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

[Maelstrom787]

This is the part I don't get. Why would anyone expect that a 32 year old qb would suddenly become something he's not?

Because his career sample was small, and a very long time ago, on a dysfunctional team.

After a full season of above average play, even with his middling stretch added in last year, was a significant enough sample of play to vastly change his actual outlook - especially after being a relative unknown for the better part of an entire decade.

I don't know why it'd be expected that the outlook wouldn't change after last year - and it still looks different. He's still a plus quarterback by most metrics. His regression is compared to 2022, not his prior early career.

 

[Maelstrom787]

He’s in the same class as Fitzmagic or Josh McCown.....good but not great.

That seems a little harsh. He isn't a world-beater, but he isn't a fringe starter like those guys either. McCown especially.

Even this year, with his reviled ineffectiveness, Geno is on pace to be as good or better than McCown's absolute pinnacle.

 

[WarHawks]

Because his career sample was small, and a very long time ago, on a dysfunctional team.

After a full season of above average play, even with his middling stretch added in last year, was a significant enough sample of play to vastly change his actual outlook - especially after being a relative unknown for the better part of an entire decade.

I don't know why it'd be expected that the outlook wouldn't change after last year - and it still looks different. He's still a plus quarterback by most metrics. His regression is compared to 2022, not his prior early career.

Good post.

 

[Jville]

Because his career sample was small, and a very long time ago, on a dysfunctional team.

After a full season of above average play, even with his middling stretch added in last year, was a significant enough sample of play to vastly change his actual outlook - especially after being a relative unknown for the better part of an entire decade.

I don't know why it'd be expected that the outlook wouldn't change after last year - and it still looks different. He's still a plus quarterback by most metrics. His regression is compared to 2022, not his prior early career.

Rules and game emphasis has changed from a decade ago. Learn and adjust. That's something Geno has become good at. He makes everybody's tasks easier for blockers and receivers alike. Throws a nice accurate ball.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Just needs to work on the decision making. It's not "hating" on a guy to want him to stop throwing picks or near picks. He has had a LOT of dropped interceptions the last two seasons. There was an easy pick 6 against Arizona. Very lucky break there. I just would like to see him stop forcing the ball into coverage, especially in the red zone.
The biggest key, imo, is that O Line in pass blocking. Give Geno time back there and a clean pocket, he will shred a defense. We have seen it plenty of times.

 

[Spin Doctor]

That seems a little harsh. He isn't a world-beater, but he isn't a fringe starter like those guys either. McCown especially.

Even this year, with his reviled ineffectiveness, Geno is on pace to be as good or better than McCown's absolute pinnacle.

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.

 

[Jville]

Geno when 5 for 6 on explosive passing plays (20+yards). Pete is cognizant of the so called toxic ratio as part of his formula for success. Those explosive plays helped off set turnovers last weekend regardless of the view of whether they were viewed as forced or unforced.

Geno week 7 passing chart ......................

 

[Spin Doctor]

Geno when 5 for 6 on explosive passing plays (20+yards). Pete is cognizant of the so called toxic ratio as part of his formula for success. Those explosive plays helped off set turnovers last weekend regardless of the view of whether they were viewed as forced or unforced.

Geno week 7 passing chart ......................

View attachment 61389

I mean, cool but it doesn’t move the ball efficiently. You need more than just the big plays, you need the bread and butter stuff as well, the boring procedural stuff. That uptempo short passing game isn’t sexy, but it is consistent. Done right it can also set up the running game.

I think that passing heat map is also problematic. We’re completely avoiding the middle of the field like we have Russell Wilson under center.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Red zone decisions. That matters a heck of a lot more than stats between the 20's. Just my opinion.
Also, this offense is WAY more effective when he's using the TE's a lot more.

 

[keasley45]

I mean, cool but it doesn’t move the ball efficiently. You need more than just the big plays, you need the bread and butter stuff as well, the boring procedural stuff. That uptempo short passing game isn’t sexy, but it is consistent. Done right it can also set up the running game.

I think that passing heat map is also problematic. We’re completely avoiding the middle of the field like we have Russell Wilson under center.

The problem this offense is having is that teams aren't being forced to commit to defend the run. We aren't posting bad numbers, but the actual play on the field isn't great. Pete's philosophy requires that we have a formidable rushing attack. Absent that, the middle of the field in our play book, the way we like to construct routes, is crowded. Get the rushing attack to work and it will open up again.

You could see that against both Arizona and Cinci, the LBs were playing off the line enough to make Geno uncomfortable. Walker, Charbs and our Oline need to change that trend. Otherwise, it will be more of the same, unless Geno starts to take more risks and tries to hit the tight window. But the over / under throws are the most difficult... over the LBs and under the Safety.

I dont know that we can ever expect to see a KC or Miami styled passing attack in Seattle. I'm seeing now that it's not so much that the concepts are bland. It's simply that without the balance of a running game opponents have to respect, our 'style' loses some of its effectiveness.

 

[toffee]

The problem this offense is having is that teams aren't being forced to commit to defend the run. We aren't posting bad numbers, but the actual play on the field isn't great. Pete's philosophy requires that we have a formidable rushing attack. Absent that, the middle of the field in our play book, the way we like to construct routes, is crowded. Get the rushing attack to work and it will open up again.

You could see that against both Arizona and Cinci, the LBs were playing off the line enough to make Geno uncomfortable. Walker, Charbs and our Oline need to change that trend. Otherwise, it will be more of the same, unless Geno starts to take more risks and tries to hit the tight window. But the over / under throws are the most difficult... over the LBs and under the Safety.

I dont know that we can ever expect to see a KC or Miami styled passing attack in Seattle. I'm seeing now that it's not so much that the concepts are bland. It's simply that without the balance of a running game opponents have to respect, our 'style' loses some of its effectiveness.

I have been saying that our RBs and running games are good but not lethal, few teams fear our RBs. I don't know enough about football to pin on game planning, schemes, or execution. Deep down, I am hoping Kenny Mcintosh will change that.

Bobo and McIntosh are my boys

 

[hawkfan68]

Just needs to work on the decision making. It's not "hating" on a guy to want him to stop throwing picks or near picks. He has had a LOT of dropped interceptions the last two seasons. There was an easy pick 6 against Arizona. Very lucky break there. I just would like to see him stop forcing the ball into coverage, especially in the red zone.
The biggest key, imo, is that O Line in pass blocking. Give Geno time back there and a clean pocket, he will shred a defense. We have seen it plenty of times.

I agree with mostly everything in the quoted post. However I believe any NFL QB given time and clean pocket could shred a defense. We’ve seen it happen to our Seahawks defense many times over the years. It’s what you do when you don’t have these things that separates the average to good to great QBs.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Still waiting to see that killer instinct from him with the game on the line, that's all. Not trying to argue and get people all riled up. But I bet it does

 

[Jville]

I mean, cool but it doesn’t move the ball efficiently. You need more than just the big plays, you need the bread and butter stuff as well, the boring procedural stuff. That uptempo short passing game isn’t sexy, but it is consistent. Done right it can also set up the running game.

I think that passing heat map is also problematic. We’re completely avoiding the middle of the field like we have Russell Wilson under center.

Yes the tendency is to work the periphery. The Seahawks remain a red line team ...... as a preference for avoiding deflected interceptions. Another toxic ratio influence. Outside zone blocking to work the edges and set up cut backs for running backs.

A strong complementary run game is the key to further development of this year's offense. Defenses around the league are lighter, quicker and faster. Including the Seahawks defense. Running the football more may very well be the next turning.

Tight ends have become pivotal keys to tendencies with the arrival of Shane Waldron. The offensive tackle match ups we see from week to week dictate whether those tackles can remain on an island or need chip help.

 

[Fade]

I mean, cool but it doesn’t move the ball efficiently. You need more than just the big plays, you need the bread and butter stuff as well, the boring procedural stuff. That uptempo short passing game isn’t sexy, but it is consistent. Done right it can also set up the running game.

I think that passing heat map is also problematic. We’re completely avoiding the middle of the field like we have Russell Wilson under center.

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.

 

[Fade]

I was just about to do the same thing. Here are a few more details.

Smith's cash flows are $27.5M for 2023, $22.5M for 2024 if he's on the roster as of the fifth day of the 2024 waiver period, and $25M in 2025 if the Seahawks still want him then.
His cap numbers are $10.1M in 2023, $31.2M in 2024, and $33.7M in 2025.

And actually, Smith's average annual compensation of $25M (28.6% lower than the nonsense figure of $35M APY Fade evidently pulled out of his ass) is 18th-highest in the league, so the Seahawks are indeed paying him like an average starting QB. If they get more than that out of him, like they have so far, that's a good contract.

Nothing pulled out of my ass.

$25M APY.

+ incentives = $35M APY.

The way he's playing he might not hit any of them, so there's that.

The intellectual dishonesty on this site has to stop.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35800565/sources-geno-smith-finalizing-3-year-105m-deal-seahawks

$105M divided by 3 = $35M APY.

 

[Lagartixa]

It's not that Geno is regressing, it's that he's getting back to being what he has historically always been,

Regression toward the mean - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

except for that brief period last year when teams were figuring him out. This is the part I don't get. Why would anyone expect that a 32 year old qb would suddenly become something he's not? I've said over and over again that leopards don't change their spots. And he's proving me right every weekend. When the chips are down, and we're in the red zone and desperately have to have a td to win the game, can we rely on him to make that happen more often than not? No, we can't. I'm not trying to bag on the guy, I'm just trying to call a spade a spade. I like Geno. I wish him well. Just not as the long term qb of the Hawks.

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

 

[Lagartixa]

Nothing pulled out of my ass.

$25M APY.

+ incentives = $35M APY.

The way he's playing he might not hit any of them, so there's that.

The intellectual dishonesty on this site has to stop.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35800565/sources-geno-smith-finalizing-3-year-105m-deal-seahawks

$105M divided by 3 = $35M APY.

Fade does go and seek to learn things about football and the NFL, and I'm certain there are things relevant to our discussion of the Seahawks that he knows much better than I do. His style of posting is brash and arrogant, but I've started trying to think about how much I've enjoyed certain players who were seen as brash and arrogant, and that helps me take Fade's style with a grain of salt.

(To self) Richard Sherman, Earl Thomas, Mike Bennett...

OK, I'm back.

First, for Smith to actually get $35M per year, he would have to be performing WAY above average (like top-five-ish), which kinda shoots your whole point in the head. This is how incentives work.

Second, even if Smith were likely to make $35M per year, that would put him in a tie with Cousins for 15th-highest-paid. In other words, even if Smith were likely to make $35M per year, the Seahawks would still be paying him like an average NFL quarterback. So even at $35M per year, and continuing to perform at the level of his "bad" season so far, Smith's contract would be a good one for the team.

The intellectual dishonesty on this site has to stop.

Indeed.

 

[themunn]

I mean, cool but it doesn’t move the ball efficiently. You need more than just the big plays, you need the bread and butter stuff as well, the boring procedural stuff. That uptempo short passing game isn’t sexy, but it is consistent. Done right it can also set up the running game.

I think that passing heat map is also problematic. We’re completely avoiding the middle of the field like we have Russell Wilson under center.

You're looking at a single game example though for that heatmap - one in which Geno completed 75% of his passes for more than 9 YPA as well as 2 TDs (one of which was a magnificently thrown pass and toe-tap catch). You have no idea whether targetting the sidelines was simply gameplanned because it would be effective (which it was). By almost all measures he had a great game, apart from one single stupid decision for the interception, and an unlucky fumble where the center moved the ball a bit.

 

[keasley45]

You're looking at a single game example though for that heatmap - one in which Geno completed 75% of his passes for more than 9 YPA as well as 2 TDs (one of which was a magnificently thrown pass and toe-tap catch). You have no idea whether targetting the sidelines was simply gameplanned because it would be effective (which it was). By almost all measures he had a great game, apart from one single stupid decision for the interception, and an unlucky fumble where the center moved the ball a bit.

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.