Both Geno and Sam have demonstrated they can succeed in the right circumstances. They've also both shown that they can suck really bad and cost games when forced into the wrong circumstances. Is one better than the other...?? To me, that's an irrelevant and unanswerable question. They're different, but both starting caliber NFL QBs.
To me, the Seahawks enter the season with a guy that can win games. Is he going to put the team on his shoulders and carry it, against all odds, through winter storms and uphill battles to win in spite of all probabilities...??? ... likely not. I don't mean that as knock against Sam. Geno's not that guy either. The only QBs like that take 25% of the cap and rarely win it all because of their salary impact. But Sam has shown he can win. To me, it's now on the HC/OC to create situations in which he's able to continue to win, hopefully improve. We didn't have that last year even though we had a QB that had also shown he could win games. Sure Sam has to minimize his mistakes. But the coaches have to out-Coach. The OL has to out-block. The WRs have to out-receive. ...and so-on. If there's a "Savior" of the franchise, it's Mike Macdonald and not Sam Darnold. If MMac can create an offense (including hiring the correct OC) that can maximize the Offensive talent, then the Seahawks win a lot of games. That has to be the case whether it's Geno or Sam Darnold at QB because this franchise is not going to spend Brady/Mahomes/Allen money on a QB anytime in the near future.