LeveeBreak
Well-known member
I think the data would refute that. It also wouldn't say it was all Geno. Both have played excellent and/or concerning through the season.
The Athletic: Geno knocking on the door of stardom
- Thread starter AROS
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 11,277
- Reaction score
- 5,936
Geno 23rd on the year. He needs to play better and he can so hopefully he will.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Except for the fact that Russ for his first 8 years was one of the best closers we've ever seen. Game on the line, cold blooded killer. Look at his record, his 4th quarter comebacks and wins etc. He did it on a regular basis. And yes, for much of it, he had a good defense. Geno hasn't shown that cold blooded killer mentality. IF he wins a couple games in the playoffs? Give him a bump in pay.
No, this isn't "another shot at Geno" post. It's just pointing out the truth. Greatness? Absolutely not. Have all the stats you want. I want wins, I want cold blooded when the game is on the line. I want consistency in the red zone. I don't think that's too much to ask. Plenty of QB's throw for a billion yards but have little to show for it.
hawkfan68
Well-known member
Great QBs or even star QBs are more effective in the redzone than Geno. Geno has had 2 different coordinators and the Seahawks have been terrible in the redzone during his tenure as starting QB. Russ put up better numbers than Geno in the redzone. Admittedly, Geno sets the bar low with this stat so it doesn't take much to be better. The OL wasn't very good while that QB was there too.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Russ did run for his life, often. Meh, old arguments. I just think some guys have the IT factor, and some don't.
I accept getting blasted for these opinions from time to time. All part of the QB position.
I accept getting blasted for these opinions from time to time. All part of the QB position.
But Geno has more 4th quarter comebacks (9) since becoming a starter in 2022 than any other QB except Kirk Cousins (11 - and who had that weird year in 2022 where they had 8 4th quarter comebacks), and his 11 GWD drives matches Cousins and is only 1 behind Mahomes who won 2 superbowls in that time.
I can also think of multiple games where he got us into a position to win the game with a FG only for Myers to miss or for it to get blocked and returned for a TD.
If you want cold blooded when the game is on the line - Geno has been as cold as anybody in the league in the last 3 years.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Agree to disagree. No, he isn't cold blooded. His red zone mistakes are commonplace now.
I'll leave it that. Been down this road way too many times. I stick to my thoughts on Geno. If you think he's clutch, that's great. I just don't.
I'll leave it that. Been down this road way too many times. I stick to my thoughts on Geno. If you think he's clutch, that's great. I just don't.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 11,277
- Reaction score
- 5,936
I'm not saying you're wrong but when you look at the overall numbers for this stat almost everyone is pretty close in this regard if I'm not mistaken. That's not to take anything away from Geno because he has made plays on game winning drives but I think because NFL games are so close they usually end up with whoever scores last. Wilson is really high in this stat too yet this board thinks he sucks. This board also thinks Cousins is wildly overrated yet he leads the league.
Like Soulfish said, He just isn't very good in the red zone. I think its because he's too tentative and with the smaller field and doesn't pull the trigger? I remember a game last year, and he even admitted it in the post game, but he had two touchdowns in the red zone and just didn't see it fast enough or throw the football.
I used to use this stat in support of Wilson but sort of stopped because I'm not sure its as valuable as it sounds? I could be wrong though.
Last edited:
"This board" see that's where you're going wrong.
There are flaws to the stat of course - you can only have a 4th quarter comeback if you are behind in the first place, so any team that is regularly winning games by large margins is unlikely to add to that stat. On the other hand there aren't actually that many teams that do win like that - Mahomes has 6 GWDs this year already vs 2 last year but the Chiefs don't look as good this year as they were last year - of course that's testament to the fact that Mahomes is a fantastic QB and cold-blooded closer that he can put together GWDs when the chips are down, even though by all rights he looked much better overall last year.
As for Russell Wilson? He has his flaws too but "this board" is unnecessarily harsh on him because of the way he left, but he is as he has always been - playing with a top level defense he can win against anyone.
hawks85
Well-known member
Dan Marino was awesome back in the day. I had the pleasure of watching him play week in and week. Dan Marino and the 85 Dolphins were the only team that year that gave the 85 bears a prison beating. He never won a SB but is still labeled a legend and HOF'er.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
And Dan Marino was 5 times the QB than Geno ever was or will be. He really was fun to watch.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 11,277
- Reaction score
- 5,936
I have an unpopular opinion that Marino is the best ever in a vacuum. I watched a documentary and they asked a bunch of ex players who the best they ever saw was and they all said Marino was on another level. It's why I don't like using team awards like SB's because if Marino played on San Fran or Dallas he's winning a bunch of Super Bowls. Such a good player.
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 11,277
- Reaction score
- 5,936
Fair enough. Geno deserves credit for it but for me Wilson was the better cold blooded killer because even in games where they were doing nothing he could catch on fire and win the game outright. Geno I'm not sure i have the same level of trust. It seems like if he's playing bad or the offense is playing bad he's probably not going to suddenly turn it on. I think Wilson has a unique ability to believe the best in any situation like he did in the GB game, coming back from down 30 at half against Carolina even though they lost etc. I know this argument is subjective but that's how I see it.
I fully agree on your last point. Russ can win with anyone. People forget that Brady's defenses when he won SB's were all very, very good and when they weren't they went on a 10 year drought.
pittpnthrs
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 19, 2017
- Messages
- 6,149
- Reaction score
- 2,957
For me, I always had hope when Wilson was the QB. I don't have hope with Geno. When Geno pulls off a comeback i'm more shocked than anything else. When Russ did it, I expected it.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
EXACTLY. You expected it. When he didn't finish, you were surprised. When Geno has the game on the line, you're surprised when he gets it done. At least I am.
And yet again, it's not let's blast Geno time at all. He just, TO ME, doesn't have that IT factor with the game on the line. He looks scared and confused in the red zone this year.
I have plenty of Crow recipe's ready. Please prove me wrong, Geno. Please.
And yet again, it's not let's blast Geno time at all. He just, TO ME, doesn't have that IT factor with the game on the line. He looks scared and confused in the red zone this year.
I have plenty of Crow recipe's ready. Please prove me wrong, Geno. Please.
keasley45
Well-known member
I figured you were using EPA from NFelo to arrive at your assessment of Geno...
about EPA...
This post is for people who watch NFL football. When analysts describe how good or bad a player or team performs, EPA is useless. It doesn't tell you anything except that it is lower or higher than whatever it's being compared to. But there is no context behind it. At least with, for example, yards per play or yards per game, you can see how well a team or player is doing relative to the rest of the league, especially if you know the league average. But with EPA, all you are doing is taking someone else word that it's a good number or insufficient number. We don't know what formula is being used. It's just a computer telling you a thousand trials at a particular spot on a field has this result. There isn't even a scale stating how high or how low the number is supposed to be. You take the analyst's word that it is terrible because it's lower than another player. But if you are following a game, you don't know what the EPA is at that time. But you can easily calculate how many yards per play at any given time if you know the numbers and trials to calculate. It has bugged me for three years, and I wish analysts would stop using it.
A great video explaining the PFF grading scale:
PFF isnt perfect, but its fairly easy to understand how and why the weight a player's performance. If you know WHAT they are measuring and what they arent its pretty easy to assess their values based on the things they arent measuring against. So you can complain about a rating not meating the 'eye test', but if you know what they have left out, its not a huge deal to take the rating in context with other factors.
Its not perfect, but no rating system ever will be. AND, its far better than simply looking at box score stats because they can absolutely obscure the reality of a player's performance. Used along-side old school film analysis, its a great tool and even without it, does a lot to paint a more complete picture of what a player is doing on the field. Antiquated tools like the old QB rating scale could see a QB do virtually nothing the entire game, miss throws, throw almost INTS, be responsible for his team losing, and still spit out a +100 grade. Its about as basic and flawed a grading scale as one can imagine.
Sure, PFF has its detractors - mostly those who expect it to provide a grade for a player that meets some measure of what the eye sees, what the TDs say a player is doing (or INTs), or is representative of how long the player's highlight reel is or how well their team is doing. If that's what it was meant to do, it would be a useless tool. Fact is a player can play poorly AND have a hand in his team winning. Conversely, a player can play extrememly well, and have a hand in them losing. the truth of their performance is tied to both AND independent of those outcomes.
There's a reason why PFF is THE tool you hear most NFL coaches and personnel folks reference - because it does the best job. If a person disagrees and doesnt want to take the time to understand why a grade is given and take the data hand in hand with a more forensic approach to film review... that's cool. But then that's not the tool's fault. A hammer cant swing itself and cant turn a screw, but if you use correctly, it can help you build a pretty solid house.
keasley45
Well-known member
I mean, is Hurts really the 27th best QB? Does he also need to 'do better'. Actually, i personally dont think hes as good as he gets credit for, but 27??
And Baker? Stroud?
At the end of the day, the rankings are providing outputs based on certain inputs. The more context relevant measures involved, the more accurate the grade. And many of these grading systems are geared not on actually assessing player performance for the sake of critiquing quality of performance, but rather identifying which players are 'bet' friendly and which arent. The inputs are selected to best identify those players.
By that measure, the list is pretty accurate.
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
It's a trip how much Mahomes and Hurts struggled against the Panthers of all teams. Really, the Panthers probably should have won both, esp. the Philly game.
Go figure the NFL.
Go figure the NFL.
Doesn't Geno lead the league in comeback wins since he has been starting?
SoulfishHawk
Well-known member
Not sure. Been down this road too many times. It's like clapping with one hand really 
/sarcasm
/sarcasm
