Drew Lock won the job tonight!

[RiverDog]

Yeah, but you also gotta consider the dropped pick on the comeback route, as well as the hospital pass that almost got picked up the seam.

Yeah, that's the thing about interceptions. For every pass that bounced off a receivers' hands and into a defender, there's a dropped pick in which the QB dodges a bullet.

The rap on Lock was that he'd look great for 95% of the game, but that remaining 5% would be a game changing turnover. That sure was the case in the Pittsburgh game.

 

[LudwigsDrummer]

The OP doesn’t care how many picks Drew threw, but the HC does.

 

[OrangeGravy]

You know what Maelstrom the truth is you are probably right about Geno. The truth is we probably have a better chance to win with him. I suppose it's just dissapointing because at this point, to me, we know what Geno is capable of. He MAY end up as serviceable but he won't be great in this league. Lock was a bit more unknown so many of us have been wishfully thinking he could turn it around like a guy like Tannehill and be better. Clearly Pete knows best and if they pound the ball and play conservative with Geno that will give them the best chance to win. Will not be exciting though and they will still lose a huge amount of games.

For me, there's nothing to lose. So might as well let the younger guy sling.


We all want to believe we have the chance at having someone better than Geno... wishful thinking I guess... but I will say you there is no doubt Lock has a better arm. Which means higher potential, to me. But he has been boneheaded so far.

So what exactly about a stronger arm makes your potential greater as a QB? Do you just assume that all of these guys have the same aptitude for reading defenses and diagnosing coverages?

 

[Welshers]

So what exactly about a stronger arm makes your potential greater as a QB? Do you just assume that all of these guys have the same aptitude for reading defenses and diagnosing coverages?

I clearly don't assume that because it's the whole reason lock isn't the starter. He doesn't have those things. If he could learn them then he could be better. I truly believe lock has a higher ceiling. His best play is better than genos. But right now on average geno is probably better. Because of the aptitudes you mentioned. Doesn't mean lock can't learn that considering he's 5 years younger

 

[GemCity]

The OP doesn’t care how many picks Drew threw, but the HC does.

If there’s one thing PC despises, it’s turnovers (not like many coaches enjoy these things).

No secret that Pete would rather run the ball….and he won’t budge. Not with RW, not during the ‘18 Wildcard game vs Dallas, definitely not with Lock throwing picks in a preseason game.

Geno is the safe play here.

 

[Titus Pullo]

So what exactly about a stronger arm makes your potential greater as a QB? Do you just assume that all of these guys have the same aptitude for reading defenses and diagnosing coverages?

I think he's saying that Geno is a 31-year-old known quantity whereas Drew is a 25-year-old unknown quantity.

 

[SonicHawk]

I think he's saying that Geno is a 31-year-old known quantity whereas Drew is a 25-year-old unknown quantity.

Lock isn't a rookie with no game tape. He's not unknown, he's just younger.

 

[Titus Pullo]

Lock isn't a rookie with no game tape. He's not unknown, he's just younger.

In reality, Lock has had 23 starts, 3 different coaches, three different systems, and two different teams all within four years.

 

[JimmyforourQB]

Let’s get jimmy G! Anybody but lock!!! Please!!!

 

[UK_Seahawk]

Pete is only worried about his liberal card being revoked. Truth. This is the softest team I have seen Pete assemble to date. He has created a team full of sensitive liberals to cater to the sensitive liberal fans in Seattle. They're more worried about vaccine boosters and their liberal image than they are winning games and being tough football players. I went from liking Pete to the point where I can't stand looking at his stupid face.

I normally would remove this for containing a political discussion which isnt really allowed in the main Seahawks forum. However I'm going to let it stay as a warning to others but mostly because its hilarious.

 

[RiverDog]

I normally would remove this for containing a political discussion which isnt really allowed in the main Seahawks forum. However I'm going to let it stay as a warning to others but mostly because its hilarious.

You might have thought it hilarious, but I didn't. He's been parroting that line in other threads, too. It sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh's short lived job with ESPN when he claimed that the liberal media was biased in favor of black quarterbacks like Donovan McNabb. There's no place for garbage like that. If ESPN didn't put up with it, I don't see why Dot Net should.

 

[UK_Seahawk]

You might have thought it hilarious, but I didn't. He's been parroting that line in other threads, too. It sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh's short lived job with ESPN when he claimed that the liberal media was biased in favor of black quarterbacks like Donovan McNabb. There's no place for garbage like that. If ESPN didn't put up with it, I don't see why Dot Net should.

Sometimes highlighting someone's stupidity is better than censoring it.

 

[RiverDog]

Sometimes highlighting someone's stupidity is better than censoring it.

If it happened just once, then I could understand your logic. But he's made multiple posts about his theory that Pete has a liberal agenda that favors blacks. I would have responded to this nonsense, but heeding the advice of don't feed the trolls, I let it slide.

I'm a hit or miss poster in this forum, and one of the reasons I don't post in here more often is because my comments tend to get buried by pissing contests that have nothing to do with the OP, causing them not to be read or commented on by others and making me feel like I'm talking to myself. Comments like those are obviously inflammatory and encourage others to veer off topic in their responses. They need to be removed and the author reprimanded.

 

[seabowl]

In reality, Lock has had 23 starts, 3 different coaches, three different systems, and two different teams all within four years.

Every time I hear this argument about a player (example Sam Darnold) they still end up sucking. Three coaches with three systems may even be better then 1 crappy coach in 1 crappy system. If he couldn’t do it with three then he just might be bad. No?

 

[Titus Pullo]

Every time I hear this argument about a player (example Sam Darnold) they still end up sucking. Three coaches with three systems may even be better then 1 crappy coach in 1 crappy system. If he couldn’t do it with three then he just might be bad. No?

Geno couldn't do it with four teams and 9 years.

Geno had 3 years on one team, system, and coach but still had to compete with a newb. A newb who had a few months to familiarize himself with yet, another system and coach.

We still don't know if Geno will finish out the season as starter.

 

[Sun Tzu]

Geno couldn't do it with four teams and 9 years.

Geno had 3 years on one team, system, and coach but still had to compete with a newb. A newb who had a few months to familiarize himself with yet, another system and coach.

We still don't know if Geno will finish out the season as starter.

Irrational disdain for Geno, unwavering support of Lock, and a join date shortly after Lock was traded to Seattle...

Nothing wrong with liking a player. However, poisoning every conversation with your bias is not good for intelligent discourse.

There are a couple of Hawks players that I have an unexplainable affinity for. I recognize my bias and understand that it might lead me to cherrypick or otherwise distort facts and statistics; recognizing my own bias keeps me from getting overly emotional or dug in taking up foolish positions regarding a player I know I have a bias either for or against.

 

[Welshers]

I normally would remove this for containing a political discussion which isnt really allowed in the main Seahawks forum. However I'm going to let it stay as a warning to others but mostly because its hilarious.

thanks for letting it stay because it gave me a great laugh this morning. So delusional it's funny. everything has to be political for some people.

 

[Rosco]

Irrational disdain for Geno, unwavering support of Lock, and a join date shortly after Lock was traded to Seattle...

Nothing wrong with liking a player. However, poisoning every conversation with your bias is not good for intelligent discourse.

There are a couple of Hawks players that I have an unexplainable affinity for. I recognize my bias and understand that it might lead me to cherrypick or otherwise distort facts and statistics; recognizing my own bias keeps me from getting overly emotional or dug in taking up foolish positions regarding a player I know I have a bias either for or against.

Honest debate is poisoning every conversation?

 

[Sun Tzu]

Honest debate is poisoning every conversation?

Let's discuss the topic of the above post, honest debate. Certain posters do not understand the difference between honest debate and dishonest debate. The use of logical fallacies in an argument is one of many forms of dishonesty in debate/discourse/discussion.

Italics is an excerpt from - Logical fallacies to know
Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. There are two main types of fallacies:

• A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
• An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument.

A logical fallacy common to many ignorant posters on this board is the straw man: A straw man argument attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed — often a more extreme version of the counter argument. The purpose of this misdirection is to make one's position look stronger than it actually is. The straw man argument is appropriately named after a harmless, lifeless scarecrow. Instead of contending with the actual argument, they attack the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw — an easily defeated puppet that the opponent was never arguing for in the first place.

The above post is a spot-on example of a straw man. This is particularly amusing to me in that the post uses a straw man to champion honest debate.

 

[Rosco]

Let's discuss the topic of the above post, honest debate. Certain posters do not understand the difference between honest debate and dishonest debate. The use of logical fallacies in an argument is one of many forms of dishonesty in debate/discourse/discussion.

Italics is an excerpt from - Logical fallacies to know
Logical fallacies are flawed, deceptive, or false arguments that can be proven wrong with reasoning. There are two main types of fallacies:

• A formal fallacy is an argument with a premise and conclusion that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
• An informal fallacy is an error in the form, content, or context of the argument.

A logical fallacy common to many ignorant posters on this board is the straw man: A straw man argument attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed — often a more extreme version of the counter argument. The purpose of this misdirection is to make one's position look stronger than it actually is. The straw man argument is appropriately named after a harmless, lifeless scarecrow. Instead of contending with the actual argument, they attack the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw — an easily defeated puppet that the opponent was never arguing for in the first place.

The above post is a spot-on example of a straw man. This is particularly amusing to me in that the post uses a straw man to champion honest debate.

The point is,there was nothing irrational nor disdainful in Titus post. You can support Lock and still be right about Geno, and join date has nothing to do with the price of tea in China.