QB options for next year

[HaroldSeattle]

The Seahawks have several potential 2024 cap casualties who would need to be healthy for them to release. It's possible the Seahawks will sit those players to prevent injuries. The Seahawks losing out with a healthy roster looks unlikely, but if they pull players all bets are off.

Pete isn't sitting those players unless they are actually to unhealthy to play.

 

[JMR]

The Seahawks have several potential 2024 cap casualties who would need to be healthy for them to release. It's possible the Seahawks will sit those players to prevent injuries. The Seahawks losing out with a healthy roster looks unlikely, but if they pull players all bets are off.

So your assumption is the Seahawks would have more players in this particular situation than their opponents? Every team has some looming cap casualties. After Philly, we have Tenn. They are playing a rookie QB who also got a bit banged up last night. After that it's home vs the Steelers, who are trotting Trubisky out there and have also recently lost to 2-win teams in b2b weeks. Finale @ 3-win Arizona. Additionally, none of those teams are in the playoff picture, whereas the Hawks still very much are despite these recent losses to really good teams.

 

[JMR]

The Bears (via Carolina), Cardinals, and Patriots are almost assuredly going to own the top 3 picks in some order. It would be a major surprise if NE didn't take a QB. The Bears could if they decide to move on from Fields. Could also trade the pick to a team wanting a QB. The Cards can't really afford to move on from Kyler Murray in '24, but they could in '25 and may take a QB now and sit him for a year. If not, maybe they trade the pick to a team that wants one of the top 2 QBs. Either way, I think there is a really good chance there are 2 QBs taken in the first 3 picks.

Jayden Daniels has declared for the draft. Kiper has him as QB3. You drafting up into the top 5 or even 10 for him? I'm not.

 

[fastforward]

So your assumption is the Seahawks would have more players in this particular situation than their opponents? Every team has some looming cap casualties. After Philly, we have Tenn. They are playing a rookie QB who also got a bit banged up last night. After that it's home vs the Steelers, who are trotting Trubisky out there and have also recently lost to 2-win teams in b2b weeks. Finale @ 3-win Arizona. Additionally, none of those teams are in the playoff picture, whereas the Hawks still very much are despite these recent losses to really good teams.

Geno Smith is a February decision. That's when his contract guarantees. It's possible the Seahawks don't want to keep him at $22.5M for 2024. He would need to be healthy at that point for him to be released.

 

[JMR]

Geno Smith is a February decision. That's when his contract guarantees. It's possible the Seahawks don't want to keep him at $22.5M for 2024. He would need to be healthy at that point for him to be released.

Ok, I get all that (to a point), but teams who are in playoff races don't sit their starting QB in order to make sure he's healthy enough to cut after the season. Let's stay somewhat grounded in reality here.

 

[fastforward]

Ok, I get all that (to a point), but teams who are in playoff races don't sit their starting QB in order to make sure he's healthy enough to cut after the season. Let's stay somewhat grounded in reality here.

I'm not disagreeing. However, if you lose tonight and again on Sunday you wouldn't be a playoff race team at 6-9. I'm not cheering for the Eagles and Titans but there's almost a 30% chance results go against you.

 

[JMR]

I'm not disagreeing. However, if you lose tonight and again on Sunday you wouldn't be a playoff race team at 6-9. I'm not cheering for the Eagles and Titans but there's almost a 30% chance results go against you.

Certainly could end up that way, though in the case of Geno I am not sure how much of a downgrade it would be to start Lock. An argument could be made that a healthy Drew Lock is better than Geno Smith with a sore groin, and Geno is questionable tonight in fact. As is Jalen Hurts (illness). Even if Hurts can go, I bet he isn't 100% if he's truly sick enough to be questionable and travel separately from the team to Seattle.

 

[fastforward]

Certainly could end up that way, though in the case of Geno I am not sure how much of a downgrade it would be to start Lock. An argument could be made that a healthy Drew Lock is better than Geno Smith with a sore groin, and Geno is questionable tonight in fact. As is Jalen Hurts (illness). Even if Hurts can go, I bet he isn't 100% if he's truly sick enough to be questionable and travel separately from the team to Seattle.

If Lock isn't a downgrade then there's no reason to retain Smith at $22.5M for 2024 over a $4M FA. I'm not expecting Smith to play Monday and I don't think they're holding him back at the moment. I hope Smith recovers and plays Sunday. Beyond that I think it's tough to predict. My point was merely that the last 2 games could end up being business decisions for both team and players. I don't want it to go that way. I watch for entertainment value and holding players back isn't entertaining.

 

[JMR]

If Lock isn't a downgrade then there's no reason to retain Smith at $22.5M for 2024 over a $4M FA. I'm not expecting Smith to play Monday and I don't think they're holding him back at the moment. I hope Smith recovers and plays Sunday. Beyond that I think it's tough to predict. My point was merely that the last 2 games could end up being business decisions for both team and players. I don't want it to go that way. I watch for entertainment value and holding players back isn't entertaining.

But we are not arguing about whether Geno is going to be retained next season. His contract is structured in a way that he very well may not even though the team is committed to him as the 2023 starter. What we are talking about is the absurdity of the suggestion that teams sit starters so they can be healthy enough to cut after the season.

Besides that, teams still cut players who are not 100% healthy. It happens every off-season.

Edit: also, I mentioned a healthy Drew Lock not being much of a downgrade (arguably) from a Geno with a groin issue. I really doubt Geno has a chronically injured groin, so that won't be a factor into the decision to keep him in '24.

 

[Anointed One]

If Lock isn't a downgrade then there's no reason to retain Smith at $22.5M for 2024 over a $4M FA. I'm not expecting Smith to play Monday and I don't think they're holding him back at the moment. I hope Smith recovers and plays Sunday. Beyond that I think it's tough to predict. My point was merely that the last 2 games could end up being business decisions for both team and players. I don't want it to go that way. I watch for entertainment value and holding players back isn't entertaining.

I can agree with that... If we lose the next two games and are sitting at 6-9 and more than likely out of the postseason picture... I could definitely see them starting Drew Lock over Geno the rest of the way so they could get a good idea what they have in Drew Lock...

 

[JMR]

I can agree with that... If we lose the next two games and are sitting at 6-9 and more than likely out of the postseason picture... I could definitely see them starting Drew Lock over Geno the rest of the way so they could get a good idea what they have in Drew Lock...

Yeah, there really is no reasonable scenario where this team is making the playoffs with 9 losses. It's gotta be 9 or 10 wins based on where they sit and factoring in remaining schedules of the other teams in the running. Lots of them play each other in div games, so there's only so much help we can receive.

But I go back to how much of a downgrade would Lock really be from Geno? I mean it seems like we have spent a good chunk of this season hammering away at Geno. Having Drew Lock out there trying to showcase what he can do for a 2024 suitor may not hurt our chances at all vs Steelers (with Trubisky) and Arizona. Whether it's Geno or Drew Lock, I still saying losing out against the remainder of this schedule is a very remote chance. Winning all 4 is more likely to me than winning 0.

 

[fastforward]

But we are not arguing about whether Geno is going to be retained next season. His contract is structured in a way that he very well may not even though the team is committed to him as the 2023 starter. What we are talking about is the absurdity of the suggestion that teams sit starters so they can be healthy enough to cut after the season.

Besides that, teams still cut players who are not 100% healthy. It happens every off-season.

Edit: also, I mentioned a healthy Drew Lock not being much of a downgrade (arguably) from a Geno with a groin issue. I really doubt Geno has a chronically injured groin, so that won't be a factor into the decision to keep him in '24.

If Smith is on the roster 5 days into the February waiver period much of his $22.5M for 2024 will become guaranteed. They can't release him in February if he fails the medical. This is effectively why the Raiders sat a healthy Derek Carr last year. Nothing absurd about it. If the Seahawks want to retain Smith for 2024 then it's totally irrelevant.

 

[Anointed One]

If Smith is on the roster 5 days into the February waiver period much of his $22.5M for 2024 will become guaranteed. They can't release him in February if he fails the medical. This is effectively why the Raiders sat a healthy Derek Carr last year. Nothing absurd about it. If the Seahawks want to retain Smith for 2024 then it's totally irrelevant.

I would be very surprised to see Geno on the roster come 2/5/24...

 

[JMR]

If Smith is on the roster 5 days into the February waiver period much of his $22.5M for 2024 will become guaranteed. They can't release him in February if he fails the medical. This is effectively why the Raiders sat a healthy Derek Carr last year. Nothing absurd about it. If the Seahawks want to retain Smith for 2024 then it's totally irrelevant.

Ok, let's just say for a minute that all of this is true. I don't think it is, but let's just say it is so.

Your initial point was that resting "starters" may contribute to the chances of Seattle losing the final 4 games. My counter is that there is arguably a very slight dropoff or maybe even none at all if you're talking a groin-injured Geno Smith (who hasn't had a great season by any standard) to a totally healthy Drew Lock. So even if Seattle DOES rest Geno so they can cut him in early Feb, Drew Lock going out there for a couple games isn't suddenly killing our chances to beat the Mitch Trubisky Steelers (in Seattle) or the 3-win Cardinals.

Got any other players to mention to aid your point? I don't think Geno or Lock is gonna do it.

 

[fastforward]

Ok, let's just say for a minute that all of this is true. I don't think it is, but let's just say it is so.

Your initial point was that resting "starters" may contribute to the chances of Seattle losing the final 4 games. My counter is that there is arguably a very slight dropoff or maybe even none at all if you're talking a groin-injured Geno Smith (who hasn't had a great season by any standard) to a totally healthy Drew Lock. So even if Seattle DOES rest Geno so they can cut him in early Feb, Drew Lock going out there for a couple games isn't suddenly killing our chances to beat the Mitch Trubisky Steelers (in Seattle) or the 3-win Cardinals.

Got any other players to mention to aid your point? I don't think Geno or Lock is gonna do it.

Smith isn't healthy now but he could/should be healthy for the last 2 games. I'm not arguing that a healthy Lock might be as effective as an unhealthy Smith. Sitting a healthy Smith in the last 2 games would hurt. If they sit Smith they might also sit Diggs and Lockett. It's much less likely, but possible. It's all worst case scenario and if the Seahawks win it'll be out the window. Either way I expect Adams to miss most of the remaining games. His 2024 contract significantly outweighs his current value and the team won't want to risk further injury.

 

[JMR]

Smith isn't healthy now but he could/should be healthy for the last 2 games. I'm not arguing that a healthy Lock might be as effective as an unhealthy Smith. Sitting a healthy Smith in the last 2 games would hurt.

If Geno starts tonight and @ Titans and both are losses, that means 6 straight losses for this team. It probably also means he is continuing to not play all that well. In both of those cases, QB changes are not all that uncommon. We just played SF twice with 1 game in between. The team did demonstrably better in the game that Drew Lock started (on the road, no less) than when Geno played. So yeah, I am not buying it that Drew Lock would be some big downgrade.

If they sit Smith they might also sit Diggs and Lockett. It's much less likely, but possible. It's all worst case scenario and if the Seahawks win it'll be out the window. Either way I expect Adams to miss most of the remaining games. His 2024 contract significantly outweighs his current value and the team won't want to risk further injury.

Most Seattle fans who post here believe Jamal Adams should and will be cut after this season. He's been talked about a lot lately for potential benching due to poor play. Given that, once again I don't see how this hurts the team if he's already not playing well. I don't think that's gonna happen -- maybe a reduced role on passing downs -- but if the team thinks someone else can play better than how does benching Adams hurt? Remember, that's what your statement was at the beginning -- Hawks resting players to be cut, so maybe they'll lose out. Only players who aren't performing well are going to be shelved. Pete doesn't do it any other way unless playoff seeding is locked up in the final game.

Diggs has been criticized as well for a down year, so not having him out there is no big loss. He's been a replacement level player this year most games.

Tyler Lockett is not going to be sat down. This guy has had an amazing career here, absolutely beloved in the locker room and on the street, and is probably a future member of the Ring of Honor. Pete benching him just so he can be healthy to cut in the off-season is totally uncharacteristic for how Pete operates (no precedent for it in his 14 years here), and there is no chance that's how he would have TL finishing his time in Seattle. If anything, he'll be showcased as much as possible vs Steelers (his potential final home game) to go out with a bang in front of the 12s. That sounds way more like Pete than sitting him so he can be cut.

You brought up Derek Carr. He only sat the final 2 games of last year after the team lost their 9th game in week 16. Teams that are fighting for the playoffs just don't sit well-performing players only so they can be cut in the off-season. You would have an uproar in the locker room and lose all the veteran players in doing that. No one would want to come play for you. That's why teams don't do it unless you have some sort of extenuating circumstance like an off-field or discipline issue (again, I am talking about teams that are in the hunt).

But yeah, if there are players out there who aren't playing well then they certainly may not play or play less these last few games. But if they aren't playing well, how does that hurt the chances to beat AZ and Pittsburgh? Don't those teams also have looming cap casualties they'll be benching that hurt their chances, or is it just a Seattle problem? It doesn't really add up. If anything, it's a wash. I guess the Steelers might bench Trubisky against us so he doesn't get hurt? They can get back $3M by cutting him. Mason Rudolph is coming to town!

 

[fastforward]

If Geno starts tonight and @ Titans and both are losses, that means 6 straight losses for this team. It probably also means he is continuing to not play all that well. In both of those cases, QB changes are not all that uncommon. We just played SF twice with 1 game in between. The team did demonstrably better in the game that Drew Lock started (on the road, no less) than when Geno played. So yeah, I am not buying it that Drew Lock would be some big downgrade.



Most Seattle fans who post here believe Jamal Adams should and will be cut after this season. He's been talked about a lot lately for potential benching due to poor play. Given that, once again I don't see how this hurts the team if he's already not playing well. I don't think that's gonna happen -- maybe a reduced role on passing downs -- but if the team thinks someone else can play better than how does benching Adams hurt? Remember, that's what your statement was at the beginning -- Hawks resting players to be cut, so maybe they'll lose out. Only players who aren't performing well are going to be shelved. Pete doesn't do it any other way unless playoff seeding is locked up in the final game.

Diggs has been criticized as well for a down year, so not having him out there is no big loss. He's been a replacement level player this year most games.

Tyler Lockett is not going to be sat down. This guy has had an amazing career here, absolutely beloved in the locker room and on the street, and is probably a future member of the Ring of Honor. Pete benching him just so he can be healthy to cut in the off-season is totally uncharacteristic for how Pete operates (no precedent for it in his 14 years here), and there is no chance that's how he would have TL finishing his time in Seattle. If anything, he'll be showcased as much as possible vs Steelers (his potential final home game) to go out with a bang in front of the 12s. That sounds way more like Pete than sitting him so he can be cut.

You brought up Derek Carr. He only sat the final 2 games of last year after the team lost their 9th game in week 16. Teams that are fighting for the playoffs just don't sit well-performing players only so they can be cut in the off-season. You would have an uproar in the locker room and lose all the veteran players in doing that. No one would want to come play for you. That's why teams don't do it unless you have some sort of extenuating circumstance like an off-field or discipline issue (again, I am talking about teams that are in the hunt).

But yeah, if there are players out there who aren't playing well then they certainly may not play or play less these last few games. But if they aren't playing well, how does that hurt the chances to beat AZ and Pittsburgh? Don't those teams also have looming cap casualties they'll be benching that hurt their chances, or is it just a Seattle problem? It doesn't really add up. If anything, it's a wash. I guess the Steelers might bench Trubisky against us so he doesn't get hurt? They can get back $3M by cutting him. Mason Rudolph is coming to town!

Carr wasn't benched for performance reasons, team record reasons, or because they wanted to evaluate someone else. Carr had a pre-end of NFL year date as his 2023 contract guarantee trigger. The Raiders benched him to avoid any potential injury before his release. This shouldn't be news to anyone.

https://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/story/_/id/35335730/raiders-bench-qb-derek-carr-start-jarrett-stidham-vs-49ers

 

[JMR]

Carr wasn't benched for performance reasons, team record reasons, or because they wanted to evaluate someone else. Carr had a pre-end of NFL year date as his 2023 contract guarantee trigger. The Raiders benched him to avoid any potential injury before his release. This shouldn't be news to anyone.

https://www.espn.co.uk/nfl/story/_/id/35335730/raiders-bench-qb-derek-carr-start-jarrett-stidham-vs-49ers

So you're telling me that if the Raiders were fighting for playoffs instead of 6-9, they still would have sat him and risked missing the playoffs??? The fact that they WERE indeed out of the playoffs made it a fairly academic decision. The article you share says the team made the decision "in part" to keep him healthy to maintain their options with him. In part. The other parts undoubtedly include a less than desirable record that had them outside the playoffs. That is hinted at in there too.

Teams don't just bench players so they can cut them. It's an absurd notion, and the players union would probably be all over it if ever happened. Probably against the CBA. It's akin to tanking for draft position or sitting guys so they don't meet contract incentives. No way that stuff flies without massive blowback.

 

[fastforward]

So you're telling me that if the Raiders were fighting for playoffs instead of 6-9, they still would have sat him and risked missing the playoffs??? The fact that they WERE indeed out of the playoffs made it a fairly academic decision. The article you share says the team made the decision "in part" to keep him healthy to maintain their options with him. In part. The other parts undoubtedly include a less than desirable record that had them outside the playoffs. That is hinted at in there too.

Teams don't just bench players so they can cut them. It's an absurd notion, and the players union would probably be all over it if ever happened. Probably against the CBA. It's akin to tanking for draft position or sitting guys so they don't meet contract incentives. No way that stuff flies without massive blowback.

People knew the situation with Carr last year. People know the situation with Smith this year. If teams are committed to keeping players with early guarantee clauses for the following season they'll play them. If they're not, they won't. I think that's how the Seahawks will handle Smith for the last 2 games. I don't see him playing the last 2 games and then being released - regardless of the playoff situation. Business is business.

 

[boogiewithstu2007]

Geno Smith is a February decision. That's when his contract guarantees. It's possible the Seahawks don't want to keep him at $22.5M for 2024. He would need to be healthy at that point for him to be released.

Oh shit, Geno’s gonna take a hammer to his knee !