Should Pete Have Fired Bevell After The SB?

[Hawktown]

sort of like all the people who were bashing Wilson should feel.

your welcome to that opinion but criticism was well deserved at the time whether you liked it or not. I still say they should have fired Bevel! Sorry sis!

[Zorn76]

I'm not trying to sway anybody's opinion with mine, nor am I concerned if anybody agrees with it.
I'm just expressing it like anybody else.

[kalibane]

Again, it's really easy to say all of that from the comfort of the couch....isn't it? What would you really do? How many games would your regime win? Just look at the success we've had with THIS philosophy in THIS decade with THESE leaders, until we have a few mediocre seasons in a row, I'm standing pat.

If you take this position to it's logical conclusion it means that we shouldn't criticize or call for removal of anyone we can't do a better job than personally. It's the ultimate logical fallacy. Is that the world you want to live in?

[c_hawkbob]

Again, it's really easy to say all of that from the comfort of the couch....isn't it? What would you really do? How many games would your regime win? Just look at the success we've had with THIS philosophy in THIS decade with THESE leaders, until we have a few mediocre seasons in a row, I'm standing pat.

If you take this position to it's logical conclusion it means that we shouldn't criticize or call for removal of anyone we can't do a better job than personally. It's the ultimate logical fallacy. Is that the world you want to live in?

I take it to mean we shouldn't call for the removal of anyone that is in an ongoing run of Super Bowl appearances. And I agree. It makes no sense to want to break up staff that is still yearly giving us the opportunity of having the ultimate success.

[Hawktown]

I take it to mean we shouldn't call for the removal of anyone that is in an ongoing run of Super Bowl appearances. And I agree. It makes no sense to want to break up staff that is still yearly giving us the opportunity of having the ultimate success.

Some of us believe that Bevfool is what is holding this team up at times, very important times at that. So to me, it does make A LOT of sense to remove a part that is not quite up to par if there is at least a (hopefully) better option available. Not mid season, but after the last SB, he should have been replaced. We have changed DC's what twice now? That worked out pretty well with the change from Gus Bradly as well as Quinn, so it is not exactly going to kill the hawks to change a coach that is clearly too predictable at times. By saying at times, I am being REALLY generous.

This is not to mention the other coaching changes to happen to start THIS season. I think there were at least 4 or so.

[kalibane]

The point is Bob it's a convenient statement to make when it suits your position, but when taken to it's natural conclusion it's exposed for a fallacious argument. Collective success does not mean each individual should be immune from criticism or replacement if there is a better option. That goes for sports, politics business or any other professional field.

I haven't been in on the pitchfork brigade for Bevell personally (though I wouldn't be moved to tears if he was replaced either). And there is something to be said for consistency, but there are legitimate criticisms of Bevell's play calling that extend back to before the Seahawks went to a Super Bowl (I know because I used to defend him more often than not on Seahawk Blue).

You would obviously have to gauge how the team would react to such a change, but the idea that team success means no changes can be made is not an intelligent argument. The Patriots are living proof of that.

[RiverDog]

I take it to mean we shouldn't call for the removal of anyone that is in an ongoing run of Super Bowl appearances. And I agree. It makes no sense to want to break up staff that is still yearly giving us the opportunity of having the ultimate success.

You can go to that well in the defense of just about anything, from cutting players to changing our uniform scheme. No one short of Pete Carroll should be judged as 'safe' based solely on the fact that we have an ongoing run of SB appearances.

A number of people on this board and elsewhere, including members in our locker room, that had major misgivings about Bevell's performance long before that infamous play call in SB 49. There is something to be said for continuity and overall success, but it should be one factor, not the factor, in whether or not Bevell or anyone else on the staff is retained.

[Hawktawk]

If Bevell had been fired after the week ten loss as I advocated I hardly believe it would be clicking like it is. We can debate what should or would or could have happened but what is is whats most important.
This team has the most historically hot offense in team history, the hottest QB in the last month in NFL history. The single season Seahawks TD pass record is within reach. Seattle is primed for a deep playoff run.

I think those of us who called for Bevel's head will be glad he stuck around this year. And those who called for not paying Wilson ought to be thanking their lucky stars the deal got made. With whats going on with his game Wilson would have entered this off season as the hottest FA prospect in NFL history.I think he would have anyway.

Bottom line is the script for 2015 isn't written yet and it keeps changing for the better.

[RiverDog]

If Bevell had been fired after the week ten loss as I advocated I hardly believe it would be clicking like it is. We can debate what should or would or could have happened but what is is whats most important.
This team has the most historically hot offense in team history, the hottest QB in the last month in NFL history. The single season Seahawks TD pass record is within reach. Seattle is primed for a deep playoff run.

I think those of us who called for Bevel's head will be glad he stuck around this year. And those who called for not paying Wilson ought to be thanking their lucky stars the deal got made. With whats going on with his game Wilson would have entered this off season as the hottest FA prospect in NFL history.I think he would have anyway.

Bottom line is the script for 2015 isn't written yet and it keeps changing for the better.

I didn't advocate that Bevell be fired in Week 10. Bad timing. If it were going to be done, it should have been done sometime after the SB and before the start of the free agency signing period.

I agree with you about paying Russell. It was a fair deal and solidified our future. The fact that he had a slow start earlier and is now on a record setting pace changes nothing about my opinion of signing him to the contract we did. Even in our lowest valley this season, I never doubted the wisdom of that signing.

As far as the 2015 script goes, yes, it's getting better. But considering how bad the script was 4 weeks ago, that's not saying much. We lose 2 of our last three and that nice 4 game winning streak won't mean much, and even if we do win out, that horrible start to the season could very well come back to haunt us. As you said, the 2015 script is still a work in progress. Although I hope it does, I'm not betting my paycheck that it will turn out with a storybook ending.

[obiken]

The problem is River who do you get? Look at the learning curve on Richards ad DC.

[Seahawks4Ever]

I am glad that Bevel FINALLY figured out that calling bubble screen after bubble screen wasn't working, also, I am glad that he figured out Wilson needed to take short 3 step drop backs and use his quick release to get the ball out of his hands. This also meant that Wilson had to grow too but he couldn't do it while he was running for his life.

We all know that Wilson many times was his own worst enemy when he bailed out of the pocket when he didn't have to, and he also caused some of the sacks he suffered by holding the ball too long. I am glad that Wilson has become that pocket passer that people like me had started to doubt he could become. One thing that has helped tremendously is that Bevel is no longer automatically putting Wilson into the "shot gun" formation on 1st. down. Wilson is much better under center where he can go "play action pass" to take full advantage of out effective running game. Before, Bevell was wasting our great ground game by putting Wilson into the shot gun formation too often. I don't know if Bevell figured it out on his own or somebody had to draw him a picture but his play calling has been much better and suits the talent we have on the team.

I just wish he would have done it earlier, like, maybe a couple of seasons ago. I just hope he doesn't revert back because he has done that before too. I will climb down off of Bevell's back as long as he is doing the job he is paid to do, Russell Wilson is comfortable with him and he is the only OC he has played for since he came in to the NFL.

[NorthHawk]

The problem is River who do you get? Look at the learning curve on Richards ad DC.

That would be the biggest question.
What OC would want to come to an organization where he reports to the OL coach who also is responsible for the run game, not to mention the philosophy of conservatism on Offense can really frustrate some of the more creative minds.
It's not a bad place to be, on a winning franchise with a great young QB, but it could be too restraining for a lot of potential OCs.

[RiverDog]

The problem is River who do you get? Look at the learning curve on Richards ad DC.

That was one of my prerequisites for firing Bevell, obi, that we had a good OC already in mind. I don't know who all would have fit here or if they would have been willing to coach here, but here's the list of current OC's that were hired this season:

Greg Roman, Bills
Chan Gailey, Jets
Mark Trestman, Ravens
John DiFilippo, Browns
George Godsey, Texans
Greg Olson, Jags
Rick Dennison, Broncos
Bill Musgrave, Raiders
Adam Gase, Bears
Edgar Bennett, Packers
Kyle Shanahan, Falcons
Dick Koetter, Bucs
Geep Kryst, Niners

I'm not advocating that we should have hired any of those guys, but the fact that there was 13 coordinators hired in just one year, about 40% of all the OC's in the league, shows just how large the turnover is and how it wouldn't have been outrageous for us to fire Bevell and shouldn't have required a huge process to find a replacement. Seattle would have been a lot better job than most of not all of the places on that list, so we should have been able to get one of the top coordinators available. Most have HC aspirations, and they're going to get a lot more attention coaching for us than someplace like Cleveland or Oakland.

[Hawk Sista]

"Again, it's really easy to say all of that from the comfort of the couch....isn't it? What would you really do? How many games would your regime win? Just look at the success we've had with THIS philosophy in THIS decade with THESE leaders, until we have a few mediocre seasons in a row, I'm standing pat." ME

"If you take this position to it's logical conclusion it means that we shouldn't criticize or call for removal of anyone we can't do a better job than personally. It's the ultimate logical fallacy. Is that the world you want to live in?" Kal

You have taken one line from a series of posts in this thread, from two decades of my evolving yet consistent messages and have painted me as a fool, Kal. No - that Is not really a world I want to live in. You failed to add the very next line where I said:

That's not to say one can't have a different perspective

Sometimes it feels like you just want to be the smartest kid in class... It may be a fallacious argument when taken out of context, but it clearly isn't the complete context of the messaging from me on this subject. (Actually, not even in the post.)

The point is Bob it's a convenient statement to make when it suits your position, but when taken to it's natural conclusion it's exposed for a fallacious argument. Collective success does not mean each individual should be immune from criticism or replacement if there is a better option. That goes for sports, politics business or any other professional field.

Convenient when it suits me? I have been VERY consistent on this. Feel free to fact check if you must (i'm sure there is evidence to the contrary) In large measure, though, I have always said, whether we are winning or not, that it is silly to think one of us knows how to do John Schneider's job. NONE of us here has worked in professional football. I meet with people regularly who suggest remedial remedies to very complex issues of which they know nothing. So perhaps my views are tainted by these experiences?? Maybe. But, I have also consistently said that we are here in this forum is debate and discuss our differences. And, at the very same time, when someone takes an uber sharp and critical stance about which week should have been the only week to make move X or to fire person Y, I'm gonna call BS every time. To know me is to know that I have been critical of the staff and players. One only needs to follow a game thread when I am emotional to know this. Then I simmer down and see the bigger picture and realize that there are ups, downs, and averages....& that the philosophy that sometimes takes us back a step or two has also propelled us to the most successful era in franchise history.

[NorthHawk]

For a number of us it's not in our nature to be only cheerleaders, rather we tend to point out what we see as shortcomings. That's not to say we don't cheer for the team, but we often strive to improve areas of concern.
The drive to have all facets of the team play well is (in my case) because of the short window that teams have to build a legacy. With there being a fuster cluck in the most important part of the most important game of the year, many of us will ask questions and some come to the conclusion that changes are needed. Others see a trend that can improve an area and come to conclusions of required changes while others see no problems because it worked in the past.

[HumanCockroach]

Yep. Bevell is that crazy @#$ girlfriend that keeps finding a way into your good graces over and over again. You swear your done with her, and than a month later your picking out China patterns, until the next psychotic episode....

[c_hawkbob]

The point is Bob it's a convenient statement to make when it suits your position, but when taken to it's natural conclusion it's exposed for a fallacious argument. Collective success does not mean each individual should be immune from criticism or replacement if there is a better option. That goes for sports, politics business or any other professional field.

I haven't been in on the pitchfork brigade for Bevell personally (though I wouldn't be moved to tears if he was replaced either). And there is something to be said for consistency, but there are legitimate criticisms of Bevell's play calling that extend back to before the Seahawks went to a Super Bowl (I know because I used to defend him more often than not on Seahawk Blue).

You would obviously have to gauge how the team would react to such a change, but the idea that team success means no changes can be made is not an intelligent argument. The Patriots are living proof of that.

"Natural conclusion"

Is an assumption you are using to support your argument. How convenient. You don't truly know what a situation's natural conclusion is until it in fact reaches that conclusion. And since no two situations are exactly the same that natural conclusion is going to be different in each instance.

"Collective success does not mean each individual should be immune from criticism or replacement if there is a better option"

Is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Mine is that during the course of that success, especially if it's a degree of success that is resulting in annual SB appearances reactionary replacement of key individuals over a single incident (in this discussion the play at the end of the Super Bowl) is more dangerous than than the replacement of key individuals who's departure was beyond your control. Change is unavoidable in the NFL and while what you are doing is working I believe it to be better limit that change as much as practical. Less change is obviously more easily controllable. I'm all for replacement of any component with a better option if that option is the blatantly obvious better choice or if the change is forced upon you, but while things are going so well overall I'm against change for the sake of change.

It's possible to disagree with someone and express your own opinion without having to declare their opinion "fallacious" because it runs afoul of an assumption you are using as a cornerstone truth in your own argument.

[Hawktown]

Is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Mine is that during the course of that success, especially if it's a degree of success that is resulting in annual SB appearances reactionary replacement of key individuals over a single incident (in this discussion the play at the end of the Super Bowl) is more dangerous than than the replacement of key individuals who's departure was beyond your control. Change is unavoidable in the NFL and while what you are doing is working I believe it to be better limit that change as much as practical. Less change is obviously more easily controllable. I'm all for replacement of any component with a better option if that option is the blatantly obvious better choice or if the change is forced upon you, but while things are going so well overall I'm against change for the sake of change.

It's possible to disagree with someone and express your own opinion without having to declare their opinion "fallacious" because it runs afoul of an assumption you are using as a cornerstone truth in your own argument.

Sorry Bob, but I don't think that this stems JUST from the final play of SB49. It seems to me that a lot of people were calling for bevfools head even before our SB run. I would hardly call this reactionary by ANY means and by no means stemming from an individual incident. Less change is obviously better but if there is a week link, like Bevfool, from the get go, then they should have addressed it a long time ago. If it is pete who enforces putrid offense then Pete has some explaining to do, but Pete is not the one calling plays. If it is Bevfool that was/is not allowing RW to call an audible at the line then it is Bevfool who should be punished for being STUPID and pete should be held responsible to not allow Bevfool to hold RW back! Fire the man when the season is done!

[Hawk Sista]

It's a good debate. Is Bevel the right guy to lead this team as the OC? Some think not and there is evidence to support this thinking. I'm of the mind that since he's been here, we have had our most successful run, so I'm not of a mind to remove him from his post. I've yelled at him on Sunday's, to be sure, but big picture thinking leads me to believe that even losing horrifically in SB49 was more successful than any year in our team's history but the one before it. (Maybe 2005 had the zebras held on to their hankies a little.) The previous three seasons together with the way this 4th team is rounding into form and I have concluded that I vote to keep Bevel and Cable.

My position points include detail like P, J, Tom etc. have a specific plan within the confines of a system more complex than the average fan knows and their plan in not public. Their plan takes institutional knowledge and expertise to fully see. Because I choose to believe these things does not mean that no discussion or criticism can come their way or that there can be no discussion. It's just how I believe.

That I choose not to throw in the towel after 1/2 a season is, like Bob says, my choice. I have largely chosen to wait patiently for lanes to start opening before running into the teeth of defenders. And looky here, we do have a legit shot at a 4th straight post-season indeed. Bevfool has gone from dunce to genius? Cable is still dumb for not making the move to Lewis sooner? I'm not of the mind to say yes to either. I think that a big part of Pete's philosophy means we have to suffer though some of the stuff at the beginning of the year, particularly when 3/5 of the linemen were new, Kam was gone, Maxi was gone, Earl wasn't Earl etc. I think that if you take the good (all the wins & post season trips + two SBs, one Lombardi and being viewed as one of the best teams of the era) then I have to take the lumps that go with that. It's probably fallacious, but it's how I feel.

Thanks, Bob. I appreciate the points you've made. I shouldn't spend so much time being defensive. I did, however, stop short of picking nits and getting out my philosophy 101 book. Can I get a sticker for that??

[c_hawkbob]

Fire the man when the season is done!

Unless we reach the Super Bowl again

[c_hawkbob]

And as far as firing Bevell being a reactionary decision, I recognize that many were calling for exactly that before last years SB, but if you read the OP for this thread Dog clearly points this discussion in that direction.

And yes Sis, here's a gold star!

[Hawktawk]

Baldwin said in early November that the offense was going to begin transitioning away from Beast and the read option to an offense featuring Wilson and that the receivers were ready to accept an increased role. He sounds prophetic now.

Bevell has had an intricate task over the past few years blending an unconventional QB with an enigmatic superstar running back. For whatever reason the explosion in the offense has coincided with the ball being in Russell's hands. I anticipate the beast will be back in a couple of weeks and it will be interesting to see the direction the play calling takes.

I think its going to be the Wilson show in Seattle for quite a few years now.

[RiverDog]

And as far as firing Bevell being a reactionary decision, I recognize that many were calling for exactly that before last years SB, but if you read the OP for this thread Dog clearly points this discussion in that direction.

And yes Sis, here's a gold star!

I said that I wasn't on the fire Bevell bandwagon until after the SB. That doesn't mean that he had my unqualified 100% support prior to that game.

I've always felt that Bevell was a marginal OC and up until then I felt about him much like you do now, that our overall success did not justify firing him. There were a number of things he did that I didn't like well before SB 49, particularly the Percy Harvin trade, of which he must have been a primary advocate of. But that one call in SB49 was the straw...a huge straw...that broke the camel's back, and was unforgivable IMO.

Sis, you'll always get a gold star from me, whether or not I agree with what you say.

[c_hawkbob]

I said that I wasn't on the fire Bevell bandwagon until after the SB. That doesn't mean that he had my unqualified 100% support prior to that game.

And no one said you claimed he did. What you did was clearly frame your question in light of that final call in the SB. I never tried to make it seem any more than that.

[Hawk Sista]

And yes Sis, here's a gold star!

Merci Beaucoup

Sis, you'll always get a gold star from me, whether or not I agree with what you say. - RiverDog

And I love everyone in here too. I had me a panic attack when the site went down. Disagreeing is all a part of it, ain't no thang. (sorry - OT here) Are you doing better??

[RiverDog]

And no one said you claimed he did. What you did was clearly frame your question in light of that final call in the SB. I never tried to make it seem any more than that.

What I was quibbling with you was your characterization of my call to fire Bevell after the SB a 'reactionary decision', which I took to mean a knee jerk, spontaneous decision based soley on that one event. If that's not how you meant it, then you have my humble apology.

[c_hawkbob]

I still call it reactionary, and by definition it was, the evidence is right in the title of the thread.

Difference is that you seem to be taking "reactionary" as an insult, it was not.

Sometimes reactionary is appropriate: Pete letting Harris go after this last game is absolutely reactionary. I just do not feel a reactionary firing of a Coordinator after even a SB losing call to be appropriate*. It's OK for us to disagree on that point, but it doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

edit* just to clarify: "not appropriate" while we are having this level of success, not "never appropriate".

[Hawktown]

I call it more of a final straw than reactionary. But hey, if one event after hundreds of others, you are free to think reactionary if you would like but that is the exact opposite of reactionary, IMO. Harris did TERRIBLE in that game, that may be more reactionary than firing Bevfool but it is obvious that he is not the guy for the job, kina like Bevfool toward the beginning. If Pete likes Bevfool, then fine, I'll just have to deal with him.

[Hawktown]

As a business owner if I were making the most money in my life in a particular year and I still have a few employees that are weak links, do I keep them around because they are part of this "GREAT RUN" at making the most money in my personal history. Keep in mind that the positions that are weak are not easily filled with top notch employees. I still let them go, even without a replacement, until I find better. Weak links are just that, weak links, holding you back.

[kalibane]

Is an assumption you are using to support your argument. How convenient. You don't truly know what a situation's natural conclusion is until it in fact reaches that conclusion. And since no two situations are exactly the same that natural conclusion is going to be different in each instance.

No Bob it is not an assumption. It is the natural conclusion by rule of logic. So don't try to paint this as some matter of interpretation or personal opinion. The position Sis put forth in this instance is a blatant logical fallacy. I don't mean to be a dick but this is the exact type "debating" tactic that bothers me more than anything.

Is your opinion, and you're welcome to it. Mine is that during the course of that success, especially if it's a degree of success that is resulting in annual SB appearances reactionary replacement of key individuals over a single incident (in this discussion the play at the end of the Super Bowl) ....

You're trying to parse words now. Anyone with a reasonable knowledge of recent Seahawks history knows that the people advocating for the removal of Bevell after the Super Bowl is through the prism that the Super Bowl call is the culminating incident, not the only factor. The idea that "for the purposes of this discussion", that we are only considering the Super Bowl call as the only factor to be weighed in determining whether Bevell should have been fired is just being glib and disingenuous. There is no one here arguing for Bevell's replacement who was completely good with Bevell going into the Super Bowl, then that call happened and now they've done a complete 180 and want him fired for that one call.The issues people have with Bevell extend well beyond that call, and the call was the straw that broke the camel's back. We all know this.

And again my statement that is a fact. The Patriots have proven this having made major changes and still going to and winning super bowls. So no, collective success does not mean that the individuals who contributed to that success should never be changed. It also doesn't necessarily mean you should change a particular person. But the idea that the mere existence of past success means change on should be avoided is again a complete logical fallacy.

It's possible to disagree with someone and express your own opinion without having to declare their opinion "fallacious" because it runs afoul of an assumption you are using as a cornerstone truth in your own argument.

Except the statement I challenged was in fact fallacious, which was the entire reason I even posted in reply. It wasn't based on an assumption. It has no effect on my personal truth or even my own argument. I like Sis as much as anyone here but it was a BS argument. How well her opposition would do at running the Seahawks or Calling plays (which actually is based on the unfounded assumption that they wouldn't be as good) is specious and completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. There is no opinion or assumption on my part, rule of logic negates the supposition.

Your opinion is that Bevell should be kept. Other people's opinions are that he should have been fired. My opinion is undecided. But the logical flaws I pointed out in the arguments and statements that have been made in support of those opinions are neither assumption nor opinion. They are in fact logical flaws.

[RiverDog]

I still call it reactionary, and by definition it was, the evidence is right in the title of the thread.

Difference is that you seem to be taking "reactionary" as an insult, it was not.

Sometimes reactionary is appropriate: Pete letting Harris go after this last game is absolutely reactionary. I just do not feel a reactionary firing of a Coordinator after even a SB losing call to be appropriate*. It's OK for us to disagree on that point, but it doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

edit* just to clarify: "not appropriate" while we are having this level of success, not "never appropriate".

Well, by that standard, the firing of Dennis Erickson after the Vinny Testeverde helmet touchdown was a reactionary decision, too. I suppose you could argue that just about any decision was reactionary.

I wasn't insulted. I was merely trying to point out that my sentiment was not based on a singular event, more like the straw that broke the camel's back. The arguing for the firing as posed in the thread title was that doing it after the SB would have made it more of a symbolic gesture to the team.

But no matter. It's pointless to argue about semantics.

[Hawk Sista]

As a business owner if I were making the most money in my life in a particular year and I still have a few employees that are weak links, do I keep them around because they are part of this "GREAT RUN" at making the most money in my personal history. Keep in mind that the positions that are weak are not easily filled with top notch employees. I still let them go, even without a replacement, until I find better. Weak links are just that, weak links, holding you back.

That is a very fair point and a good analogy. I run a high performing department and we do, in fact, have some underachievers who drain resources away from goal achieving activities, so I totally get what you mean. I believe the difference between me and the "fire Bevel crowd" is that I actually think we have won games because of Bevel and not in spite of him. I don't perceive him to be the weak link (or even a weak link). As I said above, I know many reasonable people see him as just that and they can present evidence before, during and after SB 49 to prove it. The proof for me is in the team's sustained success. To be clear, I am in fact saying that I believe Bevel is part of what is making the Seahawks successful. Obviously he is in addition to Cable, John, Pete and (perhaps most importantly) an owner who trusts his staff to work through challenges and set-backs by being consistent and disciplined about staying with the overall plan.

Mine has not been a very popular position throughout this season. I maintain that members of the forenamed leadership team speak the same language and are working toward the same goal; none of them is holding back the other as they work in concert to the beat of the team philosophy. If the offense would have continued to sputter throughout the season, a restocking of the coaching shelf could have been a reasonable option. Perhaps at season’s end it will be a consideration; we shall see.

I am frustrated by two things when it comes to this subject: 1) layman’s arrogance, and 2) impatience. Whether pleasing to Aristotle or not, I believe it is simple to pick apart a coordinator's work from the confines of one's couch. It is easy, particularly with hindsight and without having to deal with the realities of the real work. Further, the Hawks' success and the culture of NOW (I always think of the song "What Have You Done For Me Lately") have perpetuated the impatience. 24 hour TV (NFLN, ESPN), Twitter (and other social media avenues) and we need it now and now again. The impatience may have always been there, it just feels more acute to me now.... it has been especially pronounced the past two slow starts.

[Hawktown]

[

That is a very fair point and a good analogy. I run a high performing department and we do, in fact, have some underachievers who drain resources away from goal achieving activities, so I totally get what you mean. I believe the difference between me and the "fire Bevel crowd" is that I actually think we have won games because of Bevel and not in spite of him. I don't perceive him to be the weak link (or even a weak link). As I said above, I know many reasonable people see him as just that and they can present evidence before, during and after SB 49 to prove it. The proof for me is in the team's sustained success. To be clear, I am in fact saying that I believe Bevel is part of what is making the Seahawks successful. Obviously he is in addition to Cable, John, Pete and (perhaps most importantly) an owner who trusts his staff to work through challenges and set-backs by being consistent and disciplined about staying with the overall plan.

Mine has not been a very popular position throughout this season. I maintain that members of the forenamed leadership team speak the same language and are working toward the same goal; none of them is holding back the other as they work in concert to the beat of the team philosophy. If the offense would have continued to sputter throughout the season, a restocking of the coaching shelf could have been a reasonable option. Perhaps at season’s end it will be a consideration; we shall see.

I am frustrated by two things when it comes to this subject: 1) layman’s arrogance, and 2) impatience. Whether pleasing to Aristotle or not, I believe it is simple to pick apart a coordinator's work from the confines of one's couch. It is easy, particularly with hindsight and without having to deal with the realities of the real work. Further, the Hawks' success and the culture of NOW (I always think of the song "What Have You Done For Me Lately") have perpetuated the impatience. 24 hour TV (NFLN, ESPN), Twitter (and other social media avenues) and we need it now and now again. The impatience may have always been there, it just feels more acute to me now.... it has been especially pronounced the past two slow starts.

You got me Sis! I can see your point. I personally like to fiddle with things to make them as perfect as can be, sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Heck, sometimes it works for just a little while ala Percey H. Probably the reason I'm not a sports GM. I shall stand down now.

[NorthHawk]

I go by the philosophy of question everything (well, almost everything).

Whether pleasing to Aristotle or not, I believe it is simple to pick apart a coordinator's work from the confines of one's couch. It is easy, particularly with hindsight and without having to deal with the realities of the real work.

If we are to accept that PC and JS know best, how about in NY with the Giants and Coughlin? He's won twice as many Super Bowls as Pete, but is now said to be on the way out.
You don't have to be the conductor of the choir to know a singer is singing out of key. One can often see clearer from afar than while immersed in the minutiae of the job.

Impatience?
I've not been one to call for Bevell's head, I can see some of the points for it however I'm not fully convinced, but there are some who have wanted a change for a few years.
Boldly speaking for them, I think that's not impatient, but I do think that view crystallized for some who were leaning that way after the Super Bowl but still on the fence and confirmed that thought for those who already wanted him gone.

I wished that Pete had taken some time before declaring he was at fault in that play call. I think in those types of situations it's best to reflect before acting.
But that's water under the bridge, now.

[Hawktawk]

Carroll said of Bevell the other day that he loves his game calling because he can blend a power run game with a downfield attacking passing game. At times it hasn't meshed. Other times it has and when it does it looks like exactly what Pete describes.
Right now they have the mad potion, the formula. If it isn't broke don't fix it even a little.

[RiverDog]

Carroll said of Bevell the other day that he loves his game calling because he can blend a power run game with a downfield attacking passing game. At times it hasn't meshed. Other times it has and when it does it looks like exactly what Pete describes.
Right now they have the mad potion, the formula. If it isn't broke don't fix it even a little.

Well, the downfield attacking passing game failed miserably, and we were tardy at admitting that our team wasn't capable of performing in that mold. Recently we've been very successful when we quit trying to throw the ball 20+ yards downfield and started using the short underneath routes instead, more of a WCO look than before.

[c_hawkbob]

I'm sorry but "failed miserably"?

Wow.

[Hawktawk]

The offense was tweaked to shorten up some of the routes to move the chains.Its more of a set up strategy. But there still plenty of balls going downfield RD.
Lockette had a 49 yarder Sunday almost all in the air. Seattle is still among league leaders in yards per attempt I assure you.

Its OK for the glass to be half full you know?

[NorthHawk]

That short passing game has been firing on all cylinders since the Steelers game.
These things tend to have their ups and downs, but we need it to continue for the next few weeks if it's going to slide a little as teams game plan against it.

[RiverDog]

I'm sorry but "failed miserably"?

Wow.

Last in the league in red zone offense by a long shot, near the last in total first downs and offensive points production, 4-5 record where the only wins came at the expense of sub .500 teams and all 5 of the losses resulting from 5 blown 4th quarter leads (a product of that lack of first downs) on the heels of an average 12 wins per season over the previous 3 years that included two straight SB appearances and a Lombardi....yea, I'd say that it failed miserably.