HawkShack.com

So basically what I see is while teams like SF, Denver, and other with great offenses do multiple things in every game as part of their game plan, like run, short passes, west cost, screens, long passes, crossing routes, quick hitters, red option, picks, etc we seem to only run one thing, example against AZ we were throwing long or trying to at any rate on most every series except the one we scored a td on. One would think a light bulb would go off saying wow when we do a many different things we are unstoppable, maybe we should mix it up. I mean we are basically one dimensional in our passing game right now. I am now more convinced than ever that the play calling is the biggest issue, followed by o-line.

It was ONE game... we lead the NFL is 20+ yard 'game changing plays". You have to throw long to do that. We have been applauding it all year.

It was ONE game.

You know Russell was at the VMAC at 4:30am today? He knows that he didn't play a good game, either.

It was ONE GAME.

FYI: it's early but the 2-13 Falcons are outplaying SF... any given Sunday...

js

jshawaii22 wrote:It was ONE game... we lead the NFL is 20+ yard 'game changing plays". You have to throw long to do that. We have been applauding it all year.

It was ONE game.

You know Russell was at the VMAC at 4:30am today? He knows that he didn't play a good game, either.

It was ONE GAME.

FYI: it's early but the 2-13 Falcons are outplaying SF... any given Sunday...

js

Yeah I know he was there and it was not one game, our offense has been off since NO and if you read some of the other threads I started you will know why. play calling has changed. We do throw down the field but usually 3-7 times a game and the rest we do other things, we did not do other thing this game except for the drive we scored on, the same can be said for the 2 before this. They have fallen in love with the long ball and it is killing us.

I agree.

We have been winning in spite of the play calling. It was worse yesterday.

Remember we were winning with a much more patched up OL.

I expect corrections and more diversity vs the Rams.

I'm not trying to be negitive. You're probably right as I don't watch the game from a technical viewpoint.

But you comment about how much 'better looking' San Francisco's offense is then ours... and how yesterday 'proves' that our offense is offensive... well then how do explain the first half of tonights Monday night game?

So we don't have a top ten offense. That should not be new news to anyone. IT's old news. You're going to have bad games. You're going to have New Orleans games. You just won't have them every game.

js

jshawaii22 wrote:I'm not trying to be negitive. You're probably right as I don't watch the game from a technical viewpoint.

But you comment about how much 'better looking' San Francisco's offense is then ours... and how yesterday 'proves' that our offense is offensive... well then how do explain the first half of tonights Monday night game?

So we don't have a top ten offense. That should not be new news to anyone. IT's old news. You're going to have bad games. You're going to have New Orleans games. You just won't have them every game.

js

My observation was not how much better than our SF offense looks, in fact I said "So basically what I see is while teams like SF, Denver, and other with great offenses do multiple things " Hmm Sf, Denver and others. As to the first half that was simple drops, and QB. The point I was getting at is simple look at the SF TD drive you saw runs, screens, deep throws, in between routes all in one drive, we did that once last game and we scored a TD and then never again. That was the point. We have become to reliant on the long ball, we are predictable and do not mix it up enough, and that is what made us dangeruss.

I hope our OC is watching the game both teams made adjustments, and both teams are utilizing multiple types of formations, and multiple types of patterns. I hope our OC watches. I also hope the NFL is watching and can see how bad the refs are.

You are so right...all we did was run, run, throw long, punt....no way we should have 4 ints and only score 10...

Maybe Bevell will get a HC job and we can get a hungry, creative OC.....

Play calling is the easiest of all subjects one can second guess, much more so than a 4th down decision, accepting or declining a penalty, or managing the clock. It's so obvious when the play doesn't work that there was probably a better option.

Russell played a bad game. He made some uncharacteristically poor decisions and he wasn't as sharp as he's been. The OL couldn't punch it in on two plays from inside the 5. Our fg kicker missed from xp range. Receivers couldn't get separation. Anytime the defense comes up with 4 interceptions and all the offense can manage is 10 points, there's far more things wrong than the play calling, and railing on Bevell excuses the rest of the team of their complicity.

RiverDog wrote:Play calling is the easiest of all subjects one can second guess, much more so than a 4th down decision, accepting or declining a penalty, or managing the clock. It's so obvious when the play doesn't work that there was probably a better option.

Russell played a bad game. He made some uncharacteristically poor decisions and he wasn't as sharp as he's been. The OL couldn't punch it in on two plays from inside the 5. Our fg kicker missed from xp range. Receivers couldn't get separation. Anytime the defense comes up with 4 interceptions and all the offense can manage is 10 points, there's far more things wrong than the play calling, and railing on Bevell excuses the rest of the team of their complicity.

I am not excusing anyone, I have said Rw played bad, the Wr played bad, etc, but I can tell you having done the analysis the play calling since NO has been awful, predictable, and only utilizing one type of passing offense except on rare occasions, which also coincide to when we score tds. So its not me laying blame on whats easy, its me flowing the facts to their natural conclusion, the play calling has been horrid.

I understand what you're saying, Anthony. The problem for Bevell is that he doesn't have a great receiving corps to work with. The front office recognized that weakness when they went out and got Harvin. Losing Rice early didn't help, either. With our top two receivers out, there is no one in our WR corps that demands special attention, so teams can afford to bring their safeties up into the box and man up on the tight end, shut down Lynch and the running game, press man-to-man on Tate and Baldwin, and dare Russell to beat them deep. You're not going to be able to throw a lot of underneath routes as your advocating with the secondary playing us as tight as they were, which is why you saw Russell throwing deep as often as he was, to try to hit on one or two of those and loosen things up some. It also explains why our tight ends haven't been as productive as they underneath is all clogged up. Defenses around the league seem to have figured out the read option, something that we made a lot of hay on last season. It hasn't been nearly as effective this year.

Don't expect Bevell to pull a rabbit out of the hat against the Rams, either. They've shut us down in our last 3 meetings. If our offense can manage 20 points and not commit any turnovers, I'll be ecstatic.

RiverDog wrote:I understand what you're saying, Anthony. The problem for Bevell is that he doesn't have a great receiving corps to work with. The front office recognized that weakness when they went out and got Harvin. Losing Rice early didn't help, either. With our top two receivers out, there is no one in our WR corps that demands special attention, so teams can afford to bring their safeties up into the box and man up on the tight end, shut down Lynch and the running game, press man-to-man on Tate and Baldwin, and dare Russell to beat them deep. You're not going to be able to throw a lot of underneath routes as your advocating with the secondary playing us as tight as they were, which is why you saw Russell throwing deep as often as he was, to try to hit on one or two of those and loosen things up some. It also explains why our tight ends haven't been as productive as they underneath is all clogged up. Defenses around the league seem to have figured out the read option, something that we made a lot of hay on last season. It hasn't been nearly as effective this year.

Don't expect Bevell to pull a rabbit out of the hat against the Rams, either. They've shut us down in our last 3 meetings. If our offense can manage 20 points and not commit any turnovers, I'll be ecstatic.

well for one we have not run much read option this year so we really do not know. As to the rest well we were doing very well prior to the last 3, and things changed after NO, and the thing I see is play calling, there are things you can do to help them, like I said quick hitters, screens, picks, bunch formations, there are things you can do, now will Bevel do them who knows but they can be done. Also being at the game I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive. IF they call plays like NO mixing it up with short, long, screens etc we will be fine, if they choose to do like they did against AZ and only play for one type of pass offense we will be in trouble.

I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive.

Of course it would be open if there were no receivers or TE's running routes to that area. My point is, how could you know that guys would be open on the shallow routes if they never ran them. The defense certainly is not going to cover an area where no offensive players are running to.

Vegaseahawk wrote:

I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive.

Of course it would be open if there were no receivers or TE's running routes to that area. My point is, how could you know that guys would be open on the shallow routes if they never ran them. The defense certainly is not going to cover an area where no offensive players are running to.

Yes, but one of the identified weaknesses of AZ was their susceptibility to TEs running crossing routes....Something that Bevell and Co. should have seen in game film and should have exposed. And if the AZ D shut it down, then you can take some shots. But the playcalling was predictable. I just don't buy that AZ shut down every facet of the offense....frankly, nothing was tried....The one time we had a nice, medium route we gained 10+ yards,.....then back to the run, run, long pass, punt routine....

I have a friend who is a long-time Vikings fan...said they saw the same thing...decent going through the season and then predictable towards the end....it's like Bevell is running scared of anyone getting hurt.

Anthony wrote:

RiverDog wrote:I understand what you're saying, Anthony. The problem for Bevell is that he doesn't have a great receiving corps to work with. The front office recognized that weakness when they went out and got Harvin. Losing Rice early didn't help, either. With our top two receivers out, there is no one in our WR corps that demands special attention, so teams can afford to bring their safeties up into the box and man up on the tight end, shut down Lynch and the running game, press man-to-man on Tate and Baldwin, and dare Russell to beat them deep. You're not going to be able to throw a lot of underneath routes as your advocating with the secondary playing us as tight as they were, which is why you saw Russell throwing deep as often as he was, to try to hit on one or two of those and loosen things up some. It also explains why our tight ends haven't been as productive as they underneath is all clogged up. Defenses around the league seem to have figured out the read option, something that we made a lot of hay on last season. It hasn't been nearly as effective this year.

Don't expect Bevell to pull a rabbit out of the hat against the Rams, either. They've shut us down in our last 3 meetings. If our offense can manage 20 points and not commit any turnovers, I'll be ecstatic.

well for one we have not run much read option this year so we really do not know. As to the rest well we were doing very well prior to the last 3, and things changed after NO, and the thing I see is play calling, there are things you can do to help them, like I said quick hitters, screens, picks, bunch formations, there are things you can do, now will Bevel do them who knows but they can be done. Also being at the game I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive. IF they call plays like NO mixing it up with short, long, screens etc we will be fine, if they choose to do like they did against AZ and only play for one type of pass offense we will be in trouble.

Actually we've run quite a bit of read option, it's just that we don't see Russell carrying it much. We've also thrown out of it a lot. Granted, we didn't see it a lot vs. Arizona, but if we haven't had any luck running it against other teams showing similar alignments that Arizona was showing, I can understand why we didn't go to it. It's a fact that no one is making a lot of yardage off the read option this season, certainly not to the same degree they were last year. There's no reason to believe that we'd have more success with it than teams like the Niners and Redskins have had if we just ran it more.

maybe they are trying not to expose what they CAN do in hopes of bringing it all out in the playoffs, lol! keeping it simple and making us appear 1 dimensional. It sure doesn't look that way to me but hey, ya never know??? if you did that though, it would be a huge gamble but, it would make the other teams not see, or forget, what is possible for this team. I know this is a long shot and a very unlikely scenario but i have also noticed the decline in plays being mixed up. It is also very hard to tell what exactly the plan was on most plays when Russel is running for his life all the time. just my 2 cents, lol!

Vegaseahawk wrote:

I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive.

Of course it would be open if there were no receivers or TE's running routes to that area. My point is, how could you know that guys would be open on the shallow routes if they never ran them. The defense certainly is not going to cover an area where no offensive players are running to.

I know what I saw, and I know during our TD they actually threw to the middle, and as I said it was open. Add to that maybe if they had some middle routes being run the long ones would have been more open. The point is the only time they tried it, it worked, no reason to think it would not have all game, or at least give them something else think bout, it s just plain stupid to not use whole field

Anthony wrote:

Vegaseahawk wrote:

I can tell you the middle of the field short 7-15 was open all day against AZ we just never ran any routes to utilize it except for 1 drive.

Of course it would be open if there were no receivers or TE's running routes to that area. My point is, how could you know that guys would be open on the shallow routes if they never ran them. The defense certainly is not going to cover an area where no offensive players are running to.

I know what I saw, and I know during our TD they actually threw to the middle, and as I said it was open. Add to that maybe if they had some middle routes being run the long ones would have been more open. The point is the only time they tried it, it worked, no reason to think it would not have all game, or at least give them something else think bout, it s just plain stupid to not use whole field

Anthony, you see the game at a whole other level than I do. I get your point. Again, the only reason that they might be sandbagging is to use the whole playbook in the playoffs, & not provide film for upcoming opponents to look at. I think that is really stupid, but what other reason could there be?

Vegaseahawk wrote:

Anthony, you see the game at a whole other level than I do. I get your point. Again, the only reason that they might be sandbagging is to use the whole playbook in the playoffs, & not provide film for upcoming opponents to look at. I think that is really stupid, but what other reason could there be?

You could be right but guess what? Now the playoffs start this Sunday, so no more holding back.

Anthony wrote:

Vegaseahawk wrote:

Anthony, you see the game at a whole other level than I do. I get your point. Again, the only reason that they might be sandbagging is to use the whole playbook in the playoffs, & not provide film for upcoming opponents to look at. I think that is really stupid, but what other reason could there be?

You could be right but guess what? Now the playoffs start this Sunday, so no more holding back.

I agree 100%. The playoffs start this Sunday. This is a hugely important game for us. If they have been holding something back, they need to pull out all the stops for this game. We have to play like there's no tomorrow.

RiverDog wrote:

Anthony wrote:

Vegaseahawk wrote:

Anthony, you see the game at a whole other level than I do. I get your point. Again, the only reason that they might be sandbagging is to use the whole playbook in the playoffs, & not provide film for upcoming opponents to look at. I think that is really stupid, but what other reason could there be?

You could be right but guess what? Now the playoffs start this Sunday, so no more holding back.

I agree 100%. The playoffs start this Sunday. This is a hugely important game for us. If they have been holding something back, they need to pull out all the stops for this game. We have to play like there's no tomorrow.

Agreed

Anthony wrote:You could be right but guess what? Now the playoffs start this Sunday, so no more holding back.

Amen Anthony!
This is it for us! This Sunday its time to put up or shut up. Our defense I am not worried about, its our offense that has to get points on the board. We score 24 points a game and we win every single game including the SB from here on out.

There's a reason you don't see many crossing routes, slants or use of the middle in our offense - Russell Wilson's height is a big factor here. It's just the reality of it.

He does a great job of finding throwing lanes and seeing the field, but the middle is the one place where his vertical limitation shows up a bit.

Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:There's a reason you don't see many crossing routes, slants or use of the middle in our offense - Russell Wilson's height is a big factor here. It's just the reality of it.

He does a great job of finding throwing lanes and seeing the field, but the middle is the one place where his vertical limitation shows up a bit.

Hey Greg I have to disagree as we have used them a lot in games were we scored a lot, They just for some reason are calling the game ultra conservative in some games and I am not sure why. Brees uses them a lot as well and he is all of 1 inch taller than RW, its not a height thing, its a change to the offense thing.

As I laid out in another thread hear are the differences

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% from 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%


There has been a change a big one for some reason, but it needs to stop here.

I agree completely Anthony. In the AZ game the Hawks came out and went for the kill shot immediately and missed badly. They kept trying to land the haymaker all day. I recall that in AZ they hit it to Rice which set the tone for that win. But with the defensive squad they were facing they needed to be keeping the chains moving and they definitely werent doing it. On the last *int* it was the same thing, a 30 yard throw when there were numerous other options open underneath. They had a timeout and over 2 minutes on the clock, time was not an issue. MOF the last thing they wanted was a super quick score and putting their gassed defense back on the field with time remaining on the clock.Terrible call be damned they shouldnt have been in the position in the first place.

Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:There's a reason you don't see many crossing routes, slants or use of the middle in our offense - Russell Wilson's height is a big factor here. It's just the reality of it.

He does a great job of finding throwing lanes and seeing the field, but the middle is the one place where his vertical limitation shows up a bit.

Not only is it Russell's lower launching point, it's the lower ending point. Our wide receivers are Tate (5'10"), Baldwin (5'10") and Kearse (6'1"). Take a look at what the league's other notable short quarterback, Drew Brees, has for a receiving corps: Colston (6'4"), Mecham (6'2") and Graham (6'7"). And in case you're wondering, Percy Harvin is 5'11". Our only big WR, 6'4" Sidney Rice, is obviously absent, and it shows in our inability to run routes across the middle.

RiverDog wrote:

Irish Greg 2.0 wrote:There's a reason you don't see many crossing routes, slants or use of the middle in our offense - Russell Wilson's height is a big factor here. It's just the reality of it.

He does a great job of finding throwing lanes and seeing the field, but the middle is the one place where his vertical limitation shows up a bit.

Not only is it Russell's lower launching point, it's the lower ending point. Our wide receivers are Tate (5'10"), Baldwin (5'10") and Kearse (6'1"). Take a look at what the league's other notable short quarterback, Drew Brees, has for a receiving corps: Colston (6'4"), Mecham (6'2") and Graham (6'7"). And in case you're wondering, Percy Harvin is 5'11". Our only big WR, 6'4" Sidney Rice, is obviously absent, and it shows in our inability to run routes across the middle.

while I do not totally agree with all of this, I do agree we have one if the shortest wr corps in the nfl and that does not help.

It seems to me, that when this offense is really cooking it isn't the short routes or the long balls that are garnering the success, it is the intermediate routes this offense thrives on, a BIG part of that is the threat of Wilson and Lynch running the ball, I personally do not feel it is coincidence that the fall off of the running production ( and I am not picking on a specific player here) has hampered severely the ability to find those gaps in the intermediate routes. Creating a void between the LBS and safeties is key for this offense to function properly, and the last three games it has been missing. IMHO even the threat of Wilson and Lynch running successfully changes the course of the offense's ability to. Be successful. Wilson HAS to occasionally run the ball, Lynch HAS to pound them more than 11 or so times a game and they HAVE to have some success doing so.

HumanCockroach wrote:It seems to me, that when this offense is really cooking it isn't the short routes or the long balls that are garnering the success, it is the intermediate routes this offense thrives on, a BIG part of that is the threat of Wilson and Lynch running the ball, I personally do not feel it is coincidence that the fall off of the running production ( and I am not picking on a specific player here) has hampered severely the ability to find those gaps in the intermediate routes. Creating a void between the LBS and safeties is key for this offense to function properly, and the last three games it has been missing. IMHO even the threat of Wilson and Lynch running successfully changes the course of the offense's ability to. Be successful. Wilson HAS to occasionally run the ball, Lynch HAS to pound them more than 11 or so times a game and they HAVE to have some success doing so.

excellent observation and I do agree that is a huge part of it.