They never notice why the Seahawks win Super Bowls
Only 1 franchise since 2012 has won a Super Bowl because of a quarterback who they drafted in the first round
Do you think Klint Kubiak’s first big move as head coach of the Las Vegas Raiders should be to convince management to trade the number one pick for more picks rather than draft quarterback Fernando Mendoza?
I can see a fair argument being made for either decision:
Draft Mendoza: If a team chooses the right first round quarterback, we’ve seen teams like the Bills, Ravens, Bengals, and most recently the Patriots end up in Super Bowl contention ahead of schedule and on an annual basis.
Between hiring Kubiak, trading Geno Smith, and signing Tyler Linderbaum, the Raiders have focused their offseason plans on fixing a 32nd-ranked offense, but one thing they have neglected to do is add a quarterback, making it all the more obvious that Las Vegas plans to draft Mendoza.
(Not Ty Simpson as the national discourse this week is begging us to debate about, although that doesn’t mean that I think the “consensus” ranking is always right or ever totally trustworthy. I just doubt that the Raiders have eyes for anyone but Mendoza.)
Or…
Trade the Pick for More Picks: In 2022, the Seahawks traded Russell Wilson and used that haul to jump start the rebuild for a Super Bowl championship four years later. And the Texans traded Deshaun Watson for a package of picks from the Browns that turned into Will Anderson and many other contributors to a playoff team that is much better than Cleveland.
In 2023, the Bears traded the number one pick to the Panthers and they’re now much closer to the Super Bowl than Carolina.
The argument for trading the pick would reflect directly onto the Seahawks’ success
The Seahawks have been a stellar, championship example of a franchise having success despite a “quarterbacks don’t matter (that much)” mentality and yet that is the NFL roster building philosophy that has somehow NEVER gained any traction.
2005: Went to the Super Bowl with Matt Hasselbeck.
2013: Won the Super Bowl with Russell Wilson.
2014: Went to the Super Bowl with Russell Wilson.
2025: Won the Super Bowl with Sam Darnold.
1976-2025: Fewest first round picks ever spent on quarterbacks.
As I’ve written many times over the seven-year history of Seaside Joe, Seattle has only ever drafted two first round quarterbacks (Rick Mirer, Dan McGwire) and made one trade (Kelly Stouffer), and NO second round picks on quarterbacks in their entire franchise history.
By comparison, the Browns have drafted Tim Couch and Baker Mayfield first overall, plus Brady Quinn, Johnny Manziel, and Brandon Weeden in the first round, and that’s just since 1999.
Mendoza will join JaMarcus Russell, Todd Marinovich, and Marc Wilson as Raiders first round picks during the Super Bowl era. None of the previous three had success in the NFL and the Raiders won the Super Bowl with Ken Stabler (a late second rounder in 1968) and Jim Plunkett.
In fact, the only team since 2012 to win the Super Bowl with a quarterback that they drafted in the first round* is the Chiefs, and that comes with the caveat that Kansas City was already a perennial playoff team that traded up from 27 to 10 to get Patrick Mahomes.
*We’ll never know if the 2017 Eagles would have won the Super Bowl with Carson Wentz if he was healthy
Darnold is the fifth free agent or trade acquisition quarterback to win the Super Bowl (Peyton Manning, Nick Foles, Tom Brady, Matthew Stafford, Darnold) over the last 12 years.
None of those quarterbacks simply “lifted up” a mediocre team to being a championship team merely because of their presence and talent. They went to teams that were already ready to win a Super Bowl but they needed an upgrade at quarterback.
(Foles’ case is admittedly weird, but it would also be weird if we didn’t have some weird outlier.)
So it always confuses me that the majority of fans and practically everyone in the media seems to prioritize drafting a quarterback first overall than they do ponder taking advantage of this over-obsession of first round quarterbacks by trading down. Just look at the history of #1 quarterbacks:
21 of the last 28 #1 picks are QBs
Super Bowl winners: P Manning, E Manning, Stafford
Stafford didn’t win Super Bowl (or a single playoff game) with Lions
Half of Peyton’s Super Bowl wins came with Broncos
Super Bowl appearance: Newton, Goff, Burrow
Other QBs: Couch, Vick, David Carr, Palmer, Alex Smith, Russell, Bradford, Luck, Winston, Mayfield, Murray, Lawrence, Young, Caleb Williams, Ward
With this raw data and the contextual narratives of their careers that any normal NFL fan already knows by perusing this list (you don’t need me to tell you why this list of names should already be sending up HUGE red flags), I wouldn’t imagine in a million years that anybody needs convincing that drafting Mendoza (or ANY quarterback) first overall carries considerable risk.
Probably more risk than drafting a player at almost any other position.
Even if the explanation is “because a quarterback behind a bad offensive line, with no weapons, and paired with a bad defense is of no use” that’s as good of a reason as any. It’s the BEST reason!
It doesn’t mean that the Raiders should definitely not draft Mendoza, but I ask myself, “Where’s the debate about this conundrum instead of the far stupider debate going on about Mendoza and Simpson?”
Because if the Seahawks had the number one pick — or John Schneider was the general manager of a team that had the number one pick — I have almost no doubt what they would do:
They’d trade that pick!
Take the New York Jets for example:
The Jets have picks #2 and #16 and could have been just as anxious to draft a quarterback prior to acquiring Geno. They might still be anxious but I doubt they’re going to do another trade with the Raiders. However, attempting to trade down from 1 to 2 and add 16+more, Las Vegas could have still drafted their top player in the draft (assuming it’s not Mendoza) and another one who could be in their top-10 big board.
That’s two of their top-10. Similar to drafting Devon Witherspoon and Jaxon Smith-Njigba in one year.
Or the Raiders could trade with the Cardinals at 3 and attempt to add pick 34 and a first rounder in 2027. That move could give Las Vegas a top player this year, another high second rounder, and a 2027 pick that might end up being first overall in a better quarterback class. That’s essentially what happened for the Bears when Chicago traded down in 2023.
So I’d at least be open to having those conversations and it sounds like the Las Vegas Raiders are not. Neither are fans.
I broached this topic of “Mendoza or trade?” with a friend and was immediately rebuked/rebuffed for even mentioning this despite providing a little bit of an argument that a) #1 pick QBs have rarely succeeded and b) a package of picks has often been very valuable.
Is it reasonable to ignore the debate entirely just because the debate doesn’t exist online yet?
That’s also how I feel about the discourse around the Seattle Seahawks “fumbling free agency” and “falling behind the Rams and 49ers” in the NFC West because of Kubiak, Kenneth Walker, and Coby Bryant.
Yes, because of Coby Bryant.
Do people just hate backing frontrunners?
Again, this idea marched out every March that teams must spend a lot of money in free agency and those that don’t will suffer the consequences is COMPLETELY and OBSCENELY destroyed by historical evidence that stands fully opposed to that narrative.
Teams that spend the most money in free agency are usually bad to begin with
Players that reach free agency are almost always the players that their previous teams were willing to lose and in fact weeks, months, if not years earlier the plans were in place to “lose” them
The dearth of quality players in free agency is also why free agents get OVERPAID
Players who get paid multi-year contracts in free agency are often released 1-2 years later because of all of these reasons
This is not a hard and fast rule for every major free agent or signing (Sam Darnold), but it is typically the afterthoughts (DeMarcus Lawrence) that give back the most value per dollar spent.
Teams like the Seahawks should be spending money in free agency as if every year is a new beginning and not simply to “run it back because they have the cap space to overpay players” and yet talking heads make it sound as though in this particular case it was actually a BAD IDEA to not give a running back $15 million per season (something they used to say was sacrilege) and that predestined departures like Bryant, Mafe, and Woolen are now somehow meaningful in spite of the latter two being benched BECAUSE they were once Seahawks.
But…aren’t their replacements now Seahawks? If being on the Seahawks made them better, as is the implication with praise for Mike Macdonald’s coaching techniques and Schneider’s drafting, won’t that same logic apply to their cheaper, younger, handpicked replacements?
Because remember: Everybody who left this year was chosen, in part or entirely, by Pete Carroll.
Isaac Rochell said this on Good Morning Football:
I really was high on them. And then this offseason came and like you said, the hangover…this happens with teams that win championships right? They lose a lot of guys. But Kubiak, I see Kenneth Walker and I'm just kind of confused by it because this was a team that had a lot of cap space. So in my mind, I'm like, they can bring back everybody, whoever they want to bring back. And it just didn't happen. So unfortunately, the way I look at it, I don't think they're the team to beat in the NFC.
The team that I'm looking at and I'm excited about is the 49ers.
It was perhaps most surprising that Rochell highlighted the 49ers (and that he thought that San Francisco was the obvious NFC West rival to pick over Seattle), whereas most people are expecting it to be the Rams.
For example, PFF ranked the Rams over the Seahawks and erroneously said that Seattle lost “three STARTERS” on defense:
The Super Bowl champion Seahawks cede some ground here after seeing key contributors walk this offseason, including Super Bowl MVP Kenneth Walker III, three starters on defense and offensive coordinator Klint Kubiak. While those are significant losses, Seattle maintains a strong foundation in all three phases of the game, the blueprint to its championship run.
Which three starters?
Boye Mafe played in less than 40% of the snaps after the midpoint of the season and Riq Woolen’s playing time shrunk down to 60%.
Bryant, no offense to him, was a player I’ve been calling “gone in 2026 free agency” since 2024. The writing was on the wall, mostly just because he’s a safety and he’s not an elite safety.
—If anyone was willing to examine the historical record of Macdonald’s work with safeties and cornerbacks—including Bryant, a bench-rider prior to Seattle’s coaching change in 2024—they would have expected months ago that the Seahawks were going to eschew a $13 million salary for their third or fourth-best safety.
—If anyone thought to break down Mafe and Woolen’s season arcs, they’d know that Macdonald had cozied up to other options well before and during the Super Bowl run.
—And if anyone at those outlets had paid attention to Seattle’s roster building strategy by ID’ing talent that wasn’t overpaid (Jalen Sundell instead of Ryan Kelly, Grey Zabel instead of Will Fries, Darnold instead of Geno, Kupp* instead of DK, Lawrence instead of Haason Reddick or Khalil Mack), they’d have also known like we did that none of those players were returning.
*overpaid but much cheaper than DK + got a second round pick
Are the Seahawks going to win the Super Bowl next year or even the NFC West?
I’m not sure. We can’t know that. The division seems to be hard enough that Seattle could fall from 1 to 3. I’m open to all sides of the debate and I’m not arguing that it’s absurd to rank the Rams over the Seahawks right now.
(I WILL argue that it’s absurd to rank the NINERS over them though!)
But similar to last offseason when I took issue with Seattle’s consensus ranking in the media as the 31st or 32nd best offensive line, this narrative just feels UN-RESEARCHED. Or if you do the research, you ignore all contrary evidence…perhaps to the point where the more overwhelming the evidence is — like all the failed #1 pick QBs vs the few exceptions — the less believable it is to the masses.
It’s easy to build the case that the Seahawks are so successful because they don’t do what’s expected of them, but for some reason it’s hard to get non-Seahawks fans to believe it due to the fact that it’s not what’s expected of a successful team!
As long as it’s hard to convince others of that, the easier it will be for Seattle to continue as one of the NFL’s most unsolveable problems for their opponents.