On the final question I selected "Win a playoff game" but would like to clarify that it's not a dichotomous thing, like a neutral outcome for the season would be either positive win % but miss playoffs or lose 1st playoff game, it's not "if we don't win a playoff game then we suck and everyone should be fired."
I felt some ambiguity in the "what surpised you most" question. Surprised, as in different from what I expected before the season, or surpised, as in information that I didn't realize was true? I answered from the former perspective.
Same goes for the "barring disaster, keep Geno" question. I had to answer "no" because I don't think it should take a "disaster", whatever that is defined as.
Use the back up QB during a blow out game. ( see Ravens game).That accomplishes 2 things. 1) it keeps the starter off of IR and 2, ) it gives QB 2 a chance to show what he can do or cannot do.(see 49ers QB. Purdy)
It's a win / win during a blow out.
Remember, Lock played on some bad Bronco's teams.
We may have a chance to do this with the Hawks remaining schedule..
Totally agree. A blowout OR a mild injury. I don’t want to see anyone injured, but when Geno went out in the Giants game, and Locke stepped in, that was the perfect opportunity to see what they had. They would have still beat the Giants, no matter how Locke played, and he deserved a full half, with time to ready himself, instead of being thrown in cold when Geno went out
I don’t know what is going to happen with Geno after this year, but you don’t have to be Nostradamus to predict that Uncle Will will not be a Seahawk next year. (Cap savings of 7 million).
I wanted to be asked if I thought Drew Lock could be used in certain situations. First and goal from the five or less, for instance. Put in Charbs and K9 in the backfield and run to one sideline or the other. Use some creativity and we could improve in the red zone.
We're going 3-2 in the next five games. That was my only answer that I may or may not believe.
My thoughts on your first question. It is a possibility and not without precedent to bring a second QB in the red zone. The Saints have done this for years to compensate for the difficulty of running the ball inside the 10 yard line. Inside the 10 you’re running against eight or nine in the box and that’s hard for almost NFL. The Seahawks over nine games have not shown that they can run the ball for even marginal gains against eight man box. (They run very effectively against a 7 man box). A running quarterback helps a great deal here because it provides another blocker at the point of attack without giving a free release to Dlineman or linebacker.
The thing is most quarterbacks are not good running backs. And to run the ball inside the 10 you need to be a running back. The goal line is not the place to protect yourself. This is where you dish out punishment. The collisions can be unbelievable. As Mark Sanchez remarked, last week about K-9, “he is a bad man.” That is what a running back is a bad man who would win a fight in a phone booth against the rest of his teammates. Hill is an old school fullback who can throw, Hurts is also an old school fullback who can actually play QB. Lamar and Allen also could play running back/ tightend respectively. With the exception of Hill, now that they have been paid all three are doing it less because their respective teams don’t want them to risk them in a 30 mile per hour car crash at the goal.
Returning to why I think the Seahawks are not putting Lock in is because, although he is a better runner than Geno, he is not a running back playing QB. Instead he is a quarterback that can run if the opportunity presents itself, and Seahawks coaching staff does not see that as enough of an advantage to warrant a switch.
Keep in mind that Redzone practice is up to half of what the Seahawks do each week before the game. Putting in Lock means that he is getting as many as half the first team. Meaning the Seahawks don’t have a starting Quarterback.
Many here don’t want the Geno to be the starting QB and would be happy with that situation but NFL teams don’t work that way. Developing timing is hard enough with one and trying to do it with two means that neither plays as well as they could. So any chance that they will do it.
What I would like to see in the redzone particularly inside the 10! is going old school and using Charbs as a fullback with K-9. Charbs is an excellent blocker and receiver, which is why has become the third down back. His value is demonstrated not on third down, the Seahawks issue there is different, but on first down. When Charbs is in the Seahawks loose the explosive that Walker brings get to run against a lot of 7 man boxes because the defense cannot key on a running play, which is why Charbs average per carry is better than K9. K-9 is not a good blocker which is why he gets to run against 8 man boxes. But if K9 truly has improved as a receiver then the Seahawks can play him a tailback and then motion him to both identify the coverage and set up a variety of run pass options. Charbs and K8 aren’t Debo and McCaffery but I am tantalized by the possibility that they could be the next best thing.
I'm going 1-4 (7-7). Would take 2-3, LOVE to be 3-2. Hope to be WAY wrong. Sure, beat the crap out of everybody. Not likely. Our favorite team is a little above average, but not elite. Anything between 11-3 and 6-8 is possible.
I couldn't pick any answer suggesting to bench Geno for Drew. I think Geno Smith is average and not the long-term answer, but based on watching what I could find of Lock's tape in Denver after the trade, Lock is a worse NFL quarterback. Or at least was last time he started.
If Geno really is having an off game, I wouldn't be a bit upset if they gave the (other) backup a shot. But based on leaving Geno in there during the 4th quarter of a drubbing by the Ravens, it's never going to happen. I remember a game vs the Rams (at least I'm pretty sure it was the Rams) where the same thing was happening and Russ was getting killed and Pete left him in that game too.
We're going to ride with Geno and it's not like we have an untested highly drafted rookie behind him. This season is set in stone at the QB position barring injury. I don't think we will go far in the playoffs, and will be happy if we win a single game. But the NFC is weak and the injury bug could bring a couple of the contenders crashing down to earth in a hurry. I don't wish for that, but it's best-case scenario for advancing. I'm not feeling great about the upcoming Rams game, but the next 4 are capital B Brutal. I guessed 1-4 during that stretch. The Ravens were a good measuring stick for how we match up against the league's best. And we don't measure up well at all. Obviously not all of that is on the QB, but if we had a Mahomes or Burrow back there I think all of our predictions would be a heck of a lot higher.
1-4 is possible, I'd bank more on 2-3 with 3-2 a strong possibility. I think they can split the Niners games and the Eagles and Cowboys are both questionable. I won't be surprised when the Cowboys collapse.
So why isn't our performance against Cleveland or Cinncy a good measuring stick for how we match up with the leagues best? Stats would suggest the Ravens game was more of an outlier than either of the games I suggested. One a win and one a loss, and both of them close?
I am totally convinced that we are miles better as a team this year compared to our team last year. The difference is going to be our strength of schedule. We may end up with the same record, but we are not equal.
Cincy was playing with a little better than half a Joe Burrow. I feel like we caught them at the best time to hang with them, and still came up short. We pulled a rabbit out of our hat in Cleveland, IMO and were lucky to escape with a win.
Seattle signs Dissly to a $24m 3-yr contract, 16th highest in the NFL -- so more than the #1 TE on half the teams in the league -- and this particular year's cap hit is $9.2m, meaning, he's disproportionately expensive in 2023.
And then they give more snaps to lowly 91st-paid Colby Parkinson?
Fant is 31st-paid
Our old friend Nick Vannett on the Chargers is 75th.
Giving away my answer I guess about what surprised me the most...
Yes...injured again...if we did the 3/$24 on a per game basis, would be even more expensive contract...unfortunately the missed games are a constant with the poor guy. And BTW I'm a BIG Dissly fan, sounds like I'm not but I really like him. He's just not worth $24m as Colby is proving
But for me, once it’s been signed, the contract price stops being a helpful/relevant factor. At the time they signed it, it was a good deal (in my eyes).
Unless they could have predicted that the individual was likely to be injured and how severely, I personally don’t think it helps me to think about the contact too much.
In general, I like the “process over results” mentality. Obvious caveat, if proper process doesn’t yield results, that process needs serious rethinking. 😁
Hurry up and bench Geno so we can see how bad he is and how good are coaches and other players are. Or are not.
And... what did we learn?
On the final question I selected "Win a playoff game" but would like to clarify that it's not a dichotomous thing, like a neutral outcome for the season would be either positive win % but miss playoffs or lose 1st playoff game, it's not "if we don't win a playoff game then we suck and everyone should be fired."
I felt some ambiguity in the "what surpised you most" question. Surprised, as in different from what I expected before the season, or surpised, as in information that I didn't realize was true? I answered from the former perspective.
Same goes for the "barring disaster, keep Geno" question. I had to answer "no" because I don't think it should take a "disaster", whatever that is defined as.
I enjoy these polls. Thanks, Ken!
Why didn't you just ask me? Everybody else is just wrong.
If the responders didn't give the same answers I did, then they are not real Seahawks fans.
We'll find out exactly how many fans don't know ball :p
Use the back up QB during a blow out game. ( see Ravens game).That accomplishes 2 things. 1) it keeps the starter off of IR and 2, ) it gives QB 2 a chance to show what he can do or cannot do.(see 49ers QB. Purdy)
It's a win / win during a blow out.
Remember, Lock played on some bad Bronco's teams.
We may have a chance to do this with the Hawks remaining schedule..
Hawks will draft a QB in the next QB heavy class.
Totally agree. A blowout OR a mild injury. I don’t want to see anyone injured, but when Geno went out in the Giants game, and Locke stepped in, that was the perfect opportunity to see what they had. They would have still beat the Giants, no matter how Locke played, and he deserved a full half, with time to ready himself, instead of being thrown in cold when Geno went out
I don’t know what is going to happen with Geno after this year, but you don’t have to be Nostradamus to predict that Uncle Will will not be a Seahawk next year. (Cap savings of 7 million).
No brainer.
I wanted to be asked if I thought Drew Lock could be used in certain situations. First and goal from the five or less, for instance. Put in Charbs and K9 in the backfield and run to one sideline or the other. Use some creativity and we could improve in the red zone.
We're going 3-2 in the next five games. That was my only answer that I may or may not believe.
My thoughts on your first question. It is a possibility and not without precedent to bring a second QB in the red zone. The Saints have done this for years to compensate for the difficulty of running the ball inside the 10 yard line. Inside the 10 you’re running against eight or nine in the box and that’s hard for almost NFL. The Seahawks over nine games have not shown that they can run the ball for even marginal gains against eight man box. (They run very effectively against a 7 man box). A running quarterback helps a great deal here because it provides another blocker at the point of attack without giving a free release to Dlineman or linebacker.
The thing is most quarterbacks are not good running backs. And to run the ball inside the 10 you need to be a running back. The goal line is not the place to protect yourself. This is where you dish out punishment. The collisions can be unbelievable. As Mark Sanchez remarked, last week about K-9, “he is a bad man.” That is what a running back is a bad man who would win a fight in a phone booth against the rest of his teammates. Hill is an old school fullback who can throw, Hurts is also an old school fullback who can actually play QB. Lamar and Allen also could play running back/ tightend respectively. With the exception of Hill, now that they have been paid all three are doing it less because their respective teams don’t want them to risk them in a 30 mile per hour car crash at the goal.
Returning to why I think the Seahawks are not putting Lock in is because, although he is a better runner than Geno, he is not a running back playing QB. Instead he is a quarterback that can run if the opportunity presents itself, and Seahawks coaching staff does not see that as enough of an advantage to warrant a switch.
Keep in mind that Redzone practice is up to half of what the Seahawks do each week before the game. Putting in Lock means that he is getting as many as half the first team. Meaning the Seahawks don’t have a starting Quarterback.
Many here don’t want the Geno to be the starting QB and would be happy with that situation but NFL teams don’t work that way. Developing timing is hard enough with one and trying to do it with two means that neither plays as well as they could. So any chance that they will do it.
What I would like to see in the redzone particularly inside the 10! is going old school and using Charbs as a fullback with K-9. Charbs is an excellent blocker and receiver, which is why has become the third down back. His value is demonstrated not on third down, the Seahawks issue there is different, but on first down. When Charbs is in the Seahawks loose the explosive that Walker brings get to run against a lot of 7 man boxes because the defense cannot key on a running play, which is why Charbs average per carry is better than K9. K-9 is not a good blocker which is why he gets to run against 8 man boxes. But if K9 truly has improved as a receiver then the Seahawks can play him a tailback and then motion him to both identify the coverage and set up a variety of run pass options. Charbs and K8 aren’t Debo and McCaffery but I am tantalized by the possibility that they could be the next best thing.
Have us at 1-4 unfortunately. That Commanders game without Montez Sweat and Chase Young should have us all sweating bullets
I'm going 1-4 (7-7). Would take 2-3, LOVE to be 3-2. Hope to be WAY wrong. Sure, beat the crap out of everybody. Not likely. Our favorite team is a little above average, but not elite. Anything between 11-3 and 6-8 is possible.
Creativity with Waldron as OC. When pigs fly!
Hoping for a Pink Floyd masterpiece to come
I couldn't pick any answer suggesting to bench Geno for Drew. I think Geno Smith is average and not the long-term answer, but based on watching what I could find of Lock's tape in Denver after the trade, Lock is a worse NFL quarterback. Or at least was last time he started.
If Geno really is having an off game, I wouldn't be a bit upset if they gave the (other) backup a shot. But based on leaving Geno in there during the 4th quarter of a drubbing by the Ravens, it's never going to happen. I remember a game vs the Rams (at least I'm pretty sure it was the Rams) where the same thing was happening and Russ was getting killed and Pete left him in that game too.
We're going to ride with Geno and it's not like we have an untested highly drafted rookie behind him. This season is set in stone at the QB position barring injury. I don't think we will go far in the playoffs, and will be happy if we win a single game. But the NFC is weak and the injury bug could bring a couple of the contenders crashing down to earth in a hurry. I don't wish for that, but it's best-case scenario for advancing. I'm not feeling great about the upcoming Rams game, but the next 4 are capital B Brutal. I guessed 1-4 during that stretch. The Ravens were a good measuring stick for how we match up against the league's best. And we don't measure up well at all. Obviously not all of that is on the QB, but if we had a Mahomes or Burrow back there I think all of our predictions would be a heck of a lot higher.
I don’t think the team would be supportive, which is enough reason (for me) to stay with Geno.
1-4 is possible, I'd bank more on 2-3 with 3-2 a strong possibility. I think they can split the Niners games and the Eagles and Cowboys are both questionable. I won't be surprised when the Cowboys collapse.
So why isn't our performance against Cleveland or Cinncy a good measuring stick for how we match up with the leagues best? Stats would suggest the Ravens game was more of an outlier than either of the games I suggested. One a win and one a loss, and both of them close?
I am totally convinced that we are miles better as a team this year compared to our team last year. The difference is going to be our strength of schedule. We may end up with the same record, but we are not equal.
Cincy was playing with a little better than half a Joe Burrow. I feel like we caught them at the best time to hang with them, and still came up short. We pulled a rabbit out of our hat in Cleveland, IMO and were lucky to escape with a win.
I should have read the heart and head line first. I picked Mofe with my head. My heart said Bobby.
Yeah I went Bobby although Mafe was such a clear possibility. The way he’s stabilized the defense is worth 20 sacks
Do it again, i was glad to be able to fill out the form a second time 'n make changes.
Ok help me on how to think about this:
Seattle signs Dissly to a $24m 3-yr contract, 16th highest in the NFL -- so more than the #1 TE on half the teams in the league -- and this particular year's cap hit is $9.2m, meaning, he's disproportionately expensive in 2023.
And then they give more snaps to lowly 91st-paid Colby Parkinson?
Fant is 31st-paid
Our old friend Nick Vannett on the Chargers is 75th.
Giving away my answer I guess about what surprised me the most...
In fairness, Dissley was injured BUT in principle I agree.
Yes...injured again...if we did the 3/$24 on a per game basis, would be even more expensive contract...unfortunately the missed games are a constant with the poor guy. And BTW I'm a BIG Dissly fan, sounds like I'm not but I really like him. He's just not worth $24m as Colby is proving
That was also my most surprising comment.
But for me, once it’s been signed, the contract price stops being a helpful/relevant factor. At the time they signed it, it was a good deal (in my eyes).
Unless they could have predicted that the individual was likely to be injured and how severely, I personally don’t think it helps me to think about the contact too much.
In general, I like the “process over results” mentality. Obvious caveat, if proper process doesn’t yield results, that process needs serious rethinking. 😁