.Buzz Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 14 minutes ago, DuvalsKing said: 🤔 I wonder if he’s been scouting Kyler Murray. All I want is a guy who can develop a young QB. Bevell's playcalling was iffy at times but it seems like he may be a solid option for us if we do plan to bring in a rookie early in the draft. He is also very pass heavy, so interesting to see we're interested considering we are/were a very run first minded team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinderFournette Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, .Buzz said: All I want is a guy who can develop a young QB. Bevell's playcalling was iffy at times but it seems like he may be a solid option for us if we do plan to bring in a rookie early in the draft. He is also very pass heavy, so interesting to see we're interested considering we are/were a very run first minded team. to be fair we were pretty run heavy to probably mask the shortcomings of 1 Blake Bortles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 21 minutes ago, LinderFournette said: to be fair we were pretty run heavy to probably mask the shortcomings of 1 Blake Bortles. Run heavy offenses have always been Marrone and Hacketts philosophy I'm pretty sure. Doesn't help with our past QB situation, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LinderFournette Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 16 minutes ago, .Buzz said: Run heavy offenses have always been Marrone and Hacketts philosophy I'm pretty sure. Doesn't help with our past QB situation, but still. 2013 bills were close to 50-50 with 522 passes to 546 runs. 2014 bills 579 passes to 402 runs. 2018 jags 536 passes to 416 runs 2017 jags 527 passes to 527 runs. seems his 1st year at a team is 50-50 but 2nd year jumps to maybe 55-45ish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 On 01/01/2019 at 6:06 PM, .Buzz said: All I want is a guy who can develop a young QB. Bevell's playcalling was iffy at times but it seems like he may be a solid option for us if we do plan to bring in a rookie early in the draft. He is also very pass heavy, so interesting to see we're interested considering we are/were a very run first minded team. I wouldn't really call Bevell an inherently "pass heavy" guy on the whole at all. Unless i'm completely mis-remembering, Seattle were typically pretty skewed at least midpack, if not quite a bit further toward the run as a whole under most of his tenure there. Heck, the whole (stupid) argument for a long time was "Wilson is just a really good game manager, they don't ask him to do that much with the defense and running game". Quick look at the run-pass ratio stats from those years seems to confirm that. In a lot of the years where they had Lynch at his peak, there were even up over 50% Run plays between him and Wilson. Right at or near the top of the league for run-heavy. Including that period where they were right there on the "cutting edge" of the read-option stuff along with RGIII and the Niners with Kaepernick "taking the NFL by storm" or whatever.  2017 that he seems to be remembered most for now, appears more like the aberration to me...where they practically gave up on running the football because it seemed like a complete waste of time the way their OLine was performing...and just sorta laid everything on Wilson's shoulders. Seems like Cable's offensive line coaching may have been a major problem there, influencing what Bevell felt they could accomplish there.  Granted, it's not always great when you have the sort of reviews Seahawks fans tended to have of Bevell toward the end of his tenure there. Along with some pretty high-profile facepalm playcalls, including a now infamously "stupid" overthought passing play in a Super Bowl game...if we're laying that on him. I'm not totally sold on him overall, but i don't think the run-pass balance thing would be an issue. He seems more than capable of calling a pretty run-heavy game if he has the horses worth leaning on for that. And the whole Wilson connection is certainly intriguing. Heck of a job he seemed to do, easing Wilson into the QB he is today. There are things to like there as a candidate imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 On 01/01/2019 at 3:29 PM, .Buzz said: Another OC candidate. Cooter is an interesting one. Seemed like one of the next big "up and coming" names among OCs with some rumblings circulating about a HC future for him. Didn't seem to jive with Patricia though...which it honestly seems like nobody really did, and the team certainly didn't seem to respond like you'd want. Wonder if you get Cooter out from that situation and give him a bit more freedom to work again...if he might look a lot more shiny and promising again. It's one thing making Matt Stafford look good, and another thing altogether trying to break a rookie into the NFL...if that's the direction we go though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 On 01/01/2019 at 9:22 AM, .Buzz said: 1) You really think this scheme maximizes the potential of our two elite corners? 2) We rush 4 like 90 percent of the time. Every offense knows what we're doing. There's very little creativity. 3) Turnovers may come, sure. But they'd be much more likely if we weren't playing off coverage/zone when that doesn't fit to what most of our secondary does well and if we actually somewhat creative up front and weren't such a bend but don't break defense. As I said, it works, so Wash won't get canned. But it still is frustrating to watch all the speed, athleticism, and talent of this unit and not see much creativity from the DC with it. It's just oozing with potential. It's not crazy to think or imagine changing schemes with the right guy to head it wouldn't benefit this unit. There's risk of getting worse, but as I said, with this much talent there's no reason it shouldn't be at least a top 10 defense regardless. 1)I'm not sure the exact deployment maximized things this year. There were certainly problems. But i also don't love this idea that because we have 2 "elite corners", we should be playing aggressive nonstop press man all day every day and that will solve everything, which seems to have spread like wildfire this year in particular. I think both our CBs are elite, in part...because they're versatile and can find ways to make an impact in a variety of situations. There have been games where we've been killed by teams that have a lot of engineered releases, built in pick plays, and will nickle and dime you to death if you give them a cushion. But those same sort of offenses are often the ones built to cause problems for aggressive press coverage, where too much aggressiveness tends to lead to devastating "explosive plays", no matter how good the DBs are. They're offenses that are difficult to contain. I'm not saying they've been used perfectly, to absolute maximum effect...and the ability to adjust and gameplan for those type of offenses in general has been a bit lackluster on the whole. But are we really supposed to build an entire defense around what our 2 "elite" CBs do best...? Especially when they do other things pretty darn well too? 2)When it was working last year, it was a real strength that we could impose our will with a pass rush from 4 guys...not a weakness. People love the exotic blitz-happy defenses when they work...but they also have all sorts of weaknesses. I tend to see them as more of a potential "mask" for less dominant, less well-rounded personnel. It lets you specialize and create some chaos at times...but it also lets you scheme your way into all kinds of other problems, and it can be counterproductive if you actually do have the horses to just turn lose and let 'em play. Slowing them down by complicating their role, or pigeonholing them into roles that don't take advantage of the full range of their skillset. 3)I think is one of those things where you have to take a more holistic look at the situation. Get better offensive play, control the ball and rest the defense more adequately...and turnovers will come. Just like they did in 2017 where we were monstrously good in that regard...in that same scheme. It's also not like we're totally uncreative "up front"...but you are obviously limited in just how creative you can be rushing 4 most of the time. Who else are we really going to be rushing though, in a more "creative" scheme? We've got 2 small/WLBs making up the rest of our starting Front-7, who really have no business doing much of anything more than they've been asked to in that arena. No real edge rushing depth whatsoever behind Yan/Calais now that Fowler is gone. Like...we're apparently worried about changing schemes to better suit our 2 CBs who have been "elite" in this very scheme. Who are the great players suited to doing all this other "creative" stuff to get after the passer that we're holding back currently? Compared to our boring plain jane scheme under Wash, that generated an absolute boatload of sacks, QB pressures, turnovers, scores, etc. when the offense was looking vaguely capable of holding up their own end of the bargain.  Like...i'm not married to Wash staying on. But i also think it's a bigtime shortsighted "grass is greener" sort of scenario to think we need to completely change this defense to a new scheme. Or that it would even benefit this group at all. Tweaks, far better gameplanning and incorporating a bit more flexibility into the scheme? Yeah, 100%. But a totally new scheme? Seems like a bad idea to me. Fix what's broken in the offense. Then revisit the idea of sweeping changes to what is only a year removed from being an absolutely DOMINANT defense in this scheme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedyg Posted January 4, 2019 Share Posted January 4, 2019 I'm kind of hoping that the Fewell and Hobby firings is about adding guys like Manuel (Seahawks exp) and Spagnoulo (TC calling in a favor) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted January 8, 2019 Author Share Posted January 8, 2019 Â Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedyg Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 On 1/3/2019 at 4:02 AM, Tugboat said: Cooter is an interesting one. Seemed like one of the next big "up and coming" names among OCs with some rumblings circulating about a HC future for him. Didn't seem to jive with Patricia though...which it honestly seems like nobody really did, and the team certainly didn't seem to respond like you'd want. Wonder if you get Cooter out from that situation and give him a bit more freedom to work again...if he might look a lot more shiny and promising again. It's one thing making Matt Stafford look good, and another thing altogether trying to break a rookie into the NFL...if that's the direction we go though. For what it's worth, Jeff Risdon is a pretty good resource (he was talking up Ebron who fans were ready to kill I'm detroit, and of course he had a great season in Indy) for Lions and he is totally over Cooter. No adjustments and predictable offense.  Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 8, 2019 Share Posted January 8, 2019 3 hours ago, Speedyg said: For what it's worth, Jeff Risdon is a pretty good resource (he was talking up Ebron who fans were ready to kill I'm detroit, and of course he had a great season in Indy) for Lions and he is totally over Cooter. No adjustments and predictable offense.  Yeah...there's certainly been a lot of mudslinging around him after this season. Makes me a bit wary. But there seemed to be very few complaints the year before when Cooter wasn't working under Patricia, who seemingly didn't much want him there after all. Whether he'd have more freedom again here under Marrone an perform better...idk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted January 9, 2019 Author Share Posted January 9, 2019 Good point. I'd be for Bevell, but better come with a rookie QB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugboat Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 3 hours ago, .Buzz said: Good point. I'd be for Bevell, but better come with a rookie QB. I can't see how we come out of the draft without a rookie QB of some sort. No matter who the OC is. Just a matter of whether they're a highly picked presumptive starter Day1, or a project with a Vet stopgap ahead of them. Even if it's Bevell as OC...who is to say he wouldn't be eyeing up another Russ in the 3rd round again, expecting to potentially go into his season with a Matt Flynn or Tavaris Jackson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Buzz Posted January 9, 2019 Author Share Posted January 9, 2019 Bevell and Monken are a lot better guys than I was expecting to see tbh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrenaline_Flux Posted January 9, 2019 Share Posted January 9, 2019 2 hours ago, .Buzz said: Bevell and Monken are a lot better guys than I was expecting to see tbh. Former Jags WRs coach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.