Is there a perspective that does not rely on hypothetical upside or skill level projections? Some people act like these things are tangible and measurable when they are not. Life is not a video game.
The problem with projecting both QBs is the small sample size. Geno's started four games in 6 years. Projected over a season, his numbers are above average for a starting QB. However, those projections assume defenses don't adapt to his style of play throughout the season, so they tell us very little. Similarly, you can't use his failure to win games as evidence, either. Why? Because despite being 1-3, he's a handful of plays from 4-0, and several of those plays were not his fault.
What we know is that Geno appears to be winning the QB competition. And despite what many think, he's played well this preseason. His adjusted completion percentage is 83%, the highest in the NFL. So where's the evidence that he can't be a good starting QB? There is none. It's a hedge based mostly on his reputation. The same is true of Lock, which is why credence should be given to the competition's winner.
