NFL.com's ranking of QBs puts Geno at #12

[Double Tribble]

I don't think 12 is nuts (and definitely not the worst ranking on this list... there's a few head scratchers but Bryce Young might be the worst. I know he looked better coming off his benching, but he was like one of the worst QBs in the league before that, it wasn't a big bar to clear). I'd have put him roughly at 16ish if I were doing this.

An above average QB in a situation producing below average results = roughly average.


What do you base this assertion on? We made the playoffs in Geno's first year and just missed the playoffs by the 2nd and 5th tiebreaker for the last two.

You insist that 1) We can't make the playoffs if Geno's is our QB, which is clearly not true and 2) That it's better to be a crappy team than a fringe playoff team for your future, which is also wrong.

Since 2013, the average record for a team making a non-consecutive Super Bowl appearance over their previous 3 seasons was: 9-8, 9-8, and 10-7 (does that record look familiar to any teams you know?).

Tanking in the NFL doesn't work. All going 3-14 gets you is the chance to draft a slightly better version of a player who will only play 1 of 11 spots on 1/3 of the phases of a football team. Putting a worse QB in for the sake of rolling the dice and then going all in on a 'top prospect next year' is tanking.

The real disconnect is with fans who think a team who has either made the playoffs or just barely missed them are a million miles away from success and need to tear down the team for some unknown reason. We've had the 13th most points over the last 3 seasons and the 11th highest win rate.

But sure, we can ask the Jaguars how great this plan works. Next year, they'll be making their 8th top 5 pick since 2013--including multiple 1st overall selections and 2 QBs--but at least they've got the least number of wins in the entire NFL over that time to show for it...

Here we go again, assuming that anybody but Geno automatically makes us a crappy team and is equivalent to tanking. As others have said, that's just bullshit. There are numerous examples of the exact opposite being the case.

 

[Ozzy]

Here we go again, assuming that anybody but Geno automatically makes us a crappy team and is equivalent to tanking. As others have said, that's just bullshit. There are numerous examples of the exact opposite being the case.

Exactly this idea that a guy who had a 1/1 td int per game ration until the last garbage is impossible to replace is wild. Geno may or may not be the best guy for the job next year but to say it’s either him or we’re a dumpster fire is just flat out wrong.

Also citing one teams failure as proof while ignoring the long history of extending middle age QBs in their mid 30’s.its a fact having a guy in a rookie deal helps build the team for obvious reasons so again to just discount this as if it’s guaranteed to doom this team is odd to me too.

Again maybe the evaluate the class, FA market and decide Geno is our best option. I think where I’m at that the pro Geno side can’t grasp is MAYBE another option will present itself.

 

[keasley45]

Decision making. His #1 flaw.

There is literally zero evudenxe to support this and a whole boatload that contradict it.

 

[keasley45]

Exactly this idea that a guy who had a 1/1 td int per game ration until the last garbage is impossible to replace is wild. Geno may or may not be the best guy for the job next year but to say it’s either him or we’re a dumpster fire is just flat out wrong.

Also citing one teams failure as proof while ignoring the long history of extending middle age QBs in their mid 30’s.its a fact having a guy in a rookie deal helps build the team for obvious reasons so again to just discount this as if it’s guaranteed to doom this team is odd to me too.

Again maybe the evaluate the class, FA market and decide Geno is our best option. I think where I’m at that the pro Geno side can’t grasp is MAYBE another option will present itself.

Who are you replacing him with who has done more with less... or comparable support? You cant say that and then have no examples.

I havent seen one pundit, expert, analyst, media talking head, name a single better option than Geno.

 

[DarkVictory23]

Here we go again, assuming that anybody but Geno automatically makes us a crappy team and is equivalent to tanking. As others have said, that's just bullshit. There are numerous examples of the exact opposite being the case.

Thanks for responding to not a single thing I actually said so you can respond to some strawman argument instead.

Please quote the line I said 'anybody but Geno' makes us a crappy team. (Don't bother... I didn't say that.) No, what I said what YOU are recommending is equivalent to tanking because of the way you keep describing your preferred path for the Seahawks.

It'll be fine if we put in Howell or a rookie or whatever FA we pay with the change from the couch cushions because it doesn't matter if we go 1-16 because we can "go all in on a top qb prospect next year", "If it doesn't work out, oh well, then try again in '26", etc., etc.


I don't assume that there is no QB who is going to be better than Geno, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. My assumption is that if the Seahawks are sticking with Geno, it's because they think there isn't a better option than Geno. Most analysts think they'd probably be right.

You are the one who's arguing that they should put in anyone even if they are worse than Geno. Putting someone you know is worse is tanking. You don't want people to keep calling you out for suggesting the Seahawks should tank, stop suggesting they do exactly what tanking looks like in the NFL.

Further, you keep justifying why the Seahawks should be ok with tanking-by-any-other-name by 2 arguments that are completely flawed, one being we can't get to the playoffs with Geno which is flat out wrong--since we've already done it--and two, that being a fringe level playoff team for the last 3 seasons means we are stuck in some mythical purgatory which is historically not the case.

I am open to the idea that the Seahawks might be better off not starting next Geno next year. They could draft someone who JS and Macdonald really like who just flat out earns the job. Geno and/or his agent could demand a massive contract that is not at all justifiable. There are actual decent reasons why the Seahawks shouldn't start Geno, it just so happens that the ones you keep peddling are, well... bullshit.

 

[Double Tribble]

Thanks for responding to not a single thing I actually said so you can respond to some strawman argument instead.

Please quote the line I said 'anybody but Geno' makes us a crappy team. (Don't bother... I didn't say that.) No, what I said what YOU are recommending is equivalent to tanking because of the way you keep describing your preferred path for the Seahawks.

It'll be fine if we put in Howell or a rookie or whatever FA we pay with the change from the couch cushions because it doesn't matter if we go 1-16 because we can "go all in on a top qb prospect next year", "If it doesn't work out, oh well, then try again in '26", etc., etc.


I don't assume that there is no QB who is going to be better than Geno, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. My assumption is that if the Seahawks are sticking with Geno, it's because they think there isn't a better option than Geno. Most analysts think they'd probably be right.

You are the one who's arguing that they should put in anyone even if they are worse than Geno. Putting someone you know is worse is tanking. You don't want people to keep calling you out for suggesting the Seahawks should tank, stop suggesting they do exactly what tanking looks like in the NFL.

Further, you keep justifying why the Seahawks should be ok with tanking-by-any-other-name by 2 arguments that are completely flawed, one being we can't get to the playoffs with Geno which is flat out wrong--since we've already done it--and two, that being a fringe level playoff team for the last 3 seasons means we are stuck in some mythical purgatory which is historically not the case.

I am open to the idea that the Seahawks might be better off not starting next Geno next year. They could draft someone who JS and Macdonald really like who just flat out earns the job. Geno and/or his agent could demand a massive contract that is not at all justifiable. There are actual decent reasons why the Seahawks shouldn't start Geno, it just so happens that the ones you keep peddling are, well... bullshit.

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I. We will agree to disagree. Have a nice day. Go Hawks.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

In your OPINION. Several Picks in the red zone. Several DROPPED easy picks. That's plenty enough evidence to support my stance. Again, we will NEVER agree on Geno. And that's fine. It's really not a huge deal. I respect your opinion. But not as much when it comes with a condescending response. The EXACT thing that you accuse me of, often.

There is literally zero evudenxe to support this and a whole boatload that contradict it.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

In other words, you favor perpetual purgatory.

Damn man, come on. Nothing wrong with someone having their opinion, even if it's different than yours. Lighten up

 

[hawkfan68]

There is literally zero evudenxe to support this and a whole boatload that contradict it.

Plenty of evidence given in the 1000s of other Geno threads that support Geno's decision making is subpar. Here are a couple of videos of them -

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Don't bother, it's like clapping with one hand. Minds have been made up.

 

[pittpnthrs]

There is literally zero evudenxe to support this and a whole boatload that contradict it.

Except for the obvious times he does stupid stuff and that's not a rare thing. You have to quit making excuses and thinking no other QB is capable of doing what Geno does because it's silly.

 

[toffee]

Damn man, come on. Nothing wrong with someone having their opinion, even if it's different than yours. Lighten up

Me and soul may not agree much on Seahawks football, but we are in sync on mixed drinks lol.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

We got that part down!

 

[Wsumatt1982]

I don't think that's what the pro Geno crowd thinks. I think most in the pro Geno crowd would love to have a better option, but don't think it's prudent to move on from Geno until we actually have a better option.

For example, I would like to see the Seahawks take a shot at a guy in the draft, like Kyle McCord, Will Howard, Jaxson Dart, etc. and give that guy a legitimate shot to win the job. If they don't win the job, hopefully they will next year after a year of NFL coaching and sitting and learning.

I don't think moving on from Geno without having a better option will 100% result in catastrophic failure (I.e. being a very bad football team), but I do think it's a fairly likely outcome. I would prefer to find a long term solution at QB without becoming a bottom feeder team. It appears that some in the anti Geno are perfectly happy to become a bottom feeder team as long it's anyone but Geno at QB.

100% accurate

 

[keasley45]

In your OPINION. Several Picks in the red zone. Several DROPPED easy picks. That's plenty enough evidence to support my stance. Again, we will NEVER agree on Geno. And that's fine. It's really not a huge deal. I respect your opinion. But not as much when it comes with a condescending response. The EXACT thing that you accuse me of, often.

Soulfish - i dont see hiw my statement is condescending. you are hyper drilling in on last season only, ignoring the fact that the OC was fired (didnt that contribute to errors, or were we just supposed to be flawless regardless of the scheme being entirely ineffective?), that the coach even said Geno's errors were 'team' errors more often then not (which is exactly what you guys term 'defending Geno at all costs) because he is correct, and you entirly ignore the last 2 seasons when Geno was 33-2 TD to int in the redzone.

He also gets accuse of being a poor decion maker, but that entirely flies in the face of him being known across the league as statistically one of the best qbs in the league at maintaining accuracy and completion percentage when pressure comes and he has less time to operate. A qb who cant process quickly fails immediately when he has less time to throw than he normally would. Geno is the opposite.

So you can choose to ONLY look at last years redzone performance in TD to INT and ignore the prior two years before ge played under a fired OC. It just does nothing to strengthen your argument. Just as ihnoring that he is top 10 in the league in least drop in performance when faced with less time to process... again... it just makes statements like he is prone to errors in the redzone, or cant think quickly enough, silly.

He does make boneheaded plays. But every qb does. But the body of work is far better than the 'spot misses' that he falls into on occassion.

And on top of all of that...

2 failed OCs, bottom 3 o line, bottom 3 run game, and until this year, bottom 3 defense.

If ever there's a reason to NOT try to define what a qb isnt capable of, its that.

if anything, logic tells you that a qbs ceoling is higher, not lower when his suppoting cast is better than awful.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Fair enough. Go Hawks

 

[Natethegreat]

Soulfish - i dont see hiw my statement is condescending. you are hyper drilling in on last season only, ignoring the fact that the OC was fired (didnt that contribute to errors, or were we just supposed to be flawless regardless of the scheme being entirely ineffective?), that the coach even said Geno's errors were 'team' errors more often then not (which is exactly what you guys term 'defending Geno at all costs) because he is correct, and you entirly ignore the last 2 seasons when Geno was 33-2 TD to int in the redzone.

He also gets accuse of being a poor decion maker, but that entirely flies in the face of him being known across the league as statistically one of the best qbs in the league at maintaining accuracy and completion percentage when pressure comes and he has less time to operate. A qb who cant process quickly fails immediately when he has less time to throw than he normally would. Geno is the opposite.

So you can choose to ONLY look at last years redzone performance in TD to INT and ignore the prior two years before ge played under a fired OC. It just does nothing to strengthen your argument. Just as ihnoring that he is top 10 in the league in least drop in performance when faced with less time to process... again... it just makes statements like he is prone to errors in the redzone, or cant think quickly enough, silly.

He does make boneheaded plays. But every qb does. But the body of work is far better than the 'spot misses' that he falls into on occassion.

And on top of all of that...

2 failed OCs, bottom 3 o line, bottom 3 run game, and until this year, bottom 3 defense.

If ever there's a reason to NOT try to define what a qb isnt capable of, its that.

if anything, logic tells you that a qbs ceoling is higher, not lower when his suppoting cast is better than awful.

I have felt throughout Geno's tenure that he loses his composure and makes very poor decisions. Especially in either end zone area.
It has certainly not been a last year thing only.
Also he lost 2 starting jobs because of his decision making not because he lacked talent.
He has improved since back when he started for sure but last year he regressed. Your the one rewriting history on Geno.

 

[Fernie Hawks Fan]

 

[SoulfishHawk]

That
Was
Awesome

 

[Hollandhawk]

What defies basic logic is the premise that Tom Brady is necessary to win a SB. For instance, Jalen Hurts had 23 TD / 15 INT last year, this year Geno had 21 TD / 15 INT -- both down years for both men -- but it does show precedent that a QB of Geno's caliber can win a Super bowl with an improved line and run game.

So, unless you have some way to 'magically' turn some waiver wire scrub or untried rookie into Tom Brady, I'd say we continue with Geno until someone can win the job from him.

Don't forget Hurts' 15 rushing TDs (and 600 yards rushing).