A Closer Look at 2011 QB Prospects:Jake Locker

[pimpumd]

Why? They had no noticeable effect on McNabb's accuracy issues.

The Shanahan's being infallible QB gurus should not be taken as fact after last year. Clearly they need a specific type of QB for their modified version of Kyles scheme.

I'd rather draft a QB that projects to Schaub than one that projects to McNabb for this offense.

I like Warpath's response.

Also, as Mike Mayock has reported, a lot of coaches believe that Locker's extraordinary on-the-move accuracy can be translated into in-the-pocket accuracy. I agree with that. I think McNabb's accuracy issues are totally different from Locker's. McNabb was able to hit the big play or deep ball relatively well, but his short to intermediate game was terrible, whether he was moving or standing in the pocket.

[The Tris]

McNabb's accuracy stems from footwork problems. As does Locker's.

Regardless, what are your thoughts on the second question I posed: If you had your choice, of Donovan McNabb in his prime, or Matt Schaub in his prime, which would you choose to run Kyle Shanahan's offense?

[pimpumd]

McNabb's accuracy stems from footwork problems. As does Locker's.

Regardless, what are your thoughts on the second question I posed: If you had your choice, of Donovan McNabb in his prime, or Matt Schaub in his prime, which would you choose to run Kyle Shanahan's offense?

I'd take McNabb's best season over Schaub's best season all day. In 2004 McNabb had over 30 td's, over a 100 qb rating, and a 64% completion percentage. Schaub's never had over 30 td's or over a 100 qb rating for an entire season. Regardless, I don't think this comparison has any relevance in evaluating Locker as a good fit for our offense. Locker is not McNabb.

[Mahons21]

I'd take McNabb's best season over Schaub's best season all day. In 2004 McNabb had over 30 td's, over a 100 qb rating, and a 64% completion percentage. Schaub's never had over 30 td's or over a 100 qb rating for an entire season. Regardless, I don't think this comparison has any relevance in evaluating Locker as a good fit for our offense. Locker is not McNabb.

Not last season but the year prior Schaub threw for 29 TD's, and a 98.6 PR, not too far behind McNabb. In addition in the 2009 season Schaub threw for around 1000 more yards than McNabb did in 04.

But the question isn't who would you take, the question is who would you take for Kyle's offense, and I think the answer has to be Schaub. Partly because Kyle has shown his unwillingness to tailor his offense to the strengths of his QB, and also because McNabb's accuracy seriously struggles in the short game.

[jivelikenice]

After all the talk today im still being told its Dalton over Locker but its close and it shouldnt be . I honestly believe this decision either pushes us towards success or keeps us in the same turmoil we have become accustomed to. Last season the mistake was made on easter so why repeat it again on draft night is beyond me. Hopefully Quinn is available at ten and the decison is taken out of the skins hands as to who is available. Im so tired of ego,pride, and square pegs in round holes. Sometimes the stuff you hear just makes me :mad:.

I hear what you're saying about the square peg in a round hole, however Locker is young and can still be molded wheras McNabb was a finished product who was not willing to re-learn the game.

Also should it be up to the OC to pick the franchise's QB for the next 10-year ideally? That should be a call made by Shannahan and Allen and I frankly would be a little uncomfortable with Kyle making the selection.....Kyle's system has to be flexible enough to meet a talent like Locker in th middle as long as he's willing to learn if thats the pick....

[pimpumd]

Not last season but the year prior Schaub threw for 29 TD's, and a 98.6 PR, not too far behind McNabb. In addition in the 2009 season Schaub threw for around 1000 more yards than McNabb did in 04.

But the question isn't who would you take, the question is who would you take for Kyle's offense, and I think the answer has to be Schaub. Partly because Kyle has shown his unwillingness to tailor his offense to the strengths of his QB, and also because McNabb's accuracy seriously struggles in the short game.

Well, maybe if we could see McNabb in his prime run Kyle's offense with Andre Johnson and several years to learn the system, maybe we could have a nice comparison. That isn't happening. Regardless, I don't think McNabb and Locker are the same qb's and I don't see the point of this McNabb vs. Schaub evaluation.

[Lavarleap56]

For Kyles offenses I would take Schaub everyday of the week and twice on sundays.

[pimpumd]

For Kyles offenses I would take Schaub everyday of the week and twice on sundays.

Great, I might too. That choice has nothing to do with Locker though.

[The Tris]

I'd take McNabb's best season over Schaub's best season all day. In 2004 McNabb had over 30 td's, over a 100 qb rating, and a 64% completion percentage. Schaub's never had over 30 td's or over a 100 qb rating for an entire season. Regardless, I don't think this comparison has any relevance in evaluating Locker as a good fit for our offense. Locker is not McNabb.

As Mahons states, you are not answering the question I asked.

If you chose McNabb, you are assuming that he will perform at a higher level that Matt Schaub has already played in this offense. You are stating that his skillset at his prime would better translate than Schaub's.

Locker is not McNabb, but many feel he shares a common athletic skillset, and many see McNabb's peak at a good comp for Locker's.

We continue our series with Washington quarterback Jake Locker. Thought to be a potential top-three pick had he come out for the draft after his junior season of 2009, Locker stayed with the Huskies for his senior season to make two goals come true -- engineer a winning season, and be part of a team that won a bowl game. Just two years after the Huskies put up an 0-12 season under Tyrone Willingham, there was a 7-6 turnaround with Steve Sarkisian and a victory over heavily favored Nebraska in the Holiday Bowl.

In Year 2 of Sarkisian's pro-style offense, Locker learned in college what he would have learned in a much tougher fashion had he come out after the 2009 season -- doing more than one-read-and-run at any level is a tough go when you don't have a fully developed array of skills. In his 39-game Washington career, Locker completed 619 passes in 1,148 attempts for 7,639 yards, 53 touchdowns and 35 interceptions. He also ran for 1,939 yards and 29 touchdowns on 441 attempts.

Pros: From the snap to the throw, Locker's mechanics are as well-developed as those of any quarterback in this draft class. Drops back quickly and smoothly in three-, five- and seven-step drops, and transitions well to get the right leverage for the throw. Has an array of playfakes, and uses play action well. Compact delivery gives him the timing advantage. Absolutely has the arm to make any throw -- Locker was drafted twice by the Los Angeles Angels as a pitcher whose fastball has been clocked at 95 mph, and signed a deal in 2009 that let him continue to play football.

Supremely gifted as a runner in a Steve Young sense -- not only can he get outside to make the sprint-option throw; he's also a legitimate threat to break tackles downfield and make considerable gains. Far more accurate and comfortable on the run as a passer. High-character player who is very coachable, though the results don't always reflect it.

Cons: Wildly inconsistent as a passer, Locker can go from truly magnificent to hide-your-eyes awful and back again in the same game -- sometimes, in the same series. Was asked to carry the load as a pseudo-spread quarterback under Tyrone Willingham, showed promise under Steve Sarkisian in their first year together, but regressed in a lot of areas in 2010, which could indicate that he still has major gaps in the understanding of more complex offenses.

Locker telegraphs his reads far too often and will lock on to his first read far too easily. While he has decent functional mobility in the pocket, he's still learning the finer points of being a pocket passer -- he tends to get jumpy when he can't bail out and his decision-making reflects that, as does his accuracy. Showed the same kinds of inconsistencies at the Senior Bowl that he did throughout his Washington career.

Conclusion: The McNabb comparison is a point of reference for estimated NFL completion percentage (McNabb's was 49.1 percent in 1999), but Locker is as tough to place with a current NFL player as any in this draft. The chasm between his raw physical tools and inconsistency as a passer leaves him as a project quarterback well worth the risk, but with mechanical danger signs all over the place. Not a guy you're going to want to see as an NFL starter right away, Locker will have to sit and learn at the NFL level -- and that process may be lengthened if he's drafted by a team with a precision passing offense. He might be better off with an offensive coordinator who prefers a vertical attack.

NFL Comparison: Donovan McNabb(notes), Philadelphia Eagles (1999)

[Lavarleap56]

Well, maybe if we could see McNabb in his prime run Kyle's offense with Andre Johnson and several years to learn the system, maybe we could have a nice comparison. That isn't happening. Regardless, I don't think McNabb and Locker are the same qb's and I don't see the point of this McNabb vs. Schaub evaluation.

Locker is essentially a young version of mcnabb and they share a lot of the same issues.

[Mahons21]

Well, maybe if we could see McNabb in his prime run Kyle's offense with Andre Johnson and several years to learn the system, maybe we could have a nice comparison. That isn't happening.

That isn't happening, but don't forget that McNabb in his prime had a descent WR by the name of TO as well. But my reasoning goes for beyond stats, it's just another case of square pegs and round holes. I wouldn't acquire Kolb for a vertical offense, and I wouldn't acquire McNabb for an offense that uses that passing games as ball control.

Regardless, I don't think McNabb and Locker are the same qb's and I don't see the point of this McNabb vs. Schaub evaluation.

Oh I agree. I was just adding my 2 cents, for the Schaub/McNabb comparison.

I personally hate comparing draft prospects to current/past players, its lazy, inaccurate, and doesn't tell us much of anything.

[The Tris]

Well, maybe if we could see McNabb in his prime run Kyle's offense with Andre Johnson and several years to learn the system, maybe we could have a nice comparison.

McNabb had TO. And Brian Westbrook. Do we want to start playing this game?

That isn't happening. Regardless, I don't think McNabb and Locker are the same qb's and I don't see the point of this McNabb vs. Schaub evaluation

Great, I might too. That choice has nothing to do with Locker though.

The point is to find player's whose skillsets match what you are trying to do on offense. We should be trying to find players who fit our system the best.

We should be looking for a QB with Matt Schaub's skillset, because it is abundantly clear that a player like him will be HIGHLY successful in our offensive scheme.

We don't know if a McNabb-style player would be highly successful in our scheme, even at McNabb's peak - it is all conjecture and assumptions.

So let's reduce the variables by targeting players with skillsets that have proven to fit what we do.

[pimpumd]

Locker is essentially a young version of mcnabb and they share a lot of the same issues.

Well I'll just have to disagree with that assessment and leave it at that. I don't think Locker is more accurate, when moving, then McNabb ever was. As Mike Mayock noted, there are several NFL coaches that believe that accuracy can be translated to in-the-pocket accuracy. If that happens, the comparison to McNabb fails.

---------- Post added April-15th-2011 at 03:30 PM ----------

McNabb had TO. And Brian Westbrook. Do we want to start playing this game?

And you see what McNabb did the one year he had TO. He put up more TDs and a better rating that Schaub ever has, albeit in a different system. I don't want to play any game, especially comparing different quarterbacks, at different times, in different systems. I don't see the point, especially in trying to analyze Locker.

I made a comment that I was glad the Shannys were considering Locker, and you respond to me by asking if I'd prefer Schaub or McNabb for Kyle's system? Uh, ok.

The point is to find player's whose skillsets match what you are trying to do on offense. We should be trying to find players who fit our system the best.

We should be looking for a QB with Matt Schaub's skillset, because it is abundantly clear that a player like him will be HIGHLY successful in our offensive scheme.

I have faith that Mike and Kyle know what they're doing in evaluating qb's, despite the McNabb fiasco from last year. To play along though, would I like to have Matt Schaub's clone here running our offense? Sure, I'd love that. The odds of us finding a Matt Schaub clone, however, are not that high (especially if we try to find one in the 3rd round like Schaub).

[Warpath11]

McNabb's accuracy stems from footwork problems. As does Locker's.

Regardless, what are your thoughts on the second question I posed: If you had your choice, of Donovan McNabb in his prime, or Matt Schaub in his prime, which would you choose to run Kyle Shanahan's offense?

I also think when Locker "thinks" too much about his mechanics he gets into trouble with his accuracy. That is why he is not as good in the pocket IMO. When rolling out and improvising his instincts take over and he makes a play or accurate throw. He may have suffered from over-coaching in terms of mechanics while under Sark.

Its like in golf when I over-think my swing mechanics during the shot I hit a terrible ball when I just get up to the ball and let er rip I tend to do better.

[hitmandm]

I like Warpath's response.

Also, as Mike Mayock has reported, a lot of coaches believe that Locker's extraordinary on-the-move accuracy can be translated into in-the-pocket accuracy. I agree with that. I think McNabb's accuracy issues are totally different from Locker's. McNabb was able to hit the big play or deep ball relatively well, but his short to intermediate game was terrible, whether he was moving or standing in the pocket.

This is right. Ive said this a few times. Locker is an accurate QB- outside the pocket. In fact, he is deadly accurate. Throwing with accuracy on the move is harder than staying in the pocket. So is Locker an accurate QB that has a correctable issue inside the pocket or not. That is the question.

[The Tris]

The odds of us finding a Matt Schaub clone, however, are not that high (especially if we try to find one in the 3rd round like Schaub).

Who said anything about drafting a QB in the 3rd round?

[pimpumd]

Who said anything about drafting a QB in the 3rd round?

Nobody....just pointing out where Schaub was drafted.

[The Tris]

I'm not looking to draft a QB in the same round as Schaub, I'm looking to draft a QB with Schaub's skillset.

Two guys who have drawn those skillset comparisons are Dalton (potential 1st rounder) and Stanzi (I'd bet he goes in the 2nd).

And I'd say the likelihood that one of them turns into a Matt Schaub clone is about as good if not better than Locker turning into a Steve Young clone.

[pimpumd]

Just out of curiosity, what are the similarities between Schaub and Dalton/Stanzi?

I believe Schaub was close to 70% completion in his junior and senior seasons. I don't think Stanzi comes close to that. Dalton, although completing 66% last year, did it in the spread (I know, I know, how cliche). Dalton isn't close to Schaub from a physical standpoint (at least 3 inches shorter) either.

[Mahons21]

As far as Dalton is concerned I see similarities in their accuracy/quick decision making/overall level of athleticism.

You can put me in the group that hopes we select Dalton, but only if he presents value at where we draft him. My ideal situation would be drafting either him or Mallett at 41, but if either dropped to say 35-36 range, and TEN/SF were viable options to take either of them out from under us, I'd trade up at the most 5 spots.

However I could see Mallett being drafted in late 1, and possibly Dalton in early 2. Though if that happens I think you'll see a talented OLB/DE's drop to us.

[Hooper]

And I'd say the likelihood that one of them turns into a Matt Schaub clone is about as good if not better than Locker turning into a Steve Young clone.

As someone who lives in Pac 10 country and has seen Locker up close several times, this is what concerns me about taking him in the first round. He has great physical skills, but he never showed that he was a great QB. His instincts aren't great. So you're drafting him for his potential and upside and that's a scary thing. He could be Steve Young... but there's a better chance he's Drew Henson.

[jivelikenice]

After all the talk today im still being told its Dalton over Locker but its close and it shouldnt be . I honestly believe this decision either pushes us towards success or keeps us in the same turmoil we have become accustomed to. Last season the mistake was made on easter so why repeat it again on draft night is beyond me. Hopefully Quinn is available at ten and the decison is taken out of the skins hands as to who is available. Im so tired of ego,pride, and square pegs in round holes. Sometimes the stuff you hear just makes me :mad:.

I understand the square peg in a round hole analogy in this situation but I think you also have to look at age and coachability. McNabb is a very experienced veteran player who has had a lot of success and at this point in his career he was not willing to change. Locker is young, coachable, and can be molded to bring his strengths to this offense.

Also, is this really a decision Kyle should be making. His 3 years as OC between Houston and Washington shouldn't give him the clout to handpick the next QB IMO. That decisions has to come from the top. If Kyle is really that rigid in his mindset where he feels as though a Schaub clone is the only type of quarterback he wants, then maybe he isn't the man for the job long-term. He has to be willing to be flexibile enough in his system to take mold a player with admittedly some weaknesses but also some physical strengths and build an offense around that. The Texans have had a good offense, but haven't won anything from what I recall. If Kyle can take his system and morph it to include the mobility and arm strength that Locker provides, it would lethal if he's given time to grow.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that this is the way we have to go, but I think Kyle has to be open to what a player like Locker can bring to the table with his unique physical skillset...

[The Tris]

Dalton/Schaub: Multi-year starter who excells between the hashes, possesses an average arm strength, which he compensates for with quick decision making ability. Mobile but not a runner, excellent pocket presence. Most importantly of all, excells at short-to-intermediate accuracy.

That's what tips it for me. I think Locker can excell in the right offense, but ours is based on precision passing between the numbers, using the passing game to establish ball control. I think Locker would be better suited in a vertical passing game (much like McNabb).

I believe there to be an internal struggle right now, with Mike leaning towards Locker as a fit for his athletic, vertical offense, and Kyle leaning towards Dalton as a fit for his precision attack, with reads intermediate-to-short. (This also begs the question - did Kyle ever want McNabb in the first place?)

Do you feel McNabb or Grossman was a better fit for our passing game last year? If McNabb, you'll probably lean Locker. If Grossman, you'll probably lean more to the Dalton/Ponder/Stanzi camp.

[Lavarleap56]

Well I'll just have to disagree with that assessment and leave it at that. I don't think Locker is more accurate, when moving, then McNabb ever was. As Mike Mayock noted, there are several NFL coaches that believe that accuracy can be translated to in-the-pocket accuracy. If that happens, the comparison to McNabb fails.

---------- Post added April-15th-2011 at 03:30 PM ----------

And you see what McNabb did the one year he had TO. He put up more TDs and a better rating that Schaub ever has, albeit in a different system. I don't want to play any game, especially comparing different quarterbacks, at different times, in different systems. I don't see the point, especially in trying to analyze Locker.

I made a comment that I was glad the Shannys were considering Locker, and you respond to me by asking if I'd prefer Schaub or McNabb for Kyle's system? Uh, ok.

I have faith that Mike and Kyle know what they're doing in evaluating qb's, despite the McNabb fiasco from last year. To play along though, would I like to have Matt Schaub's clone here running our offense? Sure, I'd love that. The odds of us finding a Matt Schaub clone, however, are not that high (especially if we try to find one in the 3rd round like Schaub).

That's fine you can disagree all you want but some of our own scouts compare him to a young donovan. His issues with footwork are identical with mcnabbs with the overstride/hop ect. Locker would be a good prospect in my mind if mike Shanahan were running the offense but he is not. Kyles offense doesn't need a mobile runningback for a qb, he needs a smart/accurate one from the pocket. Locker has displayed a lot of physical ability but has never shown it as a pure qb. Taking locker while being a 2 year project is a huge gamble with a impatient owner. Locker could fix his issues and come around but a lot of people feel it is going to be hard to rid him of the ingrained baseball mechanics.

---------- Post added April-15th-2011 at 04:28 PM ----------

If your whole franchise isn't behind a young qb then its a issue.

[pimpumd]

That's fine you can disagree all you want but some of our own scouts compare him to a young donovan. His issues with footwork are identical with mcnabbs with the overstride/hop ect. Locker would be a good prospect in my mind if mike Shanahan were running the offense but he is not. Kyles offense doesn't need a mobile runningback for a qb, he needs a smart/accurate one from the pocket. Locker has displayed a lot of physical ability but has never shown it as a pure qb. Taking locker while being a 2 year project is a huge gamble with a impatient owner. Locker could fix his issues and come around but a lot of people feel it is going to be hard to rid him of the ingrained baseball mechanics.

---------- Post added April-15th-2011 at 04:28 PM ----------

If your whole franchise isn't behind a young qb then its a issue.

I'm sure we also have some scouts who disagree with the Locker/McNabb comparison (it didn't sound like you said that was the unanimous consensus). People can have different opinions. It sounds like you're saying some people in the organization like Dalton, and some like Locker. So, no matter who is chosen (if one is chosen at all), the whole franchise won't be behind the guy. Perhaps we should just wait until 2012.