Geno Isn't the Guy. Sad to Say (Main)

[SoulfishHawk]

Fire Pete!

 

[Double Tribble]

Regression toward the mean - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Are you aware that Smith led the league in game-winning drives in his rookie season, accounting for five of the eight victories the Jets had that season? If we follow your logic that we should expect Smith to be "what he has historically always been," shouldn't we expect him to be one of the best in the league "when the chips are down"?

By the way, my answer to that question is no.

Here's why. Clutch performance definitely exists - we've all seen players come through in key situations, and we've all seen players not come through in such situations - but consistent "clutch performers" and "chokers" have been shown repeatedly not to exist. A player may be better "in the clutch" over say, a season than you'd expect from his overall performance, but then that player is no more or less likely to be better than you'd expect in such situations the following season than a player who performed worse than expected in such situations. This has been shown in multiple ways in multiple sports. People have tried really hard to show that "clutch ability" exists, but nobody's been able to do it.
Note that the key comparison that has to be made to determine if a player is "clutch" (or a "choker") is if he's consistently better (or worse) "when the chips are down" than you'd expect from his overall performance. People have tried many and varied definitions of "clutch situations" or "when the chips are down" in several different sports to try to find a "clutch ability" but still failed.
What happened to Tom Brady's supposed magic clutch ability in the Super Bowls against the Giants, and in the Super Bowl against the Eagles after the 2017 season? Easy. It never existed. He was an outstanding performer overall, so he was an outstanding performer in "clutch situations," but he didn't magically become better in those situations. Talk-radio mediots and talking-head mediots, especially the ones who don't really understand the details of on-the-field tactics, prefer narratives and like to use tiny samples from team sports to make judgments about the character of specific players, and that has polluted sports fans' thought. The whole premise of this thread, that a quarterback who in a "bad" season is hovering around the edge of the top ten quarterbacks in the league, and who was clearly in the top ten last season, "isn't the guy" is silly and has its origins in that kind of mediot-polluted thought.

First, in the modern era, which I'm going to arbitrarily define as from the 2000 season forward (the game continues to evolve, but football in the aughts was already a lot different from football in the '80s), there have been 23 Super Bowls so far. I'm going to look at the winning quarterbacks.

Tom Brady in his 20s was a very different player from Tom Brady in his 30s and 40s. Before Brady's age-30 season, he had what looked like a normal through-age-29 career for a decent-but-nowhere-near-great QB. But because his teams won three Super Bowls in that time, and because mediots have been pounding into their audiences' heads that a team just can't win Super Bowls without a great QB, they invented the narratives that Brady was a "game manager" who had some kind of magical ability to win titles (as if it weren't a team sport, as if Brady weren't playing on strong teams, and as if his head coach weren't great at what he did) and the debate was frequently about Peyton Manning and his league-changing performance on bad teams versus Tom Brady's "game management," "clutchness," and Super Bowl rings. It wasn't until his age-30 season that Brady had Peyton Manning-level on-the-field performance. Brady being on the losing side of the Super Bowl after the 2007 season, when the Cheatriots had a historically great offense and a roster vastly superior to that of the Giants, didn't dispel the idea that he had magical clutch abilities. Anyway, I'm separating Brady's career into two. Brady in his 20s was a decent QB, but nowhere near great. Brady in his 30s and 40s performed like peak Peyton Manning.

In the table below, you'll see that just over a third of the Super Bowls since 2000 were won by QBs with great-at-that-time QBs (I really hope nobody tries to argue that age-39 Peyton Manning was great in the 2015 season or the playoffs and Super Bowl following it). Eight of 23. So yes, teams can and do win the Super Bowl with quarterbacks who aren't great, aren't top-five, some that aren't even league-average. Sure, teams with great QBs win too, but since 2000, it's happened a lot more that a team won without a great QB.

Smith is not going to the Hall of Fame. He's not going to be one of the top two or three quarterbacks in the league this season or at any point in his career. But he was somewhere in the middle of the top ten last season (I'd say fifth-best or sixth-best), and in this "bad" 2023 season so far, he's around the edges of the top ten. I'd say he's been just outside it, but I can see arguments for putting him anywhere between eighth-best and 13th-best. That's easily good enough for a team to win a Super Bowl with him as the quarterback, and I honestly expect his performance to improve if and when the OL gets healthier and as the season goes on.

Year​	Super Bowl-winning QB​	QB quality​
2000	Trent Dilfer	Nothing special
2001	Tom Brady in his 20s	Good, not great
2002	Brad Johnson	Nothing special
2003	Brady in his 20s	Good, not great
2004	Brady in his 20s	Good, not great
2005	Rapelisberger	Good, not great
2006	Peyton Manning	Great
2007	Eli Manning	Good, not great
2008	Rapelisberger	OK, not great
2009	Brees	Great
2010	Rodgers	Still a season away from getting MVP votes, but let's say the "great" phase of his career had started.
2011	Eli Manning	Good, not great
2012	Joe Flacco	Not great (never made a Pro Bowl in 15 seasons in the league)
2013	Russell Wilson	I don't want to debate his later career here. In 2013, he was asked to do little. Good, not great, in 2013.
2014	Brady in his 30s	Great
2015	End-of-career Peyton Manning	Not even good. Downright bad.
2016	Brady in his 30s	Great
2017	Nick Foles	Nothing special
2018	Brady in his 40s	Great
2019	Mahomes	Great
2020	Brady in his 40s	Great
2021	Stafford	Good, not great
2022	Mahomes	Great

So your argument is we should ride a sometimes good/sometimes not, maybe/maybe not top ten qb because a few of those have won sb's in the past, and past results are not necessarily indicative of future success. All righty then. I'll take your word for it. Sounds like really great odds to me. What could possibly go wrong? Let's Fly! Go Hawks!

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Let's just see how he plays THIS SUNDAY. All that matters right now.

 

[hox]

Like I tried to tell people years ago. It's a Pete philosophy choice, not a RW height issue.

Aaron Rodgers didn't/doesn't throw in the middle of the field either.

And I agree with it. It's where most interceptions happen. Best to avoid that area of the field as much as you can if possible.

Just entertaining to read folks who used to complain about Wilson not throwing to the middle of field, are completely silent when Geno does the same thing. Ha.

One game heatmap and suddenly Geno can't throw over the middle like Russ? What about this game?



Or this game?



Indeed it IS a Russ issue and not a Pete issue. Let's not get it twisted.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Great GENO thread going here

 

[Lagartixa]

So your argument is we should ride a sometimes good/sometimes not, maybe/maybe not top ten qb because a few of those have won sb's in the past, and past results are not necessarily indicative of future success. All righty then. I'll take your word for it. Sounds like really great odds to me. What could possibly go wrong? Let's Fly! Go Hawks!

I'm saying that in 15 of the last 23 Super Bowls, the winning team had a less-than-great QB. That's 65.2%. As moneyline odds, that would be -153 for a winning team to have a less-than-great QB, but I don't think odds make sense because of something you yourself said: "past results are not necessarily indicative of future success." OK.

I'm saying 15 of the last 23 Super Bowl-winning quarterbacks were not greats, so there's decent reason to believe teams can win the Super Bowl without one. You clearly disagree with that position. On what do you base that disagreement?

I'm going to turn your question around. I know an easy way for the Seahawks to have an above-league-average (but not HoF-bound) quarterback at a reasonable price for the rest of this season and as much of the next two seasons as they want. You seem convinced that's not good enough. So how do you propose they get a quarterback who's better than Geno Smith? What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Spin Doctor]

This. The evidence last year showed pretty clearly that Geno does use the middle of the field.

Fact is, the more effective our running game is, the more the middle is open in this offense. It's a simple as that. The tendency to avoid high turnover risk concepts does not dictate not running plays to the middle of the field. It says you throw there when your odds improve and the offense is balanced.

We have not been balance so far this year. Until last week, we were in the bottom 1/3rd of the league in attempts.

If the LBs aren't forced to play forward, the scheme that we run will look to exploit the edges more.

When the last QB was here, it didn't matter whether the running game was working or not. We just didn't go to the middle.

Run the ball more effectively and the whole tool chest becomes available.

I’m not insinuating that he doesn’t. I’m saying that Geno Smith is really good at those short timing routes. If your whole game plan falls apart because you can’t utilize the play action, it’s an issue with your system.

The thing is we’ve used this short passing game to establish the run in the past. I’m critiquing the system and play caller as much as anything here, not really Geno himself.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Geno still is the one making bad decisions. He shouldn't get a pass.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It's not rocket science anymore with Geno.

He goes as the pass-pro and run game go. So if this line and run game continues to sputter for entire quarters and halves, the Browns nasty D is going to destroy Geno.

Forget the passing game, they GOTTA run the ball better. Walker 2 and 3 yard runs is going to put Geno in significant peril.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

MUST...POUND...THE...ROCK

 

[HoldYourHawk]

For anyone who doubts Geno, just wait until he breaks this record sunday.

 

[Seahawker]

MUST...POUND...THE...ROCK

I don't think Waldron has the wherewithal to really commit to the run which is what it will take to keep opposing defenses honest. Having ML24 & RW3's legs did so much to open up the passing game.
We've fallen into the trap of trying to throw for a 1st on 3rd & 6+ far too often, with DC's bringing the heat knowing Geno can't operate without a clean pocket. Even with a fantastic stable of WR's, our passing game will never reach their potential until the OLine puts their stamp on the run game.
Then this offense will begin to be a thing of beauty and Geno will consistently put up top ten stats.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

I don't think Waldron has the wherewithal to really commit to the run which is what it will take to keep opposing defenses honest. Having ML24 & RW3's legs did so much to open up the passing game.
We've fallen into the trap of trying to throw for a 1st on 3rd & 6+ far too often, with DC's bringing the heat knowing Geno can't operate without a clean pocket. Even with a fantastic stable of WR's, our passing game will never reach their potential until the OLine puts their stamp on the run game.
Then this offense will begin to be a thing of beauty and Geno will consistently put up top ten stats.

Our offense does have success throwing the ball on early downs, so it's not without merit or blame that Waldron's trying to duplicate that success.

But if we're discussing Geno's shortcomings and situational failures with the red zone picks and inability to convert on more 3rd downs? How bout stop with the 2nd and 3rd and 8's?

That can be remedied with running the ball better, even if it's after a 1st down throw. But also again, any MASH unit O-line is going to have a hard time establishing the continuity necessary to run the ball effectively.

 

[scutterhawk]

I could see him being an upgraded Fitzmagic sort of character. Fitz would look like one of the best passers in the league at times then regress to being frustrating. That’s sort of what we have in Geno right now.

There are times where Smith looks like a world beater. That Lions game for example was an absolute clinic. When Geno’s on he can be scary good. When he’s off he is not a pick machine but even simple things look out of sync.

In the end I think Smith is closer to Tannehill and Cousins than he is Fitzmagic and McCown.

The thing with Geno is he just looks out of sync with our receivers this year. He’s determining where he’s going to throw the ball and pressing the issue. I also think Shane Waldron hasn’t been doing us any favors. Geno is at his best working the short/intermediate uptempo passing game. Too often we go away from that in favor of intermediate and deep passing. Really this has been a huge gripe I’ve had with Carroll’s offenses in general. It was an issue even with Matt Hasselbeck under center. The short/intermediate and timing routes never seem to be a priority and this is where Geno excels.

This^ and I would add, that if Pete/Waldron would focus a little more on that "Up-tempo", it would help the busted up O-Linemen A LOT and would keep the chains moving.
The old saying "The Run sets up the Pass" isn't an out of date ploy.
Everybody loves the 'Long Bomb' passes, but they have to be set up, and not overused, almost all Defenses have learned how to defend against any play that get's overdone.

 

[JustTheTip]

Fire Pete!

You should really stop doing this if you don't like having the discussion on the merits (and there are completely valid points on both sides of this discussion) of moving on from Pete. As often as not, I see the discussion started by a "Pete can do no wrong guy" making a comment like this as people who think he should be gone bringing it up.

 

[JustTheTip]

One game heatmap and suddenly Geno can't throw over the middle like Russ? What about this game?





Indeed it IS a Russ issue and not a Pete issue. Let's not get it twisted.

Yup, Pete has plenty of his own issues. No need to lump the ones that have nothing to do with him ontop of them.

 

[JustTheTip]

It's not rocket science anymore with Geno.

He goes as the pass-pro and run game go. So if this line and run game continues to sputter for entire quarters and halves, the Browns nasty D is going to destroy Geno.

Forget the passing game, they GOTTA run the ball better. Walker 2 and 3 yard runs is going to put Geno in significant peril.

It likely doesn't get better until Pete's hands are out of the offense altogether. Right now, Pete's desired offense tendencies and game flow are just entirely too predictable making it all too easy for even mediocre defenses to "cheat" on what is likely. It has been displayed that Waldron has the chops to be creative in play design but plays here and there are not going to cut it.

 

[JustTheTip]

Our offense does have success throwing the ball on early downs, so it's not without merit or blame that Waldron's trying to duplicate that success.

But if we're discussing Geno's shortcomings and situational failures with the red zone picks and inability to convert on more 3rd downs? How bout stop with the 2nd and 3rd and 8's?

That can be remedied with running the ball better, even if it's after a 1st down throw. But also again, any MASH unit O-line is going to have a hard time establishing the continuity necessary to run the ball effectively.

This is a completely valid point, but only changing the formations but not the general offensive flow (as the seahawks have done so far) is not going to cut it for compensation for the O-line deficiencies.

 

[Sgt. Largent]

It likely doesn't get better until Pete's hands are out of the offense altogether. Right now, Pete's desired offense tendencies and game flow are just entirely too predictable making it all too easy for even mediocre defenses to "cheat" on what is likely. It has been displayed that Waldron has the chops to be creative in play design but plays here and there are not going to cut it.

Waldron's the most creative coordinator Pete's ever had, so I don't buy into the it's Pete's meddling narrative anymore.

But like most offenses, if the O-line and run game are struggling? Modern NFL defenses with their speed and quickness are just too good to not be able to scheme to stop mediocre offenses not firing on all cylinders.

It's happening all over the league. Scoring is down, explosive plays are down, red zone TD's are down, it's all down. We're no exception.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

You should really stop doing this if you don't like having the discussion on the merits (and there are completely valid points on both sides of this discussion) of moving on from Pete. As often as not, I see the discussion started by a "Pete can do no wrong guy" making a comment like this as people who think he should be gone bringing it up.

Geez man, it's a joke. I don't want them to fire Pete. But, he absolutely has a pile of issues like many coaches.
People post Fire Pete all the time........it's called Sarcasm. Guess it's ok for some to joke around and not others.