Geno Staying put

[flyerhawk]

True, no stat is definitive, but it becomes absolutely derivative if everyone has to place a caveat before every single opinion that their following statement is not definitive and other factors may have taken a part. I, in essence, agree with your statement about Lockett and you have to point out that I didn't quantify it enough to show that there could also be other factors as I just didn't want to go through everything that could possibly account for a change in completion percentage. I can only assume this is because in your current state you see coming in too strong for the WRs means that Smith is somehow limited and that equals a criticism of Smith.

As to your second paragraph, you appear to push back because the interpretation chosen does not support your stance. I haven't seen a single post pushing back at Geno's completion percentage as proof of his accuracy. Hell, the stat we're even talking about right now was highlighted by you to give props to one of the receivers. So, pray tell - why would Geno's actual completion percentage be 4.4 points higher than his expected completion percentage if not for the quality of his receiving group cause Geno's accuracy is already accounted for in his expect %.

Russell Wilson was consistently between 4 & 5% from 2016 - 2020, yet he was -4 in 2022. How much of that swing is the drop off in the quality of targets in Denver compared to what he left in Seattle? Would it be too strong to suggest that this is an indicator that Russ left a better receiver group in Seattle?

That last sentence is what this appears to be about. Yes, Geno had flaws, but no one can even be seen to point them out - even if that's just by complementing the WRs. Overall, Geno had an amazing season compared to how he was expected to perform - but all things considered his season was above average.

I have no idea why you are being snippy here.

You said that you were attributing his big CPOE to his receivers. I responded that I thought that was too absolute. If you didn't mean to be that absolute you could have just said that rather than come back with this passive-aggressive response.

 

[blstoker]

I have no idea why you are being snippy here.

You said that you were attributing his big CPOE to his receivers. I responded that I thought that was too absolute. If you didn't mean to be that absolute you could have just said that rather than come back with this passive-aggressive response.

You mean something like this?

"My statement is not meant to remove any other factor, but to credit what I find as the biggest factor."

You know, the end of the post you quoted before my last post. Before you felt the need to explain how statistics work. Even if you feel I was too passive aggressive, you should expect some blowback when you appear to be condescending.

 

[flyerhawk]

You mean something like this?

"My statement is not meant to remove any other factor, but to credit what I find as the biggest factor."

You know, the end of the post you quoted before my last post. Before you felt the need to explain how statistics work. Even if you feel I was too passive aggressive, you should expect some blowback when you appear to be condescending.

OK, I guess. Not sure why you took offense to my comment. I thought we were just going back and forth in a normal discussion. But to each their own.

 

[blstoker]

OK, I guess. Not sure why you took offense to my comment. I thought we were just going back and forth in a normal discussion. But to each their own.

Eh, online miscommunications can happen. I didn't think I was being passive aggressive - though I am at work and so I really cannot edit and re-read like I do when I'm at home.

 

[flyerhawk]

Eh, online miscommunications can happen. I didn't think I was being passive aggressive - though I am at work and so I really cannot edit and re-read like I do when I'm at home.

Fair enough. I probably misinferred what you were saying.

 

[seahawksfan234]

The problem I have with how people are advocating the Hawks cap space it that it's not sustainable. The Saints have been pushing their cap issues down the road for years and right now they have over 10% of their cap in voided contracts and they're still nearly $60 million over the cap at the moment. They've put themselves in a position to constantly devote more and more of their cap to voided contracts to save cap money in the current year and it's killing their ability to field a competent team.

Tampa Bay is even worse, with $50m in voided contracts and also nearly $60 m over the cap. Jacksonville is $30m over and will now have to get creative - and they haven't even had to really pay their young QB yet.

Yes, teams try to find ways to creatively stay under the cap - but the current method is to do it by playing players now, paying for them later. Not to mention that post June 1 cuts tend to really screw with a player's ability to get a comparable contract - so kiss the Seattle as a destination for free agents completely goodbye.

People are advocating mortgaging the future for Geno Smith.

I agree with you, but I will counter that the Seahawks haven't really used void years very much so I don't think it'll be a problem. Seahawks hadn't really used it until 2021 due to the cap going down due to the pandemic. Off the top of my head I think the only player we've used it on was Chris Carson.

For the most part I think the Seahawks have done a pretty good job managing the cap under JS/PC.

Analysis: What a new contract with Geno Smith could look like for Seahawks

With Geno Smith’s future in Seattle still in some question, it’s a good time to review some of the key issues involved in the two sides getting a deal done.

www.seattletimes.com

This article has the Seahawks using a void year for Smith but it's just one year $11m.

The logic behind pushing the cap hit back is mostly predicated on the assumption that the salary cap increases most years which sort of erodes the impact of those void years. Although the teams you mentioned definitely got carried away with it.

 

[blstoker]

This article has the Seahawks using a void year for Smith but it's just one year $11m.

The logic behind pushing the cap hit back is mostly predicated on the assumption that the salary cap increases most years which sort of erodes the impact of those void years. Although the teams you mentioned definitely got carried away with it.

I understand why teams use void years. It's not a lack of understanding. While it can be looked at as "eroding the impact of those void years" but it also minimized the gain of the cap increase.

One of the reasons I think the team has been so good at cap management is that they don't engage in these high risk maneuvers that often. I can only think of a couple instances where they were used and the weren't anywhere in the vicinity of $10m.

 

[HaroldSeattle]

Five NFL teams poised to take major fall in 2023: Vikings, Seahawks among those primed for regression

A look at which teams could take a big step back next season

www.cbssports.com

 

[Screamin12th]

I understand why teams use void years. It's not a lack of understanding. While it can be looked at as "eroding the impact of those void years" but it also minimized the gain of the cap increase.

One of the reasons I think the team has been so good at cap management is that they don't engage in these high risk maneuvers that often. I can only think of a couple instances where they were used and the weren't anywhere in the vicinity of $10m.

Yes and the issue like you said is it's only been a few times but those few times have been lately. Diggs has void years. Jamal I think has void years and Wilson had void years that i think the Hawks are still responsible for. That hit is building up. Like the 31 mill cap space we have is only actually 19 million this year. Your right these voided years in contracts needs to stop. Funny that one of the first teams to do it is not one of the teams suffering and thats the Saints. Packers have 16.5 mill in voided year money ( dead cap hit ).

Hawks need to stop with the voided year contracts ASAP.

 

[flyerhawk]

Five NFL teams poised to take major fall in 2023: Vikings, Seahawks among those primed for regression

A look at which teams could take a big step back next season

www.cbssports.com

Brought to you by the same people that predicted the Seahawks to be one of the worst teams in football last year.

 

[flyerhawk]

Yes and the issue like you said is it's only been a few times but those few times have been lately. Diggs has void years. Jamal I think has void years and Wilson had void years that i think the Hawks are still responsible for. That hit is building up. Like the 31 mill cap space we have is only actually 19 million this year. Your right these voided years in contracts needs to stop. Funny that one of the first teams to do it is not one of the teams suffering and thats the Saints. Packers have 16.5 mill in voided year money ( dead cap hit ).

Hawks need to stop with the voided year contracts ASAP.

Diggs doesn't have void years in his contract. Neither does Jamal Adams. Diggs did have void years in his extension but he signed a new deal last offseason for 3 years.

Russell Wilson did have void years but we took that cap hit already.

Void years are usually used when you are extending an existing contract and not when signing a new contract because you bake the deferments into a new contract. Void years are usually created when try to convert base salary to signing bonus. Teams usually expect to sign that player to a new contract when they do that, which they did with Diggs.

 

[Anointed One]

Five NFL teams poised to take major fall in 2023: Vikings, Seahawks among those primed for regression

A look at which teams could take a big step back next season

www.cbssports.com

Weren't we, "Poised to take a major fall" last season, too?

 

[blstoker]

Diggs doesn't have void years in his contract. Neither does Jamal Adams. Diggs did have void years in his extension but he signed a new deal last offseason for 3 years.

Russell Wilson did have void years but we took that cap hit already.

Void years are usually used when you are extending an existing contract and not when signing a new contract because you bake the deferments into a new contract. Void years are usually created when try to convert base salary to signing bonus. Teams usually expect to sign that player to a new contract when they do that, which they did with Diggs.

Yeah, I was about to say neither Adams or Diggs currently have void years. The two I remember off the top of my head were Carson and Dunlap.

 

[blstoker]

Weren't we, "Poised to take a major fall" last season, too?

I mean, it's not hard to write an article like this. 3 of the 5 are currently operating without a starting QB. Though the headline makes it sound more impressive - the article makes it clear that even one more loss would fulfill their target - so they're really stepping out on a limb here saying that the Seahawks could be poised to take a step back.

 

[flyerhawk]

Yeah, I was about to say neither Adams or Diggs currently have void years. The two I remember off the top of my head were Carson and Dunlap.

Yup. And their void years cost us about 5 million in cap for this year.

Void years are a valid tool in some situations.

 

[Anointed One]

Yup. And their void years cost us about 5 million in cap for this year.

Void years are a valid tool in some situations.

For sure... With signing bonuses getting higher, voided years are important for spreading out the cap hits over more seasons...

 

[blstoker]

For sure... With signing bonuses getting higher, voided years are important for spreading out the cap hits over more seasons...

That's the exact tactic that is getting other teams in trouble though. You really have to be selective on who you use this with, or it gets out of hand quickly. It only takes 5 or 6 of these deals to wreck your cap space.

 

[Screamin12th]

Void years are stupid plain and simple. I get why team use them because it's like buying something on credit but no matter what YOU HAVE TO PAY THAT BILL sooner or later. It's not like it helps it just pushes the charges off till later YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY! A few void year contracts and the Hawks could find themselves in huge trouble after the 2024 or 2025 season when Pete is gone.

Lets look at it like this 4 year contract 3 years voided so a 1 year contract with a signing bonus of 10 million spread out over 4 years. Sounds great right? No as soon as year 2 comes around you owe everything thats left you dont get to pay it off over those 3 voided years. As soon as the contract voids you are resposible for everything that was divided up in those voided years in one large sum of money. Anyone that supports voided years with out having any trepidation is foolish.

 

[seahawksfan234]

I understand why teams use void years. It's not a lack of understanding. While it can be looked at as "eroding the impact of those void years" but it also minimized the gain of the cap increase.

One of the reasons I think the team has been so good at cap management is that they don't engage in these high risk maneuvers that often. I can only think of a couple instances where they were used and the weren't anywhere in the vicinity of $10m.

Apologies if that came across as patronizing, wasn't my intent whatsoever. I've got a tremendous amount of respect for your football knowledge, so that wasn't meant as me trying to explain why teams do it to you. I actually very much agree with you that too much usage of the void years can put you in cap hell down the road.

I agree regarding the cap management. For better or worse over the years it seems like we've avoided the big ticket free agents which has helped our cap situation. Off the top of my head the only impact free agents the Seahawks have signed under the current regime were Sidney Rice, Zach Miller, Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett with the last two being bargain deals. Is there someone I'm forgetting we've given a substantial contract to in free agency?

I'm still on the fence what to do about Geno. I think he can be retained without destroying our cap space, but you've brought up a number of valid points justifying just moving on.

Here's a hypothetical for you, say that Geno prices himself out of the Seahawks range. What do you do? Do you tag and try to trade him? Do you let him walk? If so, what do you do with the savings of not having to pay him $30m+ a year? A lot of what we do this offseason will be dependent on what happens with Geno.

 

[seahawksfan234]

Void years are stupid plain and simple. I get why team use them because it's like buying something on credit but no matter what YOU HAVE TO PAY THAT BILL sooner or later. It's not like it helps it just pushes the charges off till later YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY! A few void year contracts and the Hawks could find themselves in huge trouble after the 2024 or 2025 season when Pete is gone.

Lets look at it like this 4 year contract 3 years voided so a 1 year contract with a signing bonus of 10 million spread out over 4 years. Sounds great right? No as soon as year 2 comes around you owe everything thats left you dont get to pay it off over those 3 voided years. As soon as the contract voids you are resposible for everything that was divided up in those voided years in one large sum of money. Anyone that supports voided years with out having any trepidation is foolish.

I agree. The teams that have used it heavily are currently in cap hell or about to be in cap hell.