IF We Take A QB At #10...Who Do You Want?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Have you? B/c you're apparently relying on the comp% stat as the most significant measure of a QB skillset.
My point again is that comp % is very much effected by the quality of the team around the QB.

The evidence says...not really. I mean, sure, it does matter some. Receiver catch rates are a variable that alters quarterback completion percentages, but it's, by far, the most static of all conventional stats. I asserted that I believe Locker's completion percentage would be higher in the pros than in college, but not that much better. If he goes from 53% to 57% in the NFL when he's not at Washington anymore...he's still probably busting. If you think he's going higher that would be...pretty unprecedented.

Regardless, it's probably not healthy analysis to assume that everything is going to be easier for him once he reaches the NFL. I'm not making that assumption, but I can't tell if you are or aren't.

If you want a different example, you can look at Jake Plummer. He improved in comp % going from a horrible offense to a good one, but he didn't suddenly become proficient in accuracy. The case of Steve Young is an entirely different scenario. He went from the worst team to the best team and matured many years before playing in a large sample for San Francisco.

You're right he's not but why would you assume that i don't care?
B/c i disagree w/ your statistical prediction based on comp % a comp% which is affected not only by drops but the overall quality of the team that surrounds the QB?

The point isn't that Locker was lower than the average. The point is that he's in an unprecedented level of bad. Jay Cutler was many percentage points better in the same statistic at Vanderbilt, and his career has been rocky if mildly successful. There's no way a less accurate Cutler could succeed in the NFL, but that's exactly who Locker is.

I'm telling you what my point is; but you're trying to tell me its something else?
What kind of way is this to have a discussion?
What you've done is created a strawman argument based on drops between Locker and Gabbert.

I'm gonna quote my entire post here for the sake of clarity to prevent further strawman arguments:

Notice that the drops are a part of my point and not the point.
I mentioned the drops as an example hence e.g.

Did i say that other QBs drops don't matter?
(And for the record i actually like Gabbert as prospect)

I feel like you're drawing a line between what you said and meant to imply and what you didn't say and can't imply, and that line is meaningless to me because I'm not in your head. Either your drops argument was weak and you're letting it go (without saying it), or you ACTUALLY did imply that Locker's receivers must have dropped a percentage of his balls that was way more significant than anyone else. I can't tell which side you're on now because you're being ambiguous.

Maybe Locker has been hammered by drops at a higher rate than other QBs. Seems plausible at least. But this is what I meant by crossing ones' eyes. The drops argument seems aimed in trying to manipulate the perception of available evidence to show that Locker -- at a microscopic level -- might not be the least proficient passer in the class. Maybe the second or third least proficient. But to me, even if you took 500 hours of tape study and proved that (provided of course that the original assumption wasn't just upheld), he's still an awful first round selection. I prefer to take the shortcut and just not call Locker the least proficient passer at the top of the draft, even though it looks that way at first, second, and third glance.

Conversely i could show some QB who comp% has been affected by the quality of the teams and coaching around them.
Drew Brees-
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...B/BreeDr00.htm
SDG-62.2%
NOR-67%
Steve Young-
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...Y/YounSt00.htm
SF-65.8
TB-53.8
Trent Green-
http://www.pro-football-reference.co...G/GreeTr00.htm
KSC-61.9
STL-58.7
WAS-54.5
There's also Brian Greise, Jeff George, Drew Bledsoe, Jake Plummer

Green's STL and KC numbers are essentially identical once you account for the passing environment. His one Washington season was much lower, but as a formative player, that's different from being under a different effect. That effect was simply playing experience. You're likely seeing something similar with Steve Young, at least if you're taking his 53.8% at face value.

I think Brees is an excellent example of the environment point you make, that Sean Payton and his offense have made Brees a better player than most thought he was capable of becoming. If you try to apply the same effect to Locker, you lose sight of the point entirely. Does anyone anywhere expect Locker to turn into a 62% passer under the tutlidge of some QB guru? Wouldn't that be a ridiculously fortunate outcome for the team that drafts him? If you put a wild thrower in a great environment...well, that's the Mark Sanchez experiment, is it not?

(Sanchez actually did complete 63% of his throws in college, so perhaps not the best example).

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The evidence says...not really. I mean, sure, it does matter some. Receiver catch rates are a variable that alters quarterback completion percentages, but it's, by far, the most static of all conventional stats. I asserted that I believe Locker's completion percentage would be higher in the pros than in college, but not that much better. If he goes from 53% to 57% in the NFL when he's not at Washington anymore...he's still probably busting. If you think he's going higher that would be...pretty unprecedented.

But comp% is effected by much more then receiver catch rates.
And you're the one that keeps bringing up this projection of stats.
My point is that the stats don't equal the evaluation.

Regardless, it's probably not healthy analysis to assume that everything is going to be easier for him once he reaches the NFL. I'm not making that assumption, but I can't tell if you are or aren't.

I don't need to make that assumption b/c i don't believe there is anytihing wrong with Locker's accuracy now.
You're the one that thinks he's a wild thrower.
And as far as i can tell you're using the comp% to support your point and not an actual evaluation of the prospect.

If you want a different example, you can look at Jake Plummer. He improved in comp % going from a horrible offense to a good one, but he didn't suddenly become proficient in accuracy. The case of Steve Young is an entirely different scenario. He went from the worst team to the best team and matured many years before playing in a large sample for San Francisco.

You explain away the uptick any way you want but the fact that uptick occured goes against the point you're making and speaks to my point.
The team around the QB effects their comp% and therefore comp% alone is not reliable predictor of success.
And quite frankly i think its pretty lame when people say that player X won't make it in the NFL or won't become a pro-bowler etc.
We're talking about the NFL the majority of people that attempt to make it fail and those that make it often have short careers.
You're not exactly going out on a limp when you say that player X won't make it.
When it comes to the NFL saying someone won't make it is always the safe side.

The point isn't that Locker was lower than the average. The point is that he's in an unprecedented level of bad. Jay Cutler was many percentage points better in the same statistic at Vanderbilt, and his career has been rocky if mildly successful. There's no way a less accurate Cutler could succeed in the NFL, but that's exactly who Locker is.

This is going in circles.
If Locker is so bad how come the scouts don't see it?
If Locker reaches an 'unprecedented level of bad' why is he even draftable?
But, the scouts don't rely on models they actually look at the prospects.

I feel like you're drawing a line between what you said and meant to imply and what you didn't say and can't imply, and that line is meaningless to me because I'm not in your head. Either your drops argument was weak and you're letting it go (without saying it), or you ACTUALLY did imply that Locker's receivers must have dropped a percentage of his balls that was way more significant than anyone else. I can't tell which side you're on now because you're being ambiguous.

No, you're ignoring my point and focusing on the drops.
I used the drops as an example of how the context of QB stats are important:
Drops or talent level of the receivers, quality of scheme, talent of OL, TEs, RBs all effect a QB stats including comp %.

Maybe Locker has been hammered by drops at a higher rate than other QBs. Seems plausible at least. But this is what I meant by crossing ones' eyes. The drops argument seems aimed in trying to manipulate the perception of available evidence to show that Locker -- at a microscopic level -- might not be the least proficient passer in the class. Maybe the second or third least proficient. But to me, even if you took 500 hours of tape study and proved that (provided of course that the original assumption wasn't just upheld), he's still an awful first round selection. I prefer to take the shortcut and just not call Locker the least proficient passer at the top of the draft, even though it looks that way at first, second, and third glance.

Again you're focused on the stats and ignoring the point.
Evaluation is more then stats.
And the stats have a context.
According to your logic why even bother scouting?
Just take the QBs w/ the highest comp% b/c their sure to suceed right?
Timmy Chang, Colt Brennan, Graham Harrell and the many other high comp % all should be NFL champions right?

Green's STL and KC numbers are essentially identical once you account for the passing environment. His one Washington season was much lower, but as a formative player, that's different from being under a different effect. That effect was simply playing experience. You're likely seeing something similar with Steve Young, at least if you're taking his 53.8% at face value.

Again you account for and explain away the uptick anyway you want but every example goes against your point.
Comp% like most other football stats is effected by the context of the situation where the stats are produced.

Does anyone anywhere expect Locker to turn into a 62% passer under the tutlidge of some QB guru? Wouldn't that be a ridiculously fortunate outcome for the team that drafts him? If you put a wild thrower in a great environment...well, that's the Mark Sanchez experiment, is it not?

I'm sure the coaches of the QB who've had success all expected their QBs to improve.
You can focus on the stats.
But the crux of the matter is that you view Locker as a 'wild thrower'.
But, when i watch Locker play that's not what i see.
I see a good QB an accurate QB especially on the run, not statistically accurate but actually accurate.

-Btw you didn't answer the question about how many Washington games you've watched?
-Also, from watching the USC youtube game cut-ups which throws do you think show Locker's 'wild throwing'?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

You explain away the uptick any way you want but the fact that uptick occured goes against the point you're making and speaks to my point.
The team around the QB effects their comp% and therefore comp% alone is not reliable predictor of success.
And quite frankly i think its pretty lame when people say that player X won't make it in the NFL or won't become a pro-bowler etc.
We're talking about the NFL the majority of people that attempt to make it fail and those that make it often have short careers.
You're not exactly going out on a limp when you say that player X won't make it.
When it comes to the NFL saying someone won't make it is always the safe side.

You're right. Your absolutely right. I'm on the safe side of this argument, and make no outlandish claims otherwise. It's the easy prediction to say that Locker won't be much in the pros because he didn't amount to much in college. The world is not promising Jake Locker anything.

It would be a huge blanket statement to say that passing environment doesn't affect completion percentages at all. That's not really true. It is true as a generalization compared to all other well-known statistics. It's one of two or three QB stats where the primary variable is the ability of the quarterback. It's not the only variable, but you can change the quality of receivers and see a drop in yards, TDs, an increase in INTs, and a relatively stable completion percentage. That would be pretty normal.

Which isn't to say that Jake Locker's college completion percentage might not be lower than his college skill level based on his environment. Unless the scouts who study Locker intently are just into BSing the general public and scouting community, his skill level HAS to be above his numbers. And I believe it is. It just means you have to be mindful of the chasm between Locker and the next-worst guy in a pretty stable statistic, and what it means for him in the pros.

Before you started, I linked a list that demonstrated what it meant. Your concern with my parameters was legitimate, but I hope by now you realize exactly how rarified the air would be if Jake Locker didn't end up with a majority of his seasons on the list I linked. I've got the smart money, plus plenty of room for error, on my side the the pickett fence.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Which isn't to say that Jake Locker's college completion percentage might not be lower than his college skill level based on his environment. Unless the scouts who study Locker intently are just into BSing the general public and scouting community, his skill level HAS to be above his numbers. And I believe it is.

Which was my point all along, there is a context to the stats and if you look only at the stats you miss the evaluation.

Before you started, I linked a list that demonstrated what it meant. Your concern with my parameters was legitimate, but I hope by now you realize exactly how rarified the air would be if Jake Locker didn't end up with a majority of his seasons on the list I linked.

Again were back to a looking at the stats.
If the stats were the sum of his ability then according to your view it would be long odds for Locker to improve his comp%.

When you repeatedly avoid the question about how many Washington games you've watched leads me to believe that you haven't seen Locker play very often.
If stats were excluded from the discussion and we just look at Locker as a prospect i bet you would have a different opinion of him; especially his accuracy.

HTTR!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Which was my point all along, there is a context to the stats and if you look only at the stats you miss the evaluation.


Again were back to a looking at the stats.
If the stats were the sum of his ability then according to your view it would be long odds for Locker to improve his comp%.

When you repeatedly avoid the question about how many Washington games you've watched leads me to believe that you haven't seen Locker play very often.
If stats were excluded from the discussion and we just look at Locker as a prospect i bet you would have a different opinion of him; especially his accuracy.

HTTR!

I don't think we can just ignore what Locker's statistics say just because they don't always match up with the film. It's hard to make any completely conclusive statements based on only statistics, but I would argue that "Jake Locker is not worthy of the 10th overall selection" is one of those statements.

That's to say nothing of where his value might actually lie, I was just trying to point out that even though you might sometimes have to talk about stats, I can isolate a single statistic from the rest of the picture and show how rare it is for someone who can't complete passes to be successful. Rare does not equal impossible: Doug Williams had multiple valuable years where he was at the bottom of the league in comp %. That's not to avoid context, but I don't believe you can view that point as valueless and still remain intellectually honest.

If a GREAT team were to take a flyer on Jake Locker and then tear him down and try to rebuild his mechanics, maybe you get a different player entirely. But even in such a hypothetical, you're already given the benefit of a strong organizations, and with the exception of maybe the 2009 Packers, strong organizations don't pick in the top ten unless they pick up a pick from a lesser organization.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I don't think we can just ignore what Locker's statistics say just because they don't always match up with the film. It's hard to make any completely conclusive statements based on only statistics, but I would argue that "Jake Locker is not worthy of the 10th overall selection" is one of those statements.

The bolded underlined portion of your quote is another fundamental disagreement that we touched on earlier.
Evaluation isn't done by sitting around looking at stats.
Talent evaluators know this that is why they look at film its part of the reason for events like the Senior Bowl and the combine.
Its a controlled situation where the prospect can be evaluated independent of the talent or lack thereof around them.
I mentioned how one of the greatest QB talent evaluators didn't even mention college stats as part of evaluation criteria.

Everyone knows the QBs because of positional value are drafted higher then grade.
The question wasn't where should Locker get drafted the question was IF we take a QB at 10 who do you want?

I can isolate a single statistic from the rest of the picture and show how rare it is for someone who can't complete passes to be successful.

You think you can isolate a single stats.
Which once again is a blind reliance on the stats.
And you're assuming he can't complete passes based on his comp % rather then watching him play.

If a GREAT team were to take a flyer on Jake Locker and then tear him down and try to rebuild his mechanics, maybe you get a different player entirely.

This is another empty statement that could be used for any QB w/o support.
One could insert Gabbert's name in place of Locker above and the statement would still be valid.

BTW-You seem to value stats correct? Well look at the efficiency.
Gabbert and Locker despite the void in their team's talent levels have about the same efficieny rating.

I'm gonna let this discussion go b/c its pointless.
But, you strike me as someone that really hasn't evaluated Locker at all you maybe saw the Bowl game and looked at his stats and made your conclusions.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

He does not make particularly great decisions, and for a guy who played in a one-two read system in college, he's not as good before the snap as I would like. I think he's good enough, but if I'm using the 10th overall pick, I'd like more than "good enough" to possibly make it at the pros.

Gabbert, to me, gives me everything I'm looking for in a top ten quarterback. If he's gone, I think we need to look elsewhere. Ryan Mallett would be a small reach at no. 10 and I see no reason to think Shanahan interested, but Mallett would be defensible if Gabbert is gone. I'd find it hard to get too excited if we drafted Mallett. I'd rather have Ponder.

Gabbert shares the same flaws as you mention for Newton.
Mizzou has a spread attack and Gabbert regularly only reads half the field.
Personally i don't view that as a knock b/c Sam Bradford and many other QBs only read half the field in the NFL.
But, if you're gonna knock one prospect for operating in 1 or 2 read system, you gotta be fair.
Also, college QBs in general don't make a lot of pre-snap reads.
Reading coverages is something they'll learn as they progress in NFL.

[GTripp0012]

I have not said that you are wrong or I am (unconditionally) right, just that I feel I have no reason to change my opinion of Locker based on anything you've argued.

Originally Posted by 30gut

The bolded underlined portion of your quote is another fundamental disagreement that we touched on earlier.
Evaluation isn't done by sitting around looking at stats.
Talent evaluators know this that is why they look at film its part of the reason for events like the Senior Bowl and the combine.
Its a controlled situation where the prospect can be evaluated independent of the talent or lack thereof around them.
I mentioned how one of the greatest QB talent evaluators didn't even mention college stats as part of evaluation criteria.

Everyone knows the QBs because of positional value are drafted higher then grade. The question wasn't where should Locker get drafted the question was IF we take a QB at 10 who do you want?

Ugh. This is a particularly shameless post because it came after you criticized me for being more concerned with being right on the bottom line grade than being thorough. I told you that criticism was fair, but you might as well not bother being surprised when a struggling college player becomes a bad pro.

You think you can isolate a single stats.
Which once again is a blind reliance on the stats.
And you're assuming he can't complete passes based on his comp % rather then watching him play.

You've been kind enough to offer an instructional on how to offer a minority opinion and somehow be strangely confident that someone else's methodology is stupid. I, of all people, can respect that, but look: your entire argument for Locker has been built around the idea that you've seen him and you would feel confident with him at no. 10 over anyone else. It's not a deeper position than that, no matter what Bill Walsh told you above evaluating QBs before you were born.

It's simply not a convincing methodology. I've been adamant that people need to realize that you've interpreted the evidence one way, but that I still feel it points strongly in another direction. I've done plenty to support my opinion, you've done...basically nothing but bitch about the strength of my supporting arguments and my methodology -- fairly unconvincingly.

you strike me as someone that really hasn't evaluated Locker at all you maybe saw the Bowl game and looked at his stats and made your conclusions.

Look, I know you asked me point-blank how many Washington games I watched and didn't give an answer, but I've also given you no reason to believe this which you have stated above. I could have answered your loaded question, but decided that the debate would be better if I was treated as neither an expert nor an amateur on the subject. I didn't want to say "I've seen 11 complete Washington games," or "I've just watched watched the bowl game and jumped to conclusions". Neither statement is true, nor particularly relevant.

The evidence isn't different when you've seen more of it, it's just more representative of the whole. Of course, in this debate, I am most certainly not the one who is losing sight of the whole picture.

I claim not to be an expert, just very good at what I do. You're desire to try to get information solely for the desire of labeling me (as you did above when I didn't answer) was probably more shameless than I think you intended. It is my only personal criticism in this exchange.

Gabbert shares the same flaws as you mention for Newton.
Mizzou has a spread attack and Gabbert regularly only reads half the field.
Personally i don't view that as a knock b/c Sam Bradford and many other QBs only read half the field in the NFL.
But, if you're gonna knock one prospect for operating in 1 or 2 read system, you gotta be fair.
Also, college QBs in general don't make a lot of pre-snap reads.
Reading coverages is something they'll learn as they progress in NFL.

Fine. Well argued.

There are plenty of differences between Newton and Gabbert, but that's another 10,000 words, and dispassionate words at that. Lets not go there just yet. I'm sure we will at some point.