"What do you have against Geno Smith?"

Why evaluations of Geno Smith here matter more than at other places

“What does Seaside Joe have against Geno Smith?”

It’s a question that’s been in the air for the past two years since Geno was named the starter by Pete Carroll after a casual QB competition against Drew Lock and I really hope that the “Joe is anti-Geno” narrative can be laid to rest after today. To answer the question “What does Joe have against Geno?”

I’ve never had anything against Geno Smith and it wouldn’t make any rational sense for me to root against the quarterback of the Seahawks.

My intention at Seaside Joe with all players and coaches, not just Geno, is to simply not give them a “hometown bump” like you have typically seen from most people who cover a particular team. No player will get a value bump from me just because he was drafted by the Seahawks, signed by the Seahawks, or traded for by the Seahawks. I think that can be irksome to some fans given that reading positive takes on hometown players FEELS GOOD, while criticisms and sharing concerns about the team’s starting quarterback FEELS BAD.

“Then why not just start giving Seahawks the hometown bump then? You’ll probably be more popular!”

I would point to a Seaside Joe newsletter from last June titled “Did the Seahawks overpay for Dre’Mont Jones?” as an example of the benefit to being objective. It would have been expected of a Seahawks writer to shower Jones in praise as a “great signing” because, well, the team made the decision FOR YOU to start rooting for this player due to the fact that he’s now on your favorite team and it behooves you as a fan for him to succeed.

But what if he doesn’t succeed? What if he turns out like Dre’Mont Jones?

Objective doesn’t mean “correct” or “right”, right? I can be wrong too: I’ve said that teams would be wiser to trade for Zach Wilson than for Lamar Jackson.

It just means that I try to judge players the same regardless of which team they play for, including the team that I cover here, the Seattle Seahawks. OBJECTIVITY is the most valuable thing that Seaside Joe brings to the Seahawks content atmosphere because if 49 out of 50 writers will tell you that your favorite team is doing great because they’re your favorite team, let there be one who will only say stuff like that when he or she feels it is objectively true. Then you know for sure that when the takes are positive, I actually mean it.

I am never going to write that a Seahawks player is better than another player just because he’s a Seahawk. I will only say that a Seahawks player is better than another if I feel it is objectively true. In sports, anything that isn’t a fact (“QB threw for 300 yards today”) is an opinion (“QB who threw for 200 yards was better”) and that leaves us open to debate and argument every single time. But OBJECTIVITY is always the intention.

That doesn’t mean that MY objective reality will be the same as YOUR objective reality. I have shared a lot of opinions here that have proven to be wrong, but you should always know before reacting to what I write that it actually is my opinion and that there is no hidden agenda to bring Geno Smith down or to only make note of his errors and why he shouldn’t be Seattle’s quarterback. There is no hidden agenda in team sports blogging more common than over-hyping local players, not the opposite, which doesn’t appear to have any obvious benefits to the writer; not only do opposing fans automatically hate you, but you’re alienating yourself from all the fans of the team you cover who don’t want to hear it.

There is, however, a huge benefit to the readers of that particular website:

If I get to the point where I feel like Geno gives the Seahawks the best chance to win a Super Bowl compared to other realistically available options, not only will I write it, I might also be the only one who makes you say to yourself, “Oh he didn’t think that before and now he thinks that, so his opinion must be pretty serious.”

If I was just giving away compliments to players for absolutely free only because they’re the Seahawks, what would be the value of any of my opinions?

I can’t be mad at anyone who pushed back on criticisms during a post-game rant or if I call into question Geno’s future as Seattle’s starter, because that’s what being a fan probably should feel like. I mean, if you hear “Geno was bad today” from me, that’s no different than hearing it from a 49ers fan, and that’s not how anyone really wants to live. Nobody wants to have to think about what 49ers fans are saying or thinking.

On the other hand, the quarterback position has become so overrated/overvalued that it has become commonplace, even during most of the Russell Wilson era, to throw 10 other players ON YOUR FAVORITE TEAM under the bus if it means not having to throw the quarterback under the bus. Why would it better to believe that the Seahawks have five bad offensive linemen, bad running backs, sometimes bad receivers, bad tight ends, and bad coaches, than it would be to only have to replace the quarterback?

We saw this happen multiple times during the Wilson era (“He’s doing it all by himself”) and again with Geno in Week 2 against the Patriots, proposing the idea that because Zach Charbonnet couldn’t gain positive rushing yards behind Seattle’s offensive line, and because of several drops by skill players, that the Seahawks needed to be rescued by Geno Smith.

In this case, there was truth to that.

I think I gave Geno his proper credit in both the post-game article and the next-day article, which in my opinion carries a lot more weight at Seaside Joe because you know that I’m not a writer who is automatically giving the starting quarterback props after every game with the only changing detail being who can be blamed for a bad day at the office as long as its not Geno, or previously, Russell Wilson.

Objectivity is a guarantee you get from Seaside Joe, but fixing every typo before I hit “send” is usually not.

So this has nothing to do with being against a Seahawks player. This is about being for Seahawks fans.

It is with that sentiment that we reach the end of 2024’s “Close Your Eyes” test scores by grading the Seahawks quarterbacks. I will also tag on the three special teamers, Jason Myers, Michael Dickson, and Chris Stoll, so that we have graded the entire roster. There is one more post to go after this, which will be my complete value ranking of the Seahawks at the beginning of the 2024 season, which I will then use as a barometer for future newsletters, such as Seahawks Stock Report.

And I just want to let you know that if this entire time you’ve been questioning my point system, questioning the values, and the fairness of it all, you’re not alone. So am I. I’ve been questioning if the categories are right and if the scores are close to fair throughout the process and I intend for this system to improve after this initial test run. Thank you for allowing me to run this experiment in your e-mail inboxes, I have done so hoping that the end result is something unique to Seaside Joe and useful, but only time will tell.

The first 10 parts:

Part I: Running backs

Part II: Wide receivers

Part III: Defensive Bigs

Part IV: Linebackers

Part V: Tight Ends

Part VI: Interior Offensive Bigs

Part VII: Safeties

Part VIII: Offensive Tackles

Part IX: Cornerbacks

Part X: Edge Rushers

Here are final grades for Geno Smith, Sam Howell, and the special teamers:

QB Geno Smith

History: 3/5

Health: 5/5

Athleticism: 3.5/5

Consistency: 3/5

Supply and Demand: 4/5

Versatility: 3.5/5

I wouldn’t blame any of you for questioning my methodology and whether or not these scores have any meaning outside of the Seaside Joe Universe. I question it myself, as skepticism and questioning one’s own beliefs is requisite for growth and I do hope to continue a points system for Seahawks players here that most everyone can agree is fair. So how did I go about scoring Geno here?