Geno’s Back

Parallax · Feb 16, 2024

Optimus25 said:
I admitted you’re damned either way very often. Why not just go with bird in the hand who gets you to the playoffs consistently (ok brink last year) because the glaring, resounding, obvious deficiency on this team is defense. Swing for the first four rounds to fill those holes and even if 1.5 hit we are a playoffs team next year. Miss on QBOTF and we are so far behind the curve it’s crazy and as i alluded earlier, who knows what dominos then fall to allow divisional teams to fill holes.

I pretty much thought i summed it up when I’ve said Mahomes couldn’t carry this defense to the Super Bowl. That’s a foundational argument to my viewpoint. How many top tier picks can we gamble on QB and still be able to return this defense to even slightly above league average? I say none at this point.

You can win a Superbowl with an average QB surrounded by an amazing team. You can win a Superbowl with an amazing QB surrounded by an average team. But you need one or the other. Which way is more likely to lead to success in the relatively near future? Hard to say.

The basics in my book are to make sure that every draft you take the top guy available on your board each time you come up to bat. If that's a QB, great. If not, that's fine too.

Fill in with reasonably priced free agents. That means waiting while teams take big swings on expensive guys. Don't spend money or lose compensatory picks in that part of the process. Wait until everything settles down and your comp picks are safe. Then see who's left.

That might mean signing an undervalued guy like Baker Mayfield last year. It might mean swinging for the fences with a guy like Will Levis.

Know that, whichever direction you go, the odds are long. A team can make up for long odds in part by scheming well, creating a healthy culture, coaching well, pounding the weight room, etc. To win a Superbowl will likely take all of that and some dumb luck.

hawkfan68 · Feb 16, 2024

Sign this one up for the Seahawks QB competition...

One thing for certain....she would score more than Geno

Jac · Feb 16, 2024

Optimus25 said:
I admitted you’re damned either way very often. Why not just go with bird in the hand who gets you to the playoffs consistently (ok brink last year) because the glaring, resounding, obvious deficiency on this team is defense. Swing for the first four rounds to fill those holes and even if 1.5 hit we are a playoffs team next year. Miss on QBOTF and we are so far behind the curve it’s crazy and as i alluded earlier, who knows what dominos then fall to allow divisional teams to fill holes.

I pretty much thought i summed it up when I’ve said Mahomes couldn’t carry this defense to the Super Bowl. That’s a foundational argument to my viewpoint. How many top tier picks can we gamble on QB and still be able to return this defense to even slightly above league average? I say none at this point.

For sure, Mahomes wouldn't haven't elevated this team. The defense has been poorly schemed/gameplanned/coached for too long. It'll be interesting to see what we do and don't have on defense (and that can be bolstered with value-based free agents) under high-level defensive coaching. We certainly don't want to reach and overdraft a QB. Schneider has to really believe in the guy. So, it could be round #1 or round #4, but we have to start taking one each year until we find the guy.

rigelian · Feb 16, 2024

Seriously, QB, WR, TE and DBs are the least of our worries. Pretty much every other position group has serious questions.

Lagartixa · Feb 16, 2024

rigelian said:
Seriously, QB, WR, TE and DBs are the least of our worries. Pretty much every other position group has serious questions.

TE is an issue. Both Fant and Parkinson are unrestricted free agents, and Dissly's current contract gives him a $10.07M cap hit in 2024, but only $3.1M of that is dead money if he's cut (accounting for the final third of his $9.3M signing bonus on a three-year contract). I expect the Seahawks to either extend him to lower his cap hit or cut him. But then they need tight ends.

Also, when you say DBs are among the least of our worries, I'll agree CB is not a big worry, but safety sure is. Adams will be gone. There's no way to justify his cap hit of $26,916,666 in 2024. There's still $20,833,334 of his signing bonus that needs to appear on the cap at some point, but I expect him to be designated as a post-June-1 cut, allowing the Seahawks to split the dead money as $10,416,667 in 2024 and the same thing in 2025. That way, they gain $16.5M in 2024 cap space.
And Diggs has a 2024 cap number of $21,262,500, which is not quite as ridiculous as Adams with a nearly-$27M cap hit, but it's still ridiculous. $10,262,500 of that is the not-yet-accounted-for part of Diggs's signing bonus, but the remaining $11M in cap savings from cutting him is more attractive than keeping him on the roster with a $21.3M cap hit.

So the way I see it, the Seahawks need TEs and safeties.

chris98251 · Feb 16, 2024

Julian Love, Jerrick Reed II, Jonathan Sutherland, Ty Okada, Coby Bryant are the guys not named Diggs or Adams that play safety, Love and Reed are good, not sure about the rest.

rigelian · Feb 16, 2024

Lagartixa said:
TE is an issue. Both Fant and Parkinson are unrestricted free agents, and Dissly's current contract gives him a $10.07M cap hit in 2024, but only $3.1M of that is dead money if he's cut (accounting for the final third of his $9.3M signing bonus on a three-year contract). I expect the Seahawks to either extend him to lower his cap hit or cut him. But then they need tight ends.

Also, when you say DBs are among the least of our worries, I'll agree CB is not a big worry, but safety sure is. Adams will be gone. There's no way to justify his cap hit of $26,916,666 in 2024. There's still $20,833,334 of his signing bonus that needs to appear on the cap at some point, but I expect him to be designated as a post-June-1 cut, allowing the Seahawks to split the dead money as $10,416,667 in 2024 and the same thing in 2025. That way, they gain $16.5M in 2024 cap space.
And Diggs has a 2024 cap number of $21,262,500, which is not quite as ridiculous as Adams with a nearly-$27M cap hit, but it's still ridiculous. $10,262,500 of that is the not-yet-accounted-for part of Diggs's signing bonus, but the remaining $11M in cap savings from cutting him is more attractive than keeping him on the roster with a $21.3M cap hit.

So the way I see it, the Seahawks need TEs and safeties.

You are absolutely correct. Safeties are a problem and the TE is a potential problem. I was hoping that signing either Parkinson or Fant would be possible.

Hawknight · Feb 16, 2024

I find it interesting that yes the team has said yes to Geno to say you will be here as of today and get your money but nothing that I have read saids Geno will be our QB come the new season. Some say theres is no smoke so there's no fire. I say the fact that the team hasn't announced Geno as the 2024 starter is enough smoke for me. IMHO there's enough teams out there in need of QBs willing to make a trade. We could use the draft picks and run with Lock. I'm not sure there's enough evidence or film out there to say he's not capable. If he wasn't I doubt Pete and John would have held on to him this long. Even though Geno has his money I think a change of scenery is on the horizon.

ElvisInBlue · Feb 16, 2024

rigelian said:
You are absolutely correct. Safeties are a problem and the TE is a potential problem. I was hoping that signing either Parkinson or Fant would be possible.

Are safeties really and issue? They played without the peacock already so it only Diggs that matters. We have Reed coming off IR and some position flexible players at CB with creative schemes that can lessen the difference in prototypes.

Lagartixa · Feb 16, 2024

rigelian said:
You are absolutely correct. Safeties are a problem and the TE is a potential problem. I was hoping that signing either Parkinson or Fant would be possible.

As @chris98251 pointed out in a reply to my comment, the Seahawks still have a bunch of guys who play safety even after Adams and Diggs are gone. I honestly don't know if there's material from which the team can construct a reliable starting pair and a couple of decent backups. I wouldn't be shocked if there were, and I wouldn't be shocked if there weren't.

Sun Tzu · Feb 16, 2024

Hawknight said:
I find it interesting that yes the team has said yes to Geno to say you will be here as of today and get your money but nothing that I have read saids Geno will be our QB come the new season. Some say theres is no smoke so there's no fire. I say the fact that the team hasn't announced Geno as the 2024 starter is enough smoke for me. IMHO there's enough teams out there in need of QBs willing to make a trade. We could use the draft picks and run with Lock. I'm not sure there's enough evidence or film out there to say he's not capable. If he wasn't I doubt Pete and John would have held on to him this long. Even though Geno has his money I think a change of scenery is on the horizon.

Have other teams with a returning starter come out and "announced" that the returning starter will be the starter in 2024?

Spin Doctor · Feb 16, 2024

Lagartixa said:
As @chris98251 pointed out in a reply to my comment, the Seahawks still have a bunch of guys who play safety even after Adams and Diggs are gone. I honestly don't know if there's material from which the team can construct a reliable starting pair and a couple of decent backups. I wouldn't be shocked if there were, and I wouldn't be shocked if there weren't.

I suspect that Spoon may play some safety next year.

hawkfan68 · Feb 16, 2024

Sun Tzu said:
Have other teams with a returning starter come out and "announced" that the returning starter will be the starter in 2024?

I think it's a foregone conclusion for many teams. I think it would be silly for the Bills, Chiefs, Eagles, Bengals, etc who have an incumbent fully entrenched to have to announce they are starters. It's a given. Geno is really not in the same class as that. He's good but can be replaced. So there could be a bit of uncertainty plus those teams aren't reshuffling their coaching staffs in a major way.

haroldseattle · Feb 17, 2024

Optimus25 said:
That’s my point exactly. You’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t. So why is QB the automatic selection within our draft capital for so many people? We have a modestly proven couple of guys at the position already, assuming we ‘lock’ up Drew. If you have a QB who can take you to the playoffs or brink of every season, but you have a defense that literally gives up 8 yds a carry, it’s a no brainer for me. Every pick. Every resource. Every energy. To the defense.

Plus this is very minor but at least needs consideration. No other team in our entire division is drafting quarterback. Probably anywhere in first 5 rounds. So any 1/2 rounder we take as QB is a gift to our division because one more ‘other’ position they may have desperately been targeting would still be on the board.

Before you think that’s crazy talk, reminder in 2016 the broncos reached on Paxton lynch late in the first and then who do the chiefs scoop up early in the 2nd? The REAL Super Bowl MVP- Chris Jones.

QB being the single most important position and once you find a good one they stick around for a decade or longer, that is why you nail that down ASAP. Defense is made up of 11 starters plus some rotational players and while you can add some with the draft, you lose some to free agency every year, or injuries, or some just start declining. Seahawks have a declining 34 year old QB and this is a good draft for QBs, next season draft isn't a good QB crop (but there will be good defensive players every single draft). It's not smart to come up short at the QB position.

JayhawkMike · Feb 17, 2024

haroldseattle said:
QB being the single most important position and once you find a good one they stick around for a decade or longer, that is why you nail that down ASAP. Defense is made up of 11 starters plus some rotational players and while you can add some with the draft, you lose some to free agency every year, or injuries, or some just start declining. Seahawks have a declining 34 year old QB and this is a good draft for QBs, next season draft isn't a good QB crop (but there will be good defensive players every single draft). It's not smart to come up short at the QB position.

And why would NEXT year be a better year than THIS year to draft that QB? It isn't. Especially since QBs usually take some time to develop. So a 1 year delay is really a 2-3 year delay in a good solid QB. Other positions can adapt much more quickly.

Jac · Feb 17, 2024

JayhawkMike said:
And why would NEXT year be a better year than THIS year to draft that QB? It isn't. Especially since QBs usually take some time to develop. So a 1 year delay is really a 2-3 year delay in a good solid QB. Other positions can adapt much more quickly.

I think that's what he's saying. Draft a QB this year because it's a good class.

rigelian · Feb 17, 2024

One other

JayhawkMike said:
And why would NEXT year be a better year than THIS year to draft that QB? It isn't. Especially since QBs usually take some time to develop. So a 1 year delay is really a 2-3 year delay in a good solid QB. Other positions can adapt much more quickly.

It's still a one year delay. Unless you think you have an immediately available draft pick that you won't have next draft year. Also, giving a rookie QB without having the OL fixed could actually retard a rookie QBs development. I think our immediate need is to fix the interior OL first.

rigelian · Feb 17, 2024

haroldseattle said:
QB being the single most important position and once you find a good one they stick around for a decade or longer, that is why you nail that down ASAP. Defense is made up of 11 starters plus some rotational players and while you can add some with the draft, you lose some to free agency every year, or injuries, or some just start declining. Seahawks have a declining 34 year old QB and this is a good draft for QBs, next season draft isn't a good QB crop (but there will be good defensive players every single draft). It's not smart to come up short at the QB position.

I actually think the declining QB narrative is a bit of a fiction. I think we had a declining OL problem. The red zone problem is that we couldn't obviously run the ball in the red zone...which gave defenses a big edge compared to last year.

WarHawks · Feb 17, 2024

Optimus25 said:
I admitted you’re damned either way very often. Why not just go with bird in the hand who gets you to the playoffs consistently (ok brink last year) because the glaring, resounding, obvious deficiency on this team is defense. Swing for the first four rounds to fill those holes and even if 1.5 hit we are a playoffs team next year. Miss on QBOTF and we are so far behind the curve it’s crazy and as i alluded earlier, who knows what dominos then fall to allow divisional teams to fill holes.

I pretty much thought i summed it up when I’ve said Mahomes couldn’t carry this defense to the Super Bowl. That’s a foundational argument to my viewpoint. How many top tier picks can we gamble on QB and still be able to return this defense to even slightly above league average? I say none at this point.

Without a great qb, it doesn't matter how good your defense is. Oth, a great qb can make up for a not so great defense to some degree. There are always going to be needs and holes to fill, on D and O both. . Always. So if you need a qbotf as we do, and you're in a position to take a swing at one, you have to go for it, because those opportunities aren't always available like other positions are. If he busts, oh well, at least you tried. And then you keep swinging. But never trying gets you what we've had the last several years. Mediocrity. Always kicking the can down the road is not the way to solve a problem.

rigelian · Feb 17, 2024

WarHawks said:
Without a great qb, it doesn't matter how good your defense is. Oth, a great qb can make up for a not so great defense to some degree. There are always going to be needs and holes to fill, on D and O both. . Always. So if you need a qbotf as we do, and you're in a position to take a swing at one, you have to go for it, because those opportunities aren't always available like other positions are. If he busts, oh well, at least you tried. And then you keep swinging. But never trying gets you what we've had the last several years. Mediocrity. Always kicking the can down the road is not the way to solve a problem.

How many great QBs have you seen without a serviceable OL. How many rookies have been ruined due to a lack thereof? By the way, swinging at a QBofF that fails isn't a single year setback, it's a multi-year setback.

Geno’s Back

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Similar threads