Don't listen to people who base it all on statistics

[Fade]

1. Your low-effort formatting has ruined your attempted dunk.
2. I've clearly watched Penny play, as you seemingly haven't. I explicitly say in the post that Penny is a case of the stats SUPPORTING the eye-test.

Your cherry-picked, intellectually dishonest posts are exasperating. What a fall from grace since ruminations failed. Embarrassing.

Dunk? You're a layup, the Geno Smith of .NET

I think Penny is good btw, just can't stay healthy.

Your hypocrisy is off the charts. I've seen you boxscore scout with Mahomes, and now you're telling other people not to do it.

Is the point.

8-9 Wins as a ceiling with a Geno Smith avi, shows you're eval eye is downright terrible.

I'm just waiting for the "What'd you expect it's a rebuild"?! Flip-flop.

 

[WmHBonney]

I'd call it a draw between Smith and Lock, but have to say tie goes to Lock because of the age and years of experience as Own The West mentioned, plus experience in the Seattle offense. Lock got great run game support, maybe better than what Geno got.

Favorite Lock play was the 2-yard TD zinger throw to a well-covered receiver (IIRC Dareke Young) where the defender could do zilch about it because of the placement and velocity.

My first thought after it was "That play wins SB49 for the Hawks!" Can we go back and edit time and insert that play?

I thought the exact same thing about that play winning SB49. That ball had some Zip!

 

[Maelstrom787]

Dunk? You're a layup, the Geno Smith of .NET

I think Penny is good btw, just can't stay healthy.

Your hypocrisy is off the charts. I've seen you boxscore scout with Mahomes, and now you're telling other people not to do it.

Is the point.

8-9 Wins as a ceiling with a Geno Smith avi, shows you're eval eye is downright terrible.

I'm just waiting for the "What'd you expect it's a rebuild"?! Flip-flop.

Hypocrisy? I literally admit that I've been guilty of the "box score scouting" tons in the past. You'd know this if you'd slow the hell down and read before flailing around to find a cheap point to make.

Also, it's absolutely hilarious that you'd bring up a post where you proclaim that Patrick Mahomes isn't an elite quarterback, as if that somehow reinforces your authority on any football topic. It doesn't. Just further devalues it. It's supremely embarrassing, and actually somehow worse than ruminations was, and hardly anyone noticed when they stopped.

Saying this teams ceiling is about .500 isn't some insane prediction, and your hand-wringing over it is, again, embarrassing.

You're trying too hard, and you keep coming up short.

 

[AgentDib]

It's always worth taking things with a grain of salt when it comes to both numbers and analyses. Overconfidence is the sin fans tend to be of guilty of in my view. Most of what we are doing is forming opinions based on incomplete information in a sport dominated by uncertainty.

Some important context yesterday was that Geno was playing with and against starters, whereas a bunch of guys on the field with Lock will not be making NFL rosters. Bearing that in mind, along with Lock's TO, it felt like a draw.

The enthusiasm for Lock doesn't surprise me though, because he feels like the more volatile option with higher upside. That's attractive to a fan base of a rebuilding team where the goal for many is to find that long-term great QB rather than just to win games in the current season.

 

[fullquartpress]

it felt like a draw.

The enthusiasm for Lock doesn't surprise me though, because he feels like the more volatile option

For me, the QB competition was 'close', but it wasn't a 'draw'.
I also don't think Lock is volatile, from definitions 1 and 2:

1. easily evaporated at normal temperatures.
2. liable to change rapidly and unpredictably

Both offences "exploded" when Lock entered the Week 15 Bengal game(3 minutes left in 3rd)
but that sudden scoring may have been because both teams seemed concerned when Bridgewater was knocked out.

 

[AgentDib]

2. liable to change rapidly and unpredictably

This is the definition I mean, specifically that the standard deviation on Lock's play is greater. He's younger with less experience, more upside but also has been prone to making mistakes. We saw that yesterday with the great pass on the touchdown, and then a turnover later on when he missed a blitz.

Part of what fans don't like about Geno is that we mostly know what we we're going to get with him as a limited game manager. That's not an indictment of him though for a team which is looking to minimize mistakes at the QB position. Fans may feel that Lock played better but that unfortunate turnover offset some of the good he was doing earlier.

 

[fullquartpress]

This is the definition I mean, specifically that the standard deviation on Lock's play is greater. He's younger with less experience, more upside but also has been prone to making mistakes. We saw that yesterday with the great pass on the touchdown, and then a turnover later on when he missed a blitz.

Part of what fans don't like about Geno is that we mostly know what we we're going to get with him as a limited game manager. That's not an indictment of him though for a team which is looking to minimize mistakes at the QB position. Fans may feel that Lock played better but that unfortunate turnover offset some of the good he was doing earlier.

Our #75(Greg Eiland?) slipped without blocking anyone, and was down, on the US Steel logo, 5 meters North of our other linemen.
Our lone RB(Darwin Thompson?) ran right past defender #93(Mark Robinson) who wrecked the play.
Should Lock have thrown over Robinson, to (open) Thompson?
Should our RB have tried to block Robinson?
And should our #75 have been down, and detacked from the play?

 

[Spin Doctor]

Geno was also playing the Steelers number one defense with backup receivers while Lock was playing against guys who likely not be in the NFL. Not exactly a one to one comparison.

 

[fullquartpress]

Geno was also playing the Steelers number one defense with backup receivers while Lock was playing against guys who likely not be in the NFL. Not exactly a one to one comparison.

Cam Heyward and TJ Watt and Minkah weren't obviously out there to start. Maybe I missed them.

 

[AgentDib]

Our #75(Greg Eiland?) slipped without blocking anyone, and was down, on the US Steel logo, 5 meters North of our other linemen.
Our lone RB(Darwin Thompson?) ran right past defender #93(Mark Robinson) who wrecked the play.
Should Lock have thrown over Robinson, to (open) Thompson?
Should our RB have tried to block Robinson?
And should our #75 have been down, and detacked from the play?

It was a standard blitz pickup, and both Pete and Lock acknowledged afterward that Lock should have adjusted for it. If they are covering for somebody else it would be Darwin but that seems implausible. Eiland falling down wasn't a good look but it didn't affect the outcome of the play.

It's definitely on Lock though if you look at his positioning and demeanor. A QB who recognizes a blitz and is anticipating the rush keeps their body angled and an eye on the rusher, even if the RB is tasked with chipping them. Nobody trusts RBs that much, and the way Lock got hit made it obvious he had no idea that 93 was coming.

 

[AgentDib]

Cam Heyward and TJ Watt and Minkah weren't obviously out there to start. Maybe I missed them.

That's true, Pittsburgh played a mix of starters and backups in the first half. But these are the 11 who were on the field early in the fourth quarter and their spot on the depth chart.



It's hard to put too much stock into any direct comparisons as a result. It is worth noting that Lock was playing alongside similar depth for the most part.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

Both teams has SEVERAL starters out. Meh.

 

[fullquartpress]

That's true, Pittsburgh played a mix of starters and backups in the first half. But these are the 11 who were on the field early in the fourth quarter and their spot on the depth chart.

View attachment 54061

It's hard to put too much stock into any direct comparisons as a result. It is worth noting that Lock was playing alongside similar depth for the most part.

Thanks for your very detailed list of Steeler defenders on that play.
And I agree it's risky to evaluate, based on such rapidly changing lineups

 

[fullquartpress]

It was a standard blitz pickup, and both Pete and Lock acknowledged afterward that Lock should have adjusted for it. If they are covering for somebody else it would be Darwin but that seems implausible. Eiland falling down wasn't a good look but it didn't affect the outcome of the play.

It's definitely on Lock though if you look at his positioning and demeanor. A QB who recognizes a blitz and is anticipating the rush keeps their body angled and an eye on the rusher, even if the RB is tasked with chipping them. Nobody trusts RBs that much, and the way Lock got hit made it obvious he had no idea that 93 was coming.

Could Darwin Thomposon have signalled some sort of alert, as he ran northwest past #93?
Lobbing the ball over #93 would have been my choice.
Or maybe DT did yell something as he ran toward an apparent large hole in the Steeler zone.