Geno Smith Thread
-
BoKnows81
- Posts: 7,324
- Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2015 3:36 am
- Has given High Fives: 929 times
- Received High Fives: 2165 times
Exsqueeeze me if I missed it ... But what are the details of Geno's contract?
- Kwk2293
- Posts: 219
- Joined: Thu Mar 03, 2016 5:56 am
[quote=BigJerk post_id=1279433]Exsqueeeze me if I missed it ... But what are the details of Geno's contract?[/quote]their hasnt been a new one with the raiders. current one i believe is 1 year 33 mill i think
- Sold My Soul
- Posts: 17,838
- Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 9:08 pm
- Location: Somewhere In Time
- Has given High Fives: 170 times
- Received High Fives: 412 times
LOSER: SEATTLE SEAHAWKS
In a vacuum, Seattle’s plan is clear. Get younger at quarterback, believe in the offensive system, and build around the third-year receiver who had an excellent second half of 2024. In practice? I’m not so sure.
Seattle traded away Geno Smith and DK Metcalf. The Smith deal brought back a third-round pick from the Las Vegas Raiders, and the Seahawks got a second-round pick from the Steelers in exchange for Metcalf. In both cases, the Seahawks got draft capital for players they were not interested in extending at the price the players were looking for. Metcalf already signed a $150-million extension, and we’re still waiting on what is expected to be a $40-$45 million per year deal for Smith with Las Vegas.
To replace Smith, the Seahawks signed Sam Darnold to a three-year, $110.5 million deal with $55 million guaranteed. That price tag is less than what had been thrown around in reports early in the offseason. It’s still a bit of a commitment from Seattle, but with just $55 million guaranteed, it’s not something that will sink the Seahawks for multiple years if it fails.
The deal does place a lot of faith in Klint Kubiak and the offensive system to both cover up the offensive line and keep Darnold from his worst tendencies under pressure. Even if that plays out to its best-case scenario, there’s still a much smaller margin for error to support the quarterback who still only finished 16th in EPA per play in 2024 despite his ideal surroundings.
The potential for this to fail feels much higher than the probability of Darnold repeating or surpassing his performance last year.
In a vacuum, Seattle’s plan is clear. Get younger at quarterback, believe in the offensive system, and build around the third-year receiver who had an excellent second half of 2024. In practice? I’m not so sure.
Seattle traded away Geno Smith and DK Metcalf. The Smith deal brought back a third-round pick from the Las Vegas Raiders, and the Seahawks got a second-round pick from the Steelers in exchange for Metcalf. In both cases, the Seahawks got draft capital for players they were not interested in extending at the price the players were looking for. Metcalf already signed a $150-million extension, and we’re still waiting on what is expected to be a $40-$45 million per year deal for Smith with Las Vegas.
To replace Smith, the Seahawks signed Sam Darnold to a three-year, $110.5 million deal with $55 million guaranteed. That price tag is less than what had been thrown around in reports early in the offseason. It’s still a bit of a commitment from Seattle, but with just $55 million guaranteed, it’s not something that will sink the Seahawks for multiple years if it fails.
The deal does place a lot of faith in Klint Kubiak and the offensive system to both cover up the offensive line and keep Darnold from his worst tendencies under pressure. Even if that plays out to its best-case scenario, there’s still a much smaller margin for error to support the quarterback who still only finished 16th in EPA per play in 2024 despite his ideal surroundings.
The potential for this to fail feels much higher than the probability of Darnold repeating or surpassing his performance last year.
[quote=Kwk2293 post_id=1279439]their hasnt been a new one with the raiders. current one i believe is 1 year 33 mill i think[/quote]Yeah, from what i see he had 1 yr $31 mil left on his contract.
Hope we can keep him below $40 mil a year.
Hope we can keep him below $40 mil a year.
- LayneStaley
- Posts: 4,424
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:29 pm
- Has given High Fives: 338 times
- Received High Fives: 863 times
[quote=BigJerk post_id=1279481]Yeah, from what i see he had 1 yr $31 mil left on his contract.
Hope we can keep him below $40 mil a year.[/quote]I think people are gonna get sticker shock when it’s released. My guess is 4/175 with 100 guaranteed.
Hope we can keep him below $40 mil a year.[/quote]I think people are gonna get sticker shock when it’s released. My guess is 4/175 with 100 guaranteed.
- Reno Hightower
- Posts: 3,068
- Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2024 4:59 pm
- Has given High Fives: 753 times
- Received High Fives: 1169 times
Well, the Seattle faithful seem to be cautiously guarded about the Darnold signing. Big risk.
- Bram_Raider
- Posts: 3,287
- Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2015 1:09 pm
Seems bleedin' odd that we have not got a new contract worked out. Would have thought that would be part of trading for him.
- RI RAIDER
- Posts: 6,340
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:34 am
- Has given High Fives: 1081 times
- Received High Fives: 596 times
I read an article from someone (sorry I do not remember) who liked the trade. He also suggested that the Raiders should not be in a rush to give Gino a new contract. He thought they should see how he performs first. Worst case, he said we would get our pick back (comp) if he bolts. I am not advocating doing this, but I think we should be cautious with the terms we offer. Lots of rumors about the terms Gino would not agree to in Seattle (whether true or not).
- LayneStaley
- Posts: 4,424
- Joined: Fri Mar 09, 2018 12:29 pm
- Has given High Fives: 338 times
- Received High Fives: 863 times
- SkullCrusher
- Posts: 12,015
- Joined: Sun Dec 08, 2013 4:14 pm
- Location: The Nation.
- Has given High Fives: 484 times
- Received High Fives: 625 times
[quote=Bram_Raider post_id=1279503]Seems bleedin' odd that we have not got a new contract worked out. Would have thought that would be part of trading for him.[/quote]Is it possible they have a few scenarios on the table predicated to how FA turns out?
- raidersince63
- Posts: 2,431
- Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2024 6:31 am
- Has given High Fives: 1458 times
- Received High Fives: 1232 times
-
Jeevo
- Posts: 14,853
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:24 am
- Location: Canada
- Has given High Fives: 415 times
- Received High Fives: 794 times
Over the last three years Geno ranks as #1 in on target passing percentage (Mina Kimes) and he also has the most long TD passes, not sure what yardage that covers. We should be looking to add a big WR that can stretch the field.
-
Jeevo
- Posts: 14,853
- Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 8:24 am
- Location: Canada
- Has given High Fives: 415 times
- Received High Fives: 794 times
[quote=Jeevo post_id=1279629]Over the last three years Geno ranks as #1 in on target passing percentage (Mina Kimes) and he also has the most long TD passes, not sure what yardage that covers. His deep ball definitely passes the eye test. We should be looking to add a big WR that can stretch the field.[/quote]
- DeathStar24
- Posts: 1,098
- Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2023 2:11 pm
- Location: PA
- Has given High Fives: 52 times
- Received High Fives: 190 times
Might be a few sites, at least one in particular, who said Sanders comp was Geno Smith. Might even have been Todd McShay. Pure speculation on my part but I wonder if the trade had anything to do with the potential of drafting Sanders?
Personally I don't think they go QB at 6, this is just some food for thought.
Personally I don't think they go QB at 6, this is just some food for thought.