Should Pete Have Fired Bevell After The SB?

[RiverDog]

Immediately after the SB, I called on Pete to fire Darrell Bevell. Unlike some of my fellow 12's, with the exception of this one occasion, I haven't been on the Fire Bevell bandwagon.

My reasoning was that there are some decisions that are so momentous in nature and carry with them such grave consequences that getting them wrong has to roll heads. I fully understand why Pete didn't fire him and I personally admire Pete for taking the blame and sticking up for his man. I wish there were more people in positions of authority that would show some loyalty to their subordinates as Pete has shown with Bevell.

The problem is that's probably not how the locker room saw it. Speaking as someone that has seen numerous personnel decisions come down the organizational ladder, the way the players are likely to have viewed Pete's keeping of Bevell is that if it were one of them that made such a horrendous phuck up in such a critical situation, they'd ship their arse out of town by the quickest means possible ala Percy Harvin. To use the terminology from my workplace, Pete's standing by Bevell is nothing more than one suit covering for another suit.

Is this one of the causes of the current state of affairs, why we roll over in the 4th quarter, why the offense can't make first downs and why the defense allows #1 targets to run free and unfettered through the secondary? Probably not. Or could it?

Comments?

[NorthHawk]

You can't just look at last years Super Bowl.
That decision has to come from his entire tenure in Seattle.

If I were Pete, I would have looked at possible alternatives to see if they could fit in his philosophy on Offense, then made a decision. Perhaps he did just that and found he wouldn't be able to find someone that could be better and happy in this system.
Keep in mind that it's an odd situation with Cable as the Assistant HC and responsible for the run game, so maybe some OC's would find this arrangement restrictive. It might just create a power struggle if another OC wanted more control down the road, or be in a bind should the candidate pool be very limited.

[RiverDog]

You can't just look at last years Super Bowl.
That decision has to come from his entire tenure in Seattle.

If I were Pete, I would have looked at possible alternatives to see if they could fit in his philosophy on Offense, then made a decision. Perhaps he did just that and found he wouldn't be able to find someone that could be better and happy in this system.
Keep in mind that it's an odd situation with Cable as the Assistant HC and responsible for the run game, so maybe some OC's would find this arrangement restrictive. It might just create a power struggle if another OC wanted more control down the road, or be in a bind should the candidate pool be very limited.

As usual, you're being very logical and are using sound reasoning in your response, and if it were to be made in a vacuum, I would agree.

But the problem is the locker room. They won't use that line of reasoning. They are more likely to look at such decisions on a much more personal, emotional level. Pete needed to fire Bevell to show the team it was not OK to screw up at any level in his organization.

And to be honest, I don't think it would have necessarily been a bad move to have cleaned house on offense and thrown Cable out with Bevell. I don't think our offense would have been much worse off than it is now.

[kalibane]

Hell I'm starting to think that Cable is living off reputation at this point. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't be sad to see both of them go.

[RiverDog]

Hell I'm starting to think that Cable is living off reputation at this point. Maybe I'm missing something but I wouldn't be sad to see both of them go.

Yea, me, either. After this season, I'd be for getting rid of both of them and hire someone that can coach up Russell and adapt to his very unique skill set.

But that's not really the question. The question is should have Bevell been fired immediately after the SB loss?

[Agent 86]

Yea, me, either. After this season, I'd be for getting rid of both of them and hire someone that can coach up Russell and adapt to his very unique skill set.

But that's not really the question. The question is should have Bevell been fired immediately after the SB loss?

I think the perception of the SB loss being Bevell's call is the main reason why Pete didn't even consider it probably. Maybe he did, but I don't think so. I don't think Pete wanted that, the reflection it would be on him as a coach to throw someone under the bus like that.

But I agree with your premise, the players don't care about that. I honestly believe there is a stink leftover amongst the players over that call, and my gut tells me they would have welcomed a change at the OC spot.

I will say one thing, and Riv you touched on it in the Post game thread. It needs to be overstated because I believe most people don't really consider it valid. There is a HUGE difference with proving yourself, and then keeping that chip on your shoulder all the time after you have done it. It is human nature that once you have achieved greatness, earned the respect of your peers, got the big fat contract, and are considered one of the best in the game, you will lose that edge, that motivation ( I have experienced it myself in sports, I had a stint of playing professionally after being cut 3 years in a row). Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods are 2 that come to mind who stayed on top after ridiculous achievements and money.

That "motivation" is now gone, it has to now come within and I think guys like Earl, Sherm, Kam, RW....they still have it, but not quite the same. Sherm now shows a lot of respect on the field for his opponents, he has changed a lot from how he was the first 3 years. More mature for sure. I believe that lost "motivation" of proving yourself is a factor at play. Maybe a minor one, but I think it is one. The "us against world" mentality isn't there anymore, success made it disappear.

But I digress, back to the topic, I really think he should have, but understand why he didnt'

I still think an 8-2 finish is doable, all 4 losses could have been wins with a couple plays. The Bears game is the only one that was decisive either way. This team has shown too much resiliency the last 3 years for me to call it a season at this point.

[savvyman]

No Pete should not have fired Bevell after the Superbowl.

From all accounts Pete was all in on the play call at the time it was made. Only a real back stabbing low life leader would have fired the subordinate for a decision that he made and signed off on.

[depaashaas]

Well I have wanted him gone two seasons ago and really wanted him gone after SB, till I just seen how stupid of a play then can call for colts what the hell where they thinking? What do I know,I am just a middle aged fat old guy that like to drink a lot of beer and yell at the TV and occasionally my wife if she makes stupid remarks during game. I think he is not the best but can anyone here tell me the last time the Hawks lost 3 out of their last 4 games and all 3 games where against undefeated teams, those teams are combined 17-0 just let it sink in for a second and with two of them you where within 30 seconds of winning them. Still the 4th quarter in all three losses are just unbearable.

[Vegaseahawk]

I read that Bevell called a run to Lynch, & PC overruled him. That, imo, was enough to save his job.

[RiverDog]

I read that Bevell called a run to Lynch, & PC overruled him. That, imo, was enough to save his job.

That's not what I heard. I heard that Bevell told Pete that they were throwing, but didn't give him the specifics, ie that they were throwing a goal line slant to no 'E'. Pete generally isn't in the loop on specific offensive plays, nor does he often over rule his OC. You have to remember that there was only about 10 seconds between the end of the last play and the time they had to make the next call and get their personnel grouping moving for the following play. Not a lot of time for debate.

[NorthHawk]

That's what I understood, too RD.
I do think he's involved in the Defensive calls, though which would make sense as he's a Defensive minded coach.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Of course Bevel should have been fired after his SB screw up just like Gus Bradley should have been fired for his monumental collapse in the play off game with Atlanta but Jacksonville bailed Pete out by hiring GB to be their new HC. How is that working out for the Jags?? I bet Gus will be fired at the end of either this season or sometime next year.

Other than Savvyman who are the other posters who have not identified themselves??? Inquiring minds want to know.

Pete also needs to jettison Tom Cable. He cannot identify O-Line talent coming out of college so he has a penchant for all of these "project" players. Along with getting rid of Cable any new O-Line coach needs to shelve the ZBS. The ZBS is very complicated and if you don't have the right kind of linemen and RB's that can understand it and execute it it can be a disaster, as we have seen.

look at James Carpenter playing for the Jets. Here it was said that he ran blocked well but was a failure at pass blocking. Well, he is pass blocking very well now, what happened??? Now, that doesn't have nothing to do with the ZBS but how many players has Cable past over in the draft or Free Agency because he doesn't believe certain players can't run the ZBS???

It is an indictment on Pete Carroll that he has stuck with those two turds. A few more seasons like this one(if it doesn't turn around) and Pete will be down. the road the same way Brian Billick was in Baltimore.

I read last night that USC wants Pete back in the worst way. Hmmm Pete has a SB ring and has proved himself he can excel in the NFL. Maybe he wants to go back to USC and finish his career. It could happen you know.

[RiverDog]

...It is an indictment on Pete Carroll that he has stuck with those two turds. A few more seasons like this one(if it doesn't turn around) and Pete will be down. the road the same way Brian Billick was in Baltimore.

I read last night that USC wants Pete back in the worst way. Hmmm Pete has a SB ring and has proved himself he can excel in the NFL. Maybe he wants to go back to USC and finish his career. It could happen you know.

Pete's not going to get fired. He will coach the Seahawks for as long as he wants. If Paul Allen isn't one thing, it's that he's not an impulsive owner.

But I do think his leaving Seattle is getting more and more likelier with every 4th quarter meltdown. This garbage has to be getting to him, the Percy Harvin debacle, the Russell Wilson not being black enough, Beast's quirky ways including mamma Beast calling for Bevell to be fired, the ending of the most excruciatingly painful SB in history, all the rumors flying around during Russell's contract negotiations, Michael Bennett's threatened holdout with multiple years left, Irvin's pouting about not having his option picked up and saying he wanted to play for Atlanta after all Pete had done for him, and of course, the Kam holdout. Add that to the way we've started off this season and I think it's plausible that Pete could be at his breaking point. He's 64 years old with a personality that's strung tighter than a drum. And he did sell his house this past summer.

Pete has plenty of career options. He can garner significant speaking fees on the meat and potatoes circuit, has already written one book, is very well spoken and would be a natural for any TV network. And yes, I heard about the USC thing. Sark has given USC a 2 month head start of which they can use to lure Pete back to Troy, and as SBB once noted, this is in all likelihood the year that at least one team moves to LA, and they might just think a new head coach would dove tail perfectly with a new venue, help generate excitement and help raise money for their new stadium. I doubt that he'd go to the Rams and poke a lot of loyal 12's in the eye, but the Chargers? This is McCoy's 3rd season, and the Chargers have been unable to get any traction, their franchise QB apparently wants out, and there's rumors that McCoy has lost the locker room. There will be one year left on his 4 year deal after this season.

So could this be Pete's last hurrah as a Seahawks head coach? Could this current era be that close to being over? Quite possibly.

[NorthHawk]

What Pete does will pan out in the fullness of time. Sure it's a possibility, but he has a plum job here with a lot of power.
It depends on how competitive he is and if he wants to cut and run or tough it out until it gets better again.

"Pete also needs to jettison Tom Cable. He cannot identify O-Line talent coming out of college so he has a penchant for all of these "project" players. Along with getting rid of Cable any new O-Line coach needs to shelve the ZBS. The ZBS is very complicated and if you don't have the right kind of linemen and RB's that can understand it and execute it it can be a disaster, as we have seen."

That's one of the burrs under my saddle with not drafting OL and instead taking DL and converting them.
It's difficult enough to convert to the other side of the ball and if you add in a complicated system, it's an added possibility of making mistakes.
Players have to get to the point of not thinking of what they have to do on any play and just react. When you add in the complexity factor the time to when that happens can only be lengthened.

As well, it seems to me that the pool of talent who can play the ZBS is smaller than those that can't, so if there is (as some suggest) a limited amount of OL talent coming out of college, wouldn't it be best to dip into the larger pool? It seems to me that more options are better than fewer when dealing with an action like the draft where there is an element of hit or miss and not even considering Free Agency where more possible fits could be available.

[Zorn76]

Right after the SB?
No.

After this season?
Yes.

Bevell shows some semblance of imagination here and there, but it's time to bring in somebody else with a fresh approach while RW is still in the prime of his career. I also agree with the sentiment that Cable needs to go as well.
Obviously, there's other factors at work, chief among them being the OL struggles. But generally speaking, the lack of scheming that produces inefficiency needs to change. Darrell B. is simply not the best we can do.

Naturally, for any of this to happen, it's gotta be Pete's call. And this is where we see his loyalty being misplaced by having continued faith in DB and TC. Each have been in their respective positions long enough to determine their effectiveness, and it ain't making the grade, IMO.

If the 2015 season sees us missing the playoffs (which is still too early to call), then the hope here would be that Carroll recognizes significant staff changes are in order.

[mykc14]

IMO you can't fire a coordinator for one bad play call, especially when the idea of throwing wasn't the worst thing in the world (obviously running Lynch would have been better). As a coordinator you have to have at least some freedom to know you won't be fired for one mistake, much like a player can't play tight, worried about making a mistake, a play caller has to be the same. Furthermore we don't know exactly the communication that went on between PC and Bevell before that play was called.

[RiverDog]

IMO you can't fire a coordinator for one bad play call, especially when the idea of throwing wasn't the worst thing in the world (obviously running Lynch would have been better). As a coordinator you have to have at least some freedom to know you won't be fired for one mistake, much like a player can't play tight, worried about making a mistake, a play caller has to be the same. Furthermore we don't know exactly the communication that went on between PC and Bevell before that play was called.

It's been pretty well documented that the decision to throw on 2nd and goal from the one was Bevell's, that he very briefly advised Pete who said 'OK', but that Pete did not know the exact details of the play, ie a slant pass for Lockette.

There's only 40 seconds between plays and you want your team at the LOS with around 8-10 seconds on the play clock. They have to get their personnel all the way down to the 10 yard line to huddle up, which takes another 8-10 seconds or so. There was a very short period of time, about 10 seconds or less, in which to make a decision. With personnel already in motion going to the huddle, even if Pete objected he wouldn't have been able to stop it and change the play without calling a timeout, which they were trying to conserve.

Make no mistake: That play call was all on Bevell.

[mykc14]

It's been pretty well documented that the decision to throw on 2nd and goal from the one was Bevell's, that he very briefly advised Pete who said 'OK', but that Pete did not know the exact details of the play, ie a slant pass for Lockette.

There's only 40 seconds between plays and you want your team at the LOS with around 8-10 seconds on the play clock. They have to get their personnel all the way down to the 10 yard line to huddle up, which takes another 8-10 seconds or so. There was a very short period of time, about 10 seconds or less, in which to make a decision. With personnel already in motion going to the huddle, even if Pete objected he wouldn't have been able to stop it and change the play without calling a timeout, which they were trying to conserve.

Make no mistake: That play call was all on Bevell.

That might be what happened right before that play but I am more talking about the conversations that should have (and probably did) happened before, like when they took that time out. I would be shocked if they didn't discuss, during that time what they were going to do if they didn't score on first down. I am sure they talked about the fact that they were going to throw on 2nd or 3rd down, so PC knew there was a good chance they were going to throw on that 2nd down play. Also, usually teams will have a few 'goal line' passing plays that they are pretty sure will work and I would be really surprised if PC didn't offer his imput on a 'goal line' play like that. That was obviously one in which Bevell and the coaching staff in general felt was a good goal line play for them against the Pats. So basically it seems to me that PC knew they were going to throw, said 'OK' and had to have an idea that it would be one of their key 'goal line' plays of which I am sure that slant to Lockette was one. Again, not dismissing Bevell at all but I also am not totally willing to put it just at his feet.

[Hawk Sista]

I voted no. That would have been a chicken ish thing to do after the Super Bowl. The way Pete stood in the gap and accepted the blame for that made me respect him all the more. If this season ends as badly as it has started, I think Pete would need to consider some moves. But, perhaps blindly and naively so, I still believe that they will turn it around and make a winning season out of this. So, no. Not at this time. I think it is such a know-it-all stance to be in one's living room (not privy to all that Pete, John, Tom and Bevel are) and declare you know what to do to solve these issues.

[RiverDog]

That might be what happened right before that play but I am more talking about the conversations that should have (and probably did) happened before, like when they took that time out. I would be shocked if they didn't discuss, during that time what they were going to do if they didn't score on first down. I am sure they talked about the fact that they were going to throw on 2nd or 3rd down, so PC knew there was a good chance they were going to throw on that 2nd down play. Also, usually teams will have a few 'goal line' passing plays that they are pretty sure will work and I would be really surprised if PC didn't offer his imput on a 'goal line' play like that. That was obviously one in which Bevell and the coaching staff in general felt was a good goal line play for them against the Pats. So basically it seems to me that PC knew they were going to throw, said 'OK' and had to have an idea that it would be one of their key 'goal line' plays of which I am sure that slant to Lockette was one. Again, not dismissing Bevell at all but I also am not totally willing to put it just at his feet.

I really don't know how much strategic information is exchanged between a defensive minded HC like Pete and his OC during a game or how far out they plan plays. Heck, you're probably more knowledgeable about that than I am. But we sort of got off track as that wasn't the point of the thread.

The real issue I wanted to discuss, and the original purpose of this thread, is who do the players hold accountable? Should Pete have fired Bevell to get the locker room back? IMO he had justification even without the bad play call.

[Seahawks4Ever]

May.be I am wrong, but I don't think the person who set up the poll meant that Pete should have fired Bevell within hours of the Super Bowl but maybe some time in the off season. And, it wouldn't be for just that one play call but the over all pathetic play calling over 5 years. I mean, usually after the scripted plays have been run all of a sudden the play calling improves a bit.

Originally Bevell's play calling made sense since T.Jack was taking over for Hasselbeck and he was a lot more mobile. Then we draft Wilson and he too is a mobile QB.

But Bevell's "crimes" are more than is pathetic play calling. He was the one who talked Pete into bringing in T-Jack, Sidney, and Percy. T-Jack has been ok, and Sydney has his admirers (not me), but Percy was a disaster.

So, IMHO Bevell should have been fired and he should still be fired. Obviously you don't fire the OC in the middle of the season unless you are Baltimore and you have a Jim Caldwell already on the staff and waiting in the wings.

[Hawktawk]

In the midst of the 2012 campaign the Baltimore Ravens fired Cam Cameron as their offensive coordinator and won the Super Bowl.
Seattle, its now time. It probably isn't all Darrell's fault but you cant fire the HC, you cant bench the QB, but someone has to answer for this offense.It literally could not get worse.

[EmeraldBullet]

No way. It's hard for me to take this question seriously. I agree though that his job may be in jeopardy after this season if the offense doesn't get it together very fast.

[Zorn76]

I still stand by my original post above.
I also would feel the same way even if we were a lock to make the playoffs this year.

Our success the last 2 yrs has noticeably more to do with our defense than offense, though the O did have plenty of clutch moments during that time.

The silver lining for this year would be that both he and Cable are gone.
We're still a young enough team to where this move makes sense, and it's pretty clear that a change should be made.

Keep swinging away on the OL draft picks next spring, and ditch this idiotic philosophy of converting DL to OL. There's a reason it's not a big trend in the NFL, and that's because it doesn't work.

[Seahawks4Ever]

Darrell Bevell needs to just go, period.

[Distant Relative]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2591 ... -cardinals

[Hawktawk]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2591135-darrell-bevell-criticizes-russell-wilsons-performance-vs-cardinals

I lost a lot of respect for Bevell when he threw Lockette under the bus after the disaster on the goal line in Glendale. Basically he said Lock didn't run the route properly.

Yes he should have been fired right then. It was a horrible call with a terrible personnel match up.He set the team up for failure and they did so in dramatic fashion.

Now he is calling out the QB referencing particular plays in games. For one thing if the QB is being called out publicly its the head coaches job as Jay Gruden did with RGIII last year.And that was only after RGIII was blaming his teammates for another loss.
Carroll has expressed some displeasure with some of Russell's decisions but nothing like what Bevell is saying.These sound like discussions that should happen in the film room as opposed to a Darrell vs Russ pr campaign in public.
I've never heard of an OC doing this in an NFL press release so WTF is going on with the coaching staff?
Bevfool is going to talk his way out of Seattle if it continues or Wilson is going to have to ride the pine at some point. Carroll has to decide which side he is on.And I think the choice is obvious.

Like I said it is now time...

[EmeraldBullet]

Bevell really didn't hold back in that interview. He surely know his back is against the wall, but not sure criticizing Wilson is the right thing to try and save his job.

[Zorn76]

Good to see Bevell assign blame while taking no accountability for his own ineptitude.

Hopefully it pushes him out the door for good.

[Hawktawk]

Time to reassess this debate? Too early to tell? Bevell has to at least be off the hot seat right now. Thoughts?

[RiverDog]

Time to reassess this debate? Too early to tell? Bevell has to at least be off the hot seat right now. Thoughts?

I still think that Pete should have let him go.

[Zorn76]

I still wouldn't mind seeing him go after this season, no matter how it turns out. Even Cable leaving wouldn't bother me.
The recent changes of having RW getting the ball out of his hands faster (via shorter WR routes), and making a much needed change at center, should've been implemented weeks ago, IMO.

The OL is looking better - because they're finally doing their job of protecting the QB. But that's all it is, doing what they're supposed to be doing. I'm not in the camp that says that this line is the one to bank on moving forward.

Bevell has done a better job of mixing up his calls over the last month. But he's also the same guy that was calling inexplicable plays during the first 9 weeks. I understand the OL was less experienced at the time as a group, so perhaps he felt he was doing what he could with what he had then. There were also plenty of times where it looked like he wasn't putting the offense in the best position to succeed, either. There are ups and downs with any OC or position coach. I just feel this isn't the best we can do overall.

For those who want them to stay on, however, I think you'll get your wish. To each their own.

[Hawk Sista]

Seriously?? Let Bevel and Cable go? That sounds brilliant, especially after the last several weeks. Thank God you two aren't in decision-making positions for the Hawks. Love ya both (insert blow softener, kinda like fabric softener but it's used for verbal blows rather than fabric - it's on sale at Target), but man-oh-man are you guys arrogant!! The Seahawks have a winning record for how many years in a row, now?

Look back at Seahawkian (I know - new word) history and see where this era ranks in Hawk lore. In fact, let me help you. Excluding the current year, the Hawks have made the playoffs 14 times in 39 years (about 36%)......they've gone to the post season 4 of the last 5 (80%) seasons (quite likely 5 of the last 6 - 83.3%).

Let's look decade by decade including this year (but excluding the early 1976-1980 formative years), shall we?

1981 - 1990 - 83 wins (8.3* wins/season)
1991-2000 - 67 wins (6.7 wins/season)
2001-2010 - 83 wins (8.3 wins/season)
2011 to date - 51 wins (with 3 games + 5 seasons to go to make a full decade). The Hawks, with their current staff, are on pace for 10.6 wins/season this decade....and it will likely, IMHO, be higher.

Yes, by all means, fire the staff.

* There were two seasons in the 80's w/ abbreviated seasons; 1982 and 1987 - 152 total games played)

[RiverDog]

Seriously?? Let Bevel and Cable go? That sounds brilliant, especially after the last several weeks. Thank God you two aren't in decision-making positions for the Hawks. Love ya both (insert blow softener, kinda like fabric softener but it's used for verbal blows rather than fabric - it's on sale at Target), but man-oh-man are you guys arrogant!! The Seahawks have a winning record for how many years in a row, now?

Look back at Seahawkian (I know - new word) history and see where this era ranks in Hawk lore. In fact, let me help you. Excluding the current year, the Hawks have made the playoffs 14 times in 39 years (about 36%)......they've gone to the post season 4 of the last 5 (80%) seasons (quite likely 5 of the last 6 - 83.3%).

Let's look decade by decade including this year (but excluding the early 1976-1980 formative years), shall we?

1981 - 1990 - 83 wins (8.3* wins/season)
1991-2000 - 67 wins (6.7 wins/season)
2001-2010 - 83 wins (8.3 wins/season)
2011 to date - 51 wins (with 3 games + 5 seasons to go to make a full decade). The Hawks, with their current staff, are on pace for 10.6 wins/season this decade....and it will likely, IMHO, be higher.

Yes, by all means, fire the staff.

* There were two seasons in the 80's w/ abbreviated seasons; 1982 and 1987 - 152 total games played)

I didn't advocate firing both of them at the same time. As a matter of fact, I've never come out and said that Cable out to be fired. I said that I would have fired Bevell shortly after the SB....assuming we had a viable replacement already in mind... and my opinion has not changed. Who's to say that we wouldn't have been 13-0 with Coordinator X?

As far as Cable goes, I do not hold him in the same high regard that others do. That doesn't necessarily mean that I advocate firing him, only that I don't consider him as being some sort of genius or sage.

[Hawktawk]

A month ago after a horrible loss vs AZ I called for Bevells firing. Right now I feel kind of silly, sort of like all the people who were bashing Wilson should feel. Its pretty tough to argue with whats going on now.

[NorthHawk]

Pete wouldn't let Bevell interview for a College HC position a week or so ago.
Read what you want into it, and maybe the timing wasn't right, but it seems that PC Isn't in a hurry to let him go.

[Zorn76]

"Seriously?? Let Bevel and Cable go? That sounds brilliant, especially after the last several weeks."

And that's part of my point - they have been good - for the last several weeks. Again, the changes that have come recently on Bevell and Cable's part could've been done after game 4, maybe even sooner. Clearly, the center didn't know what he was doing (which makes sense since he was a DL to OL convert), and our OC's play calling was questionable, to say the least, after 9 games. Shouldn't take that long to realize that adjustments needed to be made schematically to compensate for Horrible OL play.

Drafting DL for conversion to OL is an iffy proposition, at best. They cut ties with one mistake there, which was overdue and necessary. Sweezy is a work a progress - as any new OL would be - but it's also a learning curve that's adversely affected by the fact that he's a conversion to begin with. The position is difficult enough after playing 4 years of it in college, but at least there's prior experience when making the leap to the NFL level.

I've been a fan since 1979. I'm well aware of our history in terms of where we've been to where we are now. Nonetheless, we could've saved ourselves some trouble by being more proactive in making adjustments a couple of months ago. Darrell and Tom are not the be-all and end-all for their positions. It's great to see things rolling now. I just think their approach could've changed sooner.

[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.

That's not to say one can't have a different perspective, but calling for heads seems a lil over the top....at 8 & 5 and at 2 and 4. I've been consistent in that.

[NorthHawk]

After that last play call in the Super Bowl, I hope Pete thought about it for a while before making the decision, even though he decided to keep him. I don't recollect there being too much time before he took the blame.

[RiverDog]

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.

That's not to say one can't have a different perspective, but calling for heads seems a lil over the top....at 8 & 5 and at 2 and 4. I've been consistent in that.

Once again, my call for Bevell's head was always framed in the context of the post SB 49 aftermath, not several months afterwards. I am not advocating that we relieve Bevell of his duties at this point in time. My point was that even knowing what we know today, I still would have fired him at some point in February of 2015 providing we had a viable replacement ready to go.

I don't think that there is a person on this board that had you told them back on Labor Day that in Week 14 that we'd be 8-5 and virtually eliminated from the division title race would have called it a successful and satisfactory first 3/4 of the regular season.