MacDonald riding with Geno

[keasley45]

Turning water into wine is exactly how some of you feel though.

I don't get how one side of the fanbase can watch the games on Sunday and come away thinking he's a great QB and the mistakes he makes are either on the coaching, Oline, wrong receiver routes, or whatever while the other side of the fanbase sits there screaming at their TV's for him not to do something he is about to do. It's insane and i've never seen anything like that before on this board (Pete and Russ squabbles were nowhere like this).

They can feel that way the same way Daniel Jeremiah does. A dude who played QBand has kept abreast of Geno and the Hawks for a while.

Because 15 INts arent 15 horrible decisions when you understand that 8 of them were good decisons that ended badly for no faukt of the QB

Or that 21 TDs is low but nit career defining or problematic when you understand that the Grubb offense was canned in Seattle for how poor the concepts and play design were, ESPECIALLY , in compressed field situations. AND that no offense failed as miserably inside the 10 yard line and in short yardage siuations as seattles.

You could blame all of that on GeNo... except that until this year, the offense wasnt that bad inside the 10 and for all the chants that Geno sucks in the redzone, the reality is that until Grubb, he had thrown 33TDs and 2 INts in the redzone. Thats a 16.5 : 1 ratio. Under Grubb - 13:4.

So you can call all of that excuses and praise a guy like Goff for being so 'incredible' despite the fact that Geno was more accurate and better at avoiding pressure despite playing behind the 26th ranked line whike Goff played begind a top unit if you want. Just dont try to pass off superficial analysis and emotion based arguments as relevant evidence in a debate that goes deeper than wins and losses and TDs and INts. Leave it at 'i dont like the dude and my mind cant be changed no matter what the stats say and he does on the field'. At least @SoulfishHawk drops his argument there and just leaves it at that. Thats respectable. Some players, no matter what they do sometimes just dont 'do it' for fans. And that is undeniably the case considering the upswell of support among some of the anti- Geno crowd around here for Drew Lock last year when the dude showed zero that would warrant being a starter. Check that. All Drew had to do was act like he coukd play for a series or throw one TD, despte sucking the whole game to have some calling for him to start.

Thats all good. But its an argument who's only real roots are in emotion.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

We all give each other crap. I honestly hope it's not personal. It isn't for me. Half the time I'm just having fun.
I suspect that many of us would actually get along and raise a pint together and laugh over our internet arguments.
For the record, I like Geno the person. Just not a believer in the player. But I'm looking forward to Crowing up like crazy. I'm actually capable hahahahaha

In fact, I want to apologize for being a hole about the Geno thing. It's time I chill a little on it. I like being here.
I get out of hand and worked up, no denying it. But I'm grateful to have a place to talk Hawks football.

 

[keasley45]

I give him the utmost credit too, but damn.

Im not defending him. I played football, coached my stepkids in football. I know the game and that raw stats and wins and losses are the tools of fools in trying to SINCERELY assess the performance of a player.

By the GeNo crowds metrics, guys like Steve Young would have never gotten a chance to do anything. He was 3-16 with 11 Tds and 21 Ints in 2 seasons. Watch the game on Sunday and he was horrible. Good thing Bill Walsh didnt see the game the way you do.

By your standard, Bill Walsh bringing him in to SF was 'defending' him.

Superficial stats are for casual fans. They dont say much or prove anything.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Maelstrom, going to the film and finding excuses and claiming, (see it wasn't his fault!) isn't actual analysis.
Anyone can do this with any QB. Especially when one wants to. If you want to find fault you will find it. If you want to place blame elsewhere you will find it.
Bottom line is Geno took a lot of sacks that were in fact very avoidable and costly.
Geno threw many back breaking picks in the end zone that cost this team wins. I know I know none of it is Genos fault. We can go round and round and round again.

Confirmation bias is indeed a hell of a drug, so why wouldn't we count on the fact that he takes significantly less sacks than he should be given the raw pressure numbers he faces to help us judge his sack avoidance?

Of course he takes avoidable sacks. The question is whether or not he does so at a rate that would be improved upon by most other quarterbacks, and almost everything out there points to a resounding "no."

If you guys think I don't say "god damn it, Geno" when he takes a costly sack, you're simply wrong. I don't like it, but player evaluation is balancing the good against the bad and then putting that against what you see league-wide and then putting that in the proper context given the situation surrounding the player.

 

[Natethegreat]

They can feel that way the same way Daniel Jeremiah does. A dude who played QBand has kept abreast of Geno and the Hawks for a while.

Because 15 INts arent 15 horrible decisions when you understand that 8 of them were good decisons that ended badly for no faukt of the QB

Or that 21 TDs is low but nit career defining or problematic when you understand that the Grubb offense was canned in Seattle for how poor the concepts and play design were, ESPECIALLY , in compressed field situations. AND that no offense failed as miserably inside the 10 yard line and in short yardage siuations as seattles.

You could blame all of that on GeNo... except that until this year, the offense wasnt that bad inside the 10 and for all the chants that Geno sucks in the redzone, the reality is that until Grubb, he had thrown 33TDs and 2 INts in the redzone. Thats a 16.5 : 1 ratio. Under Grubb - 13:4.

So you can call all of that excuses and praise a guy like Goff for being so 'incredible' despite the fact that Geno was more accurate and better at avoiding pressure despite playing behind the 26th ranked line whike Goff played begind a top unit if you want. Just dont try to pass off superficial analysis and emotion based arguments as relevant evidence in a debate that goes deeper than wins and losses and TDs and INts. Leave it at 'i dont like the dude and my mind cant be changed no matter what the stats say and he does on the field'. At least @SoulfishHawk drops his argument there and just leaves it at that. Thats respectable. Some players, no matter what they do sometimes just dont 'do it' for fans. And that is undeniably the case considering the upswell of support among some of the anti- Geno crowd around here for Drew Lock last year when the dude showed zero that would warrant being a starter. Check that. All Drew had to do was act like he coukd play for a series or throw one TD, despte sucking the whole game to have some calling for him to start.

Thats all good. But its an argument who's only real roots are in emotion.

Can't speak for others but I at no point called for Lock or Howell to start.

Im not defending him. I played football, coached my stepkids in football. I know the game and that raw stats and wins and losses are the tools of fools in trying to SINCERELY assess the performance of a player.

By the GeNo crowds metrics, guys like Steve Young would have never gotten a chance to do anything. He was 3-16 with 11 Tds and 21 Ints in 2 seasons. Watch the game on Sunday and he was horrible. Good thing Bill Walsh didnt see the game the way you do.

By your standard, Bill Walsh bringing him in to SF was 'defending' him.

Superficial stats are for casual fans. They dont say much or prove anything.

yes, we are fools your the only qualified person to give an opinion. I get it and bow to your infinite wisdom and totally unbiased film analysis.

 

[Maelstrom787]

The one that you side with no doubt.

I side with tape-based analysis further informed by statistical analysis and then balanced with situational context, and the people on "my side" generally do so as well.

That's why we're on this side, because if we DIDN'T do that, we'd be wanting the same change as the dudes throwing zingers instead of engaging in actual football talk. Like the "another INT, wasn't his fault" and "chess/pickleball" comments.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

No way should have Lock or Howell started over Geno. Hell no

 

[SoulfishHawk]

 

[Ozzy]

This is what these threads always turn into, and I'm sorry, but one side is putting significantly more actual football analysis out than the other in every one of these threads.

I couldnt disagree more. You see it this way because you agree with their cherry picked stats. Some of the pro Geno arguments are flat out terrible.

When advanced metrics are cited that show that Geno struggled in many areas its laughed off just as some of the pro Geno arguments are laughed off by those who don't think Geno is elite.

There is no way one side is putting in significantly more anything in this debate.

 

[Ozzy]

Thats ridiculous. You cant do that with any qb.

And only in today's backwards world where 'opinion' is floated as fact, and facts passed off as falsehoods or distractions do arguments like ' he cant win because he never has ' have remotely any credibility.

Watching film provides context to numbers. One qb can throw for 300 yards and 2 tds. Another can throw for 150 1 td and 1 pick. Which one is the better QB? No way to determine that unless you understand the context and watch the film.

One QB can win a sb and be carried by his team. Another can miss the playoffs but be the reason his team was beven close to getting there. Which one is better?

The argument from the GeNo side is based on superficial 'analysis' that ignores the realities of the current team, while instead leaning on statements like - he hasnt won a playoff game in his whole career...

WtH does what he did in NY (an obomination of a team and franchise that finds a way to lose even with one of the all time greats playing qb for them and a stacked roster) have to do with what he has done in Seattle??

And why is it the fact that the team sported league worst rankings in blocking, rushing and play calling since he has been starter doesnt factor in the calculus in the GeNo crowd?

Simple, because most of the justification for not thinking he is good is based on emotion and bias stemming on any number of things NOT related to HIS actual play and HIS performance on the field as a seahawks starter.

I am going to say a lot of the breakdowns are biased and its obvious. I just watched a breakdown were Geno waited forever, the line finally broke down so he was hit and it was a pick. The pro Geno guy says see this one isn't his fault and put it on the line. He ignores the wide open receiver on an out route that is completely left alone. So is it the lines fault or Geno's fault? I would say its Geno's fault. When Keasley, Maelstrom or Dark watch the tape they immediately say its the lines fault. I'm not trying to say I'm right and their wrong only that its often us confirming priors. The pick I'm talking about I know was put on the line in earlier breakdowns on here which I think is wild. It's also not significantly better film breakdown either. It's just as biased as anyone else.

 

[Ozzy]

And I hate that if someone is critical of Geno they're called haters. I think he's a good QB. Middle of the pack good. He was hurt a ton this year, is going to be 35 and wants by all accounts 40 million dollars for an extended deal. Historically teams always regret those deals for older qb's outside of Brady. Does that make guilty of doing significantly less breakdowns, critical thinking etc or whatever else you guys accuse me and others of? I don't think so. I think it's smart. Just because we look at in totality doesn't mean we're not doing what you're doing. And I'm also not saying your approach is wrong, you're just looking at it from a different perspective.

If Seattle signs him to a massive contract over the next few years I think its a mistake but I will hope he proves me wrong.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I couldnt disagree more. You see it this way because you agree with their cherry picked stats. Some of the pro Geno arguments are flat out terrible.

When advanced metrics are cited that show that Geno struggled in many areas its laughed off just as some of the pro Geno arguments are laughed off by those who don't think Geno is elite.

There is no way one side is putting in significantly more anything in this debate.

No, I put it out this way because half of the last page is outright insults and they came majority from one side.

Geno DID struggle in areas. Keasley and I both acknowledge this and have consistently. The argument is CONSTANTLY reframed as "The GeNO fluffers think that he does nothing wrong."

The stats on both sides are cherry picked. Read my previous comments about how the stats are complete bullshit unless you actually balance them with tape and context.

Disagreements happen, but the outright discrediting, constant laugh reacts, and premature dismissal of people trying to actually talk football here is getting ridiculous. Keasley's getting laughed at essentially for putting effort into his posts, FFS. People now see that effort as cultism.

 

[Maelstrom787]

I think he's a good QB. Middle of the pack good.

This is literally essentially the same thing that those ordained Geno cultists believe. Why, then, the fiercely derisive rhetoric?

 

[RiverDog]

His (Peyton Manning's) focus was on trying to win with the team he was leading. Not trying to prepare his back up to replace him. He was still a great leader. Also as far as coaching, has he ever publicly expressed interest in coaching?

To my knowledge, Peyton Manning has never expressed interest in coaching, and if he had, given his pedigree, he would have had no problem finding a job.

A lack of interest in coaching is pretty good evidence that he wasn't a good mentor.

 

[Ozzy]

No, I put it out this way because half of the last page is outright insults and they came majority from one side.

Geno DID struggle in areas. Keasley and I both acknowledge this and have consistently. The argument is CONSTANTLY reframed as "The GeNO fluffers think that he does nothing wrong."

The stats on both sides are cherry picked. Read my previous comments about how the stats are complete bullshit unless you actually balance them with tape and context.

Disagreements happen, but the outright discrediting, constant laugh reacts, and premature dismissal of people trying to actually talk football here is getting ridiculous. Keasley's getting laughed at essentially for putting effort into his posts, FFS. People now see that effort as cultism.

well hell its 20 pages long and for sure people are messing with people. I've also had to delete many posts from the pro Geno side for obvious stuff that you're not seeing.

I love Keasley but its happening to the other side as well you're just not seeing it. Again its like the word that can't be said. People see the faults in the other side but never on their own side. I have taken a ton of crap for being critical of Geno, a ton.

It's also the off season so trading barbs is ok as long as people aren't being rude. I'll add this, multiple posters because we disagree on Geno have gone to only commenting on my posts and saying weird personal things over and over in a weird cult like pattern. It's there you're just not seeing it for some reason.

 

[Ozzy]

This is literally essentially the same thing that those ordained Geno cultists believe. Why, then, the fiercely derisive rhetoric?

That's actually not what many of them are saying. Some sure, many no. Most of the ardent pro Geno supporters have attacked me for calling him middle of the pack. I'm not going to call out names but its there.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Claiming that people are throwing out insults, all while........throwing out insults is exactly the type of thing that got us here.
Period.
It goes BOTH ways. We are all capable of just getting along and talking football. But to make it SOUND as if the "insults" are coming from one side only? Come on man. The double standards are next level sometimes.

 

[Natethegreat]

Maelstrom playing the victim here while Keasley is calling people fools and claiming unassailable superiority in analysis is the height of gaslighting.

 

[strohmin]

To my knowledge, Peyton Manning has never expressed interest in coaching, and if he had, given his pedigree, he would have had no problem finding a job.

A lack of interest in coaching is pretty good evidence that he wasn't a good mentor.

I don't think it is fair to say that just because someone is not interested in coach that they would be a bad mentor. Peyton Manning was pushed out because of his neck injury, not because he refused to mentor Luck. I think coaching, mentoring and leading are different things. I think Bill Belicheck was a great coach and leader but not a great mentor. Pete was a great mentor and leader but not a very good coach.

 

[Maelstrom787]

Claiming that people are throwing out insults, all while........throwing out insults is exactly the type of thing that got us here.
Period.
It goes BOTH ways. We are all capable of just getting along and talking football. But to make it SOUND as if the "insults" are coming from one side only? Come on man. The double standards are next level sometimes.

I specifically avoided saying the word "only." I very specifically said I see a majority from one side to avoid this exact reply.

It does not matter, however, because no one reads in sufficient detail anymore.