What happens if Drew Lock is decent?

Natethegreat

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
62
I find it funny people are bagging on the idea of having to pay Russ. If Locke comes out and is incredible and carries this team to a super bowl we will have to pay him a boatload of money to keep him so wouldn't we be in the exact same spot then?

It is the F.O. job to build a roster around a top end QB. I'm not saying its easy K.C. is working through that themselves with Mahomes.
My problem is this. Pete and John built a really good team but they did a piss poor job of keeping it going. Bad drafts, bad trades, wasted free agent spending. It was a calamity of errors trying to patch this team together because of them continually throwing picks away and signing a plethora of flamed out players that were just bad players and bad fits.
I put just as much blame on the F.O. as Russ in him leaving. They failed at their jobs and I question if they do find the next great QB (who they will have to pay as well) if they can correct their approach.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
230
Jammer,

Disagree. The thread question is being addressed. The rest are just supporting arguments.

If Lock is decent, we likely wallow in mediocrity for years. Think a crappier version of the Titans, since that appears to be the direction Pete wants to go here.
If Lock is terrible, it might spur change.
So that would be good.

But it would be ludicrous to try to project the future with a substandard QB (or even average QB) and disregard the coaching. In this case, Pete being a less productive/less effective coach helps us. But since Pete tends to be solid enough against below .500 teams, the likely outcome will veer toward the middle more than top or bottom.
There is near zero chance we end near the top, even if Lock is great (not exceptional, just great) Pete will drag the results down. But Pete's system against below .500 teams will buoy the results up a bit too.

The argument is not about Pete. But since this is ultimately about results, and the results Lock will drive - it is hard to ignore how Pete will impact them, both keeping us from failing too hard or succeeding very much. In this case failing would be welcome, because failure spurs change. And my absolute worst case is Lock being pedestrian so we are just good enough to consistently miss the playoffs, but not terrible enough that everyone demands anything. (Mariner fans can probably relate if there are any of those around anymore)
 
Last edited:

Rosco

Active member
Joined
Mar 10, 2022
Messages
331
Reaction score
214
Jammer,

Disagree. The thread question is being addressed. The rest are just supporting arguments.

If Lock is decent, we likely wallow in mediocrity for years. Think a crappier version of the Titans, since that appears to be the direction Pete wants to go here.
If Lock is terrible, it might spur change.
So that would be good.

But it would be ludicrous to try to project the future with a substandard QB (or even average QB) and disregard the coaching. In this case, Pete being a less productive/less effective coach helps us. But since Pete tends to be solid enough against below .500 teams, the likely outcome will veer toward the middle more than top or bottom.
There is near zero chance we end near the top, even if Lock is great (not exceptional, just great) Pete will drag the results down. But Pete's system against below .500 teams will buoy the results up a bit too.

The argument is not about Pete. But since this is ultimately about results, and the results Lock will drive - it is hard to ignore how Pete will impact them, both keeping us from failing too hard or succeeding very much. In this case failing would be welcome, because failure spurs change. And my absolute worst case is Lock being pedestrian so we are just good enough to consistently miss the playoffs, but not terrible enough that everyone demands anything. (Mariner fans can probably relate if there are any of those around anymore)
No one knows how Lock will perform. It can all click for him and he wins 11+ games for all you know. You’re making the assumption that he’ll be average at best
 

Rat

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,272
Reaction score
144
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Yep, same team that got bounced in the first game of the playoffs last year.
Yeah, Bengals were a tough out last year. That's why they were leading late in the Super Bowl. Maybe the Titans would do better with someone great like Jimmy Garoppolo.
 

Jville

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 3, 2007
Messages
11,876
Reaction score
134
Jammer,

Disagree. The thread question is being addressed. The rest are just supporting arguments.

If Lock is decent, we likely wallow in mediocrity for years. Think a crappier version of the Titans, since that appears to be the direction Pete wants to go here.
If Lock is terrible, it might spur change.
So that would be good.

But it would be ludicrous to try to project the future with a substandard QB (or even average QB) and disregard the coaching. In this case, Pete being a less productive/less effective coach helps us. But since Pete tends to be solid enough against below .500 teams, the likely outcome will veer toward the middle more than top or bottom.
There is near zero chance we end near the top, even if Lock is great (not exceptional, just great) Pete will drag the results down. But Pete's system against below .500 teams will buoy the results up a bit too.

The argument is not about Pete. But since this is ultimately about results, and the results Lock will drive - it is hard to ignore how Pete will impact them, both keeping us from failing too hard or succeeding very much. In this case failing would be welcome, because failure spurs change. And my absolute worst case is Lock being pedestrian so we are just good enough to consistently miss the playoffs, but not terrible enough that everyone demands anything. (Mariner fans can probably relate if there are any of those around anymore)
Jammer's observations are spot on ...........

Your latest post is redundant. Your greviances with Pete are called out by name seven (7) times in your most recent post.

There are currently 28 coaches on the coaching roster. If you have any interest in getting up to speed on the other 27 coaches, here is the link >>> https://www.seahawks.com/team/coaches-roster/ <<< it includes some good resumes on quarterback development.
 

Own The West

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
892
Reaction score
265
Is it possible that Wilson was dragging the team down by making us one-dimensional, easy to defend, and putting our defense back on the field without a break?

I would suggest to you that Drew Lock, being average, being a game manager, just distributing the ball and keeping the chains moving may make us a better team and eventually get us back to the Super Bowl. Consistency is what makes great teams, and I am 100% on board with having a boring, no drama quarterback that just gets the job done for a change.

The old way of cliff hangers and dramatic finishes wasn't working, stop pounding the table like that's the only way it can. Please.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
21,827
Reaction score
1,197
Yeah, Bengals were a tough out last year. That's why they were leading late in the Super Bowl. Maybe the Titans would do better with someone great like Jimmy Garoppolo.

Good point. Niners are another example of what happens when you have a "decent" QB. Makes it VERY difficult to win SB's.

Decent isn't good enough, you should agree with that. Beyond that, you're just arguing for argument sake. This is especially true for a team rebuilding.
 

Rat

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,272
Reaction score
144
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Good point. Niners are another example of what happens when you have a "decent" QB. Makes it VERY difficult to win SB's.

Decent isn't good enough, you should agree with that. Beyond that, you're just arguing for argument sake. This is especially true for a team rebuilding.
Ah, so now the goalposts have moved from going "deep in the playoffs" to "winning Super Bowls". I guess there are only a few QBs in the league better than decent.
 

Sgt. Largent

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2012
Messages
21,827
Reaction score
1,197
Ah, so now the goalposts have moved from going "deep in the playoffs" to "winning Super Bowls".

Yes, that should be the goal of every team. It's disappointing you don't agree.

So yes, if you're just looking for mediocrity with the occasional playoff berth, Drew Lock's your guy. I assume most fans and people inside the organization agree with me, higher goals.
 

Rat

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
7,272
Reaction score
144
Location
Grand Rapids, MI
Yes, that should be the goal of every team. It's disappointing you don't agree.

So yes, if you're just looking for mediocrity with the occasional playoff berth, Drew Lock's your guy. I assume most fans and people inside the organization agree with me, higher goals.
I agree with your premise, I just didnt like your example.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
230
Grievance with Pete? That makes no sense.

I don't hate the guy, just don't consider him a good coach in the past 5 years.



A mediocre coach with a 'goodish' QB is going to get you near average results. If that.

You don't judge results in a vacuum. That makes zero sense.

The young but not really that promising QB + the old and not really very effective anymore HC combination doesn't seem like a playoff combination. Forget SuperBowls. Good luck even winning wildcards with that.

But it also isn't enough of a flaming disaster that we suddenly get great draft position and have a chance to upgrade either or both of the above.
 

TwistedHusky

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
6,180
Reaction score
230
If 'decent' isn't great, would it matter?

Not even sure 'great' is good enough. If you count Tannehill or Ryan as Great? No.

If it isn't a top 7-10 in the NFC type of QB, it won't likely be good enough.
 

jammerhawk

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,708
Reaction score
314
So if every player on the team isn't a Pro Bowl quality player the team is destined to be mediocre?

Or is it just QB? If it is the later what happened with RW last year? A bottom 10 finish with a potential HOF QB sure wasn't the answer.

There is a a lot of nonsense being spun to support biases here.

It's a new season. There is new defensive scheme. There are new coaches on both sides of the ball, several are regarded as very progressive.

Let's not let past results cloud the potential for significantly positive results.
 

Natethegreat

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
62
I mean, QB is far and a way the most important position. You can get away with a mediocre Safety and a mediocre middle line backer etc but a mediocre QB is awfully hard to win with.
 

jammerhawk

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 5, 2007
Messages
8,708
Reaction score
314
There is a long history of QBs who were decent game manager QBs whose teams won b/c the rest of the team played supportive team ball.

Having a great QB is most certainly the goal but having a decent and adequate Qb can still result in team success if the whole team plays together.

Last season once again the D sucked and the running game was toothless until late in the year when penny returned from another in his series of significant injuries, Wilson at times attempted to resort to his hero ball heroics and the team came last in the NFC-W with a losing bottom 10 record.

if the D improves to a level of reasonable expectation, and the running game is consistently better than average for the past few seasons with the team seeing legitimate contributions from Penny and Walker and even Carson; then having a game manager decent show from Lock or Smith should signal an improved and more successful team able to compete in the Division.
 

FrodosFinger

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
398
Reaction score
226
There is a long history of QBs who were decent game manager QBs whose teams won b/c the rest of the team played supportive team ball.

Having a great QB is most certainly the goal but having a decent and adequate Qb can still result in team success if the whole team plays together.

Last season once again the D sucked and the running game was toothless until late in the year when penny returned from another in his series of significant injuries, Wilson at times attempted to resort to his hero ball heroics and the team came last in the NFC-W with a losing bottom 10 record.

if the D improves to a level of reasonable expectation, and the running game is consistently better than average for the past few seasons with the team seeing legitimate contributions from Penny and Walker and even Carson; then having a game manager decent show from Lock or Smith should signal an improved and more successful team able to compete in the Division.
Exactly especially if the defense is nasty which a lot of indications pointing in that direction with what the Hawks have added. I think Lock will be fine in this system and might even make a deep run in the post season
 

FrodosFinger

Active member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
398
Reaction score
226
Meh... Mike Glennon is physically gifted too.

If Lock has a decent 2020, I hope the Seahawks do the right thing and still draft a potential QB of the future.
They still will in 23'. This just wasn't the draft to add a franchise quarterback with the slim pickins
 

Natethegreat

Well-known member
Joined
May 7, 2012
Messages
2,290
Reaction score
62
Its true, if the entire rest of your team is absolutely loaded and is once in a generation type special you can win with a decent/average QB.
 
Top