The Seahawks will be sticking with Geno Smith.
It feels strange to state this as if it were news. The team has never indicated Smith WASN’T going to be back for a fourth season as the starter. This is the NFL, however, where teams are not exactly known for telegraphing their intentions, and Seattle’s coach didn’t offer the most compelling endorsement last month when asked if he expected Smith to be back next.
“I’ve got no reason to say no,” Mike Macdonald said on the team’s flagship radio station. “So I guess, yeah.”
There was a full second of silence. Then Macdonald laughed.
It was awkward, but any uncertainty over Smith’s future was ironed out when Macdonald was asked the same question by Aaron Levine of FOX Q13 in an interview that aired on Sunday.
“Heck yeah,” Macdonald said, “Geno’s our quarterback. I don’t understand the conversation. It’s pretty obvious this guy’s a heck of a quarterback. He’s our quarterback. We love him. Can’t wait to go to work with him.”
This was more than just a vote of confidence. It was a purpose pitch. A deliberate statement of Seattle’s desire to retain Smith at the point in which his future could be most in doubt.
Smith has one year left on his current deal. Under that contract, he’ll receive a $16 million bonus if he’s on the roster on March 16.
“This guy, he’s a great player, man,” Macdonald continued. “We can win a championship with Geno Smith, we really believe that, and can’t wait to get back to work with him.”
That’s the kind of thing a team says when it’s hoping to negotiate a longer-term contract, which is exactly what the Seahawks are trying to do with Smith.
That’s what I know. Now here’s what I think: It’s the right move.
The reason I think this is fairly simple.
1. Quarterback is not what’s holding Seattle back right now. In fact, Smith’s ability to function under fairly constant pressure last season is the biggest reason the Seahawks finished with a winning record.
2. The Seahawks do not have a path to a veteran quarterback who would be an upgrade over Smith.
Aaron Rodgers is not expected back with the Jets, but I don’t think he’s better than Smith. Russell Wilson and Sam Darnold are on track to be free agents, but I don’t they’re upgrades, either. Same goes for Kirk Cousins and Derek Carr should they become available.
It’s possible the Seahawks could draft a quarterback who would turn out to be better than Smith, but they wouldn’t know that for months — maybe years — after picking him. Besides, the Seahawks have a documented aversion to drafting quarterbacks. In the 15 years that John Schneider has been running Seattle’s draft, the Seahawks have drafted exactly two quarterbacks. That’s the fewest in the league by far, and if you were inclined to criticize Seattle for not having a quarterback who’s better than Geno Smith, that’s the direction I’d be inclined to look.
But I’m not inclined to criticize Seattle for not having a quarterback who’s better than Smith. I think he is an above average starter in the NFL, and while I believe that Seattle should keep looking for a young quarterback who could be an upgrade down the road, I think it’s absolutely worth paying to keep Smith until that happens.
There are some people who disagree with this. They believe that it’s better to have a bad quarterback who’s cheap than an average quarterback who’s well-compensated. They believe that at least the team with the bad quarterback knows it needs a new quarterback while the other team has tied itself to a guy who will never be good enough to get the team over the hump.
Respectfully, I find this to be a little silly. It oversimplifies pro football, separating the league into those teams who possess a franchise quarterback and those who do not.
If you are one of those teams with a franchise quarterback, well, you’re in the land of milk and honey, blessed with someone whose passes crackle like lightning and whose breath smells of cinnamon. You are allowed to dream of championships.
However, if you are a team that lacks a Dropback Gawd, well, you’re just fooling yourself and you might as well go young and/or cheap.
There are two problems with this way of seeing the game.
The first is that it ignores the number of teams who’ve enjoyed significant success while having less-than-superb quarterbacks. Jimmy Garoppolo has started in two of the past six NFC Championship Games. Jared Goff has started two of the past seven. It wasn’t all that long ago that Nick Foles and Case Keenum were dueling for a Super Bowl berth. Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer each won the Super Bowl as starters.
The second issue is actually the more profound one, though. You shouldn’t ditch your quarterback unless you’re pretty sure you’ve got someone who’s as good or better.
This would seem a fairly straightforward approach to improving the team, but it’s surprising how hung up some people get on the money a quarterback will make. There are people who will proclaim it’s better to start from scratch at that spot than pay someone who is merely good.
That doesn’t make sense to me. Teams don’t flounder because they spend too much money on their quarterbacks. Teams flounder because they don’t have good quarterbacks.
I believe the Seahawks have a good quarterback. I think he was more of a strength of this team last season than a liability, and while that should not stop Seattle from drafting a young quarterback, I think you need to be certain that you have someone you know is an upgrade before you’d ever let Smith walk away.
Danny O’Neil was born in Oregon, the son of a logger, but had the good sense to attend college in Washington. He’s covered Seattle sports for 20 years, writing for two newspapers, one glossy magazine and hosting a daily radio show for eight years on KIRO 710 AM. You can subscribe to his free newsletter and find his other work at dannyoneil.com.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
