A Closer Look at 2011 QB Prospects:Jake Locker

[Mahons21]

I agree but just b/c a player might like being outside the pocket more doesn't mean they can't get it done form the inside of the pocket.

I agree.

You might not be trying but trying to use the SB to label Locker but it seems that way.

For example this thread contains an entire game cut-up but you're using 10 plays from an all-star game to make your point.

Also, I'm curious what makes you say Locker didn't fair very well?

I was only using that cut-up because he's playing with a better o-line and in a scheme where he isn't asked to roll-out 99% of the time.

I would say Locker didn't fair well because of his turnovers.

Again it seems like your using one play to making a causal leap from the play to represent his entire game.

You're already imo assuming your conclusion which is that Locker is looking to escape the pocket every down.

In this game I think Locker was excellent outside the pocket but he was good from inside the pocket also.

I'm sorry I don't mean for this one play to represent his entire body of footwork, but the general consensus from what I understand is that Locker plays much better outside the pocket, and his accuracy declines heavily when he's inside the pocket.

But wouldn't you think the reverse if Locker problems are bad enough to lower his draft status shouldn't they be evident in every game?

It's only one problem we're discussing and to be honest this was the best game of Locker's season.

BTW I watched over the tape, don't think it can be used as an accurate measure of Locker's footwork inside the pocket, majority of passing plays he's either rolling out, or in shotgun and not even moving. I would personally love to see tape of him solely inside the pocket on drop-back passes.

[darrelgreenie]

Did you watch the Warner NFLN clip?

I'm sorry I don't mean for this one play to represent his entire body of footwork, but the general consensus from what I understand is that Locker plays much better outside the pocket, and his accuracy declines heavily when he's inside the pocket.

The consensus isn't always correct.

While Locker is very accurate outside the pocket his supposed lack of accuracy from the pocket is vastly overstated imo.

If Locker was as bad as he's perceived to be from the pocket wouldn't you think it would be readily evident in every game?

But wouldn't you think the reverse if Locker problems are bad enough to lower his draft status shouldn't they be evident in every game?

It's only one problem we're discussing and to be honest this was the best game of Locker's season.

^^You lost me?

But these 3 are probably his best games:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unURT2x2iww&feature=related

or

or

[Mahons21]

Thanks for posting, here's to the next 30 minutes of my drunken existence.

[darrelgreenie]

Thanks for posting, here's to the next 30 minutes of my drunken existence.

Did you get a chance to watch Warner on the NFLN clip?

BTW I watched over the tape, don't think it can be used as an accurate measure of Locker's footwork inside the pocket, majority of passing plays he's either rolling out, or in shotgun and not even moving. I would personally love to see tape of him solely inside the pocket on drop-back passes.

You just have to evaluate the plays where he's in the pocket shotgun included.

Its gonna be hard to find tape of him solely in the pocket from any game.

Sarkisian's offense by design gets Locker out of the pocket often to mitigate a sub-par pass protecting unit.

BTW-We could also look at his worst games against Stanford and Nebraska

[Conn]

I think that the Senior Bowl has done SO much to exacerbate the concerns about Locker's accuracy as a passer. I see him doing a lot of things right in those three videos you posted, dg. (Yes, I know that those are his better games).

He doesn't take snaps from center as much as I thought he would, though. Not worried about that, because I do like his footwork for the most part.

I can't imagine that Locker's stock has fallen as far with NFL scouts as it has in the media/public eye since the Senior Bowl. The non-professionals are so fickle with these prospects. But I almost hope that it has, just so we can trade back and still get him (if Gabbert's gone), or even snag him in the second. I still don't see him falling out of the first, though. Especially not after the combine.

But even in these three videos, his best games, check out his WR's. They're terrible, really. That leads me to believe that I've been right all along...that if you judge his accuracy by his completion percentage in college, then yes, his "accuracy" is terrible. But if you look at his accuracy on a throw-to-throw basis, and look at his ball placement, he's actually not inaccurate. Even half of his incompletions are catchable balls. His receivers don't make the play 80% of the time.

I'd kill to see how his career would have been different in college, if he had a WR like Julio Jones to throw to. :doh:

[Mahons21]

Did you get a chance to watch Warner on the NFLN clip?

I haven't yet, I'll check it out asap.

You just have to evaluate the plays where he's in the pocket shotgun included.

Its gonna be hard to find tape of him solely in the pocket from any game.

Sarkisian's offense by design gets Locker out of the pocket often to mitigate a sub-par pass protecting unit.

That's what I've been trying to do, and I think there are literally no exaggeration, maybe 3 to 4 of these passes a game, and' that's when he has 40+ passing attempts.

Just to play Devil's advocate, isn't it possible that part of the reason Sarkisian designed this offense to roll out, and stay in shotgun, was to mitigate Locker's footwork as well as the poor offensive line?

BTW-We could also look at his worst games against Stanford and Nebraska

Since I'm trying to judge his footwork in the pocket, and in games he throws the ball 40 times, he only has a few of these throws, I can' imagine looking at his worst games where he has -20 attempts, is going to give us a better sample size.

Also, you should really check out tape on Jimmy Clausen in college if you want to see some beautiful footwork, he's extremely fluid in his movements. I honestly think this would be the year to make a play at Jimmy Clausen, I still believe he's going to excel in the NFL. If we could get him for a 3rd/4th rounder, that would be a steal.

[skinzwiz]

I'd kill to see how his career would have been different in college, if he had a WR like Julio Jones to throw to. :doh:

You should not be in society then lol...jk

[darrelgreenie]

That's what I've been trying to do, and I think there are literally no exaggeration, maybe 3 to 4 of these passes a game, and' that's when he has 40+ passing attempts.

LoL, c'mon dude there are plenty of drop backs to discuss from the USC game: 26 pocket plays from the USC game by my count:

1,2,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,28,29,33,39,41,42,44,45,46

Just to play Devil's advocate, isn't it possible that part of the reason Sarkisian designed this offense to roll out, and stay in shotgun, was to mitigate Locker's footwork as well as the poor offensive line?

Aren't we beyond just playing devil's advocate for the heck of it?

But to answer you're question: sure its possible but plenty of things are possible that aren't logical.

The majority of college offenses and some NFL offenses spend most of their time in shotgun are they doing it b/c of their respective QB's footwork?

If you were a a coach and you had to design an offense around you're QBs limitations wouldn't it be easier just to replace the QB?

Also your question is a pre-supposition which assumes your position that there is actually something wrong with Locker's footwork from the pocket to the point where a coach would have to gameplan around it.

But lets start from what we know to be true: Washington's OL isn't good.

I got a question for you: How do you think Locker would look behind Stanford's OL or vice versa?

Since I'm trying to judge his footwork in the pocket, and in games he throws the ball 40 times, he only has a few of these throws, I can' imagine looking at his worst games where he has -20 attempts, is going to give us a better sample size.

I think you're vastly exaggerating the lack of drop backs and I mentioned his bad games b/c you mentioned his good games.

Also, you should really check out tape on Jimmy Clausen in college if you want to see some beautiful footwork, he's extremely fluid in his movements. I honestly think this would be the year to make a play at Jimmy Clausen, I still believe he's going to excel in the NFL. If we could get him for a 3rd/4th rounder, that would be a steal.

I watched a bunch of Clausen last year.

I doubt Clausen will be available the Panther's owe it to themselves to find out if the kid will improve in a better environment.

[Mahons21]

LoL, c'mon dude there are plenty of drop backs to discuss from the USC game: 26 pocket plays from the USC game by my count:

1,2,5,6,8,9,10,11,12,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,28,29,33,39,41,42,44,45,46

You honestly think you can get an accurate judge on those plays? He's in shotgun, he more or less pivots once, shows no drop-back or actual footwork or pocket presence. If I'm judging a QB's footwork, I can't judge it on plays where he literally moves each foot once.

Aren't we beyond just playing devil's advocate for the heck of it?

I'm simply showing their could be other factors that have shaped the play-calling at Washington.

The majority of college offenses and some NFL offenses spend most of their time in shotgun are they doing it b/c of their respective QB's footwork?

No but most pro QB's I watch actually perform a drop-back on every shotgun play, they don't just make some little pivot.

'

If you were a a coach and you had to design an offense around you're QBs limitations wouldn't it be easier just to replace the QB?

Not if said QB gives the team the best chance to win. Perfect example is Andy Reid, for how many years did he keep McNabb and design not only an offense but an extremely effective offense around the limitations of McNabb.

Also your question is a pre-supposition which assumes your position that there is actually something wrong with Locker's footwork from the pocket to the point where a coach would have to gameplan around it.

That seems to be the general consensus among the media, who's had the entire season to put the "#1 overall QB" under a microscope.

But lets start from what we know to be true: Washington's OL isn't good.

I keep hearing this, and about how if he had a better supporting cast he would do so much better. But in this game specifically it is the o-line and the RB that come up big in crunch time, Washington's biggest plays on their final drive are 2 rushing plays.

I got a question for you: How do you think Locker would look behind Stanford's OL or vice versa?

I think he would do better and Luck would do worse, as would be the case any time a QB goes from a worse o-line to a better, or vice versa.

I think you're vastly exaggerating the lack of drop backs and I mentioned his bad games b/c you mentioned his good games.['quote]

You seem to be counting plays where he literally shows a step or two of footwork, but he throws the ball, I'm not counting these plays.

I watched a bunch of Clausen last year.

I doubt Clausen will be available the Panther's owe it to themselves to find out if the kid will improve in a better environment.

Considering they were taking Luck #1 no matter what, and them benching Clausen a few times, I wouldn't be surprised if a team could get their hands on him.

[darrelgreenie]

You honestly think you can get an accurate judge on those plays? He's in shotgun, he more or less pivots once, shows no drop-back or actual footwork or pocket presence. If I'm judging a QB's footwork, I can't judge it on plays where he literally moves each foot once.

Yes.

I thought you wanted to focus on footwork from throwing in the pocket?

Well those are all example of Locker throwing from the pocket wehter from shotgun or under center.

You can see all the key aspects of evaluating his throwing footwork in the pocket: base, stride, plant-step-drive-pivot-release and follow through etc.

I don't know what to tell you if you can't judge footwork from these plays.

I'm simply showing their could be other factors that have shaped the play-calling at Washington.

There could be other factors involved in anything.

At this point it seems like we're drifting further away from looking at the game to make assessments.

It seems like you're content to not look at his footwork but make the assumption that there is something wrong with it.

Its not like I'm saying something revoltionary when I say that Sark moves the pocket to offset the pass protection b/c that is one of the main reasons why any coach moves the pocket: pass protection.

Its pretty well accepted that teams move the pocket to help with pass protection.

The point is this: The Bears know they have pass protection issues. They need to help their offensive line, as well as their quarterback. Moving the pocket is a time-tested way of making the line's job easier. Changing the launch point creates indecision in the minds of pass rushers. They can't charge up field quite so aggressively if they aren't sure where their target is. And it also gives pause to blitz-crazed defensive coordinators. What's more, moving the pocket and calling for bootlegs plays into Cutler's strengths. It would help the Bears attack more efficiently, as well as prevent them from being attacked so relentlessly."

Not if said QB gives the team the best chance to win. Perfect example is Andy Reid, for how many years did he keep McNabb and design not only an offense but an extremely effective offense around the limitations of McNabb.

But if the reason for moving to pocket is to accomodate a QBs limitations then that doesn't give the team the best chance to win.

The simpler task always gives the team a best chance to win therefore if a team didn't need to move to pocket they wouldn't.

A coach wouldn't choose to make their job more difficult.

You think Reid offense was built around McNabb's limitations? Hmm.

That's an interesting somewhat skewed view point.

That seems to be the general consensus among the media, who's had the entire season to put the "#1 overall QB" under a microscope.

The whole point of this thread is to avoid relying on media consensus and look at the actual games without bias or prejudice.

Just look the games with an open mind and use the game to make your assessment and not the media consensus.

I keep hearing this, and about how if he had a better supporting cast he would do so much better. But in this game specifically it is the o-line and the RB that come up big in crunch time, Washington's biggest plays on their final drive are 2 rushing plays.

(4th and 10 conversion)

This is the kind of pointless interent back and forth I try to avoid.

You don't have to accept that Washington OL isn't good and that Sarkisian gameplans around their lack of pass protection prowess but it is in fact the truth.

You seem to be counting plays where he literally shows a step or two of footwork, but he throws the ball, I'm not counting these plays.

I don't understand why you wouldn't count these plays?

BTW-I'm still game to talk about Locker's footwork

[bulldog]

the draft board I think in review shows that the strength of the class is on the DL and secondary. The quarterbacks available at the top of the list don't appear to be anywhere near locks.

it would be sensible for the Redskins to perhaps think about taking a DT with their #1 pick (perhaps in a move to the down in the teens) and looking to take a developmental quarterback with an additional #3 or #4 pick the team is able to acquire in that trade-down.

the bottom line is the Redskins need talent almost across the board. This team lacks youth, size and speed.

but you can't force picks.

to take a quarterback at #10 simply to take a quarterback because it's a clear need area is a mistake.

[RWJ]

Good John Keim article: http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/nfl/2011/03/scout-locker-better-newton-gabbert

Razzano, currently out of the league, served as an NFL scout for 23 seasons, with San Francisco, the Rams and Arizona, and his teams have gone to five Super Bowls. In other words, he’s rather credible. He also knows he’s going against what others say about Locker.

One note: he’s watched every game on tape that Locker played in college.

“I love the guy,” Razzano said recently. “He will only get better the better the team is. At Washington his line was always shaky. At times he throws errant passes; they all do. He makes the big-time throws. He’s a great kid. He has tons of athletic skill and he doesn’t take sacks. He knows how to throw the ball away. There’s a lot more positives than negatives. He’s a leader and will work to improve.

He had more balls dropped than anyone in the Pac-10,” he said. “I’ve looked at Cam and Blaine and they have accuracy issues and no one says anything about it. There’s a herd mentality in scouting…. I’ve probably seen more of Jake than anybody. Will he be inaccurate? Yes. But the majority of times he makes accurate throws. It’s not a problem. It’s not a big issue with the guy. At times you do see it… But he has a winning mentality. He has Brett Favre qualities about him and he plays the best at the end of the game. He’s an easy guy to draft.”

[DGREENHULK]

I don't understand the thought process that 10 is too high for Locker. If done right pretty much any hole can be filled through FA but that's not the case I ywith QB as we found out last year. IMHO we have to get a 1st rd caliber QB to DEVELOP into the future leader of this team. Locker Gabbert or Newton we need one of them.

[grego]

He had more balls dropped than anyone in the Pac-10

i had heard this, and even seen some #'s thrown out that support this. interesting to see this guy, who seems credible, saying it.

i also wondered how ASF would grade him, taking into account the inordinate # of drops, since completion % is apparently a big part of his formula.

[Lavarleap56]

the draft board I think in review shows that the strength of the class is on the DL and secondary. The quarterbacks available at the top of the list don't appear to be anywhere near locks.

it would be sensible for the Redskins to perhaps think about taking a DT with their #1 pick (perhaps in a move to the down in the teens) and looking to take a developmental quarterback with an additional #3 or #4 pick the team is able to acquire in that trade-down.

the bottom line is the Redskins need talent almost across the board. This team lacks youth, size and speed.

but you can't force picks.

to take a quarterback at #10 simply to take a quarterback because it's a clear need area is a mistake.

Reason and intelligence flys under the radar sometimes but you are a smart man.

---------- Post added March-9th-2011 at 04:53 AM ----------

You know there has to be something to the fact that huskies fans are glad he's leaving. Could just be me tho I don't know.

[TDawg1313]

You know there has to be something to the fact that huskies fans are glad he's leaving. Could just be me tho I don't know.

Huh? Husky fans treat him like a God here.

[Lavarleap56]

A lot of forums huskies fans talk down on him. 1/2 my family is from/live in Seattle and its a love/hate relationship.. even some of my family who are huskie diehards are excited for a new qb.

[Zazzaro703]

Depending on who is still there at #10, which with the amount of defensive talent and some other skill players there still should be some great picks, I will shoot myself if we draft Locker with that pick. I lived in Seattle for a football season a few years back and Locker didn't impress me at all.

[fish]

I think that Cutler and Mallet are the same type of QB. I think Shanny will be taking a serious look at Mallet.

Nope - Cutler can string together 2 sentences in a row. Mallet = Shuler. .45 caliber arm, bb-gun brain.

[MartinC]

Nope - Cutler can string together 2 sentences in a row. Mallet = Shuler. .45 caliber arm, bb-gun brain.

Wait. I thought Shuler ended up as a Congressman so he can't be that dum .......never mind.

[Darrell Green Fan]

If the Skins take Jake Locker at 10 just shoot me in the head right then.

[bedlamVR]

I really want us to go for a big defensive prospect - Robert Quinn or one of the many many DT/DE who could float around the top 10 -

That said though every thing I read and see about Locker makes me think he will be a steel in this draft - the negatives way far to much against him and I would love to get him- Just not at 10 .

I wonder if we could trade down and pick up maybe even a future 2nd round pick and pick up JJ Watt for example and then package players and future picks (McNabb and 2012 1st or 2nd round pick for Locker + Conditionals) if he dropped into the 20's.

[Lavarleap56]

If the Skins take Jake Locker at 10 just shoot me in the head right then.

There not that stupid.. don't worry

[TDawg1313]

A lot of forums huskies fans talk down on him. 1/2 my family is from/live in Seattle and its a love/hate relationship.. even some of my family who are huskie diehards are excited for a new qb.

He led UW on 4 game-winning drives this year and played half of the year with broken ribs. I don't know any Husky fans

that can honestly say they are glad he is leaving, so maybe your family are outliers. If it wasn't for Locker the past two years, UW would be a 2 or maybe 3 win team.

[Hooper]

I've let it be known I'm not a Locker guy, but I'll cut him some slack and say I could live with it if we took him round two. I'm no QB guru -- maybe he can turn into a great QB. I would certainly root for it.

But Locker at ten would make me lose all faith in Shanahan/Allen.