Is this what Seattle considers an ideal QB situation?

June 29th, 2022 | Written by Rob Staton

Could Jimmy Garoppolo be Seattle’s answer to Alex Smith?

In 2013 the Chiefs traded a second round pick to the 49ers for 30-year-old quarterback Alex Smith. He came in to lead Andy Reid’s offense and help Kansas City transition to a new era.

He had success and the Chiefs became relevant and competitive — if somewhat unspectacular. It provided Reid with a chance to bide his time though, waiting for the right long-term replacement to emerge.

It took four seasons to find ‘the guy’.

Simply put, that’s how long these things can take.

The Chiefs eventually traded up in the 2017 draft, jumping from #27 to #10 overall to select Patrick Mahomes. Smith continued to start in 2017 before Mahomes took over as a second-year player.

This is pretty much the textbook way to run your franchise. The Chiefs found an established, quality starter to prevent them from being dreadful when Reid took over. Having built a competitive roster, they were then pro-active to get their quarterback. They didn’t overpay either — to move up 17 spots it only cost them their 2018 first rounder.

It’s a far cry from the three picks San Francisco used for Trey Lance, which felt a lot more reckless and desperate.

It is extremely tricky to emulate and execute a plan like this. I do wonder though if the Seahawks, ideally, would like to do something similar.

Like Smith, Jimmy Garoppolo is a 30-year-old quarterback for the 49ers. He’s also in the ‘solid but unspectacular’ bracket. I think it’s clear Smith was a better player — and I suspect most would agree. Yet Garoppolo has been the quarterback for a team reaching one Super Bowl and almost reaching another.

It’s also worth noting that Smith had toiled for most of his pro-career until Jim Harbaugh took over the Niners. Before 2011 when Harbaugh arrived, he’d only started a full 16-game season once — in 2006. Even then, he eventually lost his job to Colin Kaepernick in 2012.

Acquiring Garoppolo, one way or another, would give the Seahawks a quarterback to lead them this year and for however long is necessary.

Just like Smith did for Reid’s Chiefs.

Like Kansas City, the Seahawks could trade up to draft a rookie next year. They have the ammunition to do it if needed.

They can also be a little bit more patient if (and it would be a big if) Garoppolo ended up being their version of Smith.

In the meantime, Pete Carroll could play ‘Carroll ball’ and try to build a competitive team. Whenever the young quarterback was drafted, they would have an experienced alternative if he wasn’t ready to start immediately. They could also plan a transition from one player to the other.

This could be useful for another reason. We assume Bryce Young will turn pro but he’s only a one-year starter for Alabama. What if he decides to stay for a third season? Who knows what motivates him? If Alabama doesn’t win a National Championship this year, perhaps he returns?

Will Levis will turn pro due to his age but Tyler Van Dyke has only half a season under his belt as a starter. There’s no guarantee he turns pro. Or C.J. Stroud for that matter.

What if only two turn pro and they go in the top-two picks? What if you simply can’t trade up, even if you’re a bad team picking in the top-10?

You can’t assume the answers will be there in 2022. And what if they aren’t? Are you stuck without a solution, either in the draft or the veteran market?

Having a go-between could be useful, if only for insurance and your ability to use your resources properly.

I think Garoppolo fits this bill better than Baker Mayfield for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the lack of drama that surrounds Garoppolo and the fact he’s universally loved in San Francisco. Secondly — he’s older and would likely embrace the role, rather than Mayfield who — having just turned 27 — could be more difficult and more expensive to tie down beyond 2022.

This doesn’t mean I crave to see ‘Jimmy G’ in Seattle. I just think there’s a case to be made for the Seahawks potentially seeing an attractive possibility here.

The problem would be getting him out of San Francisco.

It would be costly to trade in the division. You’d probably have to pay a ‘NFC West premium’. Given he’s coming off shoulder surgery and has a history of injuries, you shouldn’t be looking to give up the high pick the Niners would presumably ask for.

Further to that, you can’t trade for him and take on his massive $25m cap hit. He would have to take a cut or be prepared to spread that money out over three-years.

It’s possible he is cut. His big salary becomes guaranteed after week one. The Niners don’t want a $25m backup QB who could, at any time, say he needs another shoulder surgery and then he’s a $25m dead weight on injured reserve.

Equally you don’t really want him in camp to even ‘potentially’ get injured.

However — if you cut him before camp, you run the risk of helping a rival team. If you fear him going to Seattle, you’re better to wait until the end of camp then cut him before the season starts. Then he doesn’t get a month to settle in.

The problem is — Garoppolo would see this a mile off. He would almost certainly call that out, demand his release (or a trade) and make life difficult for 49ers.

It’d also be an incredibly poor look for the Niners to hold back such a popular player from continuing his career. Management would likely lose the PR battle in the locker room and that can’t be underestimated. Garoppolo is very popular among players.

It could also create a toxic environment if Lance struggles at the start of the season. San Francisco has a duty, having given up so much for their young QB, to create a situation where he’s the unchallenged ‘guy’ who has the best possible opportunity to succeed.

If Garoppolo is cut — there would be competition for his signature. There surely has to be a reason, though, why Seattle restructured Shelby Harris’ contract recently to create extra cap space this year (and less next year)? And wouldn’t it be the ideal situation for Garoppolo to join a division rival to ‘prove a point’? The ‘reverse-Sherman’ as I’ve been calling it.

It’s a complex situation, one that should — ultimately — lead to him departing San Francisco. It’s just a case of when and how.

Should it happen, the Seahawks might take a page out of Andy Reid’s playbook — at least the team building playbook — and look to acquire a veteran who can carry them to whatever the long-term future is at quarterback.

If you missed yesterday’s live stream, check it out here:

If you enjoy the content on Seahawks Draft Blog, please consider supporting us via Patreon (click the tab below)…

Become a Patron!

126 Responses to “Is this what Seattle considers an ideal QB situation?”

  1. TomLPDX says:

    I like the formula you laid out but worry about Jimmy G’s injury history. That said, if you can find a good QB game manager for the next 2-3 years and get your “Mahommes” next year or the year after, that would be ideal.

    • Big Mike says:

      100% agree Tom. I like him far better than Mayfield as a QB and as Rob said, he’s much more likely to be comfortable with a bridge role seeing as how he was a 2nd rounder rather than the first overall pick. That matters in attitude imo. Plus by all reports he’s a quality teammate. But as you mentioned, the major concern is the shoulder. If it’s good, I’m in on him.

  2. 10to80 says:

    Having a go-between could be useful, if only for insurance and your ability to use your resources properly.

    Don’t they have that guy with Lock? The team said Lock would have been the first guy off the board in this year’s draft, yet he has 3yrs experience already. He doesn’t fit the narrative of bid a season and draft your next franchise guy. But Lock could have a nice season, be ‘the guy’ going forward, and I still think the Hawks draft a QB in the first round. Always compete.

    How would the NFL narrative have flipped if Tartt picks off that ball, and SF goes to the SB and LAR goes home? Now, Stafford’s not some kind of savior worthy of a huge extension, and SF has a bigger mess on their hands having given up 3 1st when they have a multiple SB QB on their payroll.

    • Rob Staton says:

      They might have it in Lock.

      But I would think there might’ve been a bit more buzz about him by now if they’d seen that in mini camp

      • 10to80 says:

        You’ve got a better ear for that from your seat as you’re well plugged in. When I saw Bumpus with Coach Waldron, I kind of thought that might be part of the clamour for Lock.

        From your draft study perspective, do you think they’re assessment Lock would have been this draft’s top pick?

        My guess is that there’s not ‘more buzz’ because they DO believe in the competition piece, and think Geno and Drew’s games are too close to call without game speed and pads to make the determination.

        Not maybe that’s a knock on Lock he doesn’t have Smith beat outright, but I think that’s more the issue than they’re looking outside the team for a QB.

      • Elmer says:

        I have been wondering the same thing. If Lock isn’t leading coming out of the offseason it could mean (1) Lock isn’t looking as good as hoped (2) Smoth looks better than expected (3) both of 1 and 2 (4) they don’t really like either one and the QB corps is going to be somebody new (JG?) maybe backed up by their young guy, Eason. I

  3. Sea Mode says:

    Can Jimmy G throw deep? If not, will PC bend his whole explosive plays philosophy for him?

  4. Sea Mode says:

    Gregg Bell

    K.J. Wright on @SIRIUSXM: “I love ball but I’m not willing to pick up & leave my family like I did last year (playing for LV). I’m not doing that again. So I think it’s pretty well known where I I want to end my career. If it’s not in Seattle, then I’ll be all good.”

    • TomLPDX says:

      Is Bell that far behind the times? KJ said this a month ago. Come on, Gregg, get with the program!

      KJ will be coaching soon…and for the hawks!

  5. Rob Staton says:

    I like Clint Hurtt

    • Sea Mode says:

      Assuming you are referring to this:

      Extended Family | The Sound Of The Seahawks: Episode 2

    • TomLPDX says:

      He’s pretty awesome.

      Thanks for posting the link, Sea

      • Joshua Smith says:

        Do we think Pete is wanting to sign a stop gap and wait 2,3,4 years to find a QB?
        Andy Reid was in his mid to late 50s when all that happened. I don’t want to sound age-ist but Pete is 70 and just now starting the rebuild.
        I get the sense that desperation will increase with each year we don’t have a franchise guy.
        I think Pete wants to get Baker or Jimmy at a discounted cost to Russell. Jimmy makes more sense financially since he has already signed his “biggest contract” and is coming off surgery. Would likely be a bargain. Then build a defense around him like SF did and it worked pretty well..SB appearance and a near second one last year.
        What are the chances IF Pete gets Jimmy G that we DON’T draft a rookie QB regardless of who declares? And instead choose build.up the defense? Will Pete really care to draft a QB for the next 10-15 years? When he will most likely be gone?

        • Rob Staton says:

          Every time I read “Is Carroll willing to do this or that at QB due to his age”

          All I do is point out that right now his QB’s are Drew Lock and Geno Smith

          If Pete felt he was in a race against time, they would’ve done more than that by now


  6. Edmonton Hawk says:

    I definitely feel that the Seahawks are considering this in regards to Garappolo. It could sure help the wait time for a young QB to develop.

    I’m not sure if this has been noted already on this site but Nathan Rourke the QB(6’1” 210lbs) for the B.C. Lions is sure showing the arm strength and decision making ability of an NFL Q B. He has good athleticism as well. He’s only 24 years old, played at Ohio University. First game this year went 26/29 for 282 yards, 3TD’s and 7 carries for 78 yards. Second game 39/45 for 436 yards 4 TD’s, and 3 carries for 15yards. It’s early on but he’s looking like he has that “it” factor. He would be a free agent next year I believe. The scouts are starting to notice him. Could be a very good investment for little risk in addition to drafting a QB next year.

  7. Joshua Smith says:

    They went after Watson, by all accounts they are interested in Baker. What more would they be able to do? What other franchise QB is even available . I would bet money that John has reached out to every other NFL team with a viable QB just in case.
    Not having a result doesn’t mean Pete and John didn’t vigorously try behind the scenes. They know that 1 or 2 QBs are likely to be available (Jimmy and Baker). They know there is a good chance they will have a shot at a top rookie QB next year. There isn’t much else to do except wait for Jimmy and Baker to become available. Maybe they feel confident one or both will want to play in Seattle. That’s why they are trying to clear more cap space this year.
    Bur each year without an answer at QB Pete will feel more pressure to win now. And not because he’s worried about getting fired for poor performance.

    Maybe you think Pete wants to coach for another 10years (80). Good on him if he’s able to.
    But whether you want to admit it or not Pete’s age plays a role in this. How big of a role is up for speculation. But that’s what we do here, right? Speculate on what we think we know?

    • Rob Staton says:

      There’s plenty more they could’ve done.

      It’s not about adding a ‘franchise quarterback’.

      They added Lock via the Wilson trade and then just re-signed Geno. That’s the absolute bare minimum.

      If Carroll was absolutely desperately racing against time, it’s blatantly obvious they would’ve done more at this position than they have.

      His age and perceived need to rush against age completely flies against everything they’ve done over the last six months.

      Maybe you think Pete wants to coach for another 10years (80).

      Lurching to hyperbolic language doesn’t aid your argument.

      But that’s what we do here, right? Speculate on what we think we know?

      And you don’t have to be a douche.

      • Chuck says:

        “And you don’t have to be a douche.”

        Geez, Rob! I realize the typed word can be construed differently than the writer intended sometimes, but I sure didn’t read it that way. I believe JS was simply pointing out that time isn’t on Pete’s side here, as the team of the long haul is concerned.

        • Rob Staton says:

          I read it originally as a dig at the site, so I am happy to take it back with hindsight and apologise to JS.

          But I still don’t think there’s any disputing that if Pete’s personal timeline was in any way, shape or form a contributing factor to anything, we wouldn’t be sat here looking at a Geno vs Lock battle with the absolute bare minimum done at quarterback this year.

          They would’ve been FAR more aggressive if this was a race against time.

          I don’t think that’s even a challengeable point really. Nothing about their actions of the last six months suggests a race against time for Pete.

          • Chuck says:

            “Nothing about their actions of the last six months suggests a race against time for Pete.”

            That’s for sure! I’m enjoying the rebuild and haven’t been this excited about a draft or offseason in some time. I just have to wonder at what point PC/JS are going to feel their seats warming up. Maybe Jody and her team feel since they built a champion once they deserve some leeway.

  8. Sean-O says:

    Any thoughts on what’s being said about Garappolo in the recent interview with Julian Edelman on I Am Athlete?

    “Firstly, the lack of drama that surrounds Garoppolo and the fact he’s universally loved in San Francisco.”

    Is he though? What are his teammates supposed to say? His toughness has been questioned in SF as well. I agree he checks a lot of boxes in what Pete would like in a starting QB but in Brock Huard’s words, “you can’t fool the locker room”.

    • Rob Staton says:

      It’s extremely well known, and people who have worked in San Fran have vouched for this, that Garoppolo is immensely popular in that locker room.

  9. Ben M says:

    He may have been injured the last two years but his results on deep passes are abysmal.

  10. Forrest says:

    I actually like Jimmy G and I LOVE his conversions on 3rd downs. It would sure be nice to see what he could do in Seattle throwing over the middle to utilize our TEs, see Lockett & Dk on slants and crosses, etc. That said, I agree with others on the board and think he’ll get injured behind this offensive line and Pete’s philosophy to take deep shots (which isn’t his game). If the Hawks scale the offense to fit him as a game manager, it could work. I like that he’s loved in the locker room and would like to see what he could do here and how it compares to Wlison’s game and limitations in not being able to see as well over the middle, holding onto the ball too long, taking drive killing sacks, etc.

  11. Joshua Smith says:

    Your statement Rob. “If Pete felt he was in a race against time, they would’ve done more than that by now

    I’m not trying to be a douche Rob and I’m sorry if it came across that way. I reacted to your statement which I felt was also kinda douchie. Saying “Fact” at the end ? Like it’s the definitive statement. Everyone should feel this way.
    I’m also not trying the antagonize you. I make speculative statements. We all do. I respect your opinions even if I disagree.with you.

    You keep saying Pete would have done more but what else could he have done? I’m surprised he didn’t push to keep Russ at $50 m (maybe he tried?).Going after Watson is probably the most he could have done. And Watson had the final decision so the Hawks could have thrown their entire draft capital at the Texans and it wouldnt have changed anything.
    I don’t post with the intention of pissing you off but maybe I just rub you the wrong way with my opinions.
    Rob, you are super knowledgeable and have a good feel for how the Seahawks operate. I have a great deal of respect for you and love reading your articles and will throw my two cents in every so often. We agree on most stuff but man,.you can come down hard on people with different viewpoints at times.
    It’s your show tho, brother. I’ll fall in line… Mostly😜
    Have a great day man👍

  12. Dubb says:

    For me, this whole QB situation is less about Pete’s age and more about his job security. No coach on the “hot seat” would ever go into a season with a QB room of Geno Smith and Drew Lock. Also, when you hire a first-time Offensive Coordinator with no influence on personnel decisions; Pete is setting this guy up to be the scapegoat if this offense doesn’t work. Waldron came here thinking he has Wilson to work with; but now has Smith/Locke/Eason. Talk about bait and switch.

    Pete probably has assurances from ownership that he’ll be here next year to draft a QB; which is supposed to be a better class than this year. Also, he can use this year to break in two rookie offensive tackles on QBs that he has no intention on keeping past this year.

    Strap it up Seahawk fans; this year could get ugly in a hurry.

  13. Ashish says:

    On available or soon to be available QB’s
    Garoppolo – Did well under strong innovative coaching, can’t win match on its own when chips are down at the best average in perfect condition. Hawks is on full rebuilding mode, Garoppolo will make zero difference to current team.

    Baker – Rob has made a great point with star players on both side of the ball still he didn’t move the needle. He will not even take Hawks to Playoff forget about super bowl.

    Just chill with Geno and Drew, let’s figure out our defense and offensive pieces for next year. Watch games with excitement on new super stars in making without any pressure/expectations of winning this year. I believe Browns organization is trying salvage their situation on Baker by generating fake news on teams interest for Baker.

  14. cha says:

    It’s a far cry from the three picks San Francisco used for Trey Lance, which felt a lot more reckless and desperate.

    I’m still confounded by this move. A whole month before the draft, the Niners made this trade. And then publicly expressed they didn’t know who they were going to take at #3!

    I bet John Lynch got a flurry of invitations to high-stakes poker games after that move.

    They then took a team ready to compete in 2021 and selected the least NFL-ready quarterback in the draft.

    Lance better be Mahomes-in-2018 good this year in order to get back on the good side of the ledger.

    • Big Mike says:

      Yeah and they absolutely have no choice but to play him this year and dump Jimmy. If they don’t, it’ll be beyond obvious that he’s STILL not ready and it’ll look more and more likely that trade was even more foolhardy than the one Pete made for the coffee cup, and that’s saying something.
      Watching Lance and the 9ers is going to be highly entertaining this season. (rubs hands together while laughing maniacally)

    • TomLPDX says:

      It was baffling then and even more so now. Lost some respect for the SF brain trust over that one.

      Loved the visual, Big Mike!

  15. cha says:

    Warren Sharp
    Drew Lock out of 33 QBs last 2 yrs*

    #33 in accuracy
    #33 in completion %
    #32 in success rate
    #30 in EPA/att
    #30 in TD:INT ratio
    #28 in first down rate

    #32 from clean pockets
    #33 on layups (<5 air yds)
    #32 on early downs w no play action

    *min 400 att

    what are we doing here

    • TomLPDX says:

      Obviously he is the best backup QB in the league right now at #33. Hmmm, #33, looks at notes…we have a coffee cup at #33.

    • Happy Hawk says:

      Perfect – should net us a great draft position. The more I look at Will Levis the more I want him in Seattle. Can’t wait to watch some Kentucky football this year. The SEC games with Levis Van Dyke, and Bryce Young should be good scouting.

    • Ashish says:

      Drew – very consistent in 30’s from 33 🙂 no worries hello Levis

    • Big Mike says:

      “Don’t sleep on Drew Lock”

      Bwa ha ha ha…………

      cha: you already know what we’re doing here.

    • Elmer says:

      Based on this, it’s not somebody you want around as your backup QB let alone your starter.

  16. Herdhall says:

    I would rather take a run at Gardner Minshew than Jimmy or Baker.

    • Rob Staton says:

      People keep suggesting this but there’s absolutely no reason for Philly to trade him. None.

      • Herdhall says:

        Mayfield and Garoppolo coming off injuries. As it stands right now, both carry a high price tag. I’m not saying it would work, but I would at least reach out and find out if there is a possibility.

        • Rob Staton says:

          But why do you assume they haven’t?

          The fact is Minshew is a cheap, valuable backup for Philly — who have question marks about their starter. There is absolutely zero reason for them to trade him.

          People act like Philly is desperate to off load. They aren’t

          • Herdhall says:

            I assume because I haven’t seen anything that tells me different.

            You assume there is no reason to trade him, but you don’t know. Perhaps an offer could come there way that would entice them.

            I don’t think or know that Philly is desperate to unload.

            And going back to my original post, I would rather explore Minshew over the other two candidates being discussed here. That is who I would prefer as a QB in Seattle. Just my 2 cents.

            • Rob Staton says:

              I’m not assuming anything

              I don’t know why this is so hard for some folk to understand

              Minshew is on a dirt cheap contract. The Eagles have a question mark in their starting QB. Minshew had to play games last season and did well all considered, winning them a game.

              Why the hell would they trade him? Unless you want them to offer a second or third rounder, there’s no point.

              People have assumed for six months that the Eagles would be remotely interested in dealing him ‘just because he isn’t their starter’

              That is a massive error

  17. cha says:

    Jon Wilner
    Source: USC and UCLA are planning to leave for the Big Ten as early as 2024. Move *has not been finalized* at the highest levels of power.
    10:23 AM · Jun 30, 2022

    • TomLPDX says:

      Wow! Wasn’t expecting that to happen.

    • Big Mike says:

      If this happens, I am done with college football and I do mean completely. I won’t watch another game, ever. This is 100% on ESPN. They are in my mind unquestionably the worst thing to happen to American sports in general and College football in particular in the last 50 years. Fuck ESPN and the same to USC and UCLA for leaving if they do.

      • Rob Staton says:

        It’s been inevitable for some time

        The PAC-12 is an unwatchable mess

        Terribly run

        An awful product

        And increasingly irrelevant

        USC and UCLA are jumping off a sinking ship

        • Peter says:

          Not loving this but feels every bit of arrogance for never revelant ucla to leave. Pac 12 may be a shambles but they most likely are going to continue their long march of irrelevance in the big 10.

        • TomLPDX says:

          I actually like the new PAC12 commish and think he is trying to do the right thing for the conference. I won’t take as hard a line as Big Mike since I love college FB but the landscape is certainly changing. The West coast teams are at a disadvantage as far as viewing windows for their games and it is hurting the conference. The OR and WA teams are still relevant as far as I’m concerned.

          As for the SEC, having UT and OU join was inevitable and it will shake up the whole SEC structure. Should be interesting. Still love college ball.

        • CaptainJack says:

          Usc and even more so ucla have been terrible for the last decade. They’re big reasons why the pac 12 ship sank. So screw them

          • Rob Staton says:

            They are no where close to being the problem

            • pdway says:

              I guess I haven’t followed too closely for a while – – what do you see as the problem?

              The bummer here, among other things, is that it really diminishes the other good programs in the Pac-12, Oregon especially, but UW too. Feels like they’re going to lose recruiting juice b/c the whole conference feels diminished – so they are getting forced into a crappier position without getting a vote about it.

              • Rob Staton says:

                The commissioner, the total lack of competitive teams on a national level, the broadcasting situation, the complete lack of excitement and relevance around the conference

                To an outsider the PAC 12 is an irrelevant bore I’m afraid

        • Elmer says:

          Make no mistake. This is about money. Pure and simple. The UW has financial resources. I assume that Stanford and Cal Berkeley do as well but not Washington State and Oregon State.

          • Rob Staton says:

            Sure, it’s about money.

            But the PAC 12 has been a horrendous mess for years. And that’s one of the reasons they are chasing the money

    • 12th chuck says:

      the irony is that the then, pac 10 tried to cater to the so cal teams. Ended up driving the pac 10 into the ground

    • KennyBadger says:

      Big college sports are fundamentally changing anyway with NIL. I think conference jumping will be irrelevant within 5 years and it’ll be more of a regional quasi minor league for the NFL. I’d love to see promotion/relegation in that realm.

      • Mike says:

        The sad thing with the ncaa is that is has little to do with the best teams being rewarded and more to do with the brands/programs with money being let into the group. USC and ucla have been irrelevant for years

      • Rob Staton says:

        They should just set up two big conferences like the NFL

        • Old but Slow says:

          That might be the best approach, as it seems that the importance of conference championships has lessened in favor of looking for national ranking. High ranking is influenced by opponent strength, so teams want to be in a situation where they can play “prime time” opponents.

          Here in the Western Hinterlands we have a disadvantage for TV coverage, so it is understandable why teams would want to play teams farther east. A two conference or all independent structure could be a huge boon to smaller schools who would not be invited to the major conferences as it stands now.

          Let’s do it. Call it in, Rob.

          • Group Captain Mandrake says:

            The question I have is why would any team want to compete in conference championship games anyway? It’s an extra game that no one else has to play that has the potential to ruin their season. A team could go 12-0 and be ranked in the top five, but if they lose that game they lose their shot at a national title. Doesn’t seem like much of a reward. The conference champion should be the team with the best record in the conference.

            • Elmer says:

              Some speculations that there might be another team with interest in Jimmy G. The Browns. Depending on how Watson’s eligibility is treated by the league.

  18. Ptarmigan says:

    Love this analysis, Rob.

    Can’t locate all the public pro-JG commentary to quote, but read multiple places/heard from 49er fans about his reputation as a great teammate. That’s got to factor into the pros/cons. And completely agree on the value of a hedge against QB’s opting in/out of the draft. Recently, you wrote about the way draft profiles of QB prospects rise and fall predraft. It seems prudent to allow for this too.

    Hawks brought in some new players that were previously high draft picks, or had playing experience with our new and newly promoted coaches (Uwasu, Blythe, Burns, Harris, Fant – who else?). Do you have any insight into these players? Thanks!

  19. Gross MaToast says:

    There are rumblings somewhere of a potential target of May, 2024 for selling the Seahawks. Pete’s contract, of course, runs through 2025. I have to believe that if/when the franchise is sold, Pete and crew will not be retained by new ownership. Giving Pete the benefit of the doubt here, it could be that he realizes that time is short, that his team will, at best, be marginally competitive within the next two years, and he’s in the process of trying to leave a solid foundation for who’s next. He may continue the always compete mantra, but it is what it is and what it is is is it’s not good.

    Do I believe any of the above? No. I believe Pete spent two hours this afternoon designing Super Bowl rings for the 2022 team.

  20. Rob Staton says:

    Just finished watching Top Gun Maverick again

    Go and see it

    • Big Mike says:

      Going to see Elvis this weekend. Bet it won’t be as good as TG.
      that said, as I mentioned in the chat the other day, the fact that Tom didn’t have a helmet on riding that motorcycle in San Diego was a source of irritation for me since California is a helmet law state. C’mon Tom, your “hair is perfect” was another (good) movie you were in. Put a helmet on man.

      • Rob Staton says:

        It doesn’t bother me because the only person he would’ve harmed was himself

        And if someone else takes their lead from a film on whether to wear a helmet or not on a motorcycle, they are a wazzack

        • Old but Slow says:

          A “wazzack”? I love it. Here I learn Seahawks football and gain vocabulary as well.

          Wazzack. Definitely have room for that one.

    • JimQ says:

      I’ve watched it twice, —for free—, streaming on my 17″ laptop, (with ear buds). I like watching movies on my laptop while allowing my wife to watch regular TV or movies she likes on her laptop. With broadcast TV now in its rerun season, y’all should check out – They have a lot of –current movies– of all types & it’s a pretty darn good price – FREE. Many movies every day are added to the choices including some before they even hit the theaters. Other good streaming sites I like include: TUBITV, Vumoo, & SolarMovie.

      Note: with my laptop 2 feet away from my face, it appears half again larger than our 55″ plasma that is 14 feet away + with CC on, you don’t miss any dialogue. Try streaming out, you may love it (and save your $$ bigtime).
      Also, note that with a long HDMI cable you can hook up your laptop to your TV & watch movies for free in that way if you prefer.

      • Rob Staton says:

        I would suggest people go and see Top Gun Maverick on the biggest screen they can find. I watched it on IMAX last night

        • Sea Mode says:


          And, if needed, ask them to crank the subwoofers and you will FEEL the jets zipping by!

    • Denver Hawker says:

      Finally getting around to this tonight, so many people have recommended it- expectations very high. Some people I respect have even said it’s the best movie they’ve ever seen.

      • AlaskaHawk says:

        Top Gun 2 is a great movie. It might be considered the best of the year if you haven’t gone out to the movies for the last 2 years. The plot line is both predictable and entertaining. Tom Cruise and supporting cast are great!

        • Rob Staton says:

          Every film could be called predictable these days though. Not many original ideas out there.

          For me it has everything. Good story, great casting and acting, exciting, emotional, brilliantly shot, limited CGI crap, immersive filming using real jets, no bloody politics. You just come out after feeling great.

          That is what cinema should be. An outlet from the real world. A place to lose yourself for a couple of hours.

          Think a lot of the major film companies have forgotten that. Clearly Tom Cruise hasn’t.

          • Sea Mode says:

            Joseph Kosinski and cinematographer Claudio Miranda’s movies are incredibly well shot. Practically every angle is a mini work of art and they go to incredible lengths to shoot as much in-camera as possible. If you like sci-fi (and Tom Cruise…), check out Oblivion from 2013.

            Simply cinematic genius:

            Oblivion Sky Tower Exclusive Featurette

            The ending wasn’t the greatest IMO and there were certainly some plot holes, but visually it’s probably the most beautiful movie I’ve seen, the cast is top notch, and the music epic.

      • Rob Staton says:

        It’s one of the top five films I’ve ever seen

        And I was mildly entertained only by the first Top Gun

        • Denver Hawker says:

          It definitely had a great recipe, used all the classic nostalgia from the 1st film and did it so much better. The final act was so enjoyable. I rarely get to the theater these days, especially a non-kids movie. This is worth seeing in the theater again.

        • Sea Mode says:

          It’s definitely up there, for sure. What might be your top 5?

          (without thinking too much, just that I enjoy the most)

          1. Inception
          2. Edge of Tomorrow
          3. Gladiator
          4. Ex Machina
          5. Oblivion, Free Guy, Dune, Top Gun: Maverick

          (I can’t bring myself to add them, but I do enjoy some Marvel, esp. Iron Man, Thor: Ragnarok, Black Panther)

          As you can tell, I lean heavily towards sci-fi/fantasy…

          • Rob Staton says:

            My favourites (without putting much thought at all into it) would include Seven, Indiana Jones 1,2,3, Dark Knight & Dark Knight Rises, Shawshank, Terminator 2, Nightmare on Elm Street 1. Top Gun Maverick is right in there now. I’m also a big Wes Anderson fan (which I’m sure will inspire as many groans as approvals).

          • AlaskaHawk says:

            I like the Mission Impossible series. Tom Cruise at his best!

          • Henry Taylor says:

            Just scrolling up through the comments to see what I’ve missed, but had to stop here…

            Free Guy is in your top 5 of all time?!? It’s a subjective medium and to each their own but I find that absolutely astounding.

  21. Sea Mode says:

    Lol. Leave it to one of the Bennett bros to have a bone to pick with someone everyone else likes…

    • Sean-O says:

      People seem to be dismissing this for some reason (because it’s Martellus? because Jimmy is so liked in SF?). I think there’s a little something to this potentially.

      We all know that he’s missed a ton of games in his career because of injuries but to not be able to go at the last second when the team was planning to start you, is a bad look. Remember last season versus the Hawks? Played the first half & couldn’t go in the second half. Everyone was confused because no one could really find when the injury could have happened.

      Sure he’s liked supposedly but do you want him as a team leader on a young team? Even as a bridge?

      FYI – Ninernoise has an article about three possible trade scenarios with Garoppolo.


      To save a click:
      #3 to CLE for Baker (even swap)
      #2 to CAR for Darnold & a 4th round pick
      #1 to SEA for a 3rd & 5th round picks

  22. cha says:

    CBS talks overvalued players on every NFC team

    While the Rams and Cardinals have former 2nd round WRs that are on 2nd round rookie contracts for theirs, the Seahawks have Jamal Adams. Quadruple the draft pick outlay and 7-9x the salary outlay.

    • Big Mike says:

      Yeah but Jamal has the coolest coffee cup in the whole NFL so there’s that.

    • Sea Mode says:

      ESPN with the opposite end of the spectrum. I got a kick out of comparing Dissly to Gronk and Kelce. Let’s… hope so…?! 😂

      Seattle Seahawks
      Will Dissly, TE

      Good things happen when the Seahawks throw to Dissly — in his career, he has a 79.2% catch rate and 9.4 yards per target, similar numbers to those of Rob Gronkowski (64.7%/9.7) and Travis Kelce (70.8%/9.1). It’s easier to be efficient as the fourth or fifth weapon in Seattle than as the cornerstone in New England or Kansas City, but the Seahawks paid Dissly like he deserves more targets, guaranteeing him over $10 million in March. They also acquired Noah Fant in the Russell Wilson trade, so maybe Dissly won’t get those targets after all.

      • cha says:

        Talking about straining to put a gold ring on the snout of a pig.

        Targets in 2021 for those two:

        Kelce: 134
        Gronk: 89

        Dissly has 96 career targets

        Dissly had 26 targets last year

        Get outta here with that nonsense, ESPN

  23. Forrest says:

    Could the Seahawks be eyeing…Sam Darnold?

    Baker could go to Carolina
    $18M contract this year (Shelby Harris restructure would make sense). They could split Darnold’s salary with Carolina.
    USC connection
    Ideal size

    I would personally prefer Jimmy G. But, Darnold would give the Hawks a former #3 overall to test out. Could he develop into a Matt Stafford or poor man’s Andrew Luck? He’s only 25 and hasn’t been on a decent team in his brief career.

    I don’t like it, but it could be the plan.

  24. Denver Hawker says:

    Even the US Open is throwing shade at the Seahawks:

    • Robbie says:

      This was pretty funny actually!!

      • Hawkdawg says:

        It was, but what’s with the dude saying tennis is not a sport? It is definitely a sport.

        • Denver Hawker says:

          It’s an overused Twitter joke used to describe anything not football, but mostly leisure sports.

    • cha says:

      DK Metcalf
      Aight Chill we get the point
      1:00 PM · Jul 2, 2022

      • Sea Mode says:

        At least Lock was cool about it:

        Drew Lock

        Happy 4th to all but especially to the intern at the @usopen 🇺🇸😂❤️12s

        • Rob Staton says:

          In all seriousness though, whichever idiot tweeted that out from the US Open didn’t account for two things that are quite serious:

          1. How the person they are replying to responds, given they achieved a degree of infamy over the weekend and probably an onslaught of mentions. It possibly made their life miserable and I’m not sure that was deserved based on a throw away review of his or her interest in Tennis.

          2. Drew Lock’s reaction. He’s laughed it off on Twitter but he was the but of a very public joke. And for what cause, really? It possibly impacted him more than he’s letting on.

          So yeah, plenty of people had a good laugh. But increasingly these big twitter accounts give the keys to absolute twerps and they tweet first, think later.

          • CaptainJack says:

            1. disagree here. The account making the “tennis isn’t a sport” tweet 100 percent was looking for (negative) attention and probably reveled in it all weekend. us open gave them what they wanted.

            2. best for lock to delete all his social media apps until next offseason

            • Rob Staton says:

              He wasn’t looking for negative ‘attention’. He posted a throwaway remark that I suspect he never anticipated would receive a reply and go viral. It was a silly tweet to send, absolutely, but these accounts with big followings need to be careful drawing attention to unsuspecting people. You can easily create a pile-on. And for what? A dumb tweet about not liking tennis?

              As for Lock — I’m sure he gets a lot of grief. But he doesn’t need it from the official account of the US Open either. And if Bob from Seattle says he sucks, it won’t make headlines on the ESPN website, will it? Or be covered on all of the sports TV shows.

  25. Happy Hawk says:

    Some great names in the 2023 NFL draft:
    Sidy Sow
    Bumper Pool
    Tank Bigsby
    Kyu Blu Kelly
    Sincere Haynesworth
    Ulysses Bently IV
    Josh Downs
    Moro Ojomo
    Zak Zinter
    Hendon Hooker

  26. cha says:

    Rapaport checks the guy who has been reporting that Baker to Seattle stuff…

    Pat McAfee
    · 41m
    “I don’t know what’s gonna happen with Baker Mayfield but the Seahawks have never really been that interested in him” ~@RapSheet

    • Rob Staton says:

      That guy didn’t report anything

      He made something up in the hope it would come off and he’d look like a champion

      Twitter should take away his blue tick

      • cha says:

        Right. When you tweet ‘Baker to the Seahawks’ and nothing happens, and then you tweet ‘Baker was going to the Seahawks but mystery dark horse team stepped in at the last second’ you’re covered both ways.

        Baker goes to Seattle, you’re correct. Baker goes to other team, you’re also correct.

        It’s a plague of this current media landscape. You can hear the weariness in Rapaport’s voice when he’s talking about this with Pat.

  27. cha says:

    Jody says Seahawks and Blazers not currently for sale.

  28. […] they created cap space this year by restructuring Shelby Harris’ contract. Jimmy Garoppolo, as discussed, remains a potential option […]

  29. Bob says:

    I’m confused why people keep on saying that the Niners spent three first round picks, when they traded away two future ones to move up. By that logic the chiefs traded two first rounders to select mahomes, not one (as you implied).

    • Rob Staton says:

      I’m confused why people are pedants about this

      The Niners spent three first round picks on Lance. The Chiefs spent two first round picks on Mahomes.

      Those are the facts

      • Bob says:

        Yep those are the facts I’m just wondering why trading three picks to get a potential franchise qb is reckless and desperate, but two is not. There’s clearly hindsight bias at work since you know mahomes worked out great. I think it’s fair to question the Lance selection (we just don’t know enough yet) but moving up to get better qb play is not reckless, if last season told us anything the roster didn’t need anything except better qb play.

        • Rob Staton says:

          No, there’s clearly not hindsight bias. I shouldn’t have to explain this really but here we go I guess.

          The Chiefs traded for Alex Smith as a go between and waited four years to find the right guy. When they had identified him, they deliberately moved up 17 spots (27 to 10) to select Mahomes. He was their hand picked guy. They then sat him for a year behind Smith and a year later, dealt Smith so Mahomes could take over.

          This was a well executed, specific plan. And it cost them one less first round pick right off the bat.

          Now let’s compare to the Niners. In reaction to a fairly catastrophic run of injuries and a botched Super Bowl performance, the Niners decide they want to replace Jimmy G. So they spend two future firsts to go from 12 to 3, then admit they don’t know who they are going to draft, they just want to be in range to get whoever they work out is going to be the third best QB of the group.

          It is a far more expensive trade and much less of a plan. While KC had done all their homework and traded up for Mahomes on draft night, the 49ers made their trade BEFORE all the pro days and work outs had been concluded. It was pure panic — we need to get into range for a QB, we don’t know which one, but we’ll work it out.

          They end up taking Lance amid a whole bunch of talk since about Shanahan being more inclined to take Mac Jones (arguably a far better fit for his system). And had they stood pat they could’ve had Jones (or Justin Fields). Their plan is nowhere near as coherent to transition from Garoppolo to Lance. It looks, frankly, like a bit of a mess.

          So there. That’s the difference.