Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Paul G's avatar

I voted to keep starting Geno even though I see him as Not Good Enough in the end. Even so, I can’t see benching the starting QB of a 6-3 team, especially when there’s every reason to believe that he has the support and respect of his teammates. In my mind, that trumps all, including getting Lock in for a few sets to see what he can do (which wouldn’t be conclusive anyway). I might feel differently if the team flounders through the next five games, but I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.

Expand full comment
Village Idiot's avatar

Following my earlier question about who it is that actually calls plays & how they get called...

Ken wrote:

"I will say that during almost every single game this season, comments in the Seaside Joe live chat thread will end up centering around why the Seahawks should give Drew Lock a chance that day. I don’t think these comments are overreacting in terms of Geno’s play, because I do believe that the offense has been more inept at times than it has any business being and no, I do not blame that all on Shane Waldron."

We, the outside observers, have little (perhaps no) visibility into who is "to blame" for perceived offensive ineptitude.

To simplify, the OC doesn't actually "call the plays". While the OC may (or may not) suggest a preferred option, the most the OC really does is call the player package and an initial planned formation. The QB calls the play based on the pre-snap read. We assume that he (the QB) does so on the basis of how he's been coached in advance, and what he knows about the players in that package, and what he sees on the other side of the line.

Y'all probably know this backwards & forwards, but I'm still catching up. Also...y'know...House of Idiot.

We, the outside observers, have no insight into who actually screwed up the play calling on any given down. As suggested by some other commenters, Smith might be just trying to do as he's told, exercising no initiative. Or, he might be doing something different exercising complete initiative. Out here, we can rarely tell.

We can assume ("makes an Ass out of U and Me") that Smith is generally consistent with how he's coached when he makes those calls...at least more correct and consistent than they think Lock is. The basis for their action is similarly founded on information to which we, as outside observers, are not privy. We don't get to see any of what's going on in there. That assumption seems like relatively low risk, because Lock is still riding the bench.

The RW3 era was different because he (#3) improvised like a spastic cat in a room full of Whoopie cushions after pretty much every snap (and, sometimes, apparently, even before that), where Smith generally does not appear to do so. That improvisation was a two-edged sword. It cut his way more often than not, but when it cut wrong it really hurt.

On the whole, this revelation is going to save me a lot of time: as soon as my new "QB/OC Rant Detector" goes off, I can quit reading.

Related unsubstantiated aside: IMHO, FWIW (and, as usual, EIEIO) I still think there is a challenge designing plays to take advantage of Smith's strengths and to mitigate his weaknesses. I suspect, but (as a mere outside observer & an Idiot to boot) cannot substantiate, that is why so many routes seem to take so long to develop: he processes at some certain rate & gets in trouble trying to go faster. The slow-developing routes would give him just a little bit longer to analyze the situation. Given "just a little bit longer", his analysis is probably pretty good, as is his throwing accuracy. Maybe we don't need a "better" QB, we just need one that comes to a good (not perfect) decision faster...without much loss of either throwing accuracy or analytical skill. 

P.S. - How they get a star like Goldberg to stay in a room with a spastic cat remains a mystery to me.

Expand full comment
33 more comments...

No posts