Qb poll

johnnyfever · Aug 29, 2017

I'm thinking Boykin. He has more time in the system and knows the players and scheme better, I also think he has a higher ceiling. If he doesn't progress on accuracy this year, I wouldn't be opposed to drafting a QB in next year's draft. I don't want to burn cap on bringing in a veteran as Wilson has shown resiliency.

DangerousDoug · Aug 29, 2017

As much as Boykin looked like a steaming pile against the Chiefs, I have to agree with the OP. For whatever reason he was just unfocused and not on his game, but I have seen him look much better in the past. Davis will be a solid backup for somebody, loved how he threw the ball last week and that TD pass to McEvoy? :2thumbs:

Erebus · Aug 29, 2017

After Boykin's performance against the Chiefs, I have to go with Davis. Although Boykin has more upside, you need more consistency from your backup QB. We don't need a playmaker, just a game manager. A game like Boykin had just can not happen in the regular season.

Sgt. Largent · Aug 29, 2017

Davis for me.

Boykin is too unpredictable, and that's the last thing you need in a backup. Davis is a pedestrian QB, but he's smart and can manage a game way better than Boykin.

And on this team? That's all we need in a backup, someone who won't lose the game. Boykin has shown he can lose a game with terrible throws and decision making.

SoulfishHawk · Aug 29, 2017

Plus 1 on Davis. Boykin forces stuff WAY too often. And his accuracy is hard to watch. Davis has actual starting experience, and is much more accurate and calm out there. Basically, a lot less likely to force something and/or do something really stupid to hurt the team.

kidhawk · Aug 29, 2017

I think Davis would provide more of what I like in a backup....more accurate, less tendency to make turnovers, experience playing in the NFL. The problem is, I believe that we decided long before preseason that Boykin was going to be our guy. If there was any type of actual competition here, they'd have allowed Davis to get some time in earlier in games. Unless this performance Sunday changed the Seahawks' mind, I think it's going to be Boykin no matter what.

Sgt. Largent · Aug 29, 2017

kidhawk":2kr241kc said:
I think Davis would provide more of what I like in a backup....more accurate, less tendency to make turnovers, experience playing in the NFL. The problem is, I believe that we decided long before preseason that Boykin was going to be our guy. If there was any type of actual competition here, they'd have allowed Davis to get some time in earlier in games. Unless this performance Sunday changed the Seahawks' mind, I think it's going to be Boykin no matter what.

The only way Boykin makes sense if you're Pete and John is if you think you can develop him into a viable starter than can someday either take Russell's place, or bring you a high draft pick via trade.

Does anybody honestly see that in Boykin? I don't. He's shown flashes, but he's also shown WAY more of why he went undrafted................wildly inaccurate and suspect decision making.

So to keep him on this team hoping he never sees the field for what, at best some future mid to late round pick? Doesn't make sense to me.

SoulfishHawk · Aug 29, 2017

Let's hope we never have to find out. Because Boykin as the starter......hello 6, MAYBE 7 win season

Chapow · Aug 29, 2017

SoulfishHawk":12no0e88 said:
Let's hope we never have to find out. Because Boykin as the starter......hello 6, MAYBE 7 win season

Just playing devils advocate here, but don't you think that would probably be pretty likely with Davis as the starter as well?

Quite frankly, we don't want either of these guys to have to start a game for us, much less an entire season.

Sgt. Largent · Aug 29, 2017

Chapow":2mmj3yxj said:
Quite frankly, we don't want either of these guys to have to start a game for us, much less an entire season.

Very true, but who do you trust more to manage a game or two if Russell's out and not make any major mistakes.

Not even close for me. Davis.

Chapow · Aug 29, 2017

Sgt. Largent":1dchhfa4 said:
Chapow":1dchhfa4 said:

Quite frankly, we don't want either of these guys to have to start a game for us, much less an entire season.

Click to expand...

Very true, but who do you trust more to manage a game or two if Russell's out and not make any major mistakes.

Not even close for me. Davis.

Agreed. I'd have to go with Davis as well.

Edit to add: But TBH, I really don't think it makes much difference. I don't like our chances much if either of them has to start.

Sgt. Largent · Aug 29, 2017

Chapow":2qmrzvxb said:
Sgt. Largent":2qmrzvxb said:

Chapow":2qmrzvxb said:

Quite frankly, we don't want either of these guys to have to start a game for us, much less an entire season.

Click to expand...

Very true, but who do you trust more to manage a game or two if Russell's out and not make any major mistakes.

Not even close for me. Davis.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd have to go with Davis as well.

Edit to add: But TBH, I really don't think it makes much difference. I don't like our chances much if either of them has to start.

IMO this is the most talented group of WR's we've had in a long time, and it seems we're loaded at RB as well. So I think if the defense is as good as we think they're going to be this year?.............I'd be confident that Davis could manage a game or two and get W's with the talent around him on offense.

Boykin? I'd be scared as hell. That's why Russell played hurt last year, we didn't have a choice. 50-60% Russell was a better chance at a win than 100% Boykin. If we had Davis last year I think Pete sits Russell for a game or two to try and get healthier.

HawkerD · Aug 29, 2017

Sgt. Largent":2cem9ugk said:
Chapow":2cem9ugk said:

Sgt. Largent":2cem9ugk said:

Chapow":2cem9ugk said:

Quite frankly, we don't want either of these guys to have to start a game for us, much less an entire season.

Click to expand...

Very true, but who do you trust more to manage a game or two if Russell's out and not make any major mistakes.

Not even close for me. Davis.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd have to go with Davis as well.

Edit to add: But TBH, I really don't think it makes much difference. I don't like our chances much if either of them has to start.

Click to expand...

IMO this is the most talented group of WR's we've had in a long time, and it seems we're loaded at RB as well. So I think if the defense is as good as we think they're going to be this year?.............I'd be confident that Davis could manage a game or two and get W's with the talent around him on offense.

Boykin? I'd be scared as hell. That's why Russell played hurt last year, we didn't have a choice. 50-60% Russell was a better chance at a win than 100% Boykin. If we had Davis last year I think Pete sits Russell for a game or two to try and get healthier.

This to me is the bottom line. Team would have been way better served if Wilson sat a game or two last year. If the back up QB was a 50-50 proposition in terms of getting the win, Pete sits Wilson. As it was there was probably zero probability of a win with Boykin and the Oline as it was. It would be turnover after turnover with Boykin under pressure. Has Boykin improved to change the equation. That really is the question PC has to ask himself. Would I start this guy in that same circumstance, then go with the guy when the answer is "Yes", be it Boykin, Davis or outside vet.

kidhawk · Aug 29, 2017

Sgt. Largent":ykj8jaya said:
kidhawk":ykj8jaya said:

I think Davis would provide more of what I like in a backup....more accurate, less tendency to make turnovers, experience playing in the NFL. The problem is, I believe that we decided long before preseason that Boykin was going to be our guy. If there was any type of actual competition here, they'd have allowed Davis to get some time in earlier in games. Unless this performance Sunday changed the Seahawks' mind, I think it's going to be Boykin no matter what.

Click to expand...

The only way Boykin makes sense if you're Pete and John is if you think you can develop him into a viable starter than can someday either take Russell's place, or bring you a high draft pick via trade.

Does anybody honestly see that in Boykin? I don't. He's shown flashes, but he's also shown WAY more of why he went undrafted................wildly inaccurate and suspect decision making.

So to keep him on this team hoping he never sees the field for what, at best some future mid to late round pick? Doesn't make sense to me.

It doesn't make sense to me either, but how else do we explain the fact that Davis hasn't been given a shot to come in after Wilson for any of the preseason games? If they were truly competing for the slot, wouldn't you think that Davis would have gotten to come in before Boykin in one of those games so they could evaluate him with more players that will actually be on our roster.

Seymour · Aug 29, 2017

IMO Davis is the lessor of 2 evils here. I think he is a bit more limited, but also a bit less dangerous to killing our chances to pull out a W for a few games if needed. That and the fact I simply cannot put this team into the hands of a toxic waste dump and feel even close to good about it.

ukeface:

Sgt. Largent · Aug 29, 2017

kidhawk":1oyy69p9 said:
It doesn't make sense to me either, but how else do we explain the fact that Davis hasn't been given a shot to come in after Wilson for any of the preseason games? If they were truly competing for the slot, wouldn't you think that Davis would have gotten to come in before Boykin in one of those games so they could evaluate him with more players that will actually be on our roster.

I think it's more of that Pete already knows what he has in Davis, and still needs to see a LOT more from Boykin before making a decision on the backup spot. That's why Boykin's been getting more reps.

Pete's a gambler, so it wouldn't shock me if we cut Davis and keep Boykin if he thinks there's still enough potential and upside there. But if I'm making the call? Davis all the way.

sdog1981 · Aug 29, 2017

I only say, Austin Davis, beacuse I'm still trying to recover from him going 17-20 2TD 0INT and beat a Superbowl bound Seahawks team in 2014.

SoulfishHawk · Aug 29, 2017

All that being said, if there was a real good vet who gets cut elsewhere, wouldn't mind that at all.
Regardless, like most teams with top notch QB, starter goes down, it's very tough to expect playoffs obviously.

StoneCold · Aug 29, 2017

kidhawk":2tw6uivf said:
I think Davis would provide more of what I like in a backup....more accurate, less tendency to make turnovers, experience playing in the NFL. The problem is, I believe that we decided long before preseason that Boykin was going to be our guy. If there was any type of actual competition here, they'd have allowed Davis to get some time in earlier in games. Unless this performance Sunday changed the Seahawks' mind, I think it's going to be Boykin no matter what.

I think you'r right about the pre decision to go with Boykin, but after last week Backup QB could be one of a few spots still up for grabs next Thursday.

I noticed many people in the 53 Roster thread were penciling in Other (Read Kaep). Not sure I agree that they would be willing to start the season with someone with 0 experience with the team and our system. If you side step the political stuff (which is no big deal to me) do you think he could step in and do better than either Boykin or Davis immediately? Wouldn't he need time to get up to speed? How long would that take? What if Russell gets hurt before he's ready? Seems like there is some risk in doing so. I still think Money is the biggest reason we haven't signed Kaep, and likely won't.

kidhawk · Aug 29, 2017

StoneCold":77qte1yw said:
kidhawk":77qte1yw said:

I think Davis would provide more of what I like in a backup....more accurate, less tendency to make turnovers, experience playing in the NFL. The problem is, I believe that we decided long before preseason that Boykin was going to be our guy. If there was any type of actual competition here, they'd have allowed Davis to get some time in earlier in games. Unless this performance Sunday changed the Seahawks' mind, I think it's going to be Boykin no matter what.

Click to expand...

I think you'r right about the pre decision to go with Boykin, but after last week Backup QB could be one of a few spots still up for grabs next Thursday.

I noticed many people in the 53 Roster thread were penciling in Other (Read Kaep). Not sure I agree that they would be willing to start the season with someone with 0 experience with the team and our system. If you side step the political stuff (which is no big deal to me) do you think he could step in and do better than either Boykin or Davis immediately? Wouldn't he need time to get up to speed? How long would that take? What if Russell gets hurt before he's ready? Seems like there is some risk in doing so. I still think Money is the biggest reason we haven't signed Kaep, and likely won't.

IMO, the only reason a team should bring in a qb with zero experience in the system would be if we had injury issues. The idea of a backup isn't to make the team better, but to make the team continue to have a shot at winning games when the starter is down. Both Boykin and Davis give us this, so IMO there is no reason to open the wallet for someone who most definitely deserves a contract in the millions and not thousands.

Qb poll

Boykin or Davis?

Boykin

Davis

Bring in new

Well-known member

Member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Active member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads