Here is an interesting idea. Two out of three games we have seen Geno do well in the first half only to have the other team make adjustments and shut the Hawk's offense down in the second half. I might think about bringing Drew Lock in for the second half of the next game to negate their adjustments. Change up the offense at halftime to fit Lock's skillset. Maybe we catch them off guard and put up some big offense. Then make it a thing so that no one knows which QB is playing in the second half of games. A bit radical but this team requires out of the box thinking.
I like how most of Seahawks Twitter preached patience, and this being a year to tank, but when we lose games, everyone goes bat sh*t crazy. I agree with you, I was under the impression we had a great season and it's shaping up that the moves made in the off-season we're good moves. Some moves of years past aren't looking so good to start but happy about the development!
Scoring involves more than the QB. The interception was on 4th down with Geno on the run. The Hawks are 21st in passing but 29th in rushing and 28th overall offense. It seems to me there is more correlation between the lack of rushing yards and inadequate scoring than with the passing game. 24 points should be a win. How would you feel today if we were 2-1 because the defense did its job?
Having seen young teams with talent and ugly starts to a season turn things around and finish strong, I'm not ready to consign the Hawks to a losing season...yet.
If defense can find its groove, the running game hit it's potential, get a 'grip' on tackling, cut back on penalties and the rooks continue to improve, this team could surprise a lot of folks. A lot of if's huh?
I certainly hope we see improvement from this young roster. Unfortunately, when you compare the Hawks to the contenders we just don't have equal talent. Even if we stayed with Geno at QB but added four players picked in the top 80 in the 2023 draft we would be a much improved team. If one of those was an impact d-lineman or rush end it would elevate the entire defense.
I needed some positivity (so thank you!), and as always you provide great perspective and insight. FWIW I also googled miragian!
I'm curious if you have any insights on why the second half offense is so bad / inept? I have no data to back up my feelings, but it has a familiar feeling to recent years where we get out to a nice lead and become overly conservative (try to not lose) vs. continuing to try and score points. Or it could be the defense is making adjustments and the offensive game plan isn't adjusting to the adjustments!
While I recognize Pete is an amazing leader and motivator, and agree with their approach to the offseason. I am growing increasingly concerned about his ability to adapt to how the game has changed, and how this could impact the Seahawks ability to quickly return to their winning ways.
Thank you James! I think my answers will probably more simple than most: lack of talent! It's too early to say that the Seahawks are any kind of a half team. First half or second half, it's only been three games. What's more telling is looking at all of Seattle's drives and the general lack of success in scoring. The Seahawks are 31st in red zone offense: 8 trips, 2 TDs. You can't be bad in the red zone. It's probably less about the halves than it is about the total offensive talent and I should have been more clear about that. Additionally I would say that because the defense is so bad, the offense doesn't get many opportunities.
So a general lack of talent makes the Seahawks worse and it's easier to be able to say "Well there's a good half and there's a bad half." In the 49ers game, there were two bad halves. The 49ers are a good defense that knows Seattle well. The Falcons are a bad defense and they adjusted fine after halftime. In the Broncos game, maybe Seattle pulled all the tricks they had in the first half and then ran out of tricks.
If you have a Patrick Mahomes, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Joe Burrow, Tom Brady, or someone of that nature back there, it becomes a lot easier to take the game planning and halftime adjustments out of it. These were the types of QBs who were able to score in the fourth quarter when the defense knew they had to expect it, most of them have won playoff games in the last 2 years by being able to do this. Geno Smith is not of that ilk. When the defense is expecting it, we've seen time after time that the defense wins against Geno in the fourth quarter.
When have Mahome, Allen, Jackson, Burrow, or Brady been on a team with a significant talent deficit? You may be right about Geno but Garappalo has gone a long way in the playoffs and I don't think he's any better than Geno. How can you judge Smith in that way when he doesn't have the pieces surrounding him to make those performances possible?
The Cowboys had the best PFF rating in 2021:
LT Tyron Smith | 91.9
LG Connor Williams | 76.4
C Tyler Biadasz | 64.8
RG Zack Martin | 94.2
RT La’el Collins | 84.0
The Seahawks in 2021:
LT Duane Brown | 72.0
LG Damien Lewis | 57.7
C Ethan Pocic | 68.0
RG Gabe Jackson | 63.6
RT Brandon Shell | 67.6
Seahawks scores throught 3 games:
LT Charles Cross | 60.2
LG Damien Lewis | 53.7
C Austin Blythe | 39.6
RG Gabe Jackson | 51.9
RT Abe Lucus | 62.6
There's a lot of potential in our tackles but our PFF scores are bad even compared to last year and we're nearly half as good as the Cowboys line. That means the running game doesn't work, there aren't enough series to wear down the defense, and in the 4th quarter when teams ramp it up, we can't. How is that Geno's fault?
Why do you think Pete hasn't adapted? The offense is a McVay style offense. The defense has completely changed specifically because the NFL has changed. Overall roster talent is king and no scheme will make up for a significant disadvantage in talent. The NFL is designed for parity and we simply haven't had the draft picks to keep up. Since Pete got here the Rams, 49ers, and Cards have all had more empty seasons than Seattle. That's how LA got Aaron Donald, SF got Nick Bosa, and AZ got Kyler Murray.
Pete may have hired new coordinators and incorporated a few new elements, but it hasn't changed Pete's philosophy on how to win football games. I think the offensive play calling is overly conservative and predictable, and the change in defensive scheme clearly isn't working thus far.
I disagree that we haven't had the draft picks. The Seahawks have wasted a number of first round draft picks on free agent acquisitions that have not yielded a good return (Harvin, Graham, Richardson, to name a few). They have consistently traded down to try and find value picks in the later round. And the handful of early round picks they have made, haven't turned into reliable starters (Michael, Richardson, Ifedi, McDowell, Collier, Blair, Eskridge). Not to mention some of the top tier NFL talent that we have passed on.
All of the picks you mentioned were late first or second round picks. You don't consistently get the Bosa's of the world outside of the top ten. If you research the Hawk's drafting record you'll find they're right in line with the rest of the NFL and a bit better on UFDAs. You can't criticize their draft record without acknowledging where they've done well with picks like Sherman, Wagner, Metcalf, Wilson and UFDAs like Baldwin and Ford.
Pete's philosphy is don't give away the ball and make sure you're in the game with a chance to win in the fourth quarter. I don't think that's radical and it doesn't create bad defense or limit the offense. If you don't have Brady, Rodgers, or Mahomes how do you move the ball? The best teams in the league have robust running games, including GB, KC, and TB. Why does Pete get crap for doing the same thing?
Where we agree is their failure to succeed in blockbuster trades. Even then, they've traded what they thought were questionable assets for a possible big win.
I felt a lot of fans were way too optimistic in the off season and was extremely pessimistic heading into week one. That freak win forced me to admit the error of my ways. But the error was simply forgetting that, in the NFL, on any particular day, almost anything can happen.
I agree that Geno has exceeded expectations and not by a little. Guess what? He's still Geno. I'm not pessimistic about this franchise or even this season. I simply accept that we'll lose a lot and, frankly, have no problem with it. I'm well aware that tanking guarantees nothing in the draft. But it maximizes our chances of getting some really good players. So if there's a year to tank, this would seem to be it.
I guess the next game against the Lions on the road will be telling. Perhaps we'll see Seattle perform beyond expectations and win. If not, I think a three win season sounds about right. If so, we could be up to five or maybe six (if rainbows and unicorns are for reals).
My initial prediction was 3 to 6 wins, which I downgraded to 2 to 5 when I realized we really were starting Geno. Since then, Geno has shown he's got at least a bit of what it takes to QB in the NFL. But 2 to 5 still feels about right. Have to assume we can pull out at least one more win somewhere. The Saints suck. The Giants aren't all that. Panthers? Jets? Those are the four that seem most likely and, as we know, anything can happen on any given day in the NFL. Since once upon a time, a long time ago in a land far, far away (in other words, as recently as last season), we had SF's number -- so perhaps in Seattle.
Thank you for the fully-formed reasoned opinion. I appreciate what Waldron has done with Geno, AND:
if the team continues to score nothing in the second half, that is a Waldron problem. He may be great at drawing up plays, schemes, and tactics, and work with the talent he has, but if he cannot adjust in-game, the team will drown. The NFL is just too good and the coaches too smart. This was one thing Bevell did well, and Schotty was pretty good at it too. Often it's just a tweak or two, and I truly hope it's something he develops over the course of the year.
I'm not always seeing the same things others see. In the first two games, Geno's performance dropped way off in the second half but not really last week. They were moving the ball down field real well in the second half. On the last drive in particular, until Lewis' holding call negated a big play and backed things way up. Then Geno was forced to pass deep, which is not his forte (never has been, never will be). The fourth down play was a recipe for interception, even if the QB was considerably more talented.
Now they were playing against a dumpster fire defense. Geno always looks his best against dumpster fire defenses. (Don't we all?) It's harder against teams like San Francisco and Denver.
According to Football Outsiders, Geno is a top 10 QB in DYAR and 11th by DVOA. Not bad. His ALEX which was bottom 10 improved to 18th after the Atlanta game. He was the 4th best QB of the weekend by DYAR, and the 3th best passer by the same metric.
Geno has a better EPA/play than Burrow, Herbert, Rodgers, Brady and Stafford. He's the best 1st half QB in the league by EPA+CPOE. Only Josh Allen completed a greater percentage of passes in the first half, and those had a higher expected completion percentage. And the Seahawks are the 5th best team in dropback EPA/play in the first half.
The problem with Geno seems to be his variance. He gives you Tom Brady in the first half and Justin Fields in the second (but he didn't cost 2 firsts like Fields). He still looks better than any QBs acquired this year so far, and this includes Russ (not for long, I believe), and cost nothing.
On second halfs Geno is the 5th worst QB by EPA/play. The Seahawks are the worst team in EPA/dropback.
I don't know. People seem to be giving Geno appropriate credit. He's better than most of us expected and he's still a lower tier NFL quarterback, extremely limited by lack of arm strength and mobility. Playing better than Mayfield, Trubisky, Winston? That's a low bar. Mariota looked better against our dumpster-D than Geno did against theirs.
Without question, mediocre QBs like Garoppolo look way better than Geno. Even before Wilson began to get on track, there were flashes of Russ. That's why, to me, the eye test means so much more than cherry-picked stats.
As for Russ, our front office is right, I believe, that he's not the same guy he was a few years ago. But he's still a guy you can scheme around. With the right support, I can see the Broncos maybe making the playoffs and then, once there, who knows. Just as I always said when we had him.
Don't get me wrong. I think Kenneth is exactly right in crediting the Seahawks for trading when they did for what they did. The Rams winning the Superbowl with Stafford, after Brady won with the Bucks, really juiced the market. I don't think we'd have gotten as much if we traded him a year earlier or a year later. Now, the Bronco's relative success or failure will set the market for the next round of slightly-past-prime QBs.
How does Garoppolo look better than Geno? I mean other than against our D, where everyone looks like a star? Geno outplayed Jimmy big time in the respective Denver games
The only time Geno looked good was against Atlanta, with a defense as bad as ours. He had some good passes in the first halves against Denver and San Francisco but Garoppolo routinely throws intermediate passes with poise and confidence. Both guys seem to fall on their faces when the chips are really down and against the best competition but I don't think it's close. Garoppolo can hold up against at least mediocre competition. I'm not convinced Geno can excel against any team that isn't a bottom dweller.
QBR is not a cherry picked stat. If you base your evaluation strictly on his statistical performance over three games, he is a top tier QB but unfortunately for him, he doesn't play on a top tier team. He's 31 instead of 22, he's not flashy, and expectations are often more pervasive than reality. He has produced a QBR rating of 62.2 good for 10th in the NFL and that's with a crappy interior oline, two rookie tackles, and no third receiver of note.
I've nothing against QBR specifically. It's stats in general. Used right, they can be really powerful. But it's easy to believe them over your own lying eyes, which is what I think you're doing with Geno.
My eyes tell me Geno is surprisingly poised (compared to what most of us expected). That said, he can't run, can't throw deep and does not hold up under pressure. Stats don't reveal any of that.
If we'd had all these stats when Flutie was playing, maybe he would have gotten a shot in the NFL. I think he should have. We now know it's not all about stature. Russ changes the common wisdom on that. But sometimes what's obvious by eye alone is true enough.
There's a difference between "can't throw deep" and "doesn't throw deep". I haven't see evidence that says he "can't". He can't run like Kyler Murry but neither can Tom Brady or Matthew Stafford. Stats reveal all of that. "Total QBR is based on all of a quarterback's plays (rushing, passing, sacks, fumbles, interceptions, penalties, etc.), and it calculates the per-play net impact of the quarterback on the ability to score". The point of stats like QBR is to eliminate personal bias. Regardless of what your eyes tell you, Geno is currently performing like a top ten quarterback. I really believe the hardest part about watching Geno is that because of his age and track record he doesn't resemble a franchise QB. Sometimes the NFL is wrong and we have to be able to look at the player's actual performance rather than contextual expectations.
So he can do it, at least on occasion. Let's wait and see how he does through a few more games. Can he play well on the road and against better teams? If so, I'll admit you're right. But as Paul points out, above, let's see how things go when there's a bunch of film of his earlier outings. I know he played last year but that was in an offense designed around Wilson. This time it's an offense specifically designed for him. A very different beast. To his credit, I thought everyone would stack the box and dare him to throw. As it turns out, he can destroy that kind of static defense with short, quick intermediate throws.
Those are interesting numbers. Unfortunately, they're also exhibit A in an essay on the limitations of analytics. Anyone with eyes can see that Geno is extremely limited. He's done better than I've expected this season so far but his ceiling is still knee level to the best guys in the league, and maybe chest level to mediocre guys like Garoppolo.
I don't see him being "extremely limited." He's not magic, but he has played well. I think you're bringing in some prior assumptions and biases when you make a statement like this.
Numbers can tell many stories, some really far from the truth. When reading numbers, you should know whether you rely on the honesty of the storyteller.
If you take Geno numbers in isolation, you get that he's great, above average and is having a really good season. That's not true, though it's true that he's beyond most expectations.
If you split the numbers by game halfs, then you have something that at least seems true: Geno is an amazingly competent and precise game manager in the first half, and struggles to even move the ball on second half. This makes his "per snap" metrics look way better than they should, as he has fewer snaps in the second half.
Then comes my point: Geno is playing better than any QB that switched teams before this season, at least up to this point, even when you account for his second half woes, and before when you do a per dollar or per draft capital spent analysis.
Game 1: High emotions and adrenaline contribute to a solid first half at home. A strong defense dominates in the second half
Game 2: Squelched on the road in both halves by a strong defense.
Game 3: Good first half at home against a weak defense. Poor second half despite winning TOP and 18 plays in the 4th quarter
There’s not much to glean from this other than Geno is capable of a good first half at home under certain conditions, and that defenses adjust successfully in the second half. I’m not optimistic about the good first half play continuing as there’s more and more film.
This. Can't speak to the last paragraph because I don't have the knowledge to comment on that assertion. But paragraphs one and two -- Yes! Paragraph three, I mostly agree with too, though I think it can be a bit deceiving. Defenses are stepping up in the second half but, in this last game against Atlanta, he moved the ball pretty well throughout. He was undone at the end by a holding call on Lewis, a sack which could not have been avoided and then being really up against it on something like 4th and 18, a down and distance that strips Geno naked because he simply doesn't have the arm strength to whip an accurate pass that deep against tight coverage.
Agree that PCJS handled the QB situation adeptly once it became clear that Russell Wilson wanted out. (Although I’m less impressed with the anonymous sneers from the FO that Russell’s skills are declining: To the extent that that is so, it began with the torn MCL playing behind a line anchored by Bradley F. Sowell and J’Marcus F. Webb—i.e., it’s not like the FO’s hands are clean.) What they should not have done is raise expectations by insisting that this team can compete with anyone. That’s what is driving much of the bad feeling that is out there.
I have to admit Geno's play so far has softened my stance on starting Lock instead. I still understand the decision to not see what we have in Lock but Geno's been playing well.
What crossed my mind is how many times in the past we've talked about how the Seahawks were such a slow-starting team that got themselves into a deep hole at halftime and that has reversed course dramatically this season. I have to wonder if the problem wasn't Russ the whole time. And who knows, if the 2nd half offense improves (and why couldn't it) and the defense gels (again, why not?) then this team might actually be fairly decent by the end of the season.
I don’t think that Geno has been anything special. 23 points at home against a bad defense may be his ceiling, and that isn’t much of one. No second-half TDs in three games. Against ATL, they ran 18 plays in the fourth quarter and came away with nothing.
Geno has done his job but it's still a team game. The defense has to get off the field so the offense can have more than three series in a half. Where's our third receiver? DK fumbled and hasn't been the man-monster he's being paid to be. The biggest issue has been the lack of consistent play from the interior offensive line. I'm willing to bet that if the Rams had Geno with the same stats, they would be 3-0. It ain't the QB boys.
I didn't see the game, only watched highlights, but two passes to Metcalf in the end zone that could have been scores would have made this game incredibly different.
If other teams were so incredible, I'd say there's a huge problem, but if the ship doesn't get righted this year, and this year's crop gets experience, another round of great picks puts the Hawks in good order. Maybe I'll just keep an eye across the street on that other team in town as the Hawks built it back up.
The difference between teams in the NFL is typically small. But those differences add up over the course of a season. Yes, Seattle came close to beating the Falcons. Key term: the Falcons. At home. That game might have been the "toilet bowl" that determines who gets the top pick in the draft.
I'm with you in not being upset if the ship doesn't get righted. Might even go a step further and say "this is righted -- it just looks funny this year". I'm hopeful we'll be much improved next year and way more so in 2024.
Your even keel approach is why I read you. The whole moaning, bitching, ranting, told-you-so, anger thing is too much for my stomach and rarely offers a gleam of insight. I just looked up "miragian." Dictionary.com is unaware of it and my computer or Substack thinks you mean Moravian. I think you're gonna get credit for inventing a word. You and Shakespeare, huh?
Yeah, it's sad, because it used to be so good. There are still some good things there, but it's a bit like panning for gold. Not that I've ever panned for gold.
Here is an interesting idea. Two out of three games we have seen Geno do well in the first half only to have the other team make adjustments and shut the Hawk's offense down in the second half. I might think about bringing Drew Lock in for the second half of the next game to negate their adjustments. Change up the offense at halftime to fit Lock's skillset. Maybe we catch them off guard and put up some big offense. Then make it a thing so that no one knows which QB is playing in the second half of games. A bit radical but this team requires out of the box thinking.
I like how most of Seahawks Twitter preached patience, and this being a year to tank, but when we lose games, everyone goes bat sh*t crazy. I agree with you, I was under the impression we had a great season and it's shaping up that the moves made in the off-season we're good moves. Some moves of years past aren't looking so good to start but happy about the development!
Scoring involves more than the QB. The interception was on 4th down with Geno on the run. The Hawks are 21st in passing but 29th in rushing and 28th overall offense. It seems to me there is more correlation between the lack of rushing yards and inadequate scoring than with the passing game. 24 points should be a win. How would you feel today if we were 2-1 because the defense did its job?
Having seen young teams with talent and ugly starts to a season turn things around and finish strong, I'm not ready to consign the Hawks to a losing season...yet.
If defense can find its groove, the running game hit it's potential, get a 'grip' on tackling, cut back on penalties and the rooks continue to improve, this team could surprise a lot of folks. A lot of if's huh?
Just get'r done right?
Gotta go bid on a bridge now...
I certainly hope we see improvement from this young roster. Unfortunately, when you compare the Hawks to the contenders we just don't have equal talent. Even if we stayed with Geno at QB but added four players picked in the top 80 in the 2023 draft we would be a much improved team. If one of those was an impact d-lineman or rush end it would elevate the entire defense.
Where is the next Cortez Kennedy right?
Can I get a hit of whatever it is you're smoking?
I needed some positivity (so thank you!), and as always you provide great perspective and insight. FWIW I also googled miragian!
I'm curious if you have any insights on why the second half offense is so bad / inept? I have no data to back up my feelings, but it has a familiar feeling to recent years where we get out to a nice lead and become overly conservative (try to not lose) vs. continuing to try and score points. Or it could be the defense is making adjustments and the offensive game plan isn't adjusting to the adjustments!
While I recognize Pete is an amazing leader and motivator, and agree with their approach to the offseason. I am growing increasingly concerned about his ability to adapt to how the game has changed, and how this could impact the Seahawks ability to quickly return to their winning ways.
Thank you James! I think my answers will probably more simple than most: lack of talent! It's too early to say that the Seahawks are any kind of a half team. First half or second half, it's only been three games. What's more telling is looking at all of Seattle's drives and the general lack of success in scoring. The Seahawks are 31st in red zone offense: 8 trips, 2 TDs. You can't be bad in the red zone. It's probably less about the halves than it is about the total offensive talent and I should have been more clear about that. Additionally I would say that because the defense is so bad, the offense doesn't get many opportunities.
So a general lack of talent makes the Seahawks worse and it's easier to be able to say "Well there's a good half and there's a bad half." In the 49ers game, there were two bad halves. The 49ers are a good defense that knows Seattle well. The Falcons are a bad defense and they adjusted fine after halftime. In the Broncos game, maybe Seattle pulled all the tricks they had in the first half and then ran out of tricks.
If you have a Patrick Mahomes, Josh Allen, Lamar Jackson, Joe Burrow, Tom Brady, or someone of that nature back there, it becomes a lot easier to take the game planning and halftime adjustments out of it. These were the types of QBs who were able to score in the fourth quarter when the defense knew they had to expect it, most of them have won playoff games in the last 2 years by being able to do this. Geno Smith is not of that ilk. When the defense is expecting it, we've seen time after time that the defense wins against Geno in the fourth quarter.
When have Mahome, Allen, Jackson, Burrow, or Brady been on a team with a significant talent deficit? You may be right about Geno but Garappalo has gone a long way in the playoffs and I don't think he's any better than Geno. How can you judge Smith in that way when he doesn't have the pieces surrounding him to make those performances possible?
The Cowboys had the best PFF rating in 2021:
LT Tyron Smith | 91.9
LG Connor Williams | 76.4
C Tyler Biadasz | 64.8
RG Zack Martin | 94.2
RT La’el Collins | 84.0
The Seahawks in 2021:
LT Duane Brown | 72.0
LG Damien Lewis | 57.7
C Ethan Pocic | 68.0
RG Gabe Jackson | 63.6
RT Brandon Shell | 67.6
Seahawks scores throught 3 games:
LT Charles Cross | 60.2
LG Damien Lewis | 53.7
C Austin Blythe | 39.6
RG Gabe Jackson | 51.9
RT Abe Lucus | 62.6
There's a lot of potential in our tackles but our PFF scores are bad even compared to last year and we're nearly half as good as the Cowboys line. That means the running game doesn't work, there aren't enough series to wear down the defense, and in the 4th quarter when teams ramp it up, we can't. How is that Geno's fault?
Yeah ya never know!
Why do you think Pete hasn't adapted? The offense is a McVay style offense. The defense has completely changed specifically because the NFL has changed. Overall roster talent is king and no scheme will make up for a significant disadvantage in talent. The NFL is designed for parity and we simply haven't had the draft picks to keep up. Since Pete got here the Rams, 49ers, and Cards have all had more empty seasons than Seattle. That's how LA got Aaron Donald, SF got Nick Bosa, and AZ got Kyler Murray.
Pete may have hired new coordinators and incorporated a few new elements, but it hasn't changed Pete's philosophy on how to win football games. I think the offensive play calling is overly conservative and predictable, and the change in defensive scheme clearly isn't working thus far.
I disagree that we haven't had the draft picks. The Seahawks have wasted a number of first round draft picks on free agent acquisitions that have not yielded a good return (Harvin, Graham, Richardson, to name a few). They have consistently traded down to try and find value picks in the later round. And the handful of early round picks they have made, haven't turned into reliable starters (Michael, Richardson, Ifedi, McDowell, Collier, Blair, Eskridge). Not to mention some of the top tier NFL talent that we have passed on.
All of the picks you mentioned were late first or second round picks. You don't consistently get the Bosa's of the world outside of the top ten. If you research the Hawk's drafting record you'll find they're right in line with the rest of the NFL and a bit better on UFDAs. You can't criticize their draft record without acknowledging where they've done well with picks like Sherman, Wagner, Metcalf, Wilson and UFDAs like Baldwin and Ford.
Pete's philosphy is don't give away the ball and make sure you're in the game with a chance to win in the fourth quarter. I don't think that's radical and it doesn't create bad defense or limit the offense. If you don't have Brady, Rodgers, or Mahomes how do you move the ball? The best teams in the league have robust running games, including GB, KC, and TB. Why does Pete get crap for doing the same thing?
Where we agree is their failure to succeed in blockbuster trades. Even then, they've traded what they thought were questionable assets for a possible big win.
I felt a lot of fans were way too optimistic in the off season and was extremely pessimistic heading into week one. That freak win forced me to admit the error of my ways. But the error was simply forgetting that, in the NFL, on any particular day, almost anything can happen.
I agree that Geno has exceeded expectations and not by a little. Guess what? He's still Geno. I'm not pessimistic about this franchise or even this season. I simply accept that we'll lose a lot and, frankly, have no problem with it. I'm well aware that tanking guarantees nothing in the draft. But it maximizes our chances of getting some really good players. So if there's a year to tank, this would seem to be it.
I guess the next game against the Lions on the road will be telling. Perhaps we'll see Seattle perform beyond expectations and win. If not, I think a three win season sounds about right. If so, we could be up to five or maybe six (if rainbows and unicorns are for reals).
My initial prediction was 3 to 6 wins, which I downgraded to 2 to 5 when I realized we really were starting Geno. Since then, Geno has shown he's got at least a bit of what it takes to QB in the NFL. But 2 to 5 still feels about right. Have to assume we can pull out at least one more win somewhere. The Saints suck. The Giants aren't all that. Panthers? Jets? Those are the four that seem most likely and, as we know, anything can happen on any given day in the NFL. Since once upon a time, a long time ago in a land far, far away (in other words, as recently as last season), we had SF's number -- so perhaps in Seattle.
It all depends on how quickly the kids grow up. Geno aside, we just don't have the overall talent and we won't until after next year's draft.
Thank you for the fully-formed reasoned opinion. I appreciate what Waldron has done with Geno, AND:
if the team continues to score nothing in the second half, that is a Waldron problem. He may be great at drawing up plays, schemes, and tactics, and work with the talent he has, but if he cannot adjust in-game, the team will drown. The NFL is just too good and the coaches too smart. This was one thing Bevell did well, and Schotty was pretty good at it too. Often it's just a tweak or two, and I truly hope it's something he develops over the course of the year.
I'm not always seeing the same things others see. In the first two games, Geno's performance dropped way off in the second half but not really last week. They were moving the ball down field real well in the second half. On the last drive in particular, until Lewis' holding call negated a big play and backed things way up. Then Geno was forced to pass deep, which is not his forte (never has been, never will be). The fourth down play was a recipe for interception, even if the QB was considerably more talented.
Now they were playing against a dumpster fire defense. Geno always looks his best against dumpster fire defenses. (Don't we all?) It's harder against teams like San Francisco and Denver.
Being correct in a preseason prognostication regarding Geno Smith wins me what?
According to Football Outsiders, Geno is a top 10 QB in DYAR and 11th by DVOA. Not bad. His ALEX which was bottom 10 improved to 18th after the Atlanta game. He was the 4th best QB of the weekend by DYAR, and the 3th best passer by the same metric.
Geno has a better EPA/play than Burrow, Herbert, Rodgers, Brady and Stafford. He's the best 1st half QB in the league by EPA+CPOE. Only Josh Allen completed a greater percentage of passes in the first half, and those had a higher expected completion percentage. And the Seahawks are the 5th best team in dropback EPA/play in the first half.
The problem with Geno seems to be his variance. He gives you Tom Brady in the first half and Justin Fields in the second (but he didn't cost 2 firsts like Fields). He still looks better than any QBs acquired this year so far, and this includes Russ (not for long, I believe), and cost nothing.
On second halfs Geno is the 5th worst QB by EPA/play. The Seahawks are the worst team in EPA/dropback.
The narrative on Geno seems to be determined by preseason expectations and team success rather than Geno's actual performance.
I don't know. People seem to be giving Geno appropriate credit. He's better than most of us expected and he's still a lower tier NFL quarterback, extremely limited by lack of arm strength and mobility. Playing better than Mayfield, Trubisky, Winston? That's a low bar. Mariota looked better against our dumpster-D than Geno did against theirs.
Without question, mediocre QBs like Garoppolo look way better than Geno. Even before Wilson began to get on track, there were flashes of Russ. That's why, to me, the eye test means so much more than cherry-picked stats.
As for Russ, our front office is right, I believe, that he's not the same guy he was a few years ago. But he's still a guy you can scheme around. With the right support, I can see the Broncos maybe making the playoffs and then, once there, who knows. Just as I always said when we had him.
Don't get me wrong. I think Kenneth is exactly right in crediting the Seahawks for trading when they did for what they did. The Rams winning the Superbowl with Stafford, after Brady won with the Bucks, really juiced the market. I don't think we'd have gotten as much if we traded him a year earlier or a year later. Now, the Bronco's relative success or failure will set the market for the next round of slightly-past-prime QBs.
How does Garoppolo look better than Geno? I mean other than against our D, where everyone looks like a star? Geno outplayed Jimmy big time in the respective Denver games
The only time Geno looked good was against Atlanta, with a defense as bad as ours. He had some good passes in the first halves against Denver and San Francisco but Garoppolo routinely throws intermediate passes with poise and confidence. Both guys seem to fall on their faces when the chips are really down and against the best competition but I don't think it's close. Garoppolo can hold up against at least mediocre competition. I'm not convinced Geno can excel against any team that isn't a bottom dweller.
QBR is not a cherry picked stat. If you base your evaluation strictly on his statistical performance over three games, he is a top tier QB but unfortunately for him, he doesn't play on a top tier team. He's 31 instead of 22, he's not flashy, and expectations are often more pervasive than reality. He has produced a QBR rating of 62.2 good for 10th in the NFL and that's with a crappy interior oline, two rookie tackles, and no third receiver of note.
I've nothing against QBR specifically. It's stats in general. Used right, they can be really powerful. But it's easy to believe them over your own lying eyes, which is what I think you're doing with Geno.
My eyes tell me Geno is surprisingly poised (compared to what most of us expected). That said, he can't run, can't throw deep and does not hold up under pressure. Stats don't reveal any of that.
If we'd had all these stats when Flutie was playing, maybe he would have gotten a shot in the NFL. I think he should have. We now know it's not all about stature. Russ changes the common wisdom on that. But sometimes what's obvious by eye alone is true enough.
There's a difference between "can't throw deep" and "doesn't throw deep". I haven't see evidence that says he "can't". He can't run like Kyler Murry but neither can Tom Brady or Matthew Stafford. Stats reveal all of that. "Total QBR is based on all of a quarterback's plays (rushing, passing, sacks, fumbles, interceptions, penalties, etc.), and it calculates the per-play net impact of the quarterback on the ability to score". The point of stats like QBR is to eliminate personal bias. Regardless of what your eyes tell you, Geno is currently performing like a top ten quarterback. I really believe the hardest part about watching Geno is that because of his age and track record he doesn't resemble a franchise QB. Sometimes the NFL is wrong and we have to be able to look at the player's actual performance rather than contextual expectations.
Here's one of Geno's best throws. An 80 yard TD pass to DK last year. He threw the ball 30 yards, accurately.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPAuL9gpoKg
And here he threw it 55 yards and dropped it in perfectly:
https://www.nfl.com/videos/can-t-miss-play-geno-smith-drops-39-yard-td-dime-in-the-bucket
So he can do it, at least on occasion. Let's wait and see how he does through a few more games. Can he play well on the road and against better teams? If so, I'll admit you're right. But as Paul points out, above, let's see how things go when there's a bunch of film of his earlier outings. I know he played last year but that was in an offense designed around Wilson. This time it's an offense specifically designed for him. A very different beast. To his credit, I thought everyone would stack the box and dare him to throw. As it turns out, he can destroy that kind of static defense with short, quick intermediate throws.
Those are interesting numbers. Unfortunately, they're also exhibit A in an essay on the limitations of analytics. Anyone with eyes can see that Geno is extremely limited. He's done better than I've expected this season so far but his ceiling is still knee level to the best guys in the league, and maybe chest level to mediocre guys like Garoppolo.
I don't see him being "extremely limited." He's not magic, but he has played well. I think you're bringing in some prior assumptions and biases when you make a statement like this.
Numbers can tell many stories, some really far from the truth. When reading numbers, you should know whether you rely on the honesty of the storyteller.
If you take Geno numbers in isolation, you get that he's great, above average and is having a really good season. That's not true, though it's true that he's beyond most expectations.
If you split the numbers by game halfs, then you have something that at least seems true: Geno is an amazingly competent and precise game manager in the first half, and struggles to even move the ball on second half. This makes his "per snap" metrics look way better than they should, as he has fewer snaps in the second half.
Then comes my point: Geno is playing better than any QB that switched teams before this season, at least up to this point, even when you account for his second half woes, and before when you do a per dollar or per draft capital spent analysis.
Consider the nature of the sample size:
Game 1: High emotions and adrenaline contribute to a solid first half at home. A strong defense dominates in the second half
Game 2: Squelched on the road in both halves by a strong defense.
Game 3: Good first half at home against a weak defense. Poor second half despite winning TOP and 18 plays in the 4th quarter
There’s not much to glean from this other than Geno is capable of a good first half at home under certain conditions, and that defenses adjust successfully in the second half. I’m not optimistic about the good first half play continuing as there’s more and more film.
This. Can't speak to the last paragraph because I don't have the knowledge to comment on that assertion. But paragraphs one and two -- Yes! Paragraph three, I mostly agree with too, though I think it can be a bit deceiving. Defenses are stepping up in the second half but, in this last game against Atlanta, he moved the ball pretty well throughout. He was undone at the end by a holding call on Lewis, a sack which could not have been avoided and then being really up against it on something like 4th and 18, a down and distance that strips Geno naked because he simply doesn't have the arm strength to whip an accurate pass that deep against tight coverage.
Why don't the numbers bear that out?
In my view, Luis said it really well. Just above your comment.
Agree that PCJS handled the QB situation adeptly once it became clear that Russell Wilson wanted out. (Although I’m less impressed with the anonymous sneers from the FO that Russell’s skills are declining: To the extent that that is so, it began with the torn MCL playing behind a line anchored by Bradley F. Sowell and J’Marcus F. Webb—i.e., it’s not like the FO’s hands are clean.) What they should not have done is raise expectations by insisting that this team can compete with anyone. That’s what is driving much of the bad feeling that is out there.
Sounds like "they" is really "Pete", a guy who's never seen a pile of horseshit without thinking there must be a pony somewhere.
I have to admit Geno's play so far has softened my stance on starting Lock instead. I still understand the decision to not see what we have in Lock but Geno's been playing well.
What crossed my mind is how many times in the past we've talked about how the Seahawks were such a slow-starting team that got themselves into a deep hole at halftime and that has reversed course dramatically this season. I have to wonder if the problem wasn't Russ the whole time. And who knows, if the 2nd half offense improves (and why couldn't it) and the defense gels (again, why not?) then this team might actually be fairly decent by the end of the season.
I don’t think that Geno has been anything special. 23 points at home against a bad defense may be his ceiling, and that isn’t much of one. No second-half TDs in three games. Against ATL, they ran 18 plays in the fourth quarter and came away with nothing.
Geno has done his job but it's still a team game. The defense has to get off the field so the offense can have more than three series in a half. Where's our third receiver? DK fumbled and hasn't been the man-monster he's being paid to be. The biggest issue has been the lack of consistent play from the interior offensive line. I'm willing to bet that if the Rams had Geno with the same stats, they would be 3-0. It ain't the QB boys.
Here’s the second half by TOP:
ATL 5:OO FG
SEA 6:49 FG
ATL 2:36 TD
SEA 4:47 PUNT
ATL 5:56 FUMBLE
SEA 3:55 INT
ATL 1:17 EOG
They had as many opportunities as Atlanta and—including the EOG—had more TOP (15:41).
I'm right there with you, Paul.
He's shown enough that I'm intrigued and want to see if the kinks can get ironed out.
Glad you're intrigued. Color me nonplussed.
I didn't see the game, only watched highlights, but two passes to Metcalf in the end zone that could have been scores would have made this game incredibly different.
If other teams were so incredible, I'd say there's a huge problem, but if the ship doesn't get righted this year, and this year's crop gets experience, another round of great picks puts the Hawks in good order. Maybe I'll just keep an eye across the street on that other team in town as the Hawks built it back up.
The difference between teams in the NFL is typically small. But those differences add up over the course of a season. Yes, Seattle came close to beating the Falcons. Key term: the Falcons. At home. That game might have been the "toilet bowl" that determines who gets the top pick in the draft.
I'm with you in not being upset if the ship doesn't get righted. Might even go a step further and say "this is righted -- it just looks funny this year". I'm hopeful we'll be much improved next year and way more so in 2024.
Your even keel approach is why I read you. The whole moaning, bitching, ranting, told-you-so, anger thing is too much for my stomach and rarely offers a gleam of insight. I just looked up "miragian." Dictionary.com is unaware of it and my computer or Substack thinks you mean Moravian. I think you're gonna get credit for inventing a word. You and Shakespeare, huh?
Truthy.
I decided to introduce a new word! Miragian: to resemble a mirage.
"miragian" had me google searching as well, with no success. I vote for it's official induction into wordness with credit given to Kenneth.
It's difficult to stop by at Field Gulls, the negativity is so bad. Plus I don't think the content is as good either.
I like the discussions at FG. The pessimists there seem better sports than the ones at the draft blog.
It's true that a few are insufferable, and sometimes I get tired of JPG's smug. But I still like FG and visit it every day.
The anti Pete sentiment is stronger with each loss over there. I don’t get it, we all knew this team was going to be bad this season.
The content there has really slid.
I'd say that Mookie lacks a commitment to research and data. It's all about his opinion rather than the substantiated logic behind his opinion.
I agree. Mookie tries hard but he's not Kenneth. Which is partly why I pay to read articles here and not there.
Much better then Seahawk Draft Blog, but I hear you.
Yeah, it's sad, because it used to be so good. There are still some good things there, but it's a bit like panning for gold. Not that I've ever panned for gold.
literally laughing out loud
There's something poetic about complaining about complainers.
I'm 'figuatively' laughing out loud.