Interesting to see what is happening in Minesota. Obviously a bit different with Dobbs turning the ball over a bunch and not getting a big contract in the offseason etc. but Kevin O'Connell, who I think is a good coach, calling out that his starting QB is under the microscope and could be benched.
Much different strategy than Pete and the team going out of their way to backup Geno publicly.
Dobbs is different than Geno but interesting to see how PC, a legendary HC, and Kevin O'Connell, a young aspiring HC, are handling the situations differently.
The Geno decision should really come down to how the front office feels about him as next year's starting QB. The playoffs are still attainable this year, and that will factor into the decision, but should be secondary to how they manage the QB position and salary cap for next year. As soon as everyone at the table can agree that Geno won't be playing for us next year, they should give him the Carr treatment. It should be that simple, and Lock's ability to play the QB position doesn't really matter. If I'm at that table, my hand is raised already.
The simple fact is that Geno is Geno, a career back up who had a good 1st half last year against sub 500 teams. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then! It's hard to evaluate this offense with a back up QB at the helm. I find it interesting that no team wiith QB issues was making overtures to Geno to becomes a starter or a backup. Maybe they knew something that we know now.
Whether he is benched in the near future or not , he won't be with the Hawks next year. We need to find out what, if anything, we have in Lock or do we draft a QB in 24 ?
We also need to reevaluate OC Waldron. Is the problem the QB or the OC or both?
I continue to believe that we are healthy Oline and a young, mobile QB away from SB contenders.
If we’re all being honest, the Seahawks are not a good offensive team by any metric. Even if we make the playoffs I have zero confidence that we can win. For reference, I had more confidence in the 2009-2010 team that made the playoffs with a losing record and beat the saints.
There are 2 debates happening in this thread 1) WILL PC bench Geno? 2) SHOULD PC bench Geno.
My answer to 1 is, I don’t know if or when PC will make that call, and I don’t feel like speculating.
My answer to 2 is, yes he should if Geno continues the trend we have seen since the end of last season.
Given that this team is not a contender, I feel it would be a good idea to look ahead and evaluate the talent we have to inform our strategy for the draft and free agency, and the fact that what we have been doing isn’t working.
It therefore makes sense to give Lock starting reps at practice and games. Does his athleticism make us more dynamic, help the o line and reduce sacks?
Give the rookies and sophomores more reps so they can develop faster.
The money we are spending at S is an issue. I wouldn’t be surprised to both our starters cut, Adams is injury prone and the highest paid S, Diggs is not playing to his contract.
I love Bobby, but he has clearly lost a step and opposing teams have realized they can exploit him. I’d keep Brooks and draft a ILB.
Pete says a lot, and tbf it's kind of his job to say a lot. Until I see those words translate into actions I don't forsee any time this season Geno gets benched (barring injury).
Lose the next 3 games, Pete in press: "Well we played tough teams, and we've learned a lot, so Geno's our guy still and it'll come together down the stretch". We can lose the next three and still be right in the Playoff fight, and as you say yourself Ken, Pete won't bench Geno if we can make the playoffs.
And the crux there, even if we lose the next 4 to be 6-9 with two weeks to play, I really struggle to see a scenario that has us eliminated from the Playoffs at that point. Potentially for the final game vs Cardinals we're eliminated, but then will Pete accept experimenting/tanking a divisional game? I can't see that happening.
Gauging the mood of the 12's will drive much of the decision making. This is about making money, when all is said and done. No doubt, just making the Playoffs is huge on Carroll's contract, but he owns enough Love to take a gamble and not make it. To fizzle through the season will cost the corporation big next year. Either he had designs laid among this crew or new hires will happen. Merit is everything. I am optimistic he's got Plans B, C,and D.
If Pete doesn't want to bench Geno, wouldn't he demand Waldron do everything he could to construct play concepts to make it as easy on him as possible? Like, maybe, simplify the reads so he can make them quicker, or some desinged rollouts?
I agree with your read of the tea leaves, Ken. The contract and situation are on a collision course. I just don't get why if Team X has a backuo QB about to play, they will scheme up more runs and concepts to keep the QB out of harm's way to minimize turnovers. Basically, try to win with him as a game manager and rely on the OCs playcalling to support thay. We have done absolutely NONE of that. Maybe they'll try some of THAT sort of stuff before benching Geno. They have a responsibility to us to stop slinging the ball all over the place and change the philosophy and focus of the offense if it hasn't been working. Remember when we went away from letting Russ cook, and back to run 1st? Why the hell haven't we done THAT yet?
Your assessment of Geno is fair. I still think, respectfully, that we are letting Waldron off the hook a bit, here.
I've been trying to bang the Waldron drum since about Wk1, and it seems like the wider fanbase is getting there (as usual a few weeks being the Seasiders). It's where some of the Geno conversation gets a bit mixed up - would a new OC get more out of Geno, or is Geno just not good enough regardless of OC? In reality, [I hope] we never find out as Geno should become a cap casualty & Waldron is replaced both in this off-season.
However you touch on another aspect - the Pete vs Let Russ Cook debate. Pete ultimately won that argument as letting Russ cook didn't tie up with improved results and Russ departed to Denver. But as has been pointed out, we've since turned into a Top10 Pass-Heavy offence, drafted two Top55 RB's and generated an at best running game. Is there really such a large disconnect between what Pete is asking for and what Waldron is delivering? Or is Pete, as he so often is, full of words but not actions, and is "happy" to let the Offence modernise to pass-first? I feel there's elements of the latter, as the Defence also struggles and indicates maybe the HC is as much of the problem as the OC or QB [but we can actually change the OC & QB much more easily than the HC]
Agreed. Pete and John have been pretty transparent in past few years, though. They both have been forthcoming about their areas of improvement and growth needs. So, I can't see Pete saying "Run and Defense", then doing the opposite, but for so long. Maybe Waldron has been getting away with running just enough to keep Pete off his back, and we have won just enough to fend him off. Pete seems like the kind of guy who wants to change with the times and identifies with the younger generation as well as anybody, so he could have been giving Waldron leash and space to be himself to this point, too. I say that about Pete because he lets players, and coaches, be themselves and is transparent with them about competition and still maintains a positive work environment. He also knows football and has had the same run-first philosophy even when we had Russ. Surely, he doesn't think Geno is better than Russ was.
So, I can reconcile the on-field pass-heavy results with who Pete is if it was him giving Waldron some freedom, like during the Russ era, but only if he reels Shane back in (which should've happened by now, IMHO). I just can't picture Pete giving up or just being on autopilot at the helm. That's out of character. I also think it's far less likely that he just decided to drastically change with the times, against his better judgment of how good (or not) Geno is, and start endorsing pass-first offense while saying otherwise.
He seems to be empowering those in the organization around him almost too much, now; if I am reading it correctly. Regardless, Shane has to fix this, with Geno's help, or he's (they) gotta go in the offseason. That's the responsibility that comes with being empowered by your HC. Pete needs to put his foot down.
I think it is close, but I don't see Pete benching Geno after the Cowboys game. Possibly if it were a truly abysmal performance where the QB is holding back the team. I don't think that we have seen anything near that yet. I think there are a couple reasons:
1) Pete is still trying to build this team. I don't think he wants to make a change and potentially undermine the many other issues on the offense. The team needs the young guys to get better and the guys with potential that are young (DK etc.) to play at their potential or meet their potential. This is year 2 of the rebuild.
2) It seems that the locker room is behind Geno, and they are still in the playoff race.
3) I believe the team sees Lock as long-term potential. I do not think they will want to toss him to the wolves against any of the next two to three teams.
I do think that if the Hawks lose the next 2-3 games, there will be a chance. But even in that scenario they would still likely be in the playoff race if they win out against the Steelers, Titans, and Cardinals.
Geno gave Pete the perfect excuse to bench him: the shoulder injury. If Pete didn't do that then, he won't do it now, unless they are dead set on releasing Geno and proceed to give him the Carr treatment
I get why benching Geno is a tough decision. He has a (mostly) accurate deep ball. He shows some stretches of good to very good play. He takes accountability. And above all, he is a nice guy with a great story.
But.
Stats don't lie, and neither does tape. The RZ and 3rd down problems are traceable back to poor QB decisions to recognize defenses, adjust protections, opt into/out of plays at the LOS... as Seaside Joe said once and it has stuck with me, the RZ and 3rd down are about about players, not plays. Geno has demonstrated that his ceiling is "good backup QB" as he has been outplayed by career backup QBs in games.
Pete said last year "I have two starting QBs" and the reaction to that was "If you have two starting QBs you don't have 1." That may, in fact, be true as there is no evidence that playing Lock will change the picture much if at all. It is (long past) time to find out.
Ah--I had never heard of him. Honestly didn’t even know who he was when he was back up for RW and promptly forgot his name when Russ returned. I have never read anything about his life.
The story of his time with the Jets is... interesting. He was a hellava QB coming out of West Virginia (makes you think about how college QBs are so hyped). To go from losing his job with the Jets, bouncing around the league as a backup, then getting a shot at redemption is... compelling. But (as a certain Ferengi might say) "a compelling story in a sack is worth... the sack." This is a 'what have you done for me lately' league where NFL stands for Not For Long.
Seems Pete just can’t admit he was wrong about his ability to pump confidence into a player and make them wonderful. Last season’s accolades for Geno were a curse, perhaps.
The contract Geno signed was a trap for both sides.
Having given the Seahawks a "team-friendly" deal there was certainly a commitment from the Seahawks to give Geno every opportunity to earn the incentives and not look like schmucks for benching him. And, my background in the psychology of goals and incentives tells me that the incentives in the contract may be a factor explaining some of Geno's decision-making on the field. Sometimes people out-smart themselves when it comes to contracts/incentives.
But it is now clear to all sides that Geno is not going to hit all (or perhaps any) of his benchmarks for the incentives, so benching him might be acceptable at this point if it was for the good of the team. Pete would looking for a reason now, for sure, given the way the Seahawks are slipping out of playoff contention.
Until we see any reason to think that Lock doesn't stink, I'm fine with Geno being left in any competitive game. But I did wish for Lock to be put in just to keep the starter from taking more hits in both of those two games you mentioned. I've said this before but never bothered to look up the specifics, but Pete once left Russ in a game where the O line was getting crushed and Wilson was his thick version and getting the nano bubbles beat out of him by the Rams. And they never put in Geno. So I'm skeptical it will happen any time soon unless Pete just can't take what he's seeing.
But I can't argue with a single point. I've argued with you about Baker Mayfield and Derrick Carr not being trash when we traded Russ! It gets me every time with quarterbacks. If they aren't in your division, you might watch them live 3-4 times a year. Matt Hasselbeck was my favorite Seahawk for most of his tenure here. And I've watched heroic "will my team to victory" games out of Mayfield and Carr (and Hass). When I watch a QB say, "no f'in way are we losing this game," and make it happen, I tend to lose all objectivity. And it's been a while since I've seen Geno have a great drive, let alone great game.
But that "How much worse could Drew Lock be?" question might have a horrible answer. I watched all the condensed stuff I could find after the RW trade and he seemed to be about the worst starter in the league before he was pulled in Denver. And I am admittedly being super superficial and unreasonably biased with this take, but -and I told you this is superficial -I cannot take the man seriously because of his face. I'm sorry but he looks just like Rick Mirer to me. With a dash of Alfred E Neumann thrown in for good measure. Only I doubt we can expect one good season and then trade him for a first rounder.
It's the perfect "opportunity" as Pete would surely say to himself, and he benched Riq last week due to an "injury" that must have made him unable to tackle. But I can hear it now. Geno isn't 100%, he didn't want it but we forced him to rest his body. Cheers all around.
I don't think they shouldn't. I just wish we had even a raw #3 guy we could give a shot. If we had a QB equivalent to Kenny McIntosh I'd be fine with this; odds of it working out be damned. Heck, I saw some Stallions games and would love to have Alex McGough on our roster right now. But we have Drew Lock. I hope I'm wrong, but I *think* Geno is a better QB, and Geno has no long-term ceiling as a starter in this league. Right now I'd absolutely rather have Baker Mayfield. Or Carr. And if I had a time machine, Hasselbeck. But we have Geno and Lock.
Love the Alfred E. Neuman comparison. A little of the physical looks as well as the “What me Worry? “ attitude. I had been hoping since early season to see him get a shot, and although it was only 8 plays when Geno was injured, and Locke came in, he wasn’t focused,connected,or prepared in any way. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Instead, he was on the sidelines,joking with someone between series.
You don’t get that many opportunities in this league, and to see how ill prepared he was for his, I would just as soon see them take their chances in the draft or picking up a respectable back up from a different team next year.
Instead, he was on the sidelines, joking with someone between series.
I had a discussion with Mrs. Turtleman when that came on the broadcast. She asked if I wanted him to be crying or something, and I get it, but that really bugged me. You just had an absolutely terrible series filling in for the starter. It's not out of the question that those will be the last snaps you ever take in an NFL game. And you're over there having a laugh? Part of me wondered if it was even genuine and he wanted to not look too bummed out if the cameras caught him. But grab a Surface Pro and pretend to look at plays or something. That was not a good look.
I edited that last word out and then edited and put it back in. I keep cursing to a minimum here (and try to in life) but felt that exclamation was needed to convey my thoughts on the QB situation.
You are 100% correct Kenneth. Geno was a half year abarition last year. Was it nice to see a 34 year old veteran finally get a starters gig (again) but once reality set in, we had a very average 2nd half of the season and a very inconsistentant season so far (I will put some blame on Waldron here, it is not 100% Geno’s fault. But who is fumbling and throwing INTs) is it too late to see what Lock can do, I don't think so, BUT Pete has to commit to him for the duration in order to see what we have in him
You're fine Ken. You kept an honest even keel on assessments this whole time. Around Week 6 I had a McVey Moment, where he saw his QB Goff would not take the Rams through the Super Bowl and made a change. He's not here to "do well". He's in this to win it, and did. Just not with Goff. Of course all kinds of 'understandings' were violated and Goff stayed with Detroit because Coach Campbell likes guys who play pissed off. Maybe that was exactly what Goff needed, as his record shows (until lately). Pete has no choice but to let this play out and I think you are correct that the time has come. I haven't read a word on what Lock is getting in practise, but throwing to the A Team would tell us much, as well as the whole team and Geno to boot. Our guys have the abilities to kick some Cowboy ass this Thursday, IF THEY WANT TO. Pete knows what a fire a replacement QB can bring to a game. If Lock does a Geno impersonation, I'll go mow my lawn. But if he brings the right intangibles to include looking and acting like a Winner, the Team will respond. I don't see the evidence yet for all these Voices to claim "Lock's no good". I've seen him on fire, and he's damn good, albeit a few years ago when nobody knew him. Given practise to get the timing down and memorize every option such as going to his tight ends, we could be in for a Hell of a Ride this Thursday. His nay-sayers will be wishing they weren't born. And I have not written off Pete having the touch to know exactly when a Season needs such a boost and what it does to supremely talented athletes. I suspect his bottom line has been 12 and 5, which would mean NOW is the time. The guys have seen the 49ers and know what it will take. 10 days to prepare. We've seen Dallas lose. Given proper command and control, we are back on track. Let's Ride, Boyz. (hat tip to Russ, who ain't doing too bad lately...) Geno can get healthy and feel the heat again, only as back-up this time. All the pieces are there. All the un-played strategies Waldron could cook up may find a way on to the field, arghh... FINALLY!
So many things can be true, all at the same time...
Smith seems to need just a little bit longer to read the field than...some? many?...other QB's do. I'm guessing that his analytical skills are adequate, just not fast enough. If so, then the playbook has to try & take that into account: slower developing routes...which are much harder to implement when close to the goal line...and also require better, more persistent blocking from the OL...which would reduce the amount of practice time they spend on run blocking...and also requires more disciplined execution from the receivers...and also limit the type of plays that can reliably be executed...which damages his self-confidence...which is intrinsic to good snap judgement when deciding which option to actually execute...all of which has been evident for a long time...and is probably not hard for opposing DC's to diagnose.
I think Ken figured out what matters a few weeks ago: Smith's strengths and weaknesses are well known to the coaching staff (not to mention the rest of the league), and they were factored into the contract he was offered. When those contract provisions threaten next year's salary cap management incommensurate with this year's objectives (i.e., "ain't gonna make the playoffs this year"), they'll sit Smith to protect next year's cap.
Much crowing and thumping of chests will ensue amongst the aficionados.
Sounds like a bunch of dominoes that would have to be lined up just so. The liner-up of said dominoes would have to start with Geno predetermined to be the source and then fall over from there. Could we not have similar dominoes falling in a similar direction if we lined them up assuming Waldron is the source of the issues? I think, like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I also contend that even if we did start with the "Geno as source assumption"; when we get to the playbook taking his shortcomings into account, it could decide to make the reads simpler and shorter, with fewer options and more creative window-dressing, rather than making them longer reads. I picture the playbook going with more screens, slants, stacked formations, and (heaven forbid...) run plays in that scenario. Each play would have just one or two reads to decide where to go with the ball. Coincidentally, these are the types of concepts that have seemed to work for our offense more often, IMHO, with the exception of screens.
Of course, maybe our playbook is not as innovative a book as it has propped itself up to be and it has gone the wrong way in an effort to correct itself. Books- hmph. Not very self aware.
But, like I said... the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle. The book hasn't helped the reader, and the reader isn't following the directions in it as efficiently as he should be. User error of incomplete instructions is common, and frustrating. 'Tis the season!
Interesting to see what is happening in Minesota. Obviously a bit different with Dobbs turning the ball over a bunch and not getting a big contract in the offseason etc. but Kevin O'Connell, who I think is a good coach, calling out that his starting QB is under the microscope and could be benched.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/kevin-oconnell-says-minnesota-vikings-may-consider-qb-change-after-joshua-dobbs-4-ints-vs-bears/ar-AA1kFBQ3
Much different strategy than Pete and the team going out of their way to backup Geno publicly.
Dobbs is different than Geno but interesting to see how PC, a legendary HC, and Kevin O'Connell, a young aspiring HC, are handling the situations differently.
Both teams in the playoff race.
The Geno decision should really come down to how the front office feels about him as next year's starting QB. The playoffs are still attainable this year, and that will factor into the decision, but should be secondary to how they manage the QB position and salary cap for next year. As soon as everyone at the table can agree that Geno won't be playing for us next year, they should give him the Carr treatment. It should be that simple, and Lock's ability to play the QB position doesn't really matter. If I'm at that table, my hand is raised already.
The simple fact is that Geno is Geno, a career back up who had a good 1st half last year against sub 500 teams. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn now and then! It's hard to evaluate this offense with a back up QB at the helm. I find it interesting that no team wiith QB issues was making overtures to Geno to becomes a starter or a backup. Maybe they knew something that we know now.
Whether he is benched in the near future or not , he won't be with the Hawks next year. We need to find out what, if anything, we have in Lock or do we draft a QB in 24 ?
We also need to reevaluate OC Waldron. Is the problem the QB or the OC or both?
I continue to believe that we are healthy Oline and a young, mobile QB away from SB contenders.
If we’re all being honest, the Seahawks are not a good offensive team by any metric. Even if we make the playoffs I have zero confidence that we can win. For reference, I had more confidence in the 2009-2010 team that made the playoffs with a losing record and beat the saints.
There are 2 debates happening in this thread 1) WILL PC bench Geno? 2) SHOULD PC bench Geno.
My answer to 1 is, I don’t know if or when PC will make that call, and I don’t feel like speculating.
My answer to 2 is, yes he should if Geno continues the trend we have seen since the end of last season.
Given that this team is not a contender, I feel it would be a good idea to look ahead and evaluate the talent we have to inform our strategy for the draft and free agency, and the fact that what we have been doing isn’t working.
It therefore makes sense to give Lock starting reps at practice and games. Does his athleticism make us more dynamic, help the o line and reduce sacks?
Give the rookies and sophomores more reps so they can develop faster.
The money we are spending at S is an issue. I wouldn’t be surprised to both our starters cut, Adams is injury prone and the highest paid S, Diggs is not playing to his contract.
I love Bobby, but he has clearly lost a step and opposing teams have realized they can exploit him. I’d keep Brooks and draft a ILB.
Just my $.02
Re-reading my last few comments I can see I was a little harsh. What I should have saiid is:
The Gauntlet is going to be a very tough test for any Quarterback Geno , well because he is
Geno,Drew should he play,because he has been sitting on the bench all season.In any case
Fingers crossed, Go Hawks !
K
'I’ve watched 18 seasons of “Big Brother” in the last four weeks'
SSJ, I hope you are feeling ok
:)
Pete says a lot, and tbf it's kind of his job to say a lot. Until I see those words translate into actions I don't forsee any time this season Geno gets benched (barring injury).
Lose the next 3 games, Pete in press: "Well we played tough teams, and we've learned a lot, so Geno's our guy still and it'll come together down the stretch". We can lose the next three and still be right in the Playoff fight, and as you say yourself Ken, Pete won't bench Geno if we can make the playoffs.
And the crux there, even if we lose the next 4 to be 6-9 with two weeks to play, I really struggle to see a scenario that has us eliminated from the Playoffs at that point. Potentially for the final game vs Cardinals we're eliminated, but then will Pete accept experimenting/tanking a divisional game? I can't see that happening.
Gauging the mood of the 12's will drive much of the decision making. This is about making money, when all is said and done. No doubt, just making the Playoffs is huge on Carroll's contract, but he owns enough Love to take a gamble and not make it. To fizzle through the season will cost the corporation big next year. Either he had designs laid among this crew or new hires will happen. Merit is everything. I am optimistic he's got Plans B, C,and D.
I think he may well pull the trigger if he is on the hot seat next year with a losing season on the horizon.
The Seahawks I am sure are looking at the Ms backlash for doing nothing and if they plan on selling the team in 2025 a good team is more valuable.
Pete can go to the front office.
I think we should stay the course with Geno.We need to see what we have.Playing him against
Two/three. of the best teams in the NFL should give us the answer once and for all.
To borrow a phrase from a Seahawks writer,”You wanted him, you got him.”
OK it’s a little sarcastic, just couldn’t help myself.
If Pete doesn't want to bench Geno, wouldn't he demand Waldron do everything he could to construct play concepts to make it as easy on him as possible? Like, maybe, simplify the reads so he can make them quicker, or some desinged rollouts?
I agree with your read of the tea leaves, Ken. The contract and situation are on a collision course. I just don't get why if Team X has a backuo QB about to play, they will scheme up more runs and concepts to keep the QB out of harm's way to minimize turnovers. Basically, try to win with him as a game manager and rely on the OCs playcalling to support thay. We have done absolutely NONE of that. Maybe they'll try some of THAT sort of stuff before benching Geno. They have a responsibility to us to stop slinging the ball all over the place and change the philosophy and focus of the offense if it hasn't been working. Remember when we went away from letting Russ cook, and back to run 1st? Why the hell haven't we done THAT yet?
Your assessment of Geno is fair. I still think, respectfully, that we are letting Waldron off the hook a bit, here.
I've been trying to bang the Waldron drum since about Wk1, and it seems like the wider fanbase is getting there (as usual a few weeks being the Seasiders). It's where some of the Geno conversation gets a bit mixed up - would a new OC get more out of Geno, or is Geno just not good enough regardless of OC? In reality, [I hope] we never find out as Geno should become a cap casualty & Waldron is replaced both in this off-season.
However you touch on another aspect - the Pete vs Let Russ Cook debate. Pete ultimately won that argument as letting Russ cook didn't tie up with improved results and Russ departed to Denver. But as has been pointed out, we've since turned into a Top10 Pass-Heavy offence, drafted two Top55 RB's and generated an at best running game. Is there really such a large disconnect between what Pete is asking for and what Waldron is delivering? Or is Pete, as he so often is, full of words but not actions, and is "happy" to let the Offence modernise to pass-first? I feel there's elements of the latter, as the Defence also struggles and indicates maybe the HC is as much of the problem as the OC or QB [but we can actually change the OC & QB much more easily than the HC]
Agreed. Pete and John have been pretty transparent in past few years, though. They both have been forthcoming about their areas of improvement and growth needs. So, I can't see Pete saying "Run and Defense", then doing the opposite, but for so long. Maybe Waldron has been getting away with running just enough to keep Pete off his back, and we have won just enough to fend him off. Pete seems like the kind of guy who wants to change with the times and identifies with the younger generation as well as anybody, so he could have been giving Waldron leash and space to be himself to this point, too. I say that about Pete because he lets players, and coaches, be themselves and is transparent with them about competition and still maintains a positive work environment. He also knows football and has had the same run-first philosophy even when we had Russ. Surely, he doesn't think Geno is better than Russ was.
So, I can reconcile the on-field pass-heavy results with who Pete is if it was him giving Waldron some freedom, like during the Russ era, but only if he reels Shane back in (which should've happened by now, IMHO). I just can't picture Pete giving up or just being on autopilot at the helm. That's out of character. I also think it's far less likely that he just decided to drastically change with the times, against his better judgment of how good (or not) Geno is, and start endorsing pass-first offense while saying otherwise.
He seems to be empowering those in the organization around him almost too much, now; if I am reading it correctly. Regardless, Shane has to fix this, with Geno's help, or he's (they) gotta go in the offseason. That's the responsibility that comes with being empowered by your HC. Pete needs to put his foot down.
I think it is close, but I don't see Pete benching Geno after the Cowboys game. Possibly if it were a truly abysmal performance where the QB is holding back the team. I don't think that we have seen anything near that yet. I think there are a couple reasons:
1) Pete is still trying to build this team. I don't think he wants to make a change and potentially undermine the many other issues on the offense. The team needs the young guys to get better and the guys with potential that are young (DK etc.) to play at their potential or meet their potential. This is year 2 of the rebuild.
2) It seems that the locker room is behind Geno, and they are still in the playoff race.
3) I believe the team sees Lock as long-term potential. I do not think they will want to toss him to the wolves against any of the next two to three teams.
I do think that if the Hawks lose the next 2-3 games, there will be a chance. But even in that scenario they would still likely be in the playoff race if they win out against the Steelers, Titans, and Cardinals.
We will see ... the NFL is always crazy.
I suspect Geno will start. I don’t see him making through the game. The Quinn led defense is ferocious and he is banged up
Geno gave Pete the perfect excuse to bench him: the shoulder injury. If Pete didn't do that then, he won't do it now, unless they are dead set on releasing Geno and proceed to give him the Carr treatment
I get why benching Geno is a tough decision. He has a (mostly) accurate deep ball. He shows some stretches of good to very good play. He takes accountability. And above all, he is a nice guy with a great story.
But.
Stats don't lie, and neither does tape. The RZ and 3rd down problems are traceable back to poor QB decisions to recognize defenses, adjust protections, opt into/out of plays at the LOS... as Seaside Joe said once and it has stuck with me, the RZ and 3rd down are about about players, not plays. Geno has demonstrated that his ceiling is "good backup QB" as he has been outplayed by career backup QBs in games.
Pete said last year "I have two starting QBs" and the reaction to that was "If you have two starting QBs you don't have 1." That may, in fact, be true as there is no evidence that playing Lock will change the picture much if at all. It is (long past) time to find out.
I don’t know his great story. He seems too fixated on being RW instead of his own style of player.
The “Comeback Kid”….
Ah--I had never heard of him. Honestly didn’t even know who he was when he was back up for RW and promptly forgot his name when Russ returned. I have never read anything about his life.
The story of his time with the Jets is... interesting. He was a hellava QB coming out of West Virginia (makes you think about how college QBs are so hyped). To go from losing his job with the Jets, bouncing around the league as a backup, then getting a shot at redemption is... compelling. But (as a certain Ferengi might say) "a compelling story in a sack is worth... the sack." This is a 'what have you done for me lately' league where NFL stands for Not For Long.
Seems Pete just can’t admit he was wrong about his ability to pump confidence into a player and make them wonderful. Last season’s accolades for Geno were a curse, perhaps.
The contract Geno signed was a trap for both sides.
Having given the Seahawks a "team-friendly" deal there was certainly a commitment from the Seahawks to give Geno every opportunity to earn the incentives and not look like schmucks for benching him. And, my background in the psychology of goals and incentives tells me that the incentives in the contract may be a factor explaining some of Geno's decision-making on the field. Sometimes people out-smart themselves when it comes to contracts/incentives.
But it is now clear to all sides that Geno is not going to hit all (or perhaps any) of his benchmarks for the incentives, so benching him might be acceptable at this point if it was for the good of the team. Pete would looking for a reason now, for sure, given the way the Seahawks are slipping out of playoff contention.
Until we see any reason to think that Lock doesn't stink, I'm fine with Geno being left in any competitive game. But I did wish for Lock to be put in just to keep the starter from taking more hits in both of those two games you mentioned. I've said this before but never bothered to look up the specifics, but Pete once left Russ in a game where the O line was getting crushed and Wilson was his thick version and getting the nano bubbles beat out of him by the Rams. And they never put in Geno. So I'm skeptical it will happen any time soon unless Pete just can't take what he's seeing.
But I can't argue with a single point. I've argued with you about Baker Mayfield and Derrick Carr not being trash when we traded Russ! It gets me every time with quarterbacks. If they aren't in your division, you might watch them live 3-4 times a year. Matt Hasselbeck was my favorite Seahawk for most of his tenure here. And I've watched heroic "will my team to victory" games out of Mayfield and Carr (and Hass). When I watch a QB say, "no f'in way are we losing this game," and make it happen, I tend to lose all objectivity. And it's been a while since I've seen Geno have a great drive, let alone great game.
But that "How much worse could Drew Lock be?" question might have a horrible answer. I watched all the condensed stuff I could find after the RW trade and he seemed to be about the worst starter in the league before he was pulled in Denver. And I am admittedly being super superficial and unreasonably biased with this take, but -and I told you this is superficial -I cannot take the man seriously because of his face. I'm sorry but he looks just like Rick Mirer to me. With a dash of Alfred E Neumann thrown in for good measure. Only I doubt we can expect one good season and then trade him for a first rounder.
It's the perfect "opportunity" as Pete would surely say to himself, and he benched Riq last week due to an "injury" that must have made him unable to tackle. But I can hear it now. Geno isn't 100%, he didn't want it but we forced him to rest his body. Cheers all around.
I don't think they shouldn't. I just wish we had even a raw #3 guy we could give a shot. If we had a QB equivalent to Kenny McIntosh I'd be fine with this; odds of it working out be damned. Heck, I saw some Stallions games and would love to have Alex McGough on our roster right now. But we have Drew Lock. I hope I'm wrong, but I *think* Geno is a better QB, and Geno has no long-term ceiling as a starter in this league. Right now I'd absolutely rather have Baker Mayfield. Or Carr. And if I had a time machine, Hasselbeck. But we have Geno and Lock.
Shit.
Love the Alfred E. Neuman comparison. A little of the physical looks as well as the “What me Worry? “ attitude. I had been hoping since early season to see him get a shot, and although it was only 8 plays when Geno was injured, and Locke came in, he wasn’t focused,connected,or prepared in any way. HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN. Instead, he was on the sidelines,joking with someone between series.
You don’t get that many opportunities in this league, and to see how ill prepared he was for his, I would just as soon see them take their chances in the draft or picking up a respectable back up from a different team next year.
Instead, he was on the sidelines, joking with someone between series.
I had a discussion with Mrs. Turtleman when that came on the broadcast. She asked if I wanted him to be crying or something, and I get it, but that really bugged me. You just had an absolutely terrible series filling in for the starter. It's not out of the question that those will be the last snaps you ever take in an NFL game. And you're over there having a laugh? Part of me wondered if it was even genuine and he wanted to not look too bummed out if the cameras caught him. But grab a Surface Pro and pretend to look at plays or something. That was not a good look.
But we have Geno and Lock.
Shit.
Chuck, Chuck, Chuck...
I edited that last word out and then edited and put it back in. I keep cursing to a minimum here (and try to in life) but felt that exclamation was needed to convey my thoughts on the QB situation.
I'm glad you clarified that.
I thought were telling us it was time to stand up & flush.
You are 100% correct Kenneth. Geno was a half year abarition last year. Was it nice to see a 34 year old veteran finally get a starters gig (again) but once reality set in, we had a very average 2nd half of the season and a very inconsistentant season so far (I will put some blame on Waldron here, it is not 100% Geno’s fault. But who is fumbling and throwing INTs) is it too late to see what Lock can do, I don't think so, BUT Pete has to commit to him for the duration in order to see what we have in him
You're fine Ken. You kept an honest even keel on assessments this whole time. Around Week 6 I had a McVey Moment, where he saw his QB Goff would not take the Rams through the Super Bowl and made a change. He's not here to "do well". He's in this to win it, and did. Just not with Goff. Of course all kinds of 'understandings' were violated and Goff stayed with Detroit because Coach Campbell likes guys who play pissed off. Maybe that was exactly what Goff needed, as his record shows (until lately). Pete has no choice but to let this play out and I think you are correct that the time has come. I haven't read a word on what Lock is getting in practise, but throwing to the A Team would tell us much, as well as the whole team and Geno to boot. Our guys have the abilities to kick some Cowboy ass this Thursday, IF THEY WANT TO. Pete knows what a fire a replacement QB can bring to a game. If Lock does a Geno impersonation, I'll go mow my lawn. But if he brings the right intangibles to include looking and acting like a Winner, the Team will respond. I don't see the evidence yet for all these Voices to claim "Lock's no good". I've seen him on fire, and he's damn good, albeit a few years ago when nobody knew him. Given practise to get the timing down and memorize every option such as going to his tight ends, we could be in for a Hell of a Ride this Thursday. His nay-sayers will be wishing they weren't born. And I have not written off Pete having the touch to know exactly when a Season needs such a boost and what it does to supremely talented athletes. I suspect his bottom line has been 12 and 5, which would mean NOW is the time. The guys have seen the 49ers and know what it will take. 10 days to prepare. We've seen Dallas lose. Given proper command and control, we are back on track. Let's Ride, Boyz. (hat tip to Russ, who ain't doing too bad lately...) Geno can get healthy and feel the heat again, only as back-up this time. All the pieces are there. All the un-played strategies Waldron could cook up may find a way on to the field, arghh... FINALLY!
I like your optimism.
So many things can be true, all at the same time...
Smith seems to need just a little bit longer to read the field than...some? many?...other QB's do. I'm guessing that his analytical skills are adequate, just not fast enough. If so, then the playbook has to try & take that into account: slower developing routes...which are much harder to implement when close to the goal line...and also require better, more persistent blocking from the OL...which would reduce the amount of practice time they spend on run blocking...and also requires more disciplined execution from the receivers...and also limit the type of plays that can reliably be executed...which damages his self-confidence...which is intrinsic to good snap judgement when deciding which option to actually execute...all of which has been evident for a long time...and is probably not hard for opposing DC's to diagnose.
I think Ken figured out what matters a few weeks ago: Smith's strengths and weaknesses are well known to the coaching staff (not to mention the rest of the league), and they were factored into the contract he was offered. When those contract provisions threaten next year's salary cap management incommensurate with this year's objectives (i.e., "ain't gonna make the playoffs this year"), they'll sit Smith to protect next year's cap.
Much crowing and thumping of chests will ensue amongst the aficionados.
Sounds like a bunch of dominoes that would have to be lined up just so. The liner-up of said dominoes would have to start with Geno predetermined to be the source and then fall over from there. Could we not have similar dominoes falling in a similar direction if we lined them up assuming Waldron is the source of the issues? I think, like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
I also contend that even if we did start with the "Geno as source assumption"; when we get to the playbook taking his shortcomings into account, it could decide to make the reads simpler and shorter, with fewer options and more creative window-dressing, rather than making them longer reads. I picture the playbook going with more screens, slants, stacked formations, and (heaven forbid...) run plays in that scenario. Each play would have just one or two reads to decide where to go with the ball. Coincidentally, these are the types of concepts that have seemed to work for our offense more often, IMHO, with the exception of screens.
Of course, maybe our playbook is not as innovative a book as it has propped itself up to be and it has gone the wrong way in an effort to correct itself. Books- hmph. Not very self aware.
But, like I said... the truth is most likely somewhere in the middle. The book hasn't helped the reader, and the reader isn't following the directions in it as efficiently as he should be. User error of incomplete instructions is common, and frustrating. 'Tis the season!