A Closer Look at 2011 QB Prospects:Jake Locker

[Hooper]

You're going to declare that he's an accurate QB based on 1 game? Ha. I've seen countless overthrows, blown TDs on deep balls sailing over a WR's heads, staring down WRs as a 5th year senior... He throws far too many WTF balls.

You know how Mark Sanchez sails balls all the time? It was certainly a talking point before/during the AFC Championship. Coached in college by Steve Sarkisian.

Jake Locker sails passes too. Who coached him the past 2 years?

Of all teams Locker played in the past 2 years you cannot use game film against USC to prove he's good. Sorry. Using film against USC for Locker shows how little you follow Pac-10 football.

Great post.

I think folks on this board are overhyping Locker bigtime because we need a franchise QB. I've seen him play and would be floored if we took him at ten. FLOORED.

[darrelgreenie]

You're going to declare that he's an accurate QB based on 1 game? Ha. I've seen countless overthrows, blown TDs on deep balls sailing over a WR's heads, staring down WRs as a 5th year senior... He throws far too many WTF balls..

Its great that you have strong opinions.

But, like the OP states this thread is a discussion on the USC game with other games to follow if there was interest.

And I didn't choose the USC game to discuss.

Also every QB not just Locker and Sanchez will have overthrows, miss TDs and sail passes.

It happens because QBs make mistakes if no QB had those mistakes completion % would be around 90%.

You're obviously someone that doesn't like Locker and that is fine.

But, i would ask you respect the purpose of this thread or start another thread that details why Locker would make a good Safety.

You know how Mark Sanchez sails balls all the time? It was certainly a talking point before/during the AFC Championship. Coached in college by Steve Sarkisian. Jake Locker sails passes too. Who coached him the past 2 years?

I follow know Sarkisian teaches his QB to sail passes?

BTW if Locker sails such a high number of passes where were they this game?

Which throws?

Because surely if he sails as many balls as you think he would have sailed a high number of passes in every game right?

Of all teams Locker played in the past 2 years you cannot use game film against USC to prove he's good.

If you read the OP the intent isn't to prove that Locker is good; the purpose is to have a discussion about the game and assess Locker's play.

Know that you know the goal why praytell is USC a bad choice?

Which game do you suggest these are the choices available for a group breakdown:

Oregon St

Syracuse

Arizona

Washington St

Arizona St

Stanford

BTW-What was Washington's record when the safety at QB was injured? Surely he stopped holding back the team right?

---------- Post added January-28th-2011 at 05:27 PM ----------

Great post.

I think folks on this board are overhyping Locker bigtime because we need a franchise QB. I've seen him play and would be floored if we took him at ten. FLOORED.

Hooper still waiting on you to reply to post #169

Here are the choices:

Which game do you suggest these are the choices available for a group breakdown:

Oregon St

Syracuse

Arizona

Washington St

Arizona St

Stanford

Btw who is over hyping Locker?

Just b/c you don't like Locker don't get bent out of shape when people challenge your views.

This is a discussion forum people are gonna disagree.

I'm sure we're all mature enough to have a discussion, remain civil and support our opinions?

[Hooper]

Btw who is over hyping Locker?

Just b/c you don't like Locker don't get bent out of shape when people challenge your views.

This is a discussion forum people are gonna disagree.

I'm sure we're all mature enough to have a discussion, remain civil and support our opinions?

Not bent out of shape at all. We just see the player differently. It's my opinion he would be a huge risk at number 10. That's all. Just an opinion.

It's going to be real interesting to see where Locker goes. I mean, McShay had Javon Snead going number one overall once.

.

[ArmchairRedskin]

There's no arguing whether or not Locker is accurate because right now, he just isn't. The question really is, do our coaches think Locker can improve on that. And if they do think he can, are they comfortable enough in that belief that they would take him at 10. Because as it stands right now, his accuracy issues should not make him top 10 draft pick. You can toss Cutler's name into the argument and assert that he wasn't accurate in college either, but I'll point to Cutler's third down percentage and argue that he's not all that good under pressure.

That first Nebraska game should still be a huge red flag. Even when he had time and an open man he was wildly inaccurate. His recievers were not covered 100% of the time in that game nor was he under duress 100% of the time. Those two factors didn't combine for 100% of his dropbacks either. I remember on play where I recall a reciever of his open by a good 5 yards or more streaking down the middle of the field, Jake sat back with a nice pocket and overthrew the guy by a good margin. I also remember him facing a third and long and his guy running an out on the left side of the field and the ball went way over his head even though his reciever had plenty of space between him and the corner. The second Nebraska game only showed that he could manage the game. I didn't watch the whole game and I know his receivers weren't helping him much, but at no time did I see him make a play that made me say "wow". It just made me say "meh, at least he didn't look bad".

Locker doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in me. I don't see star potential in him.

[darrelgreenie]

Not bent out of shape at all. We just see the player differently. It's my opinion he would be a huge risk at number 10. That's all. Just an opinion.

That's cool everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Durng the draft process you have to consider where you get your information from.

Not all sources are equal or even credible.

Just because Adam Caplan states his opinion don't take it for gospel.

Also, maybe the concept of this thread is ambitous but if you have a strong view of a prospect from having watched him play this thread is the perfect place to support your opinion w/ evidence.

I don't intend this as a knock but you haven't made one post that refer's to plays from the actual game.

And like i said in my last reponse to you if you want to breakdown another game am all for it.

Here are the game cut-ups available on youtube:

Oregon St

Syracuse

Arizona

Washington St

Arizona St

Stanford

You choose a game and we'll break it down.

Hail!

---------- Post added January-28th-2011 at 06:06 PM ----------

There's no arguing whether or not Locker is accurate because right now, he just isn't.

Why? I can agree that there is no arguing that Locker has a low comp% percentage.

But completion % isn't the same thing as accuracy.

Mike Mayock framed Locker's accuracy issues best and he says that Locker is very accurate on run or outside the pocket and that in the pocket his accuracy goes down as his vision goes down.

That is quite different from being an inaccurate passer as a whole.

If Locker was an inaccurate passer it would be evident in everygame b/c he would miss a largely number of passes then an average QB.

But, if you watch this game do you see an inaccurate passer?

That first Nebraska game should still be a huge red flag. Even when he had time and an open man he was wildly inaccurate. His recievers were not covered 100% of the time in that game nor was he under duress 100% of the time. Those two factors didn't combine for 100% of his dropbacks either. I remember on play where I recall a reciever of his open by a good 5 yards or more streaking down the middle of the field, Jake sat back with a nice pocket and overthrew the guy by a good margin. I also remember him facing a third and long and his guy running an out on the left side of the field and the ball went way over his head even though his reciever had plenty of space between him and the corner.

I didn't see that 1st Nebraska game.

But, i think you'll agree that 2 plays doesn't equate to the sum of any players ability.

The second Nebraska game only showed that he could manage the game. I didn't watch the whole game and I know his receivers weren't helping him much, but at no time did I see him make a play that made me say "wow". It just made me say "meh, at least he didn't look bad".

They're weren't many plays to be had throw the air b/c Sark couldn't devise a way to get the WRs off press coverage until the 3rd qtr.

Kearse and Goodwin were being owned by the Nebraska DBs.

In the 3rd qtr Sark moved Goodwin into the slot and Locker hit him in stride on a corner route that set up their TD.

When the plays were there he made them.

The second Nebraska game is a good example of how overmatched Washinton's the pass protection and WR have been at times.

Yet, Locker found a way to win that game.

Locker doesn't inspire a whole lot of confidence in me. I don't see star potential in him.

I can respect that opinion.

Again the point of this thread is to conduct a layman's evaluation of Locker by watching game cut-ups.

It seems like you have a keen eye.

Why don't you share your opinions of Locker form this game or choose another one of Locker's games for us to look at next?

Hail

[HigSkin]

Is Lavarleap still an insider?

Yes, but people choose to ignore his posts to push their agenda or in this case, their player.

[Conn]

Yes, but people choose to ignore his posts to push their agenda or in this case, their player.

Its obvious from his posts that sometimes he's passing along info, and sometimes he's just giving his opinion. On Locker and Vick, its pretty obvious to me that he's giving his opinion.

At the same time, when he says things like we should keep an eye on Gabbert and DL at #10, that sounds like solid info.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

again i find it funny that last year locker was the slobber pick and he was the #1 overall regardless of any factors, just like luck was this year. now locker is a 4th rounder after one season on the same crappy team.

[HigSkin]

Its obvious from his posts that sometimes he's passing along info, and sometimes he's just giving his opinion. On Locker and Vick, its pretty obvious to me that he's giving his opinion.

At the same time, when he says things like we should keep an eye on Gabbert and DL at #10, that sounds like solid info.

I'm not seeing the difference between what he said above and what he's posted in the previous days (see below), all of it suggests NO interest in Locker.

Gabbert, Dalton,Mcelroy.... those are the ones to look at for the skins. I said qb in the 1st is unlikely not that we won't take one. Gabbert won't last to pick 10 and with no cba we don't have many options to move up. No cba and we could possibly get to 5 or 8. Six of the teams picking in the top ten need qbs so Gabbert falling isn't going to happen. Lockers pocket awareness and field vision from the pocket are major flags. Mallets footwork is a mess and isn't mobile at all. Qb later in the draft makes a lot of sense.

[Thinking Skins]

And he came to Washington and got benched for Rex Grossman...

---------- Post added January-28th-2011 at 06:42 PM ----------

Skins will talk to hundreds of college players up to the draft and select a handful of them. I think its more of a possibility that MV7 is a Redskin next season than Jake Locker, depending on the cba of course.

we also went and worked out Kelly and then drafted Kelly, and we were in love with Sanchez and tried to get him. Never underestimate.

[Hooper]

again i find it funny that last year locker was the slobber pick and he was the #1 overall regardless of any factors, just like luck was this year. now locker is a 4th rounder after one season on the same crappy team.

Did anyone say Locker was the number one pick to be except McShay? The media just ran with it. McShay also talked about Javon Snead being the number one pick two years ago.

Also, I read somewhere that one of the reasons Locker didn't come out last year was the NFL advisory committee told him they weren't sure he'd be a first round pick.

Who knows?

"Experts" talked about Colt Brennan as a first round pick at one point. Until the player actually declares and really gets looked at by scouts and coaches, it's all conjecture.

[Lavarleap56]

we also went and worked out Kelly and then drafted Kelly, and we were in love with Sanchez and tried to get him. Never underestimate.

Vinny Cerrato was in charge when we took Kelly not Allen/Shanahan. Mike Shanahan took Jay Cutler without working him out or having any contact with him prior to him being drafted just FYI. When it comes to Qbs Shanahan keeps his intentions quiet and close to the vest.

[Thinking Skins]

Vinny Cerrato was in charge when we took Kelly not Allen/Shanahan. Mike Shanahan took Jay Cutler without working him out or having any contact with him prior to him being drafted just FYI. When it comes to Qbs Shanahan keeps his intentions quiet and close to the vest.

Thats just one guy, but I pray that his scouts looked at him. If he never interviewed Cutler, then he probably didn't have any opinion about the guy's attitude problems (or rumors of such). I'd be much more interested in a scouting department that actually scouts than one that plays a game of don't snitch.

[Newera]

Locker is just too much of a risk for the Skins at ten. Far too many differing opinions of him. To take him strictly on upside, I would go with Newton or Capernick. His drop off his senior year was, to me, alarming. It's not that he might not turn out to be a decent quarterback, but he's too much of a risk for this franchise. A franchise who has missed on their last three first round quarterbacks. Shuler, Ramsey and Campbell. Let's see how he does in the Senior Bowl. He needs a a good bowl game to stop the bleeding.

[Thinking Skins]

Did anyone say Locker was the number one pick to be except McShay? The media just ran with it. McShay also talked about Javon Snead being the number one pick two years ago.

Also, I read somewhere that one of the reasons Locker didn't come out last year was the NFL advisory committee told him they weren't sure he'd be a first round pick.

Who knows?

"Experts" talked about Colt Brennan as a first round pick at one point. Until the player actually declares and really gets looked at by scouts and coaches, it's all conjecture.

Wasn't the big talk a few years ago (I know it was on here) that Colt McCoy would be the number one pick. I remember this in 2008 because Danny wanted Sanchz and people were saying we could get McCoy - that he'd be the best QB in the draft. Actually, people were talking about how QB rich that draft last year was. Maybe extremeskins posters aren't the best at gathering data on potential players. .

[darrelgreenie]

Yes, but people choose to ignore his posts to push their agenda or in this case, their player.

Regardless of LL56 writes this thread was about an evaluation of Locker because he is a QB prospect and the Skins might be in the market to draft a QB.

Nothing more nothing less.

I understand that many people in this forum don't want to actually discuss on the field play.

And that's fine but that was the intent for this series of threads.

I'm not ASF i have no agenda to push.

I happen to coach football and like talking about football.

MartinC nor myself in the OPs never state nor imply the Redskins will draft Locker.

We just happen to know a little bit about QBs and wanted to discuss the top prospects.

HTTR

[Going Commando]

Also, I read somewhere that one of the reasons Locker didn't come out last year was the NFL advisory committee told him they weren't sure he'd be a first round pick.

Another poster from Washington demonstrated in a different thread how this little bit of common knowledge is absolutely false. Locker decided to return to school in December, well before he could have received his evaluation from the Advisory Committee. Those evaluations come in early January.

Locker never actually received his evaluation from the Advisory Committee. I don't think he received a grade. I don't think anyone knows what grade he would have had.

[Lavarleap56]

Regardless of LL56 writes this thread was about an evaluation of Locker because he is a QB prospect and the Skins might be in the market to draft a QB.

Nothing more nothing less.

I understand that many people in this forum don't want to actually discuss on the field play.

And that's fine but that was the intent for this series of threads.

I'm not ASF i have no agenda to push.

I happen to coach football and like talking about football.

MartinC nor myself in the OPs never state nor imply the Redskins will draft Locker.

We just happen to know a little bit about QBs and wanted to discuss the top prospects.

HTTR

I hear you greenie and I understand what your saying. Many people are looking for attributes in a qb that Shanahan might not even be concerned with in his evaluations. To many people get carried away with the physical attributes and discount the mental ability of a prospect. Shanahan actually isn't so much concerned with arm strength,height,and running ability of a qb prospect. Instincts,mental toughness, ability to he accurate with commotion in the pocket, make throws required in the offense, confidence ect are more important. Locker is the typical example of the above. Physicaly locker looks the part but other ares where he is weak are what Shanahan values most. Donovan mcnabb was the exception not the rule in regards to a Shanahan qb.

[Thinking Skins]

Locker is just too much of a risk for the Skins at ten. Far too many differing opinions of him. To take him strictly on upside, I would go with Newton or Capernick. His drop off his senior year was, to me, alarming. It's not that he might not turn out to be a decent quarterback, but he's too much of a risk for this franchise. A franchise who has missed on their last three first round quarterbacks. Shuler, Ramsey and Campbell. Let's see how he does in the Senior Bowl. He needs a a good bowl game to stop the bleeding.

Everybody's a risk at 10. I'm kinda with addicted on this one. You can't be afraid of him because of the risk. Either you (by you I mean the coach, not you literally) like him and think he's the best player that can help this team (in which case you draft him) or you don't think so (and thus you pick somebody else). If the scouts have done their job and think this guy is the best who is a poster on here to say that he'll be a bust. This place was willing to build a shrine for Colt Brennan. Colt. Freakin. Brennan! As little faith as I have in the Redskins front office (and believe me, I have very little), to say that because they missed on their last three QBs, they shouldn't draft again is just crazy. If that were the case San Diego would have never gotten Rivers and Detroit would have never gotten Stafford.

Risk is a part of the game. Hopefully, we don't draft a QB because WE NEED A QB, but because we feel he's the best player avialable at our pick. If thats the case, and we've done our due diligence, then what more can we ask? Do you want to draft the players that have the best transition into the NFL every year and leave our QB position administered by veteran free agents and low rounders? I mean Warner took his team to a super bowl so maybe we'll get lucky? Or maybe we'll find a Brady. But I think you're being too cautious if you're against ALL QBS IN THIS DRAFT because our past picks haven't been superstars?

And for the record, I don't care what extremeskins.com says, Campbell is not a bust. That guy is a legit starter with a rating after 6 years of 82.6. Thats not superstar material, but its not bust (or miss) either.To put this guy in the same category with Heath Freaking Shuler is beyond embarrassing, its pathetic. Shuler's career rating was 54.3. Thats amongst the lowest in the league amongst QBs drafted since 1993. Ramsey didn't work out either, but his career rating is still 74.9.(on far fewer starts than Cambell). Neither was a franchise QB, but neither deserves you to put them in the category with Heath. And Heath was freakin 16 years ago. Just like Redskins fans need to stop acting like we JUST went to the superbowl, they also need to stop acting like we just drafted a bust of a QB. Neither Campbell or Ramsey worked out, but they're far from the embarrassment Heath Shuler was. And I doubt that Locker (or whoever we draft, if we draft a QB) will be either. Some draft picks don't work out. I don't see Redskins fans saying not to draft a WR after Westbrook and Rod Gardner. I don't see them not drafting tackles after Andre Johnson, or DEs after Kenard Lang.

If there's one thing I can say Snyder's done well over his time here is improve our first round picks. Sure we haven't hit on everything. And sure we've missed some great players for some good ones, but we haven't gotten many all-out busts the way we were almost guaranteed one under Norv. Thats why I have a little faith (albeit very little) that we'll be ok in the draft this year, even if its a QB.

[Hooper]

Another poster from Washington demonstrated in a different thread how this little bit of common knowledge is absolutely false. Locker decided to return to school in December, well before he could have received his evaluation from the Advisory Committee. Those evaluations come in early January.

Locker never actually received his evaluation from the Advisory Committee. I don't think he received a grade. I don't think anyone knows what grade he would have had.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/18/locker-didnt-get-a-first-round-grade-from-advisory-committee/

As pointed out in the Associated Press article regarding Locker’s decision not to forgo his final season of college eligibility, Locker had submitted his name for consideration to the NFL Collegiate Advisory Committee, which estimates where a player might be drafted.

Despite a proclamation by ESPN’s Todd McShay that Locker would/should/could be the first overall pick, a league source tells us that Locker didn’t receive a first-round grade from the Advisory Committee.

[darrelgreenie]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2009/12/18/locker-didnt-get-a-first-round-grade-from-advisory-committee/

As pointed out in the Associated Press article regarding Locker’s decision not to forgo his final season of college eligibility, Locker had submitted his name for consideration to the NFL Collegiate Advisory Committee, which estimates where a player might be drafted.

Despite a proclamation by ESPN’s Todd McShay that Locker would/should/could be the first overall pick, a league source tells us that Locker didn’t receive a first-round grade from the Advisory Committee.

Hooper,

I get that you don't like Locker.

Which is great but could you start another thread that bashes him or something or switch back to this Locker thread: http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?343572-DraftCountdown-Redskins-make-quot-beeline-quot-to-Locker/page8

Mahons21 and I were having a good discussion about a Locker's footwork before you derailed this thread.

BTW-Do you at any point in this thread have any intention of talking about anything that occured during the the USC game or any game for that matter?

And are you gonna tell me which game you want to discuss?

Or are you gonna turn this evaluation thread into just another typical extremeskins thread?

Also:

That's not true. He made his decision a few weeks before he would have even received his grade. He actually made his decision, then they told the NFL Draft Advisory Committee that he didn't need to be evaluated. The whole "not receiving a 1st round grade" came from one "anonymous" source and random blogs decided to run with it.

"Locker's father Scott, however, said earlier this week that the assessment had not been received yet when Jake Locker made his decision. He said that when interviewed immediately after the decision on KJR-AM Monday afternoon and again when I talked with him a couple days later.

Sarkisian also said in his Monday teleconference that Locker had not yet received his evaluation. But Sarkisian said the evaluation was going to be in line with what the projections had been. "The evaluation wasn't going to say anything different than what the quote, unquote experts are putting out there,'' Sarkisian said."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2010550878_pro_football_talk_claims_locke.html

"Scott Locker said his first reaction was to ask if Jake didn't want to wait to see what the NFL Advisory Committee would say.

"He said 'that's really not part of it for me, Dad. It really doesn't matter where they had me,''' Scott Locker said.

Instead, what Jake Locker told his father is that what was important was that "I want to go back and play one more year of college and experience it to the fullest so I can be there for the full time and then move on to basically getting a job and doing what I'm meant to do.''

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/huskyfootballblog/2010527390_scott_locker_talks_about_jakes.html

The Draft Advisory Committee doesn't typically send out their reports until January. Jake made his decision in mid-December. That report came out in mid-December too, a few weeks before they were even sent out.

[Newera]

Everybody's a risk at 10. I'm kinda with addicted on this one. You can't be afraid of him because of the risk. Either you (by you I mean the coach, not you literally) like him and think he's the best player that can help this team (in which case you draft him) or you don't think so (and thus you pick somebody else). If the scouts have done their job and think this guy is the best who is a poster on here to say that he'll be a bust. This place was willing to build a shrine for Colt Brennan. Colt. Freakin. Brennan! As little faith as I have in the Redskins front office (and believe me, I have very little), to say that because they missed on their last three QBs, they shouldn't draft again is just crazy. If that were the case San Diego would have never gotten Rivers and Detroit would have never gotten Stafford.

Risk is a part of the game. Hopefully, we don't draft a QB because WE NEED A QB, but because we feel he's the best player avialable at our pick. If thats the case, and we've done our due diligence, then what more can we ask? Do you want to draft the players that have the best transition into the NFL every year and leave our QB position administered by veteran free agents and low rounders? I mean Warner took his team to a super bowl so maybe we'll get lucky? Or maybe we'll find a Brady. But I think you're being too cautious if you're against ALL QBS IN THIS DRAFT because our past picks haven't been superstars?

And for the record, I don't care what extremeskins.com says, Campbell is not a bust. That guy is a legit starter with a rating after 6 years of 82.6. Thats not superstar material, but its not bust (or miss) either.To put this guy in the same category with Heath Freaking Shuler is beyond embarrassing, its pathetic. Shuler's career rating was 54.3. Thats amongst the lowest in the league amongst QBs drafted since 1993. Ramsey didn't work out either, but his career rating is still 74.9.(on far fewer starts than Cambell). Neither was a franchise QB, but neither deserves you to put them in the category with Heath. And Heath was freakin 16 years ago. Just like Redskins fans need to stop acting like we JUST went to the superbowl, they also need to stop acting like we just drafted a bust of a QB. Neither Campbell or Ramsey worked out, but they're far from the embarrassment Heath Shuler was. And I doubt that Locker (or whoever we draft, if we draft a QB) will be either. Some draft picks don't work out. I don't see Redskins fans saying not to draft a WR after Westbrook and Rod Gardner. I don't see them not drafting tackles after Andre Johnson, or DEs after Kenard Lang.

If there's one thing I can say Snyder's done well over his time here is improve our first round picks. Sure we haven't hit on everything. And sure we've missed some great players for some good ones, but we haven't gotten many all-out busts the way we were almost guaranteed one under Norv. Thats why I have a little faith (albeit very little) that we'll be ok in the draft this year, even if its a QB.

Good points. But Campbell is still considered a bust for a first round draft pick. First round draft picks are usually considered franchise quarterbacks. He had a losing record here. He's okay, but he's not a franchise quarterback, and that is usually what you want for someone you trade two picks to move up to take.

I'm not saying you can't be afraid to take a quarterback. Just don't reach. I would prefer we take a guy like Ingram at ten, because we would be getting the best back in the draft. He is considered a first round grade back and would probably be the BPA at ten. (I think he will turn out to be a very good pro with comparisons to Emmit Smith). Plus, you know that he could come in and play right away and give us a potent two back rotation of him and Torrain. That's just my thoughts. I would prefer an immediate impact player at ten and not a project. There are plenty of other quarterbacks to take later on. Someone like Capernick would be someone you could take a flyer on later or McElroy. Also, don't disregard Beck. After all, we did trade for him. Sometimes people get so enamored with new they forget what they have. Beck was a second round pick in 2007. Personally the guy I like is Moore out of Boise next year -- (he plays fast and has a quick mind and pocket presence) and I think his stock will raise next year at the Senior Bowl and after he takes the Wonderlic. Probably third to fourth round grade.

Alex Smith bust. Aaron Rodgers franchise quarterback. Big Ben, franchise. David Carr, bust. Kyle Boller, bust. Leftwich, bust. Rivers, franchise. When drafted in first you are either considered a franchise quarterback or a bust. Franchise quarterbacks usually don't get traded after their first contract.

[darrelgreenie]

I hear you greenie and I understand what your saying. Many people are looking for attributes in a qb that Shanahan might not even be concerned with in his evaluations. To many people get carried away with the physical attributes and discount the mental ability of a prospect. Shanahan actually isn't so much concerned with arm strength,height,and running ability of a qb prospect. Instincts,mental toughness, ability to he accurate with commotion in the pocket, make throws required in the offense, confidence ect are more important. Locker is the typical example of the above. Physicaly locker looks the part but other ares where he is weak are what Shanahan values most. Donovan mcnabb was the exception not the rule in regards to a Shanahan qb.

You seem to have a pied piper effect over the posters and they take everything you say as gospel.

(I don't doubt that you have ties to the Redskins organization but i think your opinions and your hints aren't clearly distinct and having intimate knowledge of their draft plans is well a bit much, imo)

I already know there is no point in disagreeing with you but...

Mike Shanahan has coached several different types of QBs.

To say that Locker doesn't fit (Mike Shanahan's offense specifically) is statement i disagree w/ especially when you consider the similarities in skillset to Cutler.

But, imo that's not even the real issue b/c Kyle and Mike versions of the offense aren't identical.

An obvious example is Mike has been far more balanced run/pass then Kyle.(The exception being the year in Denver when literally every RB was hurt.)

Kyle's only QBs thus far have been pocket passers with average arm strength.

Those types of QBs don't really need to be drafted in the 1st round.

I think Locker and Gabbert both have the skillset that make them scheme diverse.

But, again these are generalities.

The purpose of this thread was not to suggest that Locker would be drafted by the Skins it was intended to be discussion of how Locker played in the USC and any other games that people wanted to discuss (that are available for group digestion via youtube).

That is something we can do without speculation.

[Fred Jones]

I'm not ASF i have no agenda to push.

I happen to coach football and like talking about football.

MartinC nor myself in the OPs never state nor imply the Redskins will draft Locker.

We just happen to know a little bit about QBs and wanted to discuss the top prospects.

HTTR

Yet, you are pushing your own agenda. In this case, pro Locker. And, for the record, coaching does not equate talent evaluation.

You are critical of people in this thread that post their opinion that is contrary to yours. I call that good discussion. I like reading informed posts regardless if I agree with them. I read your posts despite the fact that IMHO Locker will be a backup QB in the NFL. I still want to read your opinion and would not advise you to go post somewhere else because I believe that you are wrong.

[Thinking Skins]

Good points. But Campbell is still considered a bust for a first round draft pick. First round draft picks are usually considered franchise quarterbacks. He had a losing record here. He's okay, but he's not a franchise quarterback, and that is usually what you want for someone you trade two picks to move up to take.

I'm not saying you can't be afraid to take a quarterback. Just don't reach. I would prefer we take a guy like Ingram at ten, because we would be getting the best back in the draft. He is considered a first round grade back and would probably be the BPA at ten. (I think he will turn out to be a very good pro with comparisons to Emmit Smith). Plus, you know that he could come in and play right away and give us a potent two back rotation of him and Torrain. That's just my thoughts. I would prefer an immediate impact player at ten and not a project. There are plenty of other quarterbacks to take later on. Someone like Capernick would be someone you could take a flyer on later or McElroy. Also, don't disregard Beck. After all, we did trade for him. Sometimes people get so enamored with new they forget what they have. Beck was a second round pick in 2007. Personally the guy I like is Moore out of Boise next year -- (he plays fast and has a quick mind and pocket presence) and I think his stock will raise next year at the Senior Bowl and after he takes the Wonderlic. Probably third to fourth round grade.

Alex Smith bust. Aaron Rodgers franchise quarterback. Big Ben, franchise. David Carr, bust. Kyle Boller, bust. Leftwich, bust. Rivers, franchise. When drafted in first you are either considered a franchise quarterback or a bust. Franchise quarterbacks usually don't get traded after their first contract.

But as we saw with Taylor and (possibly) Landry. The draft isn't just about drafting the guy who will have the best immediate impact. Sure, you'd like that to be a factor, but its not the solo factor. You've also got to look at how difficult it is to find that position (QB being amongst the hardest to find, especially for us), the longevity of that position (RB being the shortest), I've got no problem with McElroy, but I'm not willing to bet that he'll turn our franchise around, not based on an online blogger's bet based on a few formulas which do have their inaccuracies. If we did like in 1994 and spent an early and a late pick on a QB, then its fine with me. I'm not afraid to take risks, but I just want them to be calculated risks, not just throwing darts at a wall to see what sticks.

And I disagree completely with the Franchise vs Bust statement. Several players just wind up being good players. Carlos Rogers is a perfect example. He's a legit starter who hasn't made any pro bowls and probably never will. But he is the closest thing we have to a shut down corner and if we let him go, he will be missed. I'd go on to say that Eli Manning (who has a career rating of 80.2) is on the same level of a QB as Campbell. Is he a bust? What about Chad Pennington (who has a 90.1 career rating)? Joe Flacco? Matt Ryan? Carson Palmer? Drew Bledsoe? There are a lot of QBs who don't put up the dynamic numbers of a Peyton Manning. That doesn't make them busts. I'm fine with a good QB. By the Ravens getting a good QB in Flacco, its sured up that position for the next 10 years for them. He may not be THE reason why they're winning most games, but he's not costing them many either. I'm not saying we need a Trent Dilfer in there, but I'd be happy with a Brad Johnson.