Snarky?Geez, getting a little snarky, my friend? All I'm doing is asking you not to speak for me as I am most certainly a Seahawk fan and I definitely have concerns about Adams besides his health. And yes, it may not have been meant to be taken literally, but in the absence of visual ques like facial expressions and tone of voice, should we not strive to be as verbally accurate as possible in our musings so we can to avoid such misunderstandings?
As far as your comments about optimism vs. pessimism, I normally come down in the latter category. I got so tired of hearing all these glowing reports from beat reporters and head coaches (gawd, remember all the hype about Christine Michael?) only to have to suffer a major letdown when the on-field performance of players and teams failed to match the preseason hype. I'd rather be pleasantly surprised by an unexpected occurrence even if it comes at the expense of my being wrong in my assumptions, so I lower my expectation bar. It doesn't mean that I'm any less of a fan, just that I don't embrace the same cheerleader fan boy attitude as some. That's not being directed at you or anyone else in present company.
One thing I do agree with you on, and that is your characterization of our being "stuck" with Adams. That's a good way of putting it. Hopefully, Pete will finally figure out how to get the maximum contribution from Adams, but I'm not holding my breath.
I’d suggest that it was you that got snarky over my statement, and it was my response to that.
it was only a general statement in a public conversation, statements of that nature are not intended to be taken literally. If we were to take everything of that nature as literal, well just imagine how these boards would look.
I understand voice deflection and facial expressions don’t exist in a written/text conversation but even a blind/deaf person reading brail understands that statements of that nature aren’t to be taken literally.
I was giving my opinion NOT attempting to speak for anyone.