Football has so many unpredictabilities like weather and injuries. Teams have so many moving parts: players, scouts, trainers, staff, coaches. To expect all of them to come together and intentionally try to lose is harder to imagine than them coming together to jntentionally trying to win. The competitive drive and basic pride in your personal effort would get in the way.
THEN, you would only get 1-2 players who would be significantly better for your team, IF you scouted them accurately, they didn't have any injuries, AND they grew to meet their max potential. THEN you would have to get good enough in 26+ other positions (including coaches, trainers, and support staff) to have a winning organization. It is so much easier to allow each person's competitive fire that they have leaned into for their entire lives to fuel them towards improvement.
If tanking worked, then the teams that are historically picking near the top would have been good/playoff teams by now.
Football is not Madden '25. It is about entire organizations. That is why our Seahawks have been good for a long time. They have people that are good at what they do and do it in a positive way in the entire organization, and it filters down to the players. With some players/units being the worst in the NFL (looking at you, OL, running game/OC) they still won 10 games. It is SO much easier to improve 2-3 areas of a team than to completely change the mentality and goals of every person in an organization TWICE (once to tank, then to win).
I don't think very many teams (but not zero teams) start the season planning to tank. But, there are teams every year that are long out of playoff contention, that carefully orchestrate losing some games accidentally on purpose, to improve draft position. Hey, the seasons already in the sh!tter, so why not.
Re: the Rams, they may torpedo a few veterans in a mini reset, but they have drafted way to well lately to tank. They have some good young players, and one of the best coaches in the league. And, they always give us fits even when they aren't that good. So the Rams will not be cupcakes this year, regardless of what they do.
It will be interesting to see how teams setup their boards this year. I've read a number of articles that claim scouts are saying there are not that many players with true round 1 grades on them. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. If it is true that a lot of teams only have 15-18 players with R1 grades, then we could see a lot of teams wanting to bail out of the first round, to collect more picks this year, or for 2026. It's silly season, so you can't believe anything you read or hear.
I'm choosing to believe the missed/incorrect words and typos are a flex that your work here is not AI generated XD
I agree with your assessment of the roster and the season schedule for 2025/26. Particularly with a new OC and a need to develop the OL, the organisation isn't really in a spot where it can afford to be significantly worse offensively, because we need to be able to monitor progress year-on-year.
Seriously though - this team tied for 1st place in the NFC West, still a pretty talented division, and we did it with basically a completely rookie coaching staff, including an OC who had never coached a single snap of NFL football. We’re not tanking next year. McDonald could never do it, Schneider would have to gut the franchise, and I can’t believe he’d do it either. He may just go find some more cheap over-the-hill linemen, but even a broken clock is still right twice a day, isn’t he about due to hit on something? Make us just a little bit better?
As I am the best NFL reliable source and shot caller within 100 ft of my location (my wife doesn't count...or care), I am confident, within a 100% margin of error, that the 'Hawks will play in the Superbowl next season. My expert optimism is fueled by being older than dirt and, hey, I've only got so many seasons left in me. So, if 'Ra' (the 'Sun'...yep, the Egyptians had it right) will kindly answer my phone (I can only take bad music on 'hold' for so long), and grant me some wholley undeserved good karma, I would appreciate one more Superbowl before I am 'actually' dirt.
Well, that settles it then, don't tank. Don't hope for a tank, either, as that will only disappoint you. I'm glad we got that out of the way.
Personally, I do not buy into the idea that 2026 is so much better than 2025. We are talking about two QB's who may be better than anything we can see from 2025, but there are usually sleepers like Brock Purdy who will develop into better players than we can predict at this moment. Maybe Dart or others are going to develop more than expected. I'd take a QB this year for sure. Or maybe two. See what happens.
Don't forget that without the Wilson trade there are a lot of guys who wouldn't be on the team. Like Mafe, JSN, and Witherspoon. Those are a big part of the core of our team.
Going forward, no argument, if for no other reason than Russell being 36 years old. And I get that the relationship had deteriorated to the point that the trade had to be made. But look what it took to tread water, and maybe even go under a few feet.
Who trades a franchise QB and expects to get better? If KC traded Mahones (I know it's not apples-to-apples because of his age) wouldn't they expect to be terrible after?
I don’t ever, ever want a team of which I am a fan, to tank for the #1 pick. It doesn’t work out, and I don’t have the patience for a 5 year rebuild. Top 5 defense over the second half of the year is something to build on, not tear down.
I am all about the running game. I think we have seen from the playoffs the importance of a running quarterback. It puts so much stress on the defense, and we saw that with Wilson as well.
I suspect they are going to draft or trade for another quarterback that can run.
I have no problem with them keeping Gino if they can get them at a different price than 44 million a year. There are a lot of quarterbacks in the mid tier group.
I
I would not trade DK. I just don’t think any of the offensive coordinators we have had have done the best job of getting the most out of him last year. It seemed like all they did was put him on go route with the corner back and a safety high. He needs to be running more slants and comeback routes. He is a far underrated blocker.
Respectfully, I disagree. $45-million is the median salary of a starting NFL quarterback (Kyler Murray, as it happens). Geno is at least that. Cousins can barely move. Unless you're committing long-term to Darnold, you're drafting a QB on day three and hoping, but in the meantime, you're paying Geno. It is also the right thing to do, imho.
Further, he's playing for his third OC in as many years, and his second HC. The offensive line has been for shite, the running game has been negligible, and the parts assembled around him reflect that jumble of coaching choices. Let it settle into place. Let's see what we actually have.
DK is a different matter. I don't think he's worth what he wants. I don't think we can have all the nice things we want (that is, an OL, and, especially a center) if we pay him. The fairest thing for DK is to get him onto a perceived contender and let them pay him, take what we can get. Again, imho.
Is DK easily replaced? Sigh. I found a free draft simulator yesterday and wasted a bunch of time playing. It's really easy to draft a difference maker on the DL first round, and an OL prospect second. It's pretty easy to get Dart in the third round, and one of Will Howard or Riley Leonard early day three. It's relatively easy to add a LB who might have impact and a couple more IOL guys and a TE. It's relatively hard to add a WR in whom one believes, but in part that's because I don't know anything, have no interest in nor aptitude for watching film, but in part I think it speaks to the paucity of talent this year. Also, I'm playing with an algorhythm that's a little predictable, and maybe has learned the players I target. Also, that space between 18 and 50 is killing me, every single time. That feels like where all the good players are.
I got Sam Howell as being 5 games worse than Geno. In other words, in my opinion, all other things equal, if they would have started Howell last year for the season they would have won 5 games.
Pretty easy example is what happened in Washington. Obviously, a bunch of players and coaches changed so you can't isolate it just for QB. But the franchise went from 4 wins in 2023 to 12 wins in 2024 ... for an 8-game difference between Howell and Daniels.
We also saw what Howell looked like in a historically bad performance in Seattle last year. He is not good, as of now. That could change but it is just a lottery ticket at this point. He has no shot behind this o-line as he can't handle pressure very well at all, among other issues.
I would look at losing Geno over peanuts or trading him to the Raiders would be an act of tanking if the plan is to start Howell. This would be with an eye on the 2026 draft. Add in a DK trade for 2026 draft capital, and the plan is pretty clear. However, if they go out and get Darnold and keep DK then it would be a move to get younger and increase their runway.
However, it's probably a moot point as I think Geno will be extended for around $40-$45M in the coming weeks. And DK will also be extended. We will see, but I think that is the most likely scenario. This is of course with the idea to win the SB.
Additionally, what did we just see with the Eagles? A team that, in 2023, the Hawks beat and then went to TB in the playoffs and get pummeled. Their fan base wanted Hurts fired for the past 2 years, including the 2024 season. What ended up happening? They won the SB.
I think JS and MM see that and see that pathway forward with some extensions, draft picks, and key acquisitions.
Agreed, listening to JS recently, it appears we are in for of the same this year. Which means no significant investment in our OL (hopefully this is his downfall and we have a new GM who can think outside of the box!).
Whatever the hell John does, playing it safe will not get us there. He needs to be BOLD with all relevant personnel decisions. We will see. Geno's situation should clarify very soon and that will show us where John's head is at.
Sure they can tank....even unintentional, if we don't improve the
OL.....
Football has so many unpredictabilities like weather and injuries. Teams have so many moving parts: players, scouts, trainers, staff, coaches. To expect all of them to come together and intentionally try to lose is harder to imagine than them coming together to jntentionally trying to win. The competitive drive and basic pride in your personal effort would get in the way.
THEN, you would only get 1-2 players who would be significantly better for your team, IF you scouted them accurately, they didn't have any injuries, AND they grew to meet their max potential. THEN you would have to get good enough in 26+ other positions (including coaches, trainers, and support staff) to have a winning organization. It is so much easier to allow each person's competitive fire that they have leaned into for their entire lives to fuel them towards improvement.
If tanking worked, then the teams that are historically picking near the top would have been good/playoff teams by now.
Football is not Madden '25. It is about entire organizations. That is why our Seahawks have been good for a long time. They have people that are good at what they do and do it in a positive way in the entire organization, and it filters down to the players. With some players/units being the worst in the NFL (looking at you, OL, running game/OC) they still won 10 games. It is SO much easier to improve 2-3 areas of a team than to completely change the mentality and goals of every person in an organization TWICE (once to tank, then to win).
SSJ, you haven't written an origin story for a while, there may be some candidates with some of the new coaching staff.
I don't think very many teams (but not zero teams) start the season planning to tank. But, there are teams every year that are long out of playoff contention, that carefully orchestrate losing some games accidentally on purpose, to improve draft position. Hey, the seasons already in the sh!tter, so why not.
Re: the Rams, they may torpedo a few veterans in a mini reset, but they have drafted way to well lately to tank. They have some good young players, and one of the best coaches in the league. And, they always give us fits even when they aren't that good. So the Rams will not be cupcakes this year, regardless of what they do.
It will be interesting to see how teams setup their boards this year. I've read a number of articles that claim scouts are saying there are not that many players with true round 1 grades on them. Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. If it is true that a lot of teams only have 15-18 players with R1 grades, then we could see a lot of teams wanting to bail out of the first round, to collect more picks this year, or for 2026. It's silly season, so you can't believe anything you read or hear.
I'm choosing to believe the missed/incorrect words and typos are a flex that your work here is not AI generated XD
I agree with your assessment of the roster and the season schedule for 2025/26. Particularly with a new OC and a need to develop the OL, the organisation isn't really in a spot where it can afford to be significantly worse offensively, because we need to be able to monitor progress year-on-year.
Regarding tanking...back in the day the Raiders tanked to get that HOFer QB De Marcus Russell. How did that work out for them?
" It all goes to show, it's always something. " ( Roseanna Roseannadana.)
“If the Seahawks replace Geno with a new quarterback, what’s the new QB going to do? Throw more interceptions than 15?” Sam Howell: “Hold my beer”
Seriously though - this team tied for 1st place in the NFC West, still a pretty talented division, and we did it with basically a completely rookie coaching staff, including an OC who had never coached a single snap of NFL football. We’re not tanking next year. McDonald could never do it, Schneider would have to gut the franchise, and I can’t believe he’d do it either. He may just go find some more cheap over-the-hill linemen, but even a broken clock is still right twice a day, isn’t he about due to hit on something? Make us just a little bit better?
" The best team the Seahawks face in 2025? The Moons!"
When KenJoe named this team "The MOONS" they started on a path of success.
... advice: stay on KenJoe's good side.
As I am the best NFL reliable source and shot caller within 100 ft of my location (my wife doesn't count...or care), I am confident, within a 100% margin of error, that the 'Hawks will play in the Superbowl next season. My expert optimism is fueled by being older than dirt and, hey, I've only got so many seasons left in me. So, if 'Ra' (the 'Sun'...yep, the Egyptians had it right) will kindly answer my phone (I can only take bad music on 'hold' for so long), and grant me some wholley undeserved good karma, I would appreciate one more Superbowl before I am 'actually' dirt.
Amen to that, or whatever you say to Ra.
Well, that settles it then, don't tank. Don't hope for a tank, either, as that will only disappoint you. I'm glad we got that out of the way.
Personally, I do not buy into the idea that 2026 is so much better than 2025. We are talking about two QB's who may be better than anything we can see from 2025, but there are usually sleepers like Brock Purdy who will develop into better players than we can predict at this moment. Maybe Dart or others are going to develop more than expected. I'd take a QB this year for sure. Or maybe two. See what happens.
Did Seattle get better after trading Russell?
Last 5 years with Russell Wilson: 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, 12-4, 7-10
First 3 years with Geno Smith: 9-8, 9-8, 10-7
Don't forget that without the Wilson trade there are a lot of guys who wouldn't be on the team. Like Mafe, JSN, and Witherspoon. Those are a big part of the core of our team.
But have they made the team any better?
Going forward, no argument, if for no other reason than Russell being 36 years old. And I get that the relationship had deteriorated to the point that the trade had to be made. But look what it took to tread water, and maybe even go under a few feet.
Who trades a franchise QB and expects to get better? If KC traded Mahones (I know it's not apples-to-apples because of his age) wouldn't they expect to be terrible after?
"Too Good to Be That Bad" sounds like a Country song to me.
Sing It, Ray!
I don’t ever, ever want a team of which I am a fan, to tank for the #1 pick. It doesn’t work out, and I don’t have the patience for a 5 year rebuild. Top 5 defense over the second half of the year is something to build on, not tear down.
One of only a couple teams never to have number 1 pick and I’m with you, I never want a repeat of Rick Mirer led Seahawks football.
I am all about the running game. I think we have seen from the playoffs the importance of a running quarterback. It puts so much stress on the defense, and we saw that with Wilson as well.
I suspect they are going to draft or trade for another quarterback that can run.
I have no problem with them keeping Gino if they can get them at a different price than 44 million a year. There are a lot of quarterbacks in the mid tier group.
I
I would not trade DK. I just don’t think any of the offensive coordinators we have had have done the best job of getting the most out of him last year. It seemed like all they did was put him on go route with the corner back and a safety high. He needs to be running more slants and comeback routes. He is a far underrated blocker.
They would be nuts to trade DK.
Respectfully, I disagree. $45-million is the median salary of a starting NFL quarterback (Kyler Murray, as it happens). Geno is at least that. Cousins can barely move. Unless you're committing long-term to Darnold, you're drafting a QB on day three and hoping, but in the meantime, you're paying Geno. It is also the right thing to do, imho.
Further, he's playing for his third OC in as many years, and his second HC. The offensive line has been for shite, the running game has been negligible, and the parts assembled around him reflect that jumble of coaching choices. Let it settle into place. Let's see what we actually have.
DK is a different matter. I don't think he's worth what he wants. I don't think we can have all the nice things we want (that is, an OL, and, especially a center) if we pay him. The fairest thing for DK is to get him onto a perceived contender and let them pay him, take what we can get. Again, imho.
Is DK easily replaced? Sigh. I found a free draft simulator yesterday and wasted a bunch of time playing. It's really easy to draft a difference maker on the DL first round, and an OL prospect second. It's pretty easy to get Dart in the third round, and one of Will Howard or Riley Leonard early day three. It's relatively easy to add a LB who might have impact and a couple more IOL guys and a TE. It's relatively hard to add a WR in whom one believes, but in part that's because I don't know anything, have no interest in nor aptitude for watching film, but in part I think it speaks to the paucity of talent this year. Also, I'm playing with an algorhythm that's a little predictable, and maybe has learned the players I target. Also, that space between 18 and 50 is killing me, every single time. That feels like where all the good players are.
I got Sam Howell as being 5 games worse than Geno. In other words, in my opinion, all other things equal, if they would have started Howell last year for the season they would have won 5 games.
Pretty easy example is what happened in Washington. Obviously, a bunch of players and coaches changed so you can't isolate it just for QB. But the franchise went from 4 wins in 2023 to 12 wins in 2024 ... for an 8-game difference between Howell and Daniels.
We also saw what Howell looked like in a historically bad performance in Seattle last year. He is not good, as of now. That could change but it is just a lottery ticket at this point. He has no shot behind this o-line as he can't handle pressure very well at all, among other issues.
I would look at losing Geno over peanuts or trading him to the Raiders would be an act of tanking if the plan is to start Howell. This would be with an eye on the 2026 draft. Add in a DK trade for 2026 draft capital, and the plan is pretty clear. However, if they go out and get Darnold and keep DK then it would be a move to get younger and increase their runway.
However, it's probably a moot point as I think Geno will be extended for around $40-$45M in the coming weeks. And DK will also be extended. We will see, but I think that is the most likely scenario. This is of course with the idea to win the SB.
Additionally, what did we just see with the Eagles? A team that, in 2023, the Hawks beat and then went to TB in the playoffs and get pummeled. Their fan base wanted Hurts fired for the past 2 years, including the 2024 season. What ended up happening? They won the SB.
I think JS and MM see that and see that pathway forward with some extensions, draft picks, and key acquisitions.
You are being too kind to Howell.
You’re right: Meeting a goal of losing games is a matter of releasing Geno and DK.
Can Schneider at this point in his career think outside the box enough to make moves that strengthen the Hawks 2026 draft?
Agreed, listening to JS recently, it appears we are in for of the same this year. Which means no significant investment in our OL (hopefully this is his downfall and we have a new GM who can think outside of the box!).
Whatever the hell John does, playing it safe will not get us there. He needs to be BOLD with all relevant personnel decisions. We will see. Geno's situation should clarify very soon and that will show us where John's head is at.