Does Macdonald keep Geno?

[RiverDog]

Hes guaranteed money in mid February so this decision will need to be made somewhat quickly. Thoughts?

I have to admit to a personal bias with regards to Geno. His DUI arrest caused me to lose a ton of respect for him, and it's something he's never fully explained or apologized for.

But as far as his status as a starting quarterback, we have to ask ourselves if we expect to compete for a SB within the next year or two. If that answer is yes, then by all means, we keep him. We don't have a high enough draft pick to select one of the top 3 QB's and moving up to get one would require selling the farm.

My answer to that question is no, we won't be competing for a SB within the next two years, so it makes sense to move on from him, sign another veteran to act as a bridge or mentor for a new quarterback, and use our resources to rebuild our defense and offensive line.

 

[WarHawks]

Looking ahead long term, I just don't see any universe in which the [not insignificant] resources spent to keep him around for a year or two aren't better spent elsewhere, given the glaring needs on the roster, and especially since he clearly is not the long-term answer at qb. If he were, this would be a completely different conversation. Therefore, cut him before 2/16, sign a cheaper vet on a year or two contract if you need to, and draft a qb. Otherwise, you're hamstringing the team in the short term both financially and by using up short-term opportunity cost better spent on developing a new qb, for no good reason. It really just doesn't make any logical sense to keep him around any longer, if you're thinking strategically.

 

[renofox]

Looking ahead long term, I just don't see any universe in which the [not insignificant] resources spent to keep him around for a year or two aren't better spent elsewhere, given the glaring needs on the roster, and especially since he clearly is not the long-term answer at qb. If he were, this would be a completely different conversation. Therefore, cut him before 2/16, sign a cheaper vet on a year or two contract if you need to, and draft a qb. Otherwise, you're hamstringing the team in the short term both financially and by using up short-term opportunity cost better spent on developing a new qb, for no good reason. It really just doesn't make any logical sense to keep him around any longer, if you're thinking strategically.

100%. Cut before 2/16 but also keep him in the cheap vet QB candidate pool. If he wants to re-sign with the Seahawks for ~10M then bring him back. Draft a rookie and let Geno be an appropriately priced bridge.

 

[SeaWolv]

I hope not. I'm so ready to move on. Almost any qb can replace Geno's level of play, and hopefully we will draft one that will far exceed it.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Geno is above average in this league (82.9 PFF grade) and that by definition means not any QB can replace his level of play. We will move on from Geno, it's just a matter of time for MM to find "his guy". Hopefully that happens sooner than later.

 

[flv2]

Nobody is going to trade for Geno with all the available/younger/cheaper QB's, and 22.5 mil is his cash number this year. Which for our interest is irrelevant.

You're right in that he doesn't add 22.5 because you're not adding the 9.6 million roster bonus he gets 3/17.

Draft a qb and want to trade geno? DEFINITELY a problem. So along with the 9.6 roster bonus on 3/17, his 12.7 mil base salary becomes fully guaranteed 2/16.

So, the salary being guaranteed doesn't matter if we keep him for the year or trade him, his salary stays guaranteed at that date for the year regardless of what team he's on. But after 2/16 those are the only two options left because cutting him at that point would be stupid instead of doing it before the 16th, and in fact literally worthless after the roster bonus on 3/17. We'd save zero dollars.

If we cut geno before 2/16 we save 13.8 mil on the cap this year, and free an additional 8.7 the year after since next years signing bonus would move up. Same if we trade geno before 3/17. If we trade geno after 3/17 and before kickoff we'd save 4.2 then 8.7 the next year, and less each week into the season. So these are very important dates, for practical purposes 2/16 is the deadline to cut him and 3/17 is the deadline to trade him.

So literally everything you said is wrong lol, but it's a weird contract. 9.6 is a MASSIVE roster bonus, and the 12.7 base becoming guaranteed makes it more confusing as well.

From geno's standpoint, it ensures we can't just hold on to him to see if we get the qb we want in the draft, and if he looks week one ready in camp or not, while other teams are signing the other free agent QB's. You can see why that'd be an issue from his perspective if we find out our new qb is set, and cut geno when teams are all set at qb.

Likewise, it gives the team the opportunity to where, if geno doesn't fit our plans for the future (keep in mind this was signed before this past season) *wink wink*, they have some extra fat to trim off opposed to for example the 9.6 roster bonus being added onto the amount guaranteed at signing where we pay it no matter what.

The roster bonus only applies to the seahawks, and only if he's still on the team on 3/17, it doesn't carry over in a trade. So it makes him more appealing to other teams who may want to trade for him opposed to the roster bonus being spread through the base salary where whoever trading for him is stuck with the bill.

Makes a bit more sense why geno signed such a seemingly team friendly deal, seems pretty fair all around tbh.

Again, if we're going to cut geno it will be done before 2/16, and if we're going to trade him it will be before 3/17. I doubt anyone is going to give us picks for Geno, so it might end up a situation where we give geno and a 6th for a 7th kind of deal,similar to how the nba moves contracts occasionally.

After 3/17 the only way literally any money (4.2 mil) can be saved is by trading geno, but at that point might as well keep him lol.

I did a LOT of reading to wrap my head around this and learn the specifics on some of the terms so hopefully at least somebody got something out of it.

Worth noting that next year is almost a carbon copy regarding his contract, except there's no salary guarantee date.

So anyone who has mentioned cutting geno, it's happening by 2/16 if at all .

So much bad analysis it's not worth picking apart.

 

[Titus Pullo]

Geno won't be here under his current contract.

 

[flv2]

Smith was paid $27.5M in 2023. Only $10.1M of that was accounted for in 2023. The rest will be accounted for over 2024 and 2025. That is unavoidable and has 0 impact on any decision to cut, keep, or trade him. Exactly when the last $8.7M is accounted for is unimportant. No team is looking solely at the 2024 budget without keeping an eye on future budget years. Smith is due $22.5M in 2024. That is the important figure.

This is an unusual year in that 6 potential starting QBs are likely to come into the NFL in the top 50 Draft picks. At the same time there might be 0 quality QBs leaving the market. This should deflate the market for average/bottom end starters, but not every team is going to fill their QB vacancy. In another year Mayfield would be worth $25M. In this 2024 market he should only be worth $15-20M. However, it only takes 1 or 2 GMs to mess with the market and Mayfield might end up getting $30M+ this year. For my money Smith is better than Mayfield. It doesn't help when Spotrac posts valuations like this:

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/chicago-bears/justin-fields-72391/market-value/

 

[Ozzy]

Mayfield is younger and had a better year imo. He will get more if both are on the market

 

[Seahawk_Dan]

Or trade for Trey Lance.

For the what? A $50 Walmart gift card with only $17 on it and a shoe string?

 

[Ozzy]

I think it’s going to depend a lot on who the OC is. It seemed obvious John didn’t give Geno a glowing endorsement but if Macdonald and the OC want to roll with Geno while they attack other areas then I think John signs off on it but it doesn’t change his draft plans for the position.

 

[flv2]

Mayfield is younger and had a better year imo. He will get more if both are on the market

A perfectly reasonable point of view, but if it's a 1 or 2 year deal then age shouldn't really come into it. Both look like bridge QBs.

 

[Ozzy]

A perfectly reasonable point of view, but if it's a 1 or 2 year deal then age shouldn't really come into it. Both look like bridge QBs.

Agreed. I’m a biased Mayfield homer so I’d weigh that against any take I have with him to be fair lol. But I do agree both are bridge guys for sure.

 

[Parallax]

Looking ahead long term, I just don't see any universe in which the [not insignificant] resources spent to keep him around for a year or two aren't better spent elsewhere, given the glaring needs on the roster, and especially since he clearly is not the long-term answer at qb. If he were, this would be a completely different conversation. Therefore, cut him before 2/16, sign a cheaper vet on a year or two contract if you need to, and draft a qb. Otherwise, you're hamstringing the team in the short term both financially and by using up short-term opportunity cost better spent on developing a new qb, for no good reason. It really just doesn't make any logical sense to keep him around any longer, if you're thinking strategically.

Exactly. And strategic thinking was never Pete's strong suit. As he got older, everything was about winning before he retired. "Win now! I'm 72. NOW, NOW, NOW!" Would sound like a toddler except that he was the old guy holding all the decision-making power. So he didn't have to tantrum. He just said what he'd say and do what he did. If we didn't like it, too bad. If Schneider didn't like it, too bad. He answered only to Jody, who finally at long last revealed herself. Later in his career, he was so stubborn and inflexible, which is why I felt so strongly he needed to be fired.

 

[Parallax]

A perfectly reasonable point of view, but if it's a 1 or 2 year deal then age shouldn't really come into it. Both look like bridge QBs.

Not to me. I could see Baker being the guy for the right team. Imagine if Purdy went down, or the 9ers wanted an alternative, and Shanahan had him. A lot of talent there.

 

[JPatera76]

I think Canales? The coach we lost to TB this last yr who "revived" Mayfield and also did the same with Geno the year prior before he went to Tampa Should or could be closely looked and considered why these two guys looked like "come back kings"

 

[Parallax]

I think Canales? The coach we lost to TB this last yr who "revived" Mayfield and also did the same with Geno the year prior before he went to Tampa Should or could be closely looked and considered why these two guys looked like "come back kings"

This year will be telling. Canales has his work cut out for him but Young would seem to have a ton of potential. Far more than Geno.

 

[chris98251]

The green bay model? Is that the one where you have a qb start for 16 years, followed by a guy who starts for 15 years? Because russ only made it 10 and geno is knocking on deaths door.

Maybe he's utilizing the Schneider method.

Overpay a qb from limited success (geno/Flynn) bring in a rookie qb to unseat the short lived king (Wilson/pick #16)

The Green Bay Model, draft a QB, get him up to speed and show case him pre season, Brunell, Flynn, Hass, and others, if you have a starter that intrenched you then trade that QB for draft picks and keep developing them over and over. People really need to look at the History of things, Wolfe was noticed for this and had guys that were great at QB development on the staff.

 

[flv2]

Not to me. I could see Baker being the guy for the right team. Imagine if Purdy went down, or the 9ers wanted an alternative, and Shanahan had him. A lot of talent there.

Mayfield and Smith are starting QBs. They're going to sign with teams that want them as starting QBs. Neither are, (or are likely to be), top 10 starting QBs. Teams that haven't got a top 10 QB, (or someone who could progress into a top 10 starting QB), will always be looking for their next QB.

Purdy is a top 10 QB on a cheap rookie contract, (for all of 2024 as well). Absolutely nobody with a QB situation like that is looking for a starting alternative. If Purdy or any other starting QB goes down with a long-term injury between now and the Draft then obviously that team will be looking for another QB. Pretty unlikely scenario though. If a team suffers a QB injury from June onward then tough luck because the decent QBs will have found roster spots by then.

 

[Parallax]

Mayfield and Smith are starting QBs. They're going to sign with teams that want them as starting QBs. Neither are, (or are likely to be), top 10 starting QBs. Teams that haven't got a top 10 QB, (or someone who could progress into a top 10 starting QB), will always be looking for their next QB.

Purdy is a top 10 QB on a cheap rookie contract, (for all of 2024 as well). Absolutely nobody with a QB situation like that is looking for a starting alternative. If Purdy or any other starting QB goes down with a long-term injury between now and the Draft then obviously that team will be looking for another QB. Pretty unlikely scenario though. If a team suffers a QB injury from June onward then tough luck because the decent QBs will have found roster spots by then.

I think it depends on the price and also on how well Purdy does in the Super Bowl. There have been times he's looked great and times he's looked like a backup. If he folds next Sunday, I could definitely see San Francisco ponying up for Mayfield. They've seen the value of having more than one decent QB on the roster. Last year, their starter went down and then their backup. And then Purdy, orginally the third string guy, played well but got injured in the playoff game with the Eagles. If any team would consider spending real money on a backup, it's San Fran.

It's not particularly relevant that years before the salary cap came along, The 9ers had two future hall of fame QBs on the roster in Joe Montana and Steve Young. They paid a lot to convince Young to sit on the bench while Montana played out the end of his career. It's not possible to do something like that anymore, but a reasonably priced Mayfield would be a possibility. San Francisco is going to have to be creative with their cap space next year but it's not horrible.

 

[Parallax]

Mahomes holds the record for being responsible for the highest percentage of his team's salary cap for a single player on a Super Bowl champion, at 17.16% of the cap. Before that, it had been Steve Young's 13.1% for a very long time.

So if the goal is to win Super Bowls, it looks to me like it's not worth it to use 20% or more of the team's cap space on a single player. And that makes sense. With a lower quarterback cap hit, a team can invest more in the rest of the roster, allowing for a stronger and deeper team.

Well, Mahomes is sitting at 22.1% of the KC salary cap this year. Did the Chiefs screw up?

Next year he's at 23.38%. Not worth it?

Can't agree with your assertion that it's not worth spending 20% of your cap on a great quarterback. Just have to make sure he's truly great. And that was my point. The fact that Mahomes is worth 20% of your cap space doesn't mean that Geno's worth 10.

Teams screw this up a lot. Watson's cap hit next year is 23.42%. Prescott's is 23.47%. I guess one of those teams could win the Superbowl next year but color me skeptical. The Browns have major cap problems next year and are going to have to make big cuts. Dallas simply isn't as good as they'd like to think they are, though Parsons is a beast.

Then there's the hapless Cardinals. Murray's cap his is 20.44%. If we keep Geno, he's holding 12.5% of ours. In my view, that's way too high. Purdy's is 0.36%. Now that's value.

I'd of course much rather have Mahomes at 23.38 next year than Murray at 20.44. Or Daniel Frickin' Jones at 18.94. And Geno's not worth 12.5%. No question that, if I were GM, I'd cut him unless he could be traded.

This website is the source of my numbers: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/positional/quarterback/