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

[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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

One would think that this late in the argument you wouldn't attempt a strawman i.e claiming that i think your methodology is stupid.
If i thought it was stupid i would say so.
My point is that evaluation isn't done by looking at stats.
And stats alone don't paint the picture of a prospects ability especially a QB, the position that many consider the most dependent position on the field.
No.
I responded to your post where you used a statistical model to pan a prospect without any mention of the prospect abilities.
My position is that if you've seen Locker play you wouldn't have the opinions you have about him especially about him being a 'wild thrower'.

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.

Nice.
First strawman then profanity.
Wrong again, unless pointing out some obvious flaws in your theory is 'bitching'.

I could have answered your loaded question

No.
A loaded question would be: does your insecurity cause you to view normal questions as loaded?
But, i digress.
I was asking you about which games you've watched to hopefully spur a discussion based on what we actually see from the game.
To see if Locker's wild throwing or accuracy was evident from watching some commonly available games on the internet like the USC game i posted in my OP.

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.

The difference is that i wanted to discuss actual plays from actual games, but you didn't want to budge from your scouting via stats.

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.

I don't see what the point would be.
You've already demonstrated your posting style and its tedious and needlessly contentious.
Also, i actually like talk about the prospects play in games and you thus far have only mentioned stats and an only a statistically supported claim of Locker's 'wild throwing'.
And you already showed to grade prospects w/ a double standard in the case of Newton/Gabbert.
Oh, and you've also shown that you ignore any question you don't like e.g. about Gabbert vs Locker's efficiency rating.

HTTR!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

One would think that this late in the argument you wouldn't attempt a strawman i.e claiming that i think your methodology is stupid.
If i thought it was stupid i would say so.
My point is that evaluation isn't done by looking at stats.
And stats alone don't paint the picture of a prospects ability especially a QB, the position that many consider the most dependent position on the field.
No.
I responded to your post where you used a statistical model to pan a prospect without any mention of the prospect abilities.
My position is that if you've seen Locker play you wouldn't have the opinions you have about him especially about him being a 'wild thrower'.

You're toeing a line that doesn't exist. There's no room to tell someone that something isn't done by people without implying that a methodology is wrongheaded. Your position that anyone, specifically talking about me, that has seen Locker play wouldn't be of the opinion that he is a wild thrower is wrong. Wild is my word, but that's the scouting report on him.

Originally Posted by Mike Mayock

He's got all the tools to be a top-level quarterback, all the physical tools. The size and the arm strength. I just question his pocket awareness. And that's where his accuracy issues come into play. When he moves outside the pocket, either right or left, and not just scrambling, because they did a good job with plays that moved him outside the pocket and had him throw on the run, he has good vision and is as accurate as any quarterback you'll see. But he gets into some trouble in the pocket, seeing the field, and that's where his accuracy breaks down. I'm really excited to see him at the Senior Bowl (in two weeks) and see him working with other receivers. To me he's got first-round ability. But I just need to get more comfortable with him, and his pocket awareness.

Mayock, for the record, supports Locker as a first rounder. I do not.

I was asking you about which games you've watched to hopefully spur a discussion based on what we actually see from the game.
To see if Locker's wild throwing or accuracy was evident from watching some commonly available games on the internet like the USC game i posted in my OP.

The difference is that i wanted to discuss actual plays from actual games, but you didn't want to budge from your scouting via stats.

Well, I don't know exactly what you wanted to discuss. I thought you made your position very clear that you didn't think Locker was a particularly wild thrower. I thought you had a minority position, but I was willing to -- and still do -- respect your position. If what you really wanted to do was go play by play through a film cutup and debate pros and cons, then I'm just confused by the way you went about it.

You have made it equally clear that you don't respect my position because you don't believe I should be allowed to defend a player's ability to complete passes with stats. I have concluded that your criticism is ridiculous and cannot be taken seriously. Next issue.

I don't see what the point would be.
You've already demonstrated your posting style and its tedious and needlessly contentious.
Also, i actually like talk about the prospects play in games and you thus far have only mentioned stats and an only a statistically supported claim of Locker's 'wild throwing'.
And you already showed to grade prospects w/ a double standard in the case of Newton/Gabbert.
Oh, and you've also shown that you ignore any question you don't like e.g. about Gabbert vs Locker's efficiency rating.

For someone who is offended by the word bitching, you sure are adept at getting your hands dirty and slinging the mud around.

I'm not bothered by a little bit of jabbing, though you probably already know that by now. I give as good as I get. Just be careful to keep composure, or you get paragraphs like this. If you have anything insightful on Gabbert or Newton, I hope you do post it as I do value your opinion. I just have a tendency to be more receptive to opinions that make sense in the context of everything I already read/see/use.