To the extent there's a consensus, my sense of it from the comments that get posted from week to week is that a lot of us would be fine with a down season where we tank so badly we wind up with one of the top QBs in the draft. That's how I feel, so perhaps I'm projecting. It's hard to be objective -- perhaps impossible. But it's been my sense that a lot of fans share my sense that this would be the best realistic outcome for this year given that there's not a one in a million shot of making a deep playoff run.
I sense that there is a sizeable contingent that prioritizes wins and would prefer an 8-9 season to 2-15. My guess is that's anywhere from a quarter of fans to a third. Maybe more. It can be hard to be patient through a crappy season. But, again this is my sense, it seems to me a lot of us could find other things to get excited about (e.g. the development of Charles Cross) while maintaining focus on the importance and potential value of a high draft pick.
Of course only time will tell if Stroud or Young will be worth the draft capital it will likely take to land one of them. It's such a guessing game with QBs. Kerry Collins, Richard Todd, Jeff George, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Kelly Stouffer, Tim Couch, Dan McGwire, Todd Blackledge (taken before Kelly and Marino), Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Art Schlichter, JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf are just a few who come to mind. Sure things whose careers never came to fruition. The Seahawks bear the scars (Mirer, McGwire, Stouffer after he really disappointed the Cards). I remember how some of these guys (Jeff George in particular) were really thought a sure thing.
I agree that is probably the consensus. Also agree about the quarterbacks. I think the Seahawks can only promise that they'll do everything in their power to be competitive and I don't put it past Pete Carroll to overachieve this season, even if as you say, there's no reasonable shot at a Super Bowl. I hope Seattle does their best and I hope that "their best" is not so embarrassing that it creates such a shift in organizational philosophy that a year from now we're saying that the Seahawks are "starting over again". A year from now, the Seahawks need to be one year closer to their goal instead of starting over again and it was all for nothing.
I see a lot of fans saying that they would be "okay" with a bad season on Twitter. But I'm absolutely positive that if the Seahawks start 0-2 or 1-4 or something, many will start shifting to "fire Pete" because there are already a number of vocal personalities in the community currently pushing that agenda. The tide will shift with a bad start.
Even though it would mean a higher draft pick (in each round!), I still wouldn't like to see them go 5-12 or worse -- because it would mean the team is in worse shape than I think it is and that's it's going to take more than the 2023 draft to set things right.
I don't see it that way. Teams can turn things around quickly with a few key pieces and rookies turning into sophomores. Particularly when a new QB is introduced. I'd love a 2-15 season.
I'm sure you're right. If they go 2-15, there will be loud choirs shouting for the team to move on from Carroll and Schneider. I'd hope that wouldn't be a major factor for Jody Allen. She's so wealthy, she has the freedom to tune out all the noise and simply make a smart, rational choice. Perhaps give them the chance to draft a QB and see what they can do.
But yes, the howls of outrage will grow loud. And yes, quickly, long before we get anywhere near 2-15.
Tanking is bad. At least in sports that have more than 6 starters.
When you tank, free agents don't want to play for you, or will charge extra since they will be looking bad, which will harm their future careers. I'm a software engineer, and people will take a discount to work for big tech, especially early in their careers, because that opens all the doors (I worked for both Google and Amazon, not a week goes by without a interview offer DM on LinkedIn).
Maybe if you're in a desirable location, tanking may work, but in a limited fashion. But if you're a winner, people will happily live in hell on earth (aka Boston).
The goal is to win as much as you can, and the draft picks are the consolation prize if you fall short.
I agree many fans are in favor of a tankathon. I just think that this team isn't really capable of tanking like that. Yeah we went 7-10 with Russ last year, but that was a mostly broken Russ that never once pulled a W out of the jaws of an L. Both pythag and DVOA imply we were better than our results. I mean DVOA thought we were the 9th best team in the league last year, ahead of the 11-6 Cardinals. Yes we traded away Russ (our injured, never quite right version, though I do expect much better from him this year), but we also upgraded the roster in meaningful ways. 2-15 simply isn't happening.
Probably not. In my view, the under/over on wins should be around 5. We're not going to be as good without Wilson as with him. He carried our team a lot of years. We have an injection of rookie talent but they're . . . well . . . rookies. Cross may be ready for prime time but all of them are going to get better with experience. If there's a year we could go 2-15, this would be it. Unless Lock turns out to be a lot better than expected or we land Mayfield and he manages to not get injured or create disharmony on the team. That's the outside chance of getting 10 wins or more. Not likely and, in my view, less likely than going 2-15, but one never knows. There's so much parity in the NFL, a small bump in talent, coaching or focus can go a long way.
I think we have to give Lock a thorough look this year to know if we need to draft a QB next year. I think Mayfield would just muddy the waters. Especially if we acquired him late in the off-season.
However, if Cleveland won't eat his contract, I'd take Mayfield AND say 2nd or 3rd rounder to take the contract off their books. Then Cleveland can also tank with a suspended QB and Jacoby under center.
I watched Geno play the 3 games when Russell was hurt. Geno shook the rust off in the first 2 games and looked really good the third game. Geno has been the backup QB to one of the greatest QBs. So he really hasn't had a fair chance to show what he has to offer. In my mind, this should be a competition between Geno and Drew to see who will be the QB for this season. After the season is over, then decide if they need to go draft a QB next Spring for the long haul.
The problems with Geno are his age and ceiling. He's a valuable backup and that should be okay. A backup is someone who has enough skill to start but can recognize when someone else is better and be okay with that situation. It's a tough job to be stay involved and be prepared to play on a moments notice without getting a lot of reps during the week. You can have a long career and make lots of money being a dependable backup.
I feel like a broken record at this point, but I'll reiterate: I want us to win as many games as possible next season and be an interesting, relevant team. Pete isn't tanking, and there's no reason to think this organization would lose just for draft position on what's a gamble at best. Baker represents the best possibility to win more games than we lose next year, and no matter what it will be INTERESTING, and I dare say, relevant.
I don't love Baker Mayfield and it's sheer coincidence that my Jeep is covered by Progressive. He's had one great season in his career and the rest are "meh." But I don't think that our QB next year is expected to be our future, and most of the comments of pushback seem to suggest this. Or "drama." The Browns just passed him over for a guy with 23 allegations of sexual misconduct. It's the 19M salary and Cleveland hoping for compensation that's keeping him from another team. The guy is probably what he appears to be: a 15th ranked or so NFL starter. But he was thought of as ascending and in the talk with the best guys at the position 2 years ago after narrowly losing to Mahomes in the playoffs. Ceiling is SO much higher than Geno or Lock, and floor is much, much higher. He's going to be plenty motivated in a contract year. I don't think we wind up with him but outside of those of us rooting for a tank season, I bet by week 8 we wish that we had.
Even though I'm viewing things through a very different filter, I respect your point of view. There's no right or wrong here. If we had a shot at the superbowl with Mayfield under center, I'd be right there with you. Frankly, however, I'd much rather give Lock a chance to start. If we make the playoffs, I'll be sad at our reduced draft prospects but will see the season as having been worthwhile. Maybe we'll have even found our QB going forward. It's harder to feel that way about Mayfield because he doesn't seem like a team-first kind of guy. Doesn't seem a good fit for our team.
Hope is a wonderful thing. I hope I win the lottery, twice. Hoping that Drew Lock, a 3 year catastrophy in Denver, becomes a better than 3rd rate QB in Seattle is asking a lot. He has absolutely no history of success as an NFL. starter. Get Mayfield, Minshew or Jimmy G. and give a talented team a chance for the playoffs. Tanking for a high draft pick is very risk. Half of rookie QBs are a bust.
I voted Geno, Minshew, 3rd day pick + cheap (I actually think the right price for Baker is a 3rd rounder and 6M).
Geno because Lock is bad, and Pete hates losing. If Lock keeps being bad but starts showing more upside, he may win, but now it's Geno job to lose.
Minshew because he's the only non-starter in the league I'm actually excited about.
I think that whoever ends up with Mayfield will be vindicated fairly soon, as long it's a non-dysfunctional franchise. Mayfield won a playoff game with the Browns. He almost won against the Chiefs. He's a great quarterback that would grow a lot under Carroll, Belichick, or any remaining great defensive-minded coach.
Hey my man - thank you for the 'Clipboard Jesus' mention...John Clayton-isms are very much welcomed. You got the same reaction out of me than JC got when I first heard it on on one of his radio 'segments'.
No Pete Carroll Seahawk team will tank it. Nevertheless, should they compete with a little less assurance about the QB choices they have to make at this point they will likely not be in the playoffs. Thus, being virtually guaranteed a draft pick lower than 16 also gives them the same likelihood of netting an upper echelon QB for the future.
The subsequent virtual guarantee is they will Not be paying an enormous contract to any QB for at least 4 years, unless Drew Lock kills it. Even if Geno has a strong season, his age and extended look-back will keep his contract from choking the team. Those funds, redirected elsewhere will help in the Hawks return to greatness.
I see nothing positive from bringing a “meh” QB for one year. You maybe win one or two more games but at the end of the season what have you got. Just the same situation we’re struggling with now. Be big boys and watch the new offense and defense develop, all the new players and see what happens. If it’s win at any price for you then you’re probably just a fair-weather fan anyway and you’ll probably drop out even with Mayfield. I don’t see any gain with him from what we have now.
I don't think Mayfield or any of the other QB's frequently mentioned is our "quarterback of the future". At a minimum, what I want from whoever plays the position this year is that he plays well enough to not muddy the evaluation of the young offensive players we do hope and expect to be part of that future.
That excludes me from the "tank for higher picks" crowd and the settle for a "meh" qb crowd too. If Pete and John decide that bringing Mayfield in for a year is the only way to accomplish the limited goal I've outlined, I'll be OK with it. But for now, I still think Drew should be given a chance to prove his doubters wrong.
To the extent there's a consensus, my sense of it from the comments that get posted from week to week is that a lot of us would be fine with a down season where we tank so badly we wind up with one of the top QBs in the draft. That's how I feel, so perhaps I'm projecting. It's hard to be objective -- perhaps impossible. But it's been my sense that a lot of fans share my sense that this would be the best realistic outcome for this year given that there's not a one in a million shot of making a deep playoff run.
I sense that there is a sizeable contingent that prioritizes wins and would prefer an 8-9 season to 2-15. My guess is that's anywhere from a quarter of fans to a third. Maybe more. It can be hard to be patient through a crappy season. But, again this is my sense, it seems to me a lot of us could find other things to get excited about (e.g. the development of Charles Cross) while maintaining focus on the importance and potential value of a high draft pick.
Of course only time will tell if Stroud or Young will be worth the draft capital it will likely take to land one of them. It's such a guessing game with QBs. Kerry Collins, Richard Todd, Jeff George, David Carr, Joey Harrington, Kelly Stouffer, Tim Couch, Dan McGwire, Todd Blackledge (taken before Kelly and Marino), Rick Mirer, Heath Shuler, Art Schlichter, JaMarcus Russell, Ryan Leaf are just a few who come to mind. Sure things whose careers never came to fruition. The Seahawks bear the scars (Mirer, McGwire, Stouffer after he really disappointed the Cards). I remember how some of these guys (Jeff George in particular) were really thought a sure thing.
I agree that is probably the consensus. Also agree about the quarterbacks. I think the Seahawks can only promise that they'll do everything in their power to be competitive and I don't put it past Pete Carroll to overachieve this season, even if as you say, there's no reasonable shot at a Super Bowl. I hope Seattle does their best and I hope that "their best" is not so embarrassing that it creates such a shift in organizational philosophy that a year from now we're saying that the Seahawks are "starting over again". A year from now, the Seahawks need to be one year closer to their goal instead of starting over again and it was all for nothing.
I see a lot of fans saying that they would be "okay" with a bad season on Twitter. But I'm absolutely positive that if the Seahawks start 0-2 or 1-4 or something, many will start shifting to "fire Pete" because there are already a number of vocal personalities in the community currently pushing that agenda. The tide will shift with a bad start.
Even though it would mean a higher draft pick (in each round!), I still wouldn't like to see them go 5-12 or worse -- because it would mean the team is in worse shape than I think it is and that's it's going to take more than the 2023 draft to set things right.
I don't see it that way. Teams can turn things around quickly with a few key pieces and rookies turning into sophomores. Particularly when a new QB is introduced. I'd love a 2-15 season.
In 2019, the Cincinnati Bengals were 2-14.
I'm sure you're right. If they go 2-15, there will be loud choirs shouting for the team to move on from Carroll and Schneider. I'd hope that wouldn't be a major factor for Jody Allen. She's so wealthy, she has the freedom to tune out all the noise and simply make a smart, rational choice. Perhaps give them the chance to draft a QB and see what they can do.
But yes, the howls of outrage will grow loud. And yes, quickly, long before we get anywhere near 2-15.
Tanking is bad. At least in sports that have more than 6 starters.
When you tank, free agents don't want to play for you, or will charge extra since they will be looking bad, which will harm their future careers. I'm a software engineer, and people will take a discount to work for big tech, especially early in their careers, because that opens all the doors (I worked for both Google and Amazon, not a week goes by without a interview offer DM on LinkedIn).
Maybe if you're in a desirable location, tanking may work, but in a limited fashion. But if you're a winner, people will happily live in hell on earth (aka Boston).
The goal is to win as much as you can, and the draft picks are the consolation prize if you fall short.
I agree many fans are in favor of a tankathon. I just think that this team isn't really capable of tanking like that. Yeah we went 7-10 with Russ last year, but that was a mostly broken Russ that never once pulled a W out of the jaws of an L. Both pythag and DVOA imply we were better than our results. I mean DVOA thought we were the 9th best team in the league last year, ahead of the 11-6 Cardinals. Yes we traded away Russ (our injured, never quite right version, though I do expect much better from him this year), but we also upgraded the roster in meaningful ways. 2-15 simply isn't happening.
Probably not. In my view, the under/over on wins should be around 5. We're not going to be as good without Wilson as with him. He carried our team a lot of years. We have an injection of rookie talent but they're . . . well . . . rookies. Cross may be ready for prime time but all of them are going to get better with experience. If there's a year we could go 2-15, this would be it. Unless Lock turns out to be a lot better than expected or we land Mayfield and he manages to not get injured or create disharmony on the team. That's the outside chance of getting 10 wins or more. Not likely and, in my view, less likely than going 2-15, but one never knows. There's so much parity in the NFL, a small bump in talent, coaching or focus can go a long way.
I'm not in this boat.I say, let the Broncos tank.
I think we have to give Lock a thorough look this year to know if we need to draft a QB next year. I think Mayfield would just muddy the waters. Especially if we acquired him late in the off-season.
However, if Cleveland won't eat his contract, I'd take Mayfield AND say 2nd or 3rd rounder to take the contract off their books. Then Cleveland can also tank with a suspended QB and Jacoby under center.
I watched Geno play the 3 games when Russell was hurt. Geno shook the rust off in the first 2 games and looked really good the third game. Geno has been the backup QB to one of the greatest QBs. So he really hasn't had a fair chance to show what he has to offer. In my mind, this should be a competition between Geno and Drew to see who will be the QB for this season. After the season is over, then decide if they need to go draft a QB next Spring for the long haul.
The problems with Geno are his age and ceiling. He's a valuable backup and that should be okay. A backup is someone who has enough skill to start but can recognize when someone else is better and be okay with that situation. It's a tough job to be stay involved and be prepared to play on a moments notice without getting a lot of reps during the week. You can have a long career and make lots of money being a dependable backup.
I feel like a broken record at this point, but I'll reiterate: I want us to win as many games as possible next season and be an interesting, relevant team. Pete isn't tanking, and there's no reason to think this organization would lose just for draft position on what's a gamble at best. Baker represents the best possibility to win more games than we lose next year, and no matter what it will be INTERESTING, and I dare say, relevant.
I don't love Baker Mayfield and it's sheer coincidence that my Jeep is covered by Progressive. He's had one great season in his career and the rest are "meh." But I don't think that our QB next year is expected to be our future, and most of the comments of pushback seem to suggest this. Or "drama." The Browns just passed him over for a guy with 23 allegations of sexual misconduct. It's the 19M salary and Cleveland hoping for compensation that's keeping him from another team. The guy is probably what he appears to be: a 15th ranked or so NFL starter. But he was thought of as ascending and in the talk with the best guys at the position 2 years ago after narrowly losing to Mahomes in the playoffs. Ceiling is SO much higher than Geno or Lock, and floor is much, much higher. He's going to be plenty motivated in a contract year. I don't think we wind up with him but outside of those of us rooting for a tank season, I bet by week 8 we wish that we had.
Even though I'm viewing things through a very different filter, I respect your point of view. There's no right or wrong here. If we had a shot at the superbowl with Mayfield under center, I'd be right there with you. Frankly, however, I'd much rather give Lock a chance to start. If we make the playoffs, I'll be sad at our reduced draft prospects but will see the season as having been worthwhile. Maybe we'll have even found our QB going forward. It's harder to feel that way about Mayfield because he doesn't seem like a team-first kind of guy. Doesn't seem a good fit for our team.
Hope is a wonderful thing. I hope I win the lottery, twice. Hoping that Drew Lock, a 3 year catastrophy in Denver, becomes a better than 3rd rate QB in Seattle is asking a lot. He has absolutely no history of success as an NFL. starter. Get Mayfield, Minshew or Jimmy G. and give a talented team a chance for the playoffs. Tanking for a high draft pick is very risk. Half of rookie QBs are a bust.
I voted Geno, Minshew, 3rd day pick + cheap (I actually think the right price for Baker is a 3rd rounder and 6M).
Geno because Lock is bad, and Pete hates losing. If Lock keeps being bad but starts showing more upside, he may win, but now it's Geno job to lose.
Minshew because he's the only non-starter in the league I'm actually excited about.
I think that whoever ends up with Mayfield will be vindicated fairly soon, as long it's a non-dysfunctional franchise. Mayfield won a playoff game with the Browns. He almost won against the Chiefs. He's a great quarterback that would grow a lot under Carroll, Belichick, or any remaining great defensive-minded coach.
Hey my man - thank you for the 'Clipboard Jesus' mention...John Clayton-isms are very much welcomed. You got the same reaction out of me than JC got when I first heard it on on one of his radio 'segments'.
No Pete Carroll Seahawk team will tank it. Nevertheless, should they compete with a little less assurance about the QB choices they have to make at this point they will likely not be in the playoffs. Thus, being virtually guaranteed a draft pick lower than 16 also gives them the same likelihood of netting an upper echelon QB for the future.
The subsequent virtual guarantee is they will Not be paying an enormous contract to any QB for at least 4 years, unless Drew Lock kills it. Even if Geno has a strong season, his age and extended look-back will keep his contract from choking the team. Those funds, redirected elsewhere will help in the Hawks return to greatness.
I see nothing positive from bringing a “meh” QB for one year. You maybe win one or two more games but at the end of the season what have you got. Just the same situation we’re struggling with now. Be big boys and watch the new offense and defense develop, all the new players and see what happens. If it’s win at any price for you then you’re probably just a fair-weather fan anyway and you’ll probably drop out even with Mayfield. I don’t see any gain with him from what we have now.
I don't think Mayfield or any of the other QB's frequently mentioned is our "quarterback of the future". At a minimum, what I want from whoever plays the position this year is that he plays well enough to not muddy the evaluation of the young offensive players we do hope and expect to be part of that future.
That excludes me from the "tank for higher picks" crowd and the settle for a "meh" qb crowd too. If Pete and John decide that bringing Mayfield in for a year is the only way to accomplish the limited goal I've outlined, I'll be OK with it. But for now, I still think Drew should be given a chance to prove his doubters wrong.