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

[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.

[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

You're always assuming your conclusion.
I think that there is value in forecasting based on retrospective analysis.
Like the Lewin and other formula's.
But, i think there is a distinction between scouting the prospects and forecasting a prospects success based on stats.

I haven't seen many if any scouting reports that call Locker a wild thrower if wild implies inaccurate.
I've seen reports that mention inconsistent but not inaccurate.

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.

Its funny you posted this quote b/c it speaks to my point.
Mayock specifically mentions his accuracy as a positive and states that Locker gets into some trouble in the pocket where he doesn't see the field well and that is where Locker's accuracy breaks down and that he [Mayock] needs to take a closer look at Locker's pocket awareness.

Would you agree that its more difficult to throw on the run then from a clean pocket?

When i watched Washington it was clear that their OL lack of pass protection was the reason they moved Locker outside the pocket and the reason why the bulk of their passing game was quick game and short drops 1-3 steps.
And imo this why Locker at time doesn't appear comfortable in the pocket b/c his OL gets beat regularly.

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.

Funny b/c this is from my OP:

Originally Posted by 30gut

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.

Seems pretty straight forward to me and i asked the question b/c i'm in another Redskins forum where we actually do the above suggestion.(watch and discuss game cut-ups of the top prospects)

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.

Nope.
I think you cannot evaluate from stats and therefore cannot judge a QBs ability to complete passes by look at comp% alone.
Comp% doesn't equal a QBs ability to complete passes it indicates the team's ability to complete passes.

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

To borrow from you:

I give as good as I get

I try to post in converstaional manner the way i would holding a conversation at a sports bar.

I just have a tendency to be more receptive to opinions that make sense in the context of everything I already read/see/use.

Maybe you need to be expand the context of things you read/see/use to allow yourself to be more receptive to different opinions.
That way you would be more receptive to people like Mayock and Gil Brandt both of whom don't share your view about Jake Locker since both have him as 1st rounder.

BTW- Do you have any comment about the fact that Locker and Gabbert have similar efficiency numbers?

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

BTW- Do you have any comment about the fact that Locker and Gabbert have similar efficiency numbers?

Actually, yes. I assume you meant "in 2010", because they're not close for their careers.

The biggest differences between them were:

-Completion percentage much higher for Gabbert
-Sack rate a little bit lower for Gabbert (not a passing efficiency component)
-Rushing Efficiency decisively in the favor of Locker (not a passing efficiency component)
-Gabbert had more attempts, mostly, because Locker missed a game and parts of two others.

I think if you wanted to say that Locker and Gabbert had more similar seasons than they were different, that would make some sense. I also think that it would be reasonable to say that Gabbert as a junior was not a significantly better college player than Locker as a fourth or fifth year senior.

I think that's as far as that argument would take you though. Gabbert probably wouldn't be a top pick this if he wasn't exceptional as a first year starter in 2009, but it seems reasonable to argue that he would have been better in 2011 with more receiver experience than he was in 2010 had he come back for his senior year. I am NOT saying he should automatically get credit for leaving that last year on the table. I am saying that Gabbert looks the part of a top ten pick (and I would take him at no. 10 if he's there), but still carries some concern, namely that the questions we would all have about him as a Senior in 2011 will be left unanswered.