A Closer Look at 2011 QB Prospects:Jake Locker

[Conn]

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.

I'm pretty sure his point isn't that you should go post somewhere else if you don't like Locker, and want to bash him...I think what he's saying is that this wasn't intended to be a generalized "pros vs. cons of Locker" thread. Whether you support drafting Locker or not, I think dg's trying to say that this thread is supposed to be deeper than that.

Talk up Locker, sure. Talk **** on Locker, sure. But do it within the "rules" of the thread. Use this video, this cutup of Locker's game vs. USC, to frame your argument, so that we get some real X's and O's conversation going on in here, with reliable video evidence that everyone can use as a reference.

I don't think dg gives a crap whether you like Locker or not. I'm not even sure he'd admit that he thinks you are "wrong" on Locker, even if he mostly disagrees with you....he's just looking for discussion tailored to the example set forth in the OP. And asking that any general Locker debate not related to what you specifically see in the video be kept to other threads.

And make no mistake, this game cutup isn't being used in this thread because dg thinks it proves his position of generally supporting locker, or even by his choice. It was voted on by a group of posters to use this specific game to encourage deeper football conversation in regards to Locker's performance in THIS specific game. Any general conclusion that someone could come to about Locker based on this video is fine for discussion as well...as long as its supported by evidence. And I'm sure that contradictory evidence would be welcomed, as long as there was another video example to support it.

Basically, I'm saying that the only agenda that dg is pushing, is an attempt to push this thread back on track, which means dissecting this specific game of Locker's in an effort to get a better understanding of him as a player....not to prove that he's the player for us or even to prove that he's worthy of a first round pick. And dg's said multiple times that he's willing to breakdown a different game as well, if anyone else would pick one that they thought more worthy.

[Lavarleap56]

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.

Nothing is going to be clearly distinct in regards to the draft on January greenie and everyone should know that. I agree with Gabbert being scheme diverse but strongly disagree on Locker. I have said previously Kyle would have a good amount of input in a qb selection and the fact he does makes locker a more unlikely selection. Donovan Mcnabb is actually a great example for this argument and he frustrated Kyle Shanahan in regards to executing the offense on a consistent basis and Locker has a lot of attributes Mcnabb has.

Kyles offense is essentially a expanded version of his fathers with additions from Gary kubiak. Kyle of course has added a lot of concepts as well so to say there different offenses is off base. While running San Franciscos offense Mike Shanahan was pretty pass happy as well as I recall and after moving to Denver leaned to more balance based on location and neccesity. Shanahan believed the altitude in Denver gave his team a distinct advantage and ran more to wear defenses out early especially with zone stretches, then attacked with the pass as games wore on.

You also stated a very true point that Kyle can find a good pocket passer later than round 1 which has been advocated by many on this board. A good prospect to Mike or Kyle will be good from the pocket and abilities outside of that are a bonus not a neccesity. This board is for people to post opinions and information that is aimed at generating discussion and naturally everyone will not agree. I like reading your posts and do agree with some of your points but don't understand the locker drum beating. You may disagree with me and that is not discouraged but let's keep the pied piper like comments out of the discussion cause that isn't the case.

Its difficult to evaluate a qb based on a sideline view as in youtube videos and to specifically use a game isn't fair. How about we evaluate Jason Campbells game vs New Orleans last season ? Defiantly not a accurate tape on terms of his overall production. I know you added we could look at any game we can find but YouTube videos with a sideline angle is tough. Endzone views with the ability to see everything is a lot better judge of how a qb performs.

[darrelgreenie]

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

Show me any quote where i'm pushing an agenda?

ASF is pushing an agenda.

The people that drive by bash Locker are pushing an agenda.

This thread was a discussion about Locker's play in the USC, there's another thread about Gabbert, there would be more threads of this nature but i realize now that its pointless b/c very few people actually watch and discuss the games.

Since when is an unbiased discussion an agenda?

You are critical of people in this thread that post their opinion that is contrary to yours.

Go back and look through this thread it was a discussion and pretty good discussion of the Washington vs USC game.

People were discussing actual plays.

It has since been derailed by spam/trolling from ASF, whilnder and Hooper and has devolved into another typical extremeskins thread where people spend time in these type of back and forths without ever actually discussing any on the field play.

You can call it critical but i have no idea what you're talking about without a quote.

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.

Well again you miss the intent of this thread and where it has gone wrong.

The mere fact that this entire post hasn't mentioned any of Locker's on the field play is proof that this thread has been derailed.

And i didn't tell them to post somewhere else because they are wrong i asked that they post somewhere else because this thread wasn't supposed to turn into what it is now:

the typical extremeskins back and forth filled with unsupported opinion.

You guys win.

There is no need to look at any games nor to comment on the actual on the field plays to make judgements based on our own eyes.

Lets just parrot the view of 'experts' regardless of their crediblity ,like Adam Caplan, and use them to form strong negative opinions on college prospects.

Hail.

Someone close this thread.

[Fred Jones]

I'm pretty sure his point isn't that you should go post somewhere else if you don't like Locker, and want to bash him...I think what he's saying is that this wasn't intended to be a generalized "pros vs. cons of Locker" thread. Whether you support drafting Locker or not, I think dg's trying to say that this thread is supposed to be deeper than that.

Talk up Locker, sure. Talk **** on Locker, sure. But do it within the "rules" of the thread. Use this video, this cutup of Locker's game vs. USC, to frame your argument, so that we get some real X's and O's conversation going on in here, with reliable video evidence that everyone can use as a reference.

I don't think dg gives a crap whether you like Locker or not. I'm not even sure he'd admit that he thinks you are "wrong" on Locker, even if he mostly disagrees with you....he's just looking for discussion tailored to the example set forth in the OP. And asking that any general Locker debate not related to what you specifically see in the video be kept to other threads.

And make no mistake, this game cutup isn't being used in this thread because dg thinks it proves his position of generally supporting locker, or even by his choice. It was voted on by a group of posters to use this specific game to encourage deeper football conversation in regards to Locker's performance in THIS specific game. Any general conclusion that someone could come to about Locker based on this video is fine for discussion as well...as long as its supported by evidence. And I'm sure that contradictory evidence would be welcomed, as long as there was another video example to support it.

Basically, I'm saying that the only agenda that dg is pushing, is an attempt to push this thread back on track, which means dissecting this specific game of Locker's in an effort to get a better understanding of him as a player....not to prove that he's the player for us or even to prove that he's worthy of a first round pick. And dg's said multiple times that he's willing to breakdown a different game as well, if anyone else would pick one that they thought more worthy.

As LL56 pointed out below and said it better than me, he went off base a little bit from the OP. I understand that his initial intention was probably what you state, but that is not what he said in later posts and in posts in other threads. Threads on this board have a way of taking off on their own. Trying to control them is usually not advisable unless you are a Mod.

And he is pro Locker and has pointed it out in more than one post.

Edit: To comment on the post above, people are going to post their opinions. I have posted very little on Locker myself other than he is not as accurate as you claim and I don't believe he is starting caliber. If the FO believes Locker is the man, I will support their decision. I have not bets on the table.

And, yes ASF is pushing his agenda, but so are you. You are confident Locker is good and show that in the first couple of posts in this thread. However, reading the thread and looking at each individual statement you make it is clear you have formed your own opinion and want to share it with everyone. I disagreed with your assessment after looking at the same set of plays you reviewed. I simply saw something different and I looked with an objective eye because I didn't care if Locker was good or bad before I evaluated. I am sorry that you don't view what you posted as pushing your agenda. You can call it simply posting your viewpoint, but you put a lot of time and effort just to create a discussion in which you present heavily one-sided information.

Lastly, don't take it personally that other posters voiced strong opinions contrary to yours. In the future we were find out if Locker or the QB that ASF is pushing will fail or succeed. And, this is ES, threads will take off on their own with a thousand different NFL GM's posting their opinion good or bad irregardless if they actually know anything.

[Conn]

I understand that his initial intention was probably what you state, but that is not what he said in later posts and in posts in other threads. Threads on this board have a way of taking off on their own. Trying to control them is usually not advisable unless you are a Mod.

Fair enough, and the last sentence is probably wise advice. It seems that the thread isn't living up to his expectations, given the work put into the initial breakdown of the supplied video cutups. Its understandable.

I mean, imagine if KDawg's intricate offensive and defensive coordinator threads, using the statistics, etc., were completely derailed into generalized argument back and forth. I can see why he'd be upset and try to steer it back on track, if that were the case. Because hard work was put into creating the thread in a manner that encouraged a specific type of discussion.

Now, I'm not in a position to say whether this OP/thread were put together with the same amount of care and time commitment, but I'd imagine so. So I think its easy to see why he's trying to control the discussion in a way, even if its true that threads in general frequently morph into something new and different as they go along.

And he is pro Locker and has pointed it out in more than one post.

This is very true. I was just trying to say that this doesn't mean that a constructive discussion can't continue here...the purpose of this thread wasn't to support dg's beliefs about Locker, that's just what he's using the video evidence to argue. The opposite case can be made using the same reference point, or a similar one, and I think that's what he's waiting for, rather than the general draftnik-esque debating.

[Fred Jones]

Kdawg's threads your are referencing are more specific and technical and not player specific. Greenie presents a lot of evidence reference a specific player he thinks is good and then tries to narrow the focus. Nothing wrong with that, and he was right on a couple of posts that brought nothing to the discussion. I just found it interesting that he focuses on one game and not a college career overall in his opening thread.

[Conn]

Kdawg's threads your are referencing are more specific and technical and not player specific. Greenie presents a lot of evidence reference a specific player he thinks is good and then tries to narrow the focus. Nothing wrong with that, and he was right on a couple of posts that brought nothing to the discussion. I just found it interesting that he focuses on one game and not a college career overall in his opening thread.

To be fair, they've already done this exact format for Gabbert as well. Cam Newton is next, and probably Mallett after that. A game is voted on by some of the guys in the draft thread, and then they make the thread and break it down.

So this thread format wasn't thought up specifically to support his thoughts on Locker. That's all I'm saying. Naturally the debate evolved in that direction, but it was definitely intended as an innocent look at a game of Locker's, just to break it down, with the caveat that more games could be brought into the equation once this one was done, if that's what people were calling for.

[Going Commando]

Play number 46 is breathtaking DG. I remember this game when it happened. You're on the edge of your seat the whole time and then that thing comes along. That is a stud play.

One of the things you notice from these cutups is that Washington has a very poor offensive line and Locker is disproportionately effected by it. Washington threw to set up the run here. Look how often they run screens, end-arounds, and sweeps. They hardly ran it between the tackles at all until USC's defense tired in the 4th quarter. They had no confidence in their offensive line to win at the line of scrimmage and had to get cute to get the ball in space. Locker makes so many touch passes off his back foot it's almost comical. It's actually comforting in a way--he'll be doing a lot of that here in Washington until we improve our offensive line...

I didn't notice problems with his accuracy in this game and he played an elite defense replete with future NFL players. This game was early in the year. It looks like he hadn't broken his ribs yet. Because of that, I honestly think it's a better gauge of what to expect from him in the NFL than some of the games later in the season where he struggled.

My favorite thing of all about Locker? It's how blindingly fast he operates in the pocket. His drops are lightning quick. His decision to pull down and run is tremendously fast and then he's off. He doesn't gather himself at all... He's a 6'3, 230 pound athlete no less.

[MartinC]

Its difficult to evaluate a qb based on a sideline view as in youtube videos and to specifically use a game isn't fair. How about we evaluate Jason Campbells game vs New Orleans last season ? Defiantly not a accurate tape on terms of his overall production. I know you added we could look at any game we can find but YouTube videos with a sideline angle is tough. Endzone views with the ability to see everything is a lot better judge of how a qb performs.

Your right of course, we are amateurs working with scraps in terms of source material. It's pretty hard to see coverages for example and without knowing exactly what the play call was we are making assumptions in terms of what happens versus what was supposed to happen.

Your also right that the mental aspect is key but we are no real position to judge that side things all we can do is grade whatever game footage we can see.

Having said that though if you read the summary I made in the OP and then read the summaries of Locker on the draft sites or listen to what thenbig draft pundits are saying I think there is a lot of match.

Do you have any access to end zone footage? It would really help get a better handle on the abilities or the prospects which is the sole intent of this and the other QB threads DG and I have done.

By the way I am not a draft Locker guy personally. I think he has a lot of great qualities and has a shot at being a very good NFL QB if he can sort out his footwork in the pocket. For me though Gabbert is the best option at 10 or go RDE/OLB if he has gone.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 03:50 AM ----------

Kdawg's threads your are referencing are more specific and technical and not player specific. Greenie presents a lot of evidence reference a specific player he thinks is good and then tries to narrow the focus. Nothing wrong with that, and he was right on a couple of posts that brought nothing to the discussion. I just found it interesting that he focuses on one game and not a college career overall in his opening thread.

Just to say as I also broke down the film along with DG that I am NOT in the draft Locker camp so my comments which are not that different to DGs in the OP are in no way intended to try to present a specific player in a good light. I don't believe DG is trying to do that either.

All we are trying to do here is raise the level of information ES members have about the QBs who MiGHT be targets for us early the draft and also try to raise the level of conversation above the normal X is great and Y sucks.

[Newera]

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.

Sure, but Campbell still goes down as a disappointment. Particularly for what we gave up to get him.

[Chump Bailey]

All we are trying to do here is raise the level of information ES members have about the QBs who MiGHT be targets for us early the draft and also try to raise the level of conversation above the normal X is great and Y sucks.

And you guys are doing a great job btw. Thanks for your threads.

[Fred Jones]

To be fair, they've already done this exact format for Gabbert as well. Cam Newton is next, and probably Mallett after that. A game is voted on by some of the guys in the draft thread, and then they make the thread and break it down.

So this thread format wasn't thought up specifically to support his thoughts on Locker. That's all I'm saying. Naturally the debate evolved in that direction, but it was definitely intended as an innocent look at a game of Locker's, just to break it down, with the caveat that more games could be brought into the equation once this one was done, if that's what people were calling for.

As I said in my previous post, I like reading these threads and as someone else said you guys are doing a great job. DG and others are clearly spending a lot of time researching the information.

That said, I understand if anyone comes on here and disagrees with the format of evaluating one game. So, he looks good in one game? And, yes, I understand your point, but posters are going to want to post their opinion on the rest of the season and Locker's performance last year and explain why he is not a first round pick. Good or bad, that is the way it is.

Not trying to stir up trouble, just present another view point.

[MartinC]

As I said in my previous post, I like reading these threads and as someone else said you guys are doing a great job. DG and others are clearly spending a lot of time researching the information.

That said, I understand if anyone comes on here and disagrees with the format of evaluating one game. So, he looks good in one game? And, yes, I understand your point, but posters are going to want to post their opinion on the rest of the season and Locker's performance last year and explain why he is not a first round pick. Good or bad, that is the way it is.

Not trying to stir up trouble, just present another view point.

Fred I have no problem with alternate views, part of the objective is to encourage discussion. Re the one game issue I understand your point. If there are other games you wanted to link in this thread and point to plays or sections which support your views that would be great.

[Atlanta Skins Fan]

As I said in my previous post, I like reading these threads and as someone else said you guys are doing a great job. DG and others are clearly spending a lot of time researching the information.

That said, I understand if anyone comes on here and disagrees with the format of evaluating one game. So, he looks good in one game? And, yes, I understand your point, but posters are going to want to post their opinion on the rest of the season and Locker's performance last year and explain why he is not a first round pick. Good or bad, that is the way it is.

Not trying to stir up trouble, just present another view point.

OP & MartinC should stop blaming everyone else and understand why their intent has been frustrated. They did not follow the cardinal rule of thread titles and essays.

• Title should completely summarize the topic and point of view of the thread / essay
  

The actual titles used in these threads are false advertising. The titles invite any kind of take on the QBs whatsover. The title defeats OP's intent, not the people posting in the thread.

The OP would have achieved his goals had he given an obvious and focused thread title, such as:

• Play by Play with Jake Locker: Every pass thrown in 2010 USC game
  
• Game analysis of 2011 QB Prospects: Jake Locker, 2010 USC game
  
• Grading 2011 QB prospects by game analysis: Jake Locker, 2010 USC game

Then there would be no need to run up and down the aisles whacking people with rulers and complaining about being misunderstood.

[HigSkin]

DG - I certainly appreciate the work and thought you put in to your posts and threads. It's much more interesting than the "no love for this or that guy" threads. I also find the banter between you and ASF entertaining....both of you obviously have your passions for any given subject. It definitely makes the board a more interesting place.

I happen to be indifferent to Locker, if that's what Shanahan wants to do, then great. If not, than great too. You've certainly done a good job of providing your view on the matter.

Additionally, you can label me one of those rats that follows the "Pied Piper", as anytime LL56, TK or JSteelz come in here with information, I'm taking notice. IMHO, folks that have a pulse on the thinking inside the organization render more credience than any posters, draftniks or media here. None of these guys deserve to be poo-pooed or ignored simply because they bring different insights to a particular thread.

It's just my observations and opinion, right or wrong, good or bad but it's all good.

[MartinC]

OP & MartinC should stop blaming everyone else and understand why their intent has been frustrated. They did not follow the cardinal rule of thread titles and essays.

• Title should completely summarize the topic and point of view of the thread / essay
  

The actual titles used in these threads are false advertising. The titles invite any kind of take on the QBs whatsover. The title defeats OP's intent, not the people posting in the thread.

The OP would have achieved his goals had he given an obvious and focused thread title, such as:

• Play by Play with Jake Locker: Every pass thrown in 2010 USC game
  
• Game analysis of 2011 QB Prospects: Jake Locker, 2010 USC game
  
• Grading 2011 QB prospects by game analysis: Jake Locker, 2010 USC game

Then there would be no need to run up and down the aisles whacking people with rulers and complaining about being misunderstood.

Below is what DG kicked this thread off with in the OP. I think it provides quite a nice summary of the thread purpose no? None of the thread titles you suggest would make the slightest difference IMO, people jump in threads part way through and they take on a life of there own, that's ES.

The 2011 Redskins might be in the market to acquire a QB in the upcoming draft and there are several good prospects.

The aim of this series of threads is to conduct a layman's evaluation and discussion of the QBs by look past the stats and the often parroted rhetoric available through media and draft sites.

The goal is to look in depth and discuss the top prospects in action.

The springboard for the discussion will be the commonly available game cut-ups (not highlights) on youtube and may extend to torrents (if there's interest).

All are welcome with the expectation that specific plays will be discussed whenever possible.

[Mahons21]

^^@ the 1:50 mark:

LOL you're absolutely right, that throw had 0% to do with throwing lanes. I was waaay off (dumb and dumber voice). It is interesting to note that rather than using a classic step up to make his throw, he instead chooses to make a jumping throw.

Watching the 1:50 mark play specifically, I believe his poor footwork prior to the jump pass may have led to the jump. His feet aren't anywhere near wide enough, he has no base, and he seems to have happy feet in my opinion.

Just my take on the play, but that footwork did not impress.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 12:41 PM ----------

OP & MartinC should stop blaming everyone else and understand why their intent has been frustrated. They did not follow the cardinal rule of thread titles and essays.

• Title should completely summarize the topic and point of view of the thread / essay
  

The actual titles used in these threads are false advertising. The titles invite any kind of take on the QBs whatsover. The title defeats OP's intent, not the people posting in the thread.

The OP would have achieved his goals had he given an obvious and focused thread title, such as:

• Play by Play with Jake Locker: Every pass thrown in 2010 USC game
  
• Game analysis of 2011 QB Prospects: Jake Locker, 2010 USC game
  
• Grading 2011 QB prospects by game analysis: Jake Locker, 2010 USC game

Then there would be no need to run up and down the aisles whacking people with rulers and complaining about being misunderstood.

ASF you always bring interesting arguments to the table, which I why I can't believe it was actually you writing this post. Clearly DG and Martin have let everyone know they would like to analyze the actual gamefilm in this thread, if that isn't what you or other posters would like to partake in, then there are about 10 other threads where you can post about Jake Locker and other draft prospects, without going into detail about game film.

[MrSilverMaC]

LOL you're absolutely right, that throw had 0% to do with throwing lanes. I was waaay off (dumb and dumber voice). It is interesting to note that rather than using a classic step up to make his throw, he instead chooses to make a jumping throw.

Watching the 1:50 mark play specifically, I believe his poor footwork prior to the jump pass may have led to the jump. His feet aren't anywhere near wide enough, he has no base, and he seems to have happy feet in my opinion.

Just my take on the play, but that footwork did not impress.

Just my take on that play fwiw, but I think he does his jump pass more because he thinks he's coming up to the LoS than because of bad footwork. The network shows the LoS and he is 2 yards away, but if he steps into that throw he is very near passing it. Just my :2cents:

[ouvan59]

To be fair, they've already done this exact format for Gabbert as well. Cam Newton is next, and probably Mallett after that. A game is voted on by some of the guys in the draft thread, and then they make the thread and break it down.

So this thread format wasn't thought up specifically to support his thoughts on Locker. That's all I'm saying. Naturally the debate evolved in that direction, but it was definitely intended as an innocent look at a game of Locker's, just to break it down, with the caveat that more games could be brought into the equation once this one was done, if that's what people were calling for.

It would probably be a better measure to breakdown a game that he did well in and a game he did poorly in. That way you could further pinpoint the reasons for his struggles at times. Picking just a game that he did well in, and arguably his best game in his career, just seems like it's pushing an agenda.

[Mahons21]

It would probably be a better measure to breakdown a game that he did well in and a game he did poorly in. That way you could further pinpoint the reasons for his struggles at times. Picking just a game that he did well in, and arguably his best game in his career, just seems like it's pushing an agenda.

You also have to understand that in these career games a QB is going to have a lot of passing attempts, if not career high passing attempts. Which means there will be a much larger sample size for the analysis.

---------- Post added January-29th-2011 at 01:46 PM ----------

Just my take on that play fwiw, but I think he does his jump pass more because he thinks he's coming up to the LoS than because of bad footwork. The network shows the LoS and he is 2 yards away, but if he steps into that throw he is very near passing it. Just my :2cents:

Could be another good possibility, but do you disagree with the statement "his footwork was poor on that play?"

[Lavarleap56]

So how about we evaluate his senior bowl now ?

[Spartacus87]

Well, Locker can run fast and has a big arm. So he's got that going for him.

[tex]

Locker did not look that good. Odds are good he slips?

[ArmchairRedskin]

Locker just showed exactly what the consensus on him is. Has legs, can run, can make some good throws on the move, is inaccurate from the pocket.

[The Full Monty]

Just confirmed that he is a reach at #10 and will be a project. Had a chance to silence a lot of doubters but, not really. I really just don't like the top QBs in the draft. We need trench help with our top picks.