A Closer Look at 2011 QB Prospects:Jake Locker

[TDawg1313]

E:60 is doing a feature on Locker tomorrow. Here's a preview of the segment titled - Jake Locker: Money Comes Second

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI6xSpYj_GE

[whlinder]

I'm biased because I follow the Pac-10 (ASU graduate) and I've been laughing at Locker for years. The running joke has been that some team is going to be hoodwinked into the next Boller.

I am lifelong Skins fan and proud Washington Husky fan/graduate and I don't want Locker. He can't throw accurately and can't process information fast enough to win in the NFL.

However I fully expect us to draft him because that is what we do.

---------- Post added April-25th-2011 at 04:12 PM ----------

Hadn't seen this added to the thread... Brian Billick compares Locker to Boller.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Brian-Billick-ranks-2011-NFL-draft-quarterbacks-041911#JakeLocker

Now, because he is such a great young man, we have begun to make excuses for his on the field deficiencies. I know by this time, you all are getting tired of me eating crow on the Kyle Boller pick, but this is very reminiscent of our evaluation process of him as a player.

We loved him as a human being, and therefore started making excuses for his college tape, namely his inaccuracy being a result of a subpar receiving corps. Same thing with Locker, there are too many excuses being thrown around for him as a player, which is why I have him sliding to my 50th player overall and just the fifth best quarterback in the draft.

As always, there is going to be a head coach, coordinator or quarterbacks coach who lets his ego get in the way and say that based off potential, he can turn this kid into a perennial Pro Bow player. For Locker's sake, I hope they do because he deserves to have a long and successful career.

I'm just not totally convinced that career is in the NFL … possibly MLB?

[jflow78]

In this video, McShay says Tennessee is talking about picking Locker at 8. He said the OC there LOVES Locker and has been sticking up for him in meetings.

(Wasn't that the same OC that was responsible for picking Vince Young? Not sure, but I think that's right)

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft2011/news/story?id=6424566

[The Tris]

I believe Norm Chow was the Titans OC when they drafted VY.

They have an all new coaching staff this year, their OC is Chris Palmer.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

In this video, McShay says Tennessee is talking about picking Locker at 8. He said the OC there LOVES Locker and has been sticking up for him in meetings.

Dear Lord I hope not. .

As I've posted numerous times, I've wanted Locker since we failed in our efforts to snag Bradford (first noticed Jake two years back whilst taking an interest in the Sooner); so I'd be about as pissed as I've been since the '05 draft when GB took the surprisingly falling Rodgers one pick ahead of us at 24. :mad:.

Do the right thing TN and let us finally draft our franchise QB.

Hail.

[addicted]

Also, we give our new QBs zero chance to succeed by harvesting O-lines that can't pass protect. Our interior line is among the worst in the league right now, and until that changes it really doesn't matter who is taking snaps back there.

Very true but if we did the right thing and took Locker this year and allowed him to sit on the bench and learn instead of throw him in there to play immediately then he wouldn't take any of the bumps our crappy line gives up. We could use this and next offseason to improve the line while he practices and figures out how to orcastrate the offense before he ever plays. Taking a QB with the top pick would only be hurt by the bad line if we threw him in there immediately which would be a stupid thing to do imo

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Very true but if we did the right thing and took Locker this year and allowed him to sit on the bench and learn instead of throw him in there to play immediately then he wouldn't take any of the bumps our crappy line gives up. We could use this and next offseason to improve the line while he practices and figures out how to orcastrate the offense before he ever plays. Taking a QB with the top pick would only be hurt by the bad line if we threw him in there immediately which would be a stupid thing to do imo

See, I take the opposing view here.

I'd rather Locker, presuming we do indeed pick him, be on the field from the get go and grow with this offense, which is pretty young right now. You'd hope that we'll address the interior of the O-line through this draft and FA which hopefully will start soon given today's ruling; and I'd much prefer them ALL on the field learning together and getting that understanding as they go. Of course there'd be the downs along the way as he assimilated to the pro game. But hey, nobody in their right freaking mind expects much out of this coming Redskins season so we can afford that. NOTHING beats on field experience. All the sitting and studying in the World can't replicate that.

If Jakes good enough to be Coach Mike's man and our potential franchise QB, he's good enough to be thrown in at the deep end. The sooner we start his career ON the field, the better.

Hail.

[The Tris]

NOTHING beats on field experience. All the sitting and studying in the World can't replicate that.

Tell that to Phillip Rivers, Carson Palmer, Matt Schaub and Aaron Rodgers.

There is no right or wrong way to develop a QB.

Old but still worth while read: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2005/how-much-should-rookie-quarterbacks-play

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

Interesting article Tris man.

I still say you can't beat full speed, regular season on-field experience, and would rather a guy I'd taken in the belief he was gona' be that elusive guy we've craved since going right back to Sonny J's days get that experience from the get-go.

But as you said, there's no right or wrong way to this. It's FAR from an exact science. You just take whatever path is best suited to the individual and situation you believe at the time.

Hail.

[addicted]

See, I take the opposing view here.

I'd rather Locker, presuming we do indeed pick him, be on the field from the get go and grow with this offense, which is pretty young right now. You'd hope that we'll address the interior of the O-line through this draft and FA which hopefully will start soon given today's ruling; and I'd much prefer them ALL on the field learning together and getting that understanding as they go. Of course there'd be the downs along the way as he assimilated to the pro game. But hey, nobody in their right freaking mind expects much out of this coming Redskins season so we can afford that. NOTHING beats on field experience. All the sitting and studying in the World can't replicate that.

If Jakes good enough to be Coach Mike's man and our potential franchise QB, he's good enough to be thrown in at the deep end. The sooner we start his career ON the field, the better.

Hail.

Sorry but I can't agree with you about this. Sitting him a year is a must for his growth and our teams growth. It makes no sense to me to throw him to the wolves like you suggested simply so he gets "expirence" when I can look at guys like Aaron Rogers who sat on the bench and came out and won the superbowl this year and beat another QB who played immediately like you want ours to do. Immediate expirence is not a requirement for success in the NFL for QB's and there is no secret to success in this formula, it depends on the QB's readyness to perform and the teams readiness. It has nothing to do with expectations of the team for the year.

What you have to keep in the back of your mind is rushing a guy to get expirence can hurt his growth like Detroit did with Stafford. I'm not arguing against "expirence on the field", it is important and necessary but to think that you can have a leaky line and throw out just any QB there and it will help him isn't necessarily the case. We could well end up with a situation like Detroit keeps having with Stafford. When Stafford is playing he does very well, problem is that they can't keep him on the field very long because he keeps getting injured. If they had taken a slower approach to build the line for him instead of using a "sink or swim" approach it would have benifited him more then missing months because he was injured and his teams chemistry.

When the QB is ready, when the team around him is ready, then you play them together against another team. Rush that and you could have serious negative affects on your teams future. Rush a QB not ready to play in this league and you can stunt his growth and lose valuable time that could be spent tweaking his game and improve it. When Steve Young was in Tampa and treated like you suggest he was terrible, but when he was brought along slower for San Fran he became a Hall of Famer. It has nothing to do with Mike believing in him. Throw him in the deep end and he could choke and drown. How would that help this team or the player?

---------- Post added April-25th-2011 at 05:57 PM ----------

Tell that to Phillip Rivers, Carson Palmer, Matt Schaub and Aaron Rodgers.

There is no right or wrong way to develop a QB.

Old but still worth while read: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2005/how-much-should-rookie-quarterbacks-play

Exactly, should have just waited for you to respond. You nailed it. There is no secret formula for success of a QB and playing time.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

. Throw him in the deep end and he could choke and drown. How would that help this team or the player?

Your not gona' find out if you don't try. By the same token, you could wait a year and he still end up a bust. I'd rather take the gamble and hopefully be a year further in both his and the O's development than having him come in a year down the line and then potentially take another year to fully adjust to the speed of the pro-game. Again, I fully expect the line to be in a whole lot better shape this year than last; and with the rest of the O being a year further in their development in Kyles O; that should all help Locker, if we do indeed take him, along the way.

As has been mentioned, there's no right or wrong way to this. And you can throw up positives and negatives to aid both sides.

I just think if your good enough, and I believe Locker will be ..... your good enough. (Peyton and Bradford spring instantly to mind. Neither of whom had ideal situations to step into.).

Hail.

[darrelgreenie]

I like everything about locker except his accuracy issues. One of my fears with locker is his ingrained baseball like delivery. I think it is a strength and why he's accurate on the move but in the pocket causes issues. Locker if you can take his physical ability and fix all the issues i would be On board.

That's the thing.

I think the teams/people that like Locker don't view him as having accuracy 'issues'.

They likely don't think there is anything major to 'correct'.

Ultimately an evaluation of Locker boils down to how someone view his perceives his accuracy.

And when I speak of accuracy I'm talking about actual accuracy or ball placement not completion percentage.

Imo Locker's shows good ball placement within a clean pocket and on the run; but he's played behind a far worse OL then any of the top QB prospects some of whom were exceptionally well protected. (Locker is probably the only QB who would have been better protected behind our OL then his iff you look at sacks per pass attempt)

For me there is a difference between someone who is occasionaly inaccurate and uncomfortable throwing in a clean pocket.

vs.

Someone that is occasionaly inaccurate and uncomfortable throwing under constant duress in a collapsing pocket.

Every QB's accuracy and comfort decreases when they're getting hit and are under constant duress in a collapsing pocket:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwnAVr3om2Y

Skins have had a hard time developing offensive players tho and especially qbs so a huge concern with me

Imo one of the most underrated aspects of success in the NFL is coaching.

I also believe that coaching the QB positon is the most difficult and important skill in the NFL and there's a reason why some coaches have much more success with their QBs then the rest of the league and its not luck. (Walsh, Sean Peyton, Holmgren, Reid, McCarthy, Chan Gailey)

Imo Mike Shanahan is one of those people he knows how to develop QBs and whichever QB we drafts is gonna have a good chance to succeed because Kyle can lean on Mike Shanahan.

.....I digress but we also have Bobby Turner who's imo is one of the best RB guru's if not the best in the league.

The success he's had with RBs isn't luck either and imo people don't realize how good he was this year (16th rushing attack in the NFL by YPA) with 2 UDFA RBs.

This offense is headed in the right direction.

[MumboSauce]

If it's not too late with a few days to go...I want to jump on the Jake Locker bandwagon lol would be pumped if we got him.

[TDawg1313]

Here's another follow-up article on comparing Locker to Favre. It's based on Razzano again.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/2011-04-25-jake-locker-qbs_N.htm

[addicted]

Your not gona' find out if you don't try. By the same token, you could wait a year and he still end up a bust. I'd rather take the gamble and hopefully be a year further in both his and the O's development than having him come in a year down the line and then potentially take another year to fully adjust to the speed of the pro-game.

In other words you'll risk his development just to "find" out about him. If Rogers had started Game one do you think he would have been the QB he became? I don't. Your missing the maturation process some players are needing to find success. In a perfect world guys come right out of the shoot playing lights out. In the real world the Brees, Mannings, Marino's, Youngs. Elways etc develop like fine wine. The only advantage a QB has with playing right from the start is they have more expirence that way over if they held a clipboard for a year. The problem with Washington Redskins is we all think that we are too good to develop a starting QB. Farve's first year in Atlanta wasn't great or good even, it was nothing. He learned the game from the sidelines working with his coaches to unlearn his bad habits and learned some new ones. What about Locker makes him better then Farve? Nothing. Does that mean he should get the nod game one? No not at all. It comes down to what is best for the player and the team. Seasons are won and lost with the play of the QB, why put so much on one mans shoulders in a lost season? If we can all believe in doing the right thing, letting the man develop and be patient with him he's got a much better chance of not busting out. Look at Carolina last season for what happens when you rush QB's in the first year. Both of the QB's they took last year were forced into immediate action, and now both are considered busts. They likely aren't as bad as they looked last year but when you have unreasonable expectations your results suffer. You are correct, he still has a chance to bust out but who in this game doesn't? Not all players make it in this league.

Again, I fully expect the line to be in a whole lot better shape this year than last; and with the rest of the O being a year further in their development in Kyles O; that should all help Locker, if we do indeed take him, along the way.

I don't share your optimism about this season. Anything better then 5-11 will surprise me. And I stand by my beliefs. They are:

1. The Skins should take Locker at #10

2. The Skins should give him as much time as he needs to develop and learn Mike's system and should not be rushed to play just so we fans see what he's got.

If he shows he can do it by mid season give him the job, if he hasn't try the next year. So many QB's aren't like the Bradfords, McNabbs, and Mannings who started off immediately. If the Patriots threw Tom Brady in game one after drafting him he wouldn't likely be a household name. Same with Rivers. Same with so many of them out there. Some can perform year one, most need time to develop and that's not a shot on the man at all.

As has been mentioned, there's no right or wrong way to this. And you can throw up positives and negatives to aid both sides.

I don't see any positives of throwing the man out game one as you suggest. That's my opinion on the matter UNLESS he has earned the right. He must earn that position, handing it to him on a platter simply because we choose him first means nothing to me. It shows impatience, irresponsibility, and is potentially disastrous for the organization long term. If we treated Mark Rypien like that in the late 1980's we probably don't see our 3rd championship. If he comes in and shows in preseason he should get the start then by all means put him in there. I just expect like most other QB's he will need time to develop.

I just think if your good enough, and I believe Locker will be ..... your good enough. (Peyton and Bradford spring instantly to mind. Neither of whom had ideal situations to step into.).

Hail.

We agree on this. Sorry if I mistook your meaning but it sounded like you were saying put him in game one not because he's earned the spot, but because we drafted him. He must earn that position or will flop and we again become the chicken poops we have become because of the first round flop QB's we've had here recently. To not try is not an option to me and unless Gabbert falls to us Locker is the third best QB in this class and without a doubt should be our selection. We deserve giving him time to develop if we want to reap the rewards later.

This is just my opinion. I don't want you to take me as arguing with you or get personal with this. What the hell do I know anyway? Hail!

[grego]

i watched the highlights of locker vs oregon state today. i admit, i drooled a little bit.

[cchhdd25]

I think a lot of Locker's supposed fall comes from dropped passes. That and an awful offensive line. And a cracked rib and a thigh bruise all year.

2010

184/332 55 % - 41 drops (actual stats)

194/332 58% - 31 drops

204/332 61% - 21 drops

214/332 64% - 11 drops

according to football outsiders, for the nfl, the average drop rate in 2008 was 5.9%. in 2009 that number went down to 5.7%. unfortunately I could not find these stats for the NCAA. Lets just say we use the NFL average, and put it across all of Locker's passes,

332 x .057 = 18.92 drops per year

332 x .059 = 19.58 drops per year

So lets say since its college we put the average at 21 drops per year. Well looks like Mr. Locker now has the respectable over 60% completion rate.

A guy with his speed (equal to Cam's in the 40 at the combine), his running ability, ability to throw on the run, and overall grittiness (watch the Oregon St. game in overtime and see the two td passes he threw), he has to be a top 15 pick in the NFL. Will he be a success in the NFL? I dunno. Is he worth picking to see, definitely.

In the NFL you either have a franchise QB or you pick top 10 each year. You do everything you can to get your franchise guy. I think this year is the perfect year to find him. We have a potential franchise guy falling big time due to NFL execs not doing their homework.

You can pick a speed rusher, a right tackle , a wr with nobody to throw him to, etc. None of them matter if you don't have a franchise QB. Did St. Louis automatically get playoff level talent in one year. No they got a great QB.

So in the NFL you do everything you can to find your franchise guy. And if it takes 3, 4, 5 tries, you keep trying until you get him. Because without him your just... well...the Redskins.

[mistertim]

We have a potential franchise guy falling big time due to NFL execs not doing their homework.

Or perhaps he is falling because they DID start doing their homework and came to the conclusion that he is a bit too much of a project to use a high pick on. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong...but they likely know more about scouting than we do and have access to more game film, etc.

[Truant]

Or perhaps he is falling because they DID start doing their homework and came to the conclusion that he is a bit too much of a project to use a high pick on. Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong...but they likely know more about scouting than we do and have access to more game film, etc.

Exactly. It's funny how many defenses are thrown out to try to justify the game tape. People don't write off Locker because of his stat line, it's because of his game film. People should give it a shot. His game cuts are available on YouTube.

I see an athlete playing the QB position. An erratic passer. A guy who feels pressure that isn't there. A guy that has putrid form when forced to re-set. I don't see the intangibles and instincts. Talk to Huskie fans and while they loved him in college, most I've talked to do NOT want him in Seattle.

Watch all the tape available and if people still want Locker I think it's because of his rumored value last year. Or because we just desperately want an answer at the QB position. Newton and Gabbert aren't incredible prospects on their own, but Locker isn't in the conversation to overtake them. There's a reason for that. Locker would be drafted on potential, rather than production. If you're going to take a project you might be better off with Colin Kap later in the draft who may be faster and have a stronger arm.

[mhearn]

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/news?slug=ms-silver_rogue_scout_enjoys_label_042511

good article from a 'rogue scout' talks about drafting as a whole, but the guy references locker as the second coming of favre. pretty good read btw

just a small portion locker related

Watching Locker roll to his right and release the ball just before an oncoming pass rusher arrived, Razzano exclaimed, “Look, he puts his shoulder into it. Look! It’s just like Favre. If people can’t see that …”

I could almost feel the Excitement Meter shaking with seismic abandon. Razzano paused the tape and continued: “My first exposure to Locker, watching a game on TV, I did not like what I saw. He threw errant passes and wasn’t very accurate. But then I saw the tape and realized it’s not him. He had more drops [by receivers] than anyone in the Pac-10, and he was running for his life – his line was probably the worst in the conference. And he still made plays with the game on the line. The guy’s a winner.”

[whlinder]

So lets say since its college we put the average at 21 drops per year. Well looks like Mr. Locker now has the respectable over 60% completion rate.

If you get to remove drops, is 60% in college still respectable? Remove drops from Newton, Gabbert and the rest and compare stats to Locker. He wasn't the only QB to have WRs drop passes.

Unless there are some stats that show UW WRs dropped passes at a much higher rate than other teams (and I'd be shocked if this were true, he had decent enough skill players around him- WRs and RBs were good, TE last year was non-existant though) this is all just a waste of time. All QBs have WRs who drop passes. Saying this only happened to Locker is insane.

A better way to boost his stats would be to find throwaways where he could have taken a sack but instead threw the ball away. The throwaway hurt his stats but helped the team vs. the sack hurting the team and helping his stats.

[darrelgreenie]

If you get to remove drops, is 60% in college still respectable? Remove drops from Newton, Gabbert and the rest and compare stats to Locker. He wasn't the only QB to have WRs drop passes.

Unless there are some stats that show UW WRs dropped passes at a much higher rate than other teams (and I'd be shocked if this were true, he had decent enough skill players around him- WRs and RBs were good, TE last year was non-existant though) this is all just a waste of time. All QBs have WRs who drop passes. Saying this only happened to Locker is insane.

A better way to boost his stats would be to find throwaways where he could have taken a sack but instead threw the ball away. The throwaway hurt his stats but helped the team vs. the sack hurting the team and helping his stats.

You're kinda creating a strawman because ccc isn't saying eliminate the drops like you claim; he's saying that if you bring Washington's drops closer to league average as opposed to below league average (which it is).

I thinks its pretty well known by college football fans that Washington had a limited receiving corps that dropped more passes then typical. (Kearse and Goodwin).

Personally, I could care less about the stats; but I understand his point.

You know another way Washington could have increased Locker's stats? Be a better team, which his own coach said; really.

His coach openly admitted that Washington isn't very good and you know what? He's right and most college football fans know it.

[KDawg]

I watched some film on Locker recently... And I noticed some stuff I hadn't noticed before... His team was... well... awful. He seemed to rarely have people open underneath and he had to take shots. That translates into some missed long balls and people criticising him for not being accurate. I'm not sure his accuracy is great, but he's more accurate than given credit for. His receivers, at times, also seem to run pretty horrible routes.

[whlinder]

You're kinda creating a strawman because ccc isn't saying eliminate the dropslike you claim; he's saying that if you bring Washington's number of drops if you bring Washington's drops closer to league average as opposed to below league average (which it is).

I thinks its pretty well known by college football fans that Washington had a limited receiving corps that dropped more passes then typical. (Kearse and Goodwin).

Personally, I could care less about the stats; but I understand his point.

You know another way Washington could have increased Locker's stats? Be a better team, which his own coach said; really.

His coach openly admitted that Washington isn't very good and you know what? He's right and most college football fans know it.

You are right, most college football fans know that Washington isn't very good. 7-6 playing one of the toughest schedules in the nation. What's bizarre is how most college football fans seem to think that the reason Washington wasn't very good is because of everyone *except* Jake Locker. Somehow nothing was ever his fault.

It was the fault of the 1400 yard RB

Wait no, it was the fault of the "limited" WR core, consisting of:

A 1000 yard 2nd team Pac-10 WR

A senior who was honorable mention All Pac-10 in 2008 (when Locker was hurt and missed most of the season) and named offensive team MVP

A junior who was honorable mention All Pac-10 in 2009

Wow, what a crappy receiving corp.

Were they incredibly frustrating at times and dropped too many passes? Sure. Are they the reason Locker had a bad completion percentage? Absolutely not. That is PLENTY of talent at the skill positions to win in college football. Washington has won Rose Bowls with much worse WRs.

The QB and the coach held the team back the past 2 years, not the other way around.

[Wrong Direction]

I thinks its pretty well known by college football fans that Washington had a limited receiving corps that dropped more passes then typical. (Kearse and Goodwin).

You guys who watch tape know this better than me how this relates to Locker, but not all drops are created equally. QBs sometimes create drops with 1) late passes, 2) passes behind their WR, 3) low passes, 4) high passes, 5) bad touch on passes and 6) ill advised throws into coverage.

A lot of drops are the result of the QB, not just his supporting cast.