Seattle has an entirely different question at QB

For the second time in three seasons, Seattle starts its regular-season at home against Denver.

This time, Russell Wilson is nothing more than a footnote.

Bo Nix is now the Broncos’ starter, the quarterback Denver drafted No. 12 overall after paying Wilson $37 million to go away this offseason.

Geno Smith, on the other hand, enters his third season as the Seahawks starter, and the question is no longer how he compares to the guy he replaced, but whether Smith can be more than a bridge from one era of Seahawks football to another.

This season is going to be his chance to make that case, which is why he’s got the most on the line of any player on the roster.

I’ll explain why after I run through a couple of quick reads, explain why the Mariners’ struggles can be boiled down to a single run and then recount how Blitz attracted Mike Holmgren’s fury after his first game as Seahawks head coach.

Quick reads

• The Seahawks have won 13 of their past 15 regular-season home-openers. However, those two losses have come in the past three seasons as Seattle. In 2021, Seattle lost to the Titans, 33-30 in overtime, and last season, the Seahawks were beaten 30-13 by the Rams at Lumen Field in Week 1.

• I’ll admit to feeling a little sad at the thought of someone other than Pete Carroll coaching the Seahawks. In fact, I even wrote about it in a column for Seattle Magazine. Now this probably isn’t the most professional feeling, and it’s certainly not indicative of the opinion I have on how Michael Macdonald will fare as Seattle’s coach. I’m simply stating that I feel a little sad because there are no more pages left in what was an incredibly fun and successful era in Seattle sports.

Close no longer cuts it

There is a simple explanation for why this Mariners season headed south: The team stopped winning one-run games at a disproportionately high rate.

I know, I know, it sounds so analytical, and it certainly isn’t as fun as blistering everyone for the doom loop that this season has become. It does, however, point to the dangers in assuming your team is going to be good in close games.

Because that does seem to be something the Mariners have started baking into their projections, and I suppose there is a reason for that. After all, since Jerry Dipoto became the team’s general manager in 2014, Seattle has had a higher winning percentage in games decided by one run than it has in games decided by two or more runs.

Now as tempting as it is to believe a team has discovered some sort of secret sauce to succeeding in these situations, I tend to believe that things like this even out over time, and to show how that has happened this season I want to go back to June 19, which we now know is when the 2024 Mariners peaked.

Seattle was 44-31 when it woke up that morning, having just beaten Cleveland 8-5 to start a road trip. The Mariners held a 10-game lead in the division. They were 17-7 in one-run games at that point.

They are 6-17 in one-run games since then, including four straight one-run losses in the last four days. You can’t pawn this all off on Dan Wilson, either. In Scott Servais’s final two months as Mariners manager, the team was 5-11 in one-run games.

 Now, there is certainly more than luck to this reversal of fortune. The Mariners’ bullpen has absolutely cratered, and the injuries to Matt Brash and Gregory Santos have certainly played a role not just because they were projected to be two of the team’s better relievers, but because their absences increased the workload on the remaining members of the bullpen.

The fact that the Mariners strikeout so much doesn’t help either as whiffs can’t in any way be considered productive outs.

But I would also suggest that expecting your team to fare better in one-run games than it does in all other games leaves your backside firmly exposed if there’s any regression to the mean, and if you look at the team’s results the past four seasons, you’ll see how dependent Seattle’s success has been on winning a significant amount of its one-run games.

 Shirt tales

The Seahawks lost Mike Holmgren’s debut as Seahawks head coach in 1999, losing 28-20 to the Detroit Lions in the Kingdome. As that game concluded, Seattle’s mascot – Blitz – ran onto the field with a T-shirt cannon to distribute a final few souvenirs.

This took Holmgren by surprise, and he remarked that this sort of activity was more like something a used-car dealership would do as opposed to a pro-football franchise.

That was the last time Blitz came onto the field to launch T-shirts into the crowd at the conclusion of a Seahawks game, win or loss.

It was also the last time a Seahawks coach lost his regular-season debut for the team.

In 2009, Seattle shut-out the Rams 28-0 in the opener to Jim Mora’s only season as Seahawks coach. The next season, Seattle beat San Francisco 31-6 in Pete Carroll’s debut.

Situation under center

Two years ago, the assumption was the Seahawks were going to crater without Wilson at quarterback.

They didn’t.

In fact, you could argue that not only did Seattle win the trade with Denver by virtue of the five draft picks and three players it received, but Smith provided better quarterback play than Wilson would have.

Now, I’m not sure I fully buy that. I tend to think Wilson’s decline wouldn’t have been nearly so precipitous had he stayed in Seattle, but that’s just an opinion.

The fact is that Seattle wound up significantly better off having traded Wilson.

They still haven’t fully replaced him, however, and what I mean by that is that while Smith has been better than anyone had a right to expect, there’s still a question of whether he can be more than a capable, competent starting quarterback in the NFL.

Is he capable of being the starter on a team that wins a good division? Can he lead a team on a deep playoff run. This season is his chance to make that case.

After all, we assumed that head coach Mike Macdonald is going to fix the defense that has been so bad these past few seasons.

The offense, however? That’s on Geno because while the Seahawks may have a first-year coordinator in Ryan Grubb, if the offense sputters, it’s going to be up to Smith to show he warrants a long-term commitment.

In fact, it has occurred to me that I’ve seen this particular play in which a new head coach inherits a veteran quarterback, and then as free agency began, one of the Seahawks first moves was to trade for a young quarterback with a week’s worth of facial hair.

At least that’s how I picture Charlie Whitehurst, whom the Seahawks acquired to back-up Matt Hasselbeck in 2010 in much the same way that Seattle acquired Sam Howell to back-up Smith this year.

There are certainly some differences.

Whitehurst had been drafted in the third round, Howell the fifth. Whitehurst had been in the league for four seasons, Howell is entering his third.

Hasselbeck was entering his 10th season in Seattle and had started in a Super Bowl. This is Smith’s fifth season as a Seahawk, third as a starter.

Hasselbeck turned 35 during the 2010 season, a year older than Smith will be in October.

Hasselbeck also had a single season remaining on his contract where Smith has two.

How Smith plays is going to determine whether he makes it to that final season of the deal, however, which is why he’s got more on the line than any other player on the Seahawks roster.

If Seattle’s offense takes a step forward, Smith could become more than just a capable bridge from one era to the next.

If the offense remains what it was a year ago, or slides backward, then you’re going to see Seattle start looking for another quarterback or two to compete with Howell.

Two years ago, the question was how bad the Seahawks were going to be without Wilson. Now, the question is how good the Seahawks can be with Smith.