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

[Seahawker]

Expensive QB's only work if they can carry a team and you hit on enough solid rookies playing on cheap rookie deals.

 

[hawkfan68]

I am not sure if Geno qualifies as a star, maybe he does after voted to the pro-bowl. I am all for trading aging stars a year or two too early instead of a year or two too late. Case in point, Lockett should have been traded two seasons ago, now he has no trade value anymore.

A front office's phone line should always be open, that's their job.

Drake Maye made the pro bowl with stats of 15 TDs and 10 INTs and qb rating of 88. Oh ya...he had 66% completion rate. Making the pro bowl is not prestigious anymore. Most of the players opt out of it anyway. It's a complete joke.

 

[toffee]

Drake Maye made the pro bowl with stats of 15 TDs and 10 INTs and qb rating of 88. Oh ya...he had 66% completion rate. Making the pro bowl is not prestigious anymore. Most of the players opt out of it anyway. It's a complete joke.

Tell the players didn't make the probowl.

 

[Sperrydogg]

Expensive QB's only work if they can carry a team and you hit on enough solid rookies playing on cheap rookie deals.

View attachment 69529

so does the cowboys being on there twice mean cooper rush and Dak Prescott are good QBs who need help?

 

[Rat]

Has Geno ever made the Pro Bowl not as an alternate?

 

[Seahawker]

so does the cowboys being on there twice mean cooper rush and Dak Prescott are good QBs who need help?

LOL, just noticed that. The Cowboys should be at #6 with us or #9.

 

[Ozzy]

I am not sure if Geno qualifies as a star, maybe he does after voted to the pro-bowl. I am all for trading aging stars a year or two too early instead of a year or two too late. Case in point, Lockett should have been traded two seasons ago, now he has no trade value anymore.

A front office's phone line should always be open, that's their job.

My point is I think the pro Geno crowd is reasonable even if it’s not the route I would take. I just think they think it’s the only way and won’t even entertain moving on from Geno as if the only outcome is a catastrophic failure.

 

[Chapow]

My point is I think the pro Geno crowd is reasonable even if it’s not the route I would take. I just think they think it’s the only way and won’t even entertain moving on from Geno as if the only outcome is a catastrophic failure.

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.

 

[Rat]

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.

My concern with that kind of thinking is that it could very easily distract from the urgency the team needs to have in finding Geno's successor. Again, Geno is going into his age 35 season, and history tells us that we likely don't have a lot of time left to find that next guy before Geno declines into a liability. Those mid-round QBs, like the ones you mention in your post, have such an incredibly low hit rate, and depending on that happening means we have maybe one shot at getting that player who joins the ~5% of QBs drafted in that range who become exceptions. Nobody is going to want to invest the capital needed to improve those miniscule odds when Geno is starting, and paying him $40m/yr on a new contract would make it even more difficult.

I'd be perfectly fine with Geno starting 1-2 seasons if our front office ALSO makes a significant investment in a QB of the future. If the plan is to just spend minimal money on low-risk mid-round draft picks (low-risk in the sense that there isn't much capital spent acquiring them) and hope to get lucky; I would not be on board with that.

 

[Ozzy]

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.

I was with you until you said losing geno means we're a bottom feeder team. We're not replacing an elite guy. That's the disconnect.

 

[Chapow]

My concern with that kind of thinking is that it could very easily distract from the urgency the team needs to have in finding Geno's successor. Again, Geno is going into his age 35 season, and history tells us that we likely don't have a lot of time left to find that next guy before Geno declines into a liability. Those mid-round QBs, like the ones you mention in your post, have such an incredibly low hit rate, and depending on that happening means we have maybe one shot at getting that player who joins the ~5% of QBs drafted in that range who become exceptions. Nobody is going to want to invest the capital needed to improve those miniscule odds when Geno is starting, and paying him $40m/yr on a new contract would make it even more difficult.

I'd be perfectly fine with Geno starting 1-2 seasons if our front office ALSO makes a significant investment in a QB of the future. If the plan is to just spend minimal money on low-risk mid-round draft picks (low-risk in the sense that there isn't much capital spent acquiring them) and hope to get lucky; I would not be on board with that.

What would you suggest they do? What does making a significant investment in a QB of the future mean to you?

This QB class is looking awfully weak at the top and we probably don't have a high enough pick to get Ward or Sanders anyway. Even if we did, those 2 guys probably would've been the 7th and 8th guys off the board in last years class, so I don't think they're probably worth what it would take to get them, and I don't have a lot of confidence in either of those guys becoming top 10 QB's in the NFL anyway.

Also just scrolled down the list of FA QB's and I didn't see any that look like clear upgrades to me. If the goal is merely to get younger and cheaper at QB, then yeah, there are some options. But if the goal is to get better at QB, the FA options aren't looking too promising, imo. Maybe Justin Fields? I dunno.

(It's kind of a bummer that I feel like this part is necessary, but here we are. I'm not trying to be snarky or argumentative here. I'm genuinely interested in having a civil, reasonable conversation.)

 

[Chapow]

I was with you until you said losing geno means we're a bottom feeder team. We're not replacing an elite guy. That's the disconnect.

That isn't what I said. I said I think that's a fairly likely outcome if we move on from Geno without a better option.

 

[Double Tribble]

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.

In other words, you favor perpetual purgatory.

 

[Chapow]

In other words, you favor perpetual purgatory.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just here to parrot snarky comments in a lazy attempt to belittle opinions you disagree with?

I'm a Seahawks fan. I want the Seahawks to have an elite QB, be a legitimate SB contender, and hopefully win another one. I have said, several times, that I would love to have a better option at QB than Geno. I don't know how we get there, do you?

 

[hawkfan68]

Tell the players didn't make the probowl.

Don't have to, some have already voiced their opinions per this article - https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...se-importance-regarding-players-legacies-too/

Here's an excerpt from that article -

"If the Pro Bowl/Pro Bowl Games don't want to be taken seriously, that's fine. Players have made it known it's not worth their time. Many of the league's players -- and especially its biggest stars -- take several weeks away from football after their season ends. The NBA's All-Star Weekend, which is during the season, also struggles with making its festivities meaningful, but at least in the NBA, players don't drop out (unless seriously injured). One can always quibble with a selection here or there, but's hard to find truly undeserving NBA All-Stars."

 

[Rat]

What would you suggest they do? What does making a significant investment in a QB of the future mean to you?

This QB class is looking awfully weak at the top and we probably don't have a high enough pick to get Ward or Sanders anyway. Even if we did, those 2 guys probably would've been the 7th and 8th guys off the board in last years class, so I don't think they're probably worth what it would take to get them, and I don't have a lot of confidence in either of those guys becoming top 10 QB's in the NFL anyway.

Also just scrolled down the list of FA QB's and I didn't see any that look like clear upgrades to me. If the goal is merely to get younger and cheaper at QB, then yeah, there are some options. But if the goal is to get better at QB, the FA options aren't looking too promising, imo. Maybe Justin Fields? I dunno.

(It's kind of a bummer that I feel like this part is necessary, but here we are. I'm not trying to be snarky or argumentative here. I'm genuinely interested in having a civil, reasonable conversation.)

Not sure. I just hope they do a deep dive into the draft prospects, look into some trade options outside the draft, and be prepared to make a move if someone unexpected becomes available. If they put in the work and genuinely don't like anyone, that's fine; having the wrong QB is worse than having no QB. I don't want to see them use Geno as an excuse to kick the can down the road further and reduce their urgency is finding a successor.

I feel differently about this draft than a lot do. Many are saying the QBs at the top are weak but think there's a solid middle tier. I don't really agree on either account. I think both Ward and Shadeur are tremendous prospects. It's easy to use hindsight bias and claim they aren't as good as any of the first rounders from last year since most of them look very good so far. Strictly as prospects, I liked Williams, McCarthy, Daniels, but Id easily put Ward and Shadeur up there with Maye/Penix/Nix. That latter I've had to eat crow on, as his game has translated better and quicker than I expected. It's likely moot anyway, since both are probably off the board in the top three, but if either falls into the back half of the top ten, I'd be on the phone with those teams seeing what it would take to move up. I think this is a draft where there could be great value in trade ups.

The next tier doesn't look impressive to me. Taking Dart where he's currently projected is a set up for failure. He shouldn't be viewed as anything better than a mid-late round scratch-off at best. I don't want Howard, but that's not really for football reasons. I can see maybe Dak vibes there, he at least doesn't have any glaring weaknesses. Depending on where Ewers falls, I might be willing to gamble there, as I think there's some franchise traits if he gets good NGL coaching. I'm warming up to Gabriel as a prospect, so maybe him if they feel they have to take a QB somewhere.

 

[Double Tribble]

Do you have anything to add to the conversation or are you just here to parrot snarky comments in a lazy attempt to belittle opinions you disagree with?

I'm a Seahawks fan. I want the Seahawks to have an elite QB, be a legitimate SB contender, and hopefully win another one. I have said, several times, that I would love to have a better option at QB than Geno. I don't know how we get there, do you?

Yes. Draft a qb. If there isn't one they like this year, then start Howell or someone else, and use the $30 mil we save by not paying Geno to build the rest of the team, then go all in on a top qb prospect next year. I've said this many times, and it doesn't mean that we automatically turn into a bottom feeder team. Regardless, we're not making the playoffs under Geno anyway, so what's the difference? That's another disconnect.

 

[Wsumatt1982]

He never has won a playoff game but gosh darn if we just improved everything else and build up his self confidence - that little choo choo train could final;ly make it up that hill :rollseyes

How about taking the money from his sorry ass contract and using it to actually improve the team and build up a promising talent on a rookie deal. "But but but we are picking 18 so we cant get anyone" yeah well get Milroe and call it good.

Did you really just say promising young talent and Jalen Milroe in the same sentence? I really wanted to hear you and give you a chance but you lost me there. The guy can't complete a screen

 

[Wsumatt1982]

Agree on all points.

I think most the folks here have some shared uncertainty about where our next QB is going to come from. My preference is to keep Geno until someone can come along and beat him out for the position, while others seem to prefer to oust him now and start kissing toads in the hopes of finding a prince.

The former approach I contend will keep us competitive, so we will continue to be able to attract quality FA and retain existing talent. The latter, well, that sounds a lot like the Browns, Raiders, Jets, Titans...

100% spot on. You have a team built to compete now and people want to throw an unproven out there? This is a business and that is a bad business decision. That has a better chance of setting us back 10 years than setting us up for the next 10 years when we can find a capable young QB. Tanking sets you back.

Very well said Kam

 

[DarkVictory23]

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.

Yes. Draft a qb. If there isn't one they like this year, then start Howell or someone else, and use the $30 mil we save by not paying Geno to build the rest of the team, then go all in on a top qb prospect next year. I've said this many times, and it doesn't mean that we automatically turn into a bottom feeder team. Regardless, we're not making the playoffs under Geno anyway, so what's the difference? That's another disconnect.

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...