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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Wait how do you know what expect from Locker?
I wouldn't have pegged you as a stat guy when it comes to QB evaluation.
I've watched quite a few Washington games and if you haven't watched them play you don't have a context to understand Locker's stats/comp%.

E.g. I've charted Locker's throws from the USC game and there were 5 flat out drops and a few throw aways and although i haven't charted everygame available on youtube i've watched most, and know a Husky fan that tells me that the drops were a very common occurance all season.

I just assumed that you didn't have time to go through everyones (all 18) QB prospects with a higher completion percentage than Jake Locker and chart their drops.

I'm sure Locker (like all college QBs) is plagued by drops that could extend drives and help his offense score more points. Which sucks for him. In that case, just assume that Locker's inclusion among the linked list is because his pro receivers continue to drop his balls, since the low completion % numbers Locker will post in the pros will not be his fault.

[30gut]

I'm not sure why you choose to post in this manner and to be honest i'm a bit surprised and dissappointed.
But, to each their own.

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

I just assumed that you didn't have time to go through everyones (all 18) QB prospects with a higher completion percentage than Jake Locker and chart their drops.

Wow um okay, why would i do that?
My point is that having watched the USC game i know that Locker had 5 drops.
If you look only at the stats you don't get the context.
And the context is that Washington is a re-building program w/ limited talent on offense outside of Locker.

-Judging by your response i take you aren't interested in discussing the way Locker played in the actual game?

In that case, just assume that Locker's inclusion among the linked list is because his pro receivers continue to drop his balls, since the low completion % numbers Locker will post in the pros will not be his fault

Those predictions are close to meaningless.
One could easily have a model that projected QBs from college w/ high comp% that either went undrafted or were total busts in the NFL.

QB evalution is less about stats then about scouting.
Bill Walsh listed his college QB evaluation criteria in sum like this:
Competitive
Arm Strength
Complete Inventory
Quick delivery
Touch
Read defense
Mobility+Avoidance
Function while injured
Not easily rattled
Spontaneous decision/genius

He made no mention of stats nor of comp %.

HTTR!

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

I'm not sure why you choose to post in this manner and to be honest i'm a bit surprised and dissappointed.
But, to each their own.

Wow um okay, why would i do that?
My point is that having watched the USC game i know that Locker had 5 drops.
If you look only at the stats you don't get the context.
And the context is that Washington is a re-building program w/ limited talent on offense outside of Locker.

-Judging by your response i take you aren't interested in discussing the way Locker played in the actual game?


Those predictions are close to meaningless.
One could easily have a model that projected QBs from college w/ high comp% that either went undrafted or were total busts in the NFL.

Ugh.

The point was that you made a argument based around Locker's dropped passes. It's not the first time I've heard the argument; Todd McShay (for example) made the same one before he changed his opinion on Locker. "He's accurate, but the numbers don't show it. You'll just have to trust me on this one." It's not a unique or insane argument, it's just weak.

There is a standard expectation for ability for a college quarterback who wants to be drafted in 2011, and Locker falls well short of that standard. That's what his whole body of work says. I am VERY interested in looking at Locker's film to see what he does well and not so well. I am far less interested in trying to cross my eyes while watching said film to see a passer with requisite NFL accuracy. Which apparently is something that Bill Walsh didn't value.

I'm perfectly willing to give you that Locker had five dropped passes in the USC game against him if you're willing to give me the fact that, in the course of a college career, that doesn't change much (he won the game after all).

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Ugh.

The point was that you made a argument based around Locker's dropped passes. It's not the first time I've heard the argument; Todd McShay (for example) made the same one before he changed his opinion on Locker. "He's accurate, but the numbers don't show it. You'll just have to trust me on this one." It's not a unique or insane argument, it's just weak.

There is a standard expectation for ability for a college quarterback who wants to be drafted in 2011, and Locker falls well short of that standard. That's what his whole body of work says. I am VERY interested in looking at Locker's film to see what he does well and not so well. I am far less interested in trying to cross my eyes while watching said film to see a passer with requisite NFL accuracy. Which apparently is something that Bill Walsh didn't value.

I'm perfectly willing to give you that Locker had five dropped passes in the USC game against him if you're willing to give me the fact that, in the course of a college career, that doesn't change much (he won the game after all).

So his 35 INTs (had 53 TDs) were not from inaccuracy, but due to his WRs bobbling the ball into the defenders' hands?

In his Jr. and Sr. seasons, he had a 2:1 TD:INT ratio, which is not exactly a #10-pick type of stat line. 17 TDs and 9 INTs this season.

Mallet on the other hand had closer to a 3:1 ratio with his 32 TDs, 12 INTs.


Sure Locker is no Cutler statistically, or even the 2010 McNabb with more INTs than TDs, but we should expect better numbers from a QB we're talking about taking at #10. Locker seemed to have regressed slightly in his senior season and hurt his draft value, which should have gone up after deciding to stay a fourth year.

Mallett and Newton, along with the obvious Luck and Gabbard who will be gone at #10 are all better picks than Locker in Round 1. I'd perfer Andy Dalton (TCU) over Locker as well.


I don't even think Locker is a First Round pick.


Personally, I say keep McNabb another year and keep working on that O-line, but that's not the question in the thread...so Mallett.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by Buster

Mallett and Newton, along with the obvious Luck and Gabbard who will be gone at #10 are all better picks than Locker in Round 1. I'd perfer Andy Dalton (TCU) over Locker as well.

You stopped at 4 there, but I could keep going.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

The point was that you made a argument based around Locker's dropped passes. It's not the first time I've heard the argument; Todd McShay (for example) made the same one before he changed his opinion on Locker. "He's accurate, but the numbers don't show it. You'll just have to trust me on this one." It's not a unique or insane argument, it's just weak.

Yes, that was part of my point.
Your post seems to look at Locker only from a statistical standpoint.
(I haven't read the entire thread only started reading around your post)
My point was that without context the stats aren't very meaningful.
Comp % like most stats in football are very much affected by the team on which the QB plays.
And i don't think you'll disagree that Washington is a team w/ limited talent on offense other then Locker.
E.g. Washington hasn't had an NFL caliber OL or WR in 5 years.

There is a standard expectation for ability for a college quarterback who wants to be drafted in 2011, and Locker falls well short of that standard. That's what his whole body of work says.

Why? Because of some statistical model?

I am far less interested in trying to cross my eyes while watching said film to see a passer with requisite NFL accuracy. Which apparently is something that Bill Walsh didn't value.

Your a touchy fella aren't you?
Why would you have to cross your eyes?
If you're refering to a statistical measure of accuracy you would be right Walsh didn't list that in the criteria he does consider actually accuracy though its a cross between touch and throwing a complete inventory of passes.

I'm perfectly willing to give you that Locker had five dropped passes in the USC game against him if you're willing to give me the fact that, in the course of a college career, that doesn't change much (he won the game after all).

You don't have to 'give' me the drops b/c they actually happened.
You seem to imply that b/c he won the game that the drops didn't have an effect on the outcome.
But, if you can't accept that drops have an effect on the game then we're probably having a pointless conversation.


Just out of curiosity how many Washington Huskies games have you watched?
B/c if you've seen more then the Bowl game when Nebraska's DBs owned Washington's DBs you'll see that Locker is more accurate then his stats suggest.

[skinsfaninok]

Locker is better than any other QB in this draft IMO, Dalton could be the sleeper that ends up the best.. There's a reason why Jake was projected top 3 last year, guy has talent.

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Yes, that was part of my point.
Your post seems to look at Locker only from a statistical standpoint.
(I haven't read the entire thread only started reading around your post)
My point was that without context the stats aren't very meaningful.
Comp % like most stats in football are very much affected by the team on which the QB plays.


Why? Because of some statistical model?


Your a touchy fella aren't you?
Why would you have to cross your eyes?
If you're refering to a statistical measure of accuracy you would be right Walsh didn't list that in the criteria he does consider actually accuracy though its a cross between touch and throwing a complete inventory of passes.




You don't have to 'give' me the drops b/c they actually happened.
You seem to imply that b/c he won the game that the drops didn't have an effect on the outcome.
But, if you can't accept that drops have an effect on the game then we're probably having a pointless conversation.


Just out of curiosity how many Washington Huskies games have you watched?
B/c if you've seen more then the Bowl game when Nebraska's DBs owned Washington's DBs you'll see that Locker is more accurate then his stats suggest.

Can I (carefully) point out that you've done nothing to give any context for Lockers numbers? You've just attributed 5 incompletion in his statistical record against USC to drops. That's attribution, not context.

Context would be "Locker was recruited to play at a once top level football power in total disarray under Ty Willingham. He played on a bad team and was throw into the role of starting QB right away with no seasoning, which may depress his numbers compared to other draft-eligible prospects. Even though his teams got betters over his career (along with his numbers), the level of talent on his offense was still easily handled by top teams as a senior. He was always playing from behind, against long odds, but he got his team bowl eligible and beat a Nebraska team that had beaten Washington easily in the regular season, going out on a high note." In a way, what Locker was able to accomplish at Washington in a short time was pretty awesome.

I already considered all of the above when looking at the gap between Jake Locker and the next worst guy at completing his college passes. Colin Kaepernick threw for four years to even worse receivers at the University of Nevada. He had relatively low completion numbers against WAC competition. Nothing close to Locker, though. I have no idea what Colin Kaepernick's completion percentage would be if we adjusted for ALL of his drops. I do know it would be higher than Jake Locker's under the same conditions.

Jake Locker is not the only college quarterback who had five or more of his passes dropped this year. I don't think you were unaware of this, it just seems like you don't care. He's your guy. His drops matter, and Blaine Gabbert's don't. That's your point. It's a very biased one, but you're entitled to have it. I'm entitled to not care, and still hold objectivity.

Completion percentage isn't really a great measure of accuracy (though Locker IS very, very wild -- he's probably not the wildest thrower I've ever evaluated). It is a great measure of completions against attempts. Locker is a wildly inconsistent thrower at the college level, and expecting him to be something else at the professional level would be, in my opinion, a poor interpretation of the available evidence, though I do expect his completion percentage to bump up a couple of points once he gets away from his Washington teammates and with professionals. But it's still going to be low in any case. The link I posted above shows the limited success of players with low completion percentages. It's not a be-all end-all. It's merely showing that players who struggle with their completion percentage have a tendency to not make it up elsewhere.

And thus, Locker isn't a good money bet to ever achieve franchise quarterback status for anyone. You can put your money wherever you'd like.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Can I (carefully) point out that you've done nothing to give any context for Lockers numbers? You've just attributed 5 incompletion in his statistical record against USC to drops. That's attribution, not context.

I wasn't trying to give context i was pointing out that stats w/o context aren't very meaningful.

I already considered all of the above when looking at the gap between Jake Locker and the next worst guy at completing his college passes.

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.

Jake Locker is not the only college quarterback who had five or more of his passes dropped this year. I don't think you were unaware of this, it just seems like you don't care.

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 effected not only by drops but the overall quality of the team that surrounds the QB?

And although He's your guy. His drops matter, and Blaine Gabbert's don't. That's your point. It's a very biased one, but you're entitled to have it. I'm entitled to not care, and still hold objectivity.

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:

Originally Posted by 30gut

Wait how do you know what expect from Locker?
I wouldn't have pegged you as a stat guy when it comes to QB evaluation.
I've watched quite a few Washington games and if you haven't watched them play you don't have a context to understand Locker's stats/comp%.

E.g. I've charted Locker's throws from the USC game and there were 5 flat out drops and a few throw aways and although i haven't charted everygame available on youtube i've watched most, and know a Husky fan that tells me that the drops were a very common occurance all season.
Question:
Would you or the people in this forum be interested in a thread on the top QB prospects?
A thread that invite people to take a closer look (past the stats) at the commonly available game cut-ups (youtube) and discuss the particular plays from the same game so all have the same frame of reference and can discuss the specific plays that lead to the stats in context.

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)

Completion percentage isn't really a great measure of accuracy (though Locker IS very, very wild -- he's probably not the wildest thrower I've ever evaluated). It is a great measure of completions against attempts. Locker is a wildly inconsistent thrower at the college level,

This is exactly the notion that i disagree with.
B/c before i watched some of Locker cut-ups i held a similar belief based on the stats and the media and interent draft experts.
But, when i watched Locker in the games i didn't see Locker miss any more throws then I would consider normal for a QB.
I've watched many of Gabbert games as well and like any QB he also missed some throws.
When i watch Locker i don't see a 'wild' thrower at all.
I see a QB working hard behind an OL that he nor the coach have much confidence in, i see a QB that is in command of an offense w/ limited talent.
I see a QB with quick feet, solid mechanics and a compact throwing motion.
He's got a strong arm and is very good at throwing on the move and is very accurate when doing it.
He's also very athletic and has good playmaking ability.

and expecting him to be something else at the professional level would be, in my opinion, a poor interpretation of the available evidence,

Well yeah if you think the guy is a wild thrower then logically you wouldn't expect him to improve by much.

It's not a be-all end-all. It's merely showing that players who struggle with their completion percentage have a tendency to not make it up elsewhere.

Conversely i could show some QB who comp% have been effected by the quality of the team 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


-Again out of curiosity how many Washington games did you watch this year?(Other then the Bowl game?)
I've seen cut-ups of the following Washington games:
Syracuse
BYU
Arizona State
Oregon State
Stanford
USC
Washington Cougars
Arizona (2009)

[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).