passes has to be pretty small. Are we talking substantial in terms of probability, where the difference of a tenth of a % point is significant? Or are we talking about something meaningful in a risk/reward sense?

I suspect it's the former, because according to the later, a slant play doesn't come close to being 'horrible' or close to the 'worst call in NFL playoff history.' (both descriptors been floated a lot)

 

[MrS]

We hadnt run slants all year, and to throw it to your worst receiver? its was clearly a cute playcall they thought would work because we never call it. Horrible call, it will go down in history

 

[MKHawk]

And if they'd called a halfback pass or something like that, then I'd agree with the bolded emphasis. But AGAIN, a slant isn't exactly a high risk play. If our supposed top 5 QB is indeed top 5 ,then that's a play that is simply in your go to list.

I suppose we're quibbling on what the definition of 'substantial' is.

The rate of INTC on slant passes has to be pretty small. Are we talking substantial in terms of probability, where the difference of a tenth of a % point is significant? Or are we talking about something meaningful in a risk/reward sense?

I suspect it's the former, because according to the later, a slant play doesn't come close to being 'horrible' or close to the 'worst call in NFL playoff history.' (both descriptors been floated a lot)

What I mean by cute in this instance is instead of going with a play that played to the team's strengths, they tried to fool the Patriots. I disagree with that philosophy in that situation.

 

[chf]

We hadnt run slants all year, and to throw it to your worst receiver? its was clearly a cute playcall they thought would work because we never call it. Horrible call, it will go down in history

Yes we did run slants.

Good grief people, you don't get to make up your own reality.

 

[chf]

What I mean by cute in this instance is instead of going with a play that played to the team's strengths, they tried to fool the Patriots. I disagree with that philosophy in that situation.

So in the chess match they lost. That's a far cry from 'worst call in NFL history,' or whatever other hyperbolic phrase is getting thrown around lately.

 

[jerseyhawksfan79]

I'm just restating things that have already been said. I was initially one of those people who wondered why we didn't just run the ball there and it made me mad that we didn't, but after I cooled off and had time to think about it, this argument made the most sense to me. Passing on 2nd down was the right move, it just should have been a different pass play that was called. When you're that close to the end zone, there are just too many bodies close and in the middle of the field for a slant not to be a risky call. A fade would have been preferable, or a rollout where Wilson either throws the ball where only our guys could get it, he throws it out of bounds if nobody's open or, if he's got nobody in front of him, he takes off and runs it in himself. They went with the riskier pass play and New England executed their defense of it perfectly.

Agreed. A slant pass on the one is very high risk when multiple of different play calls can be considered much lower risk. Oh well, what could have been.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

You're right. Throwing it at Sherman is much different than throwing it at a guy that nobody knew existed before that moment.

Point stands though. Pass, run, whatever... a great play is a great play. Butler made a great play.

I agree Butler made a great play... I still don't like Bevell though... If he leaves I will be a happy person..

 

[dude82]

I agree Butler made a great play... I still don't like Bevell though... If he leaves I will be a happy person..

I think it's gonna be a while before you're happy then. I don't think he's going anywhere as long as Carroll's there and his offenses keep finishing in the top 10 in either yards, points or both.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

I think it's gonna be a while before you're happy then. I don't think he's going anywhere as long as Carroll's there and his offenses keep finishing in the top 10 in either yards, points or both.

Pete does have a loyalty to his coaching staff... He's proven that in the past ... I just don't think any offers are gonna comes Bevell's way .... So we probably are stuck with him for now...

 

[MKHawk]

Yes we did run slants.

Good grief people, you don't get to make up your own reality.

Yeah, we absolutely had run slants before. I don't think we had run them from such a tight alignment in the past, but we usually were running them from further out than the 1.

My issue wasn't that we didn't run them ever, but that we usually didn't run them crisply. That and it wasn't putting any of the players involved in a position to play to any of their strengths.

 

[chf]

Yeah, we absolutely had run slants before. I don't think we had run them from such a tight alignment in the past, but we usually were running them from further out than the 1.

My issue wasn't that we didn't run them ever, but that we usually didn't run them crisply. That and it wasn't putting any of the players involved in a position to play to any of their strengths.

Which is why NOBODY except Butler (and Browner I guess) saw that play coming. So in the chess match, it was definitely advantage Seahawks. To you that's getting 'cute.' I simply disagree. We've been running our O based on going against type for ages now, in fact our entire run game has been predicated on it.

The last time as a team that we lined up mano a' mano and ran our plays when the D knew what was coming was Alexander running behind Walt and Huck Futchinson.

I'll continue to bang the drum that we're actually not good at that now, and haven't been for going on three seasons now. Yes Lynch has been a 'beast,' but the dirty little secret is that he's been beastly when running downhill against spread out fronts designed to keep Wilson in check.

Against stacked fronts, he's been more kittenish.

It's selective memory that we've ignored those results, and just remembered the plays where the contact he's shrugging off is DB's and safeties, once he's got a full head of steam.

Again though, Wilson puts so much stress on a D when he moves, that in that down and distance, I was STILL hoping for a rollout. In HINDSIGHT, I was right.

Maybe Bulter/Browner read that and guess right if Bevell calls that too. Browner strip sacks Russ, and we lose that way.

Sometimes guys make plays.

If a certain GB tight end makes a routine play, we don't even get the chance to have our hearts ripped out.

 

[MKHawk]

Which is why NOBODY except Butler (and Browner I guess) saw that play coming. So in the chess match, it was definitely advantage Seahawks. To you that's getting 'cute.' I simply disagree. We've been running our O based on going against type for ages now, in fact our entire run game has been predicated on it.

The last time as a team that we lined up mano a' mano and ran our plays when the D knew what was coming was Alexander running behind Walt and Huck Futchinson.

I'll continue to bang the drum that we're actually not good at that now, and haven't been for going on three seasons now. Yes Lynch has been a 'beast,' but the dirty little secret is that he's been beastly when running downhill against spread out fronts designed to keep Wilson in check.

Against stacked fronts, he's been more kittenish.

It's selective memory that we've ignored those results, and just remembered the plays where the contact he's shrugging off is DB's and safeties, once he's got a full head of steam.

Again though, Wilson puts so much stress on a D when he moves, that in that down and distance, I was STILL hoping for a rollout. In HINDSIGHT, I was right.

Maybe Bulter/Browner read that and guess right if Bevell calls that too. Browner strip sacks Russ, and we lose that way.

Sometimes guys make plays.

If a certain GB tight end makes a routine play, we don't even get the chance to have our hearts ripped out.

Honestly, we don't disagree nearly as much as we're making it seem. We both wanted the same play: rollout pass. We disagree on how good or bad the slant playcall was (pre-outcome, as it was obviously terrible post-outcome), and at this point we'll never find any further common ground.

If we had lost by the bolded? I'd be pissed, but not at the coaching staff. It would have been a solid call that simply got beat. I just disagree that the slant call was the same.

 

[chf]

Honestly, we don't disagree nearly as much as we're making it seem. We both wanted the same play: rollout pass. We disagree on how good or bad the slant playcall was (pre-outcome, as it was obviously terrible post-outcome), and at this point we'll never find any further common ground.

If we had lost by the bolded? I'd be pissed, but not at the coaching staff. It would have been a solid call that simply got beat. I just disagree that the slant call was the same.

Well we're disagreeing about degree. I get that. Don't have a problem saying that there were other calls that probably work out differently.

What I have trouble with is when we veer into 'worst' or 'egregious' or 'horrible' or ________ insert adjective here territory.

No need to gild the lilly.

The only way you can get to that territory is by hindsight, or by assuming that Wilson sucks.

 

[SonnyCID]

Pete does have a loyalty to his coaching staff... He's proven that in the past ... I just don't think any offers are gonna comes Bevell's way .... So we probably are stuck with him for now...

It's not about loyalty. It's about success. production and continuity. Remember, Bevell was not Carroll's first OC, Bates was.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

It's not about loyalty. It's about success. production and continuity. Remember, Bevell was not Carroll's first OC, Bates was.

Pete does show loyalty to his coaching staff ... That's his personality ... It wouldn't surprise me if he hires Sark one day..