PDA

View Full Version : Prospect of the Day: Jake Locker


Pages : [1] 2

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 11:21 AM
So I got this idea of starting a thread to discuss one prospect per day. If we actually go through with this, we could discuss more prospects than can actually be drafted, so it could be a great way to get to know the lesser known prospects that eventually start to appear.

I know that this is the reason why there are other threads for individual players and whatnot, but I just want a thread where there can be a constant stream of valuable opinions and information about players.

Also, I think it's a great way so that people who aren't really that great at finding and analyzing lesser known prospects (like me!) can get to know through others who are really good at this (like Shane or ThePudge or countless others!)

Anyone can suggest a player to discuss that day, and we all learn about him and help others learn things about him too.

I dunno, I just felt it would be a good addition to the boards. So I guess we can start with the Top Players for 2011 list that Scott put up on the site and begin with Jake Locker.

http://www.collegesportsfeed.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/jake-locker.jpg


QB Jake Locker, Washington
6'3 - 226 lbs. - Senior

http://i27.tinypic.com/4gi69.png

Highlights!
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/BMfiq9CXss8&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/BMfiq9CXss8&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8GnN_bTYtq4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8GnN_bTYtq4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FU0JZhRHzMI&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FU0JZhRHzMI&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/sgPsXdf56W4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/sgPsXdf56W4&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Who likes him? Dislikes him? Who does he compare to? Positives? Negatives? Discuss away!

zachsaints52
07-16-2010, 11:48 AM
Very good idea, but I can't say nothing about him because I don't know much except he can scramble alot and he is good on NCAA 11

ThePudge
07-16-2010, 12:04 PM
First of all, I think this is a very good idea. Prospect of the Day could be informative without conversation over one player getting too out of hand. It also forces guys like myself to get some work done this time of the year which is helpful later on.

So, my 2010 scouting report for the touted 2011 prospect.

Jake Locker - Washington
Quarterback #2 - Overall #2
6032e 231e - 4.54e

Though thought of as a potential top pick in 2010, Locker surprised many when he decided to stay at school for another year of tutelage under coach Steve Sarkisian. Big, athletic passer is comfortable under center and is a true dual-threat with the ability to make big plays with his feet or his arm.

Once a top recruit from the Pacific Northwest, Locker finally began to flourish in his junior year with the help of his new coach. Thought of originally as a physical talent, he showed a remarkable amount of poise, moxie, and intelligence adjusting to a new system with somewhat inferior talent. In 2011 it will be interesting to see Locker’s impact on his team’s record; despite a shaky supporting cast, a Bowl appearance shouldn’t be out of reach for the Huskies led by this game-changer.

Pros
+ Strong, athletic build
+ Fast, agile inside and out of the pocket, bides time with his legs
+ Keeps his eyes downfield with tremendous field vision in/out of the pocket
+ Throws extremely well on the move rolling to both his left and right
+ Accurate passer, able to put the ball on receivers' back shoulder downfield
+ Strong arm, can make any NFL throw
+ Throws with varying velocity, displaying soft touch when necessary
+ Has done well to win some tough games despite an inferior cast
+ Showed a lot of courage in the pocket later on in the season
+ Smart, displayed a lot of intelligence & recognition skills moving into the new offense
+ Good intangibles, a leader willing to put his team on his back
+ Can be a real threat to pick up first downs/big yards with his feet
+ Great throwing mechanics, keeps ball above his waist and has a short, compact delivery
+ Deep ball has good placement and rarely hangs
+ Has shown he can take the physical punishment that comes with his job

Cons
- May occasionally leave the pocket too soon relying on his feet
- Struggled in a few blowout losses (Oregon State, Oregon, Stanford)
- Will be too patient at times relying on his feet instead of looking for the quick option
- Still a bit raw as a drop-back passer, made a good decision to come back
- Small injury history, thumb injury caused him to miss significant time in 2008
- Three multi-interception games in 2009, needs to protect the ball a bit better
- Needs to find ways to win despite a very shaky cast around him, Quarterbacks of this quality should be able to compete in bowl games (considering more than half of the BCS teams do)


*** Obviously my scouting report at the end of the season will look more comprehensive with considerably more notes (and adjustments where necessary.)

Brent
07-16-2010, 12:37 PM
Cons
- May occasionally leave the pocket too soon relying on his feet
- Struggled in a few blowout losses (Oregon State, Oregon, Stanford)
- Will be too patient at times relying on his feet instead of looking for the quick option
- Still a bit raw as a drop-back passer, made a good decision to come back
- Small injury history, thumb injury caused him to miss significant time in 2008
- Three multi-interception games in 2009, needs to protect the ball a bit better
- Needs to find ways to win despite a very shaky cast around him, Quarterbacks of this quality should be able to compete in bowl games (considering more than half of the BCS teams do)
most of these just say, in other words, "he's on a ****** team"

Duffman57
07-16-2010, 12:45 PM
First of all, I think this is a very good idea. Prospect of the Day could be informative without conversation over one player getting too out of hand. It also forces guys like myself to get some work done this time of the year which is helpful later on.

So, my 2010 scouting report for the touted 2011 prospect.

Jake Locker - Washington
Quarterback #2 - Overall #2
6032e 231e - 4.54e

Though thought of as a potential top pick in 2010, Locker surprised many when he decided to stay at school for another year of tutelage under coach Steve Sarkisian. Big, athletic passer is comfortable under center and is a true dual-threat with the ability to make big plays with his feet or his arm.

Once a top recruit from the Pacific Northwest, Locker finally began to flourish in his junior year with the help of his new coach. Thought of originally as a physical talent, he showed a remarkable amount of poise, moxie, and intelligence adjusting to a new system with somewhat inferior talent. In 2011 it will be interesting to see Lockerís impact on his teamís record; despite a shaky supporting cast, a Bowl appearance shouldnít be out of reach for the Huskies led by this game-changer.

Pros
+ Strong, athletic build
+ Fast, agile inside and out of the pocket, bides time with his legs
+ Keeps his eyes downfield with tremendous field vision in/out of the pocket
+ Throws extremely well on the move rolling to both his left and right
+ Accurate passer, able to put the ball on receivers' back shoulder downfield
+ Strong arm, can make any NFL throw
+ Throws with varying velocity, displaying soft touch when necessary
+ Has done well to win some tough games despite an inferior cast
+ Showed a lot of courage in the pocket later on in the season
+ Smart, displayed a lot of intelligence & recognition skills moving into the new offense
+ Good intangibles, a leader willing to put his team on his back
+ Can be a real threat to pick up first downs/big yards with his feet
+ Deep ball has good placement and rarely hangs
+ Has shown he can take the physical punishment that comes with his job

Cons
- May occasionally leave the pocket too soon relying on his feet
- Struggled in a few blowout losses (Oregon State, Oregon, Stanford)
- Will be too patient at times relying on his feet instead of looking for the quick option
- Still a bit raw as a drop-back passer, made a good decision to come back
- Small injury history, thumb injury caused him to miss significant time in 2008
- Three multi-interception games in 2009, needs to protect the ball a bit better
- Needs to find ways to win despite a very shaky cast around him, Quarterbacks of this quality should be able to compete in bowl games (considering more than half of the BCS teams do)


*** Obviously my scouting report at the end of the season will look more comprehensive with considerably more notes (and adjustments where necessary.)

Well, there pudge goes again...haha

Great writeup, as always

wonderbredd24
07-16-2010, 01:06 PM
Best QB of the class. Phenominal talent. So far beyond what Bradford was last year in terms of talent and potential.

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 01:22 PM
I've heard people comparing him to Steve Young. Is the comparison legit? Can he really be that good?

tjsunstein
07-16-2010, 01:46 PM
Incredible idea.

descendency
07-16-2010, 02:15 PM
most of these just say, in other words, "he's on a ****** team"

Only one is. The other two are deficiencies as a QB.

princefielder28
07-16-2010, 02:41 PM
Best QB of the class. Phenominal talent. So far beyond what Bradford was last year in terms of talent and potential.

As far as an athlete Bradford doesn't compare to Locker but in terms of bring a quarterback, Bradford is ahead of Locker. Bradford is a terrific passer and is pinpoint accurate. Locker has work to do in that department.

Sniper
07-16-2010, 03:30 PM
Best QB of the class.

http://woopig.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/201005ryan-mallett.jpg

You rang?

wicket
07-16-2010, 03:35 PM
http://woopig.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/201005ryan-mallett.jpg

You rang?

sorry ryan, you must have confused best qb with biggest arm

BeerBaron
07-16-2010, 03:36 PM
You may want to stick the prospects name into the thread title though, or these are going to pile up....and just numbering or dating won't help if you're looking for a specific one to read. Just tips.

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 03:40 PM
You may want to stick the prospects name into the thread title though, or these are going to pile up....and just numbering or dating won't help if you're looking for a specific one to read. Just tips.

Good idea. Going to have to figure this one out, can't have 200+ threads. Or would it be okay?

wicket
07-16-2010, 03:50 PM
create a subfolder in here where we kick in the prospects of the day older than 3 days?

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 03:55 PM
create a subfolder in here where we kick in the prospects of the day older than 3 days?

That would actually be a great way too keep things organized. Mods, admins, is this possible?

Shane P. Hallam
07-16-2010, 04:07 PM
That would actually be a great way too keep things organized. Mods, admins, is this possible?

Ehhhh, I severely hesitate to do that. At this point, I don't mind a new topic each day, just include the name in the title. If it gets cluttered, we'll talk.

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 04:18 PM
Ehhhh, I severely hesitate to do that. At this point, I don't mind a new topic each day, just include the name in the title. If it gets cluttered, we'll talk.

Ok then, sounds good. So you'll change the name of this thread?

edit: nvm, saw the change. Thanks.

mario
07-16-2010, 04:36 PM
And what about editing the first post with links to the first post refering to each prospect, so if anyone want to read about a specific prospect he just click in that link and read all the opinions about him...

Great idea BTW.


Regards!!

FUNBUNCHER
07-16-2010, 04:41 PM
Is it just me, or does Locker remind anyone else of Kyle Boller??

Locker is still the #1 QB available in 2011 IMO, BTW.

wicket
07-16-2010, 04:48 PM
And what about editing the first post with links to the first post refering to each prospect, so if anyone want to read about a specific prospect he just click in that link and read all the opinions about him...

Great idea BTW.


Regards!!

wont work if we keep this up for a while

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 04:49 PM
And what about editing the first post with links to the first post refering to each prospect, so if anyone want to read about a specific prospect he just click in that link and read all the opinions about him...

Great idea BTW.


Regards!!

I'll try and keep those links on a spoiler on my sig or something. I guess we'll see how it works as we go.

Shane P. Hallam
07-16-2010, 04:50 PM
I'll try and keep those links on a spoiler on my sig or something. I guess we'll see how it works as we go.

Or just include in the first post of every new post.

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 04:51 PM
Or just include in the first post of every new post.

Or that :)

edit: Yeah, I'll just keep adding a spoiler with the updated prospects inside to every first post, easiest way to do it.

Mr.Regular
07-16-2010, 06:24 PM
Locker has a ton of tools to work with. Good arm, good ball placement, his mechanics are near perfect, and of course that blazing speed. He moves around the pocket well, he keeps his eyes downfield, and he can take off at any time. You don't see guys with his speed plus all the necessary pro QB skills very often, if at all. Plus, his leadership skills and intangibles are reportedly top notch. There's not much to dislike about his game.
He's had a couple bad games, and he is clearly still developing under Sarkisian. You could still consider him a little 'raw', but if he continues to improve on last season there's little doubt this guy is a top 5 QB prospect IMO. What's unfortunate for him is that I thought if he came out last draft he'd be easily the top guy available, while this year there could be stiff competition since it's a potentially deep QB class. All eyes will be on him. He could be overanalyzed and drop a bit.

Mr. Goosemahn
07-16-2010, 06:34 PM
When he runs, is he hard to tackle or is he elusive?

Like, tough to bring down like Roethlisberger, or elusive like Vick? I know he's not going to be as good as each guy is to their respective skill, but which one does he resemble more?

MidwayMonster31
07-16-2010, 08:13 PM
I imagine Locker being more like Jay Cutler, in the sense that he can take a shot and he has good moves and balance to avoid sacks.

Halsey
07-16-2010, 08:25 PM
Best QB of the class. Phenominal talent. So far beyond what Bradford was last year in terms of talent and potential.

He's also way more talented than Drew Brees.

dannyz
07-17-2010, 01:35 AM
If you ranked the top QB Prospects of the last couple of Years how would it go ? Stafford
Locker
Luck
Mallett
Sanchez
Bradford

TACKLE
07-17-2010, 01:57 AM
If you ranked the top QB Prospects of the last couple of Years how would it go ? Stafford
Locker
Luck
Mallett
Sanchez
Bradford

What the hell is Luck doing on that list?

SickwithIt1010
07-17-2010, 02:25 AM
What the hell is Luck doing on that list?

Why couldnt he be on that list? Luck is a very good prospect.

TACKLE
07-17-2010, 02:45 AM
Why couldnt he be on that list? Luck is a very good prospect.

He could be in 2 or 3 years. But at this point, he's not near the same level as those other guys.

brat316
07-17-2010, 04:15 AM
Would you compare him to McNabb?

Rosebud
07-17-2010, 10:02 AM
Only one is. The other two are deficiencies as a QB.

Deficiencies caused by playing behind a **** line with **** talent for so long.

I imagine Locker being more like Jay Cutler, in the sense that he can take a shot and he has good moves and balance to avoid sacks.

I actually really like that comparison although for reasons beyond the football field where Locker is clearly faster as a runner, while Jay was better at sticking around in the pocket and making up for the crap around him with his arm. So I like the comparison in that both guys have had to carry bad teams and gotten beaten up and shown the intelligence to figure out ways to work around their **** talent. But Locker still has a year to try and finally start winning games the way Matt Ryan did as a Senior and improve his precision and consistency as a passer.

If you ranked the top QB Prospects of the last couple of Years how would it go ? Stafford
Locker
Luck
Mallett
Sanchez
Bradford

I'd go
Locker*
Stafford
Bradford
Mallett*
Sanchize
Luck*

for now, but the asterixed guys still have time to improve in college and could move up that list.

I do admit to giving Locker a bit more benefit of the doubt than I usually would a guy who still has to show as much as he does, but that's just because I suspect that, like Jay Cutler and Matt Ryan before him, I'll only like him more and more because of how he fights to carry a weak team and to adjust makes me feel confident that in a good situation he'll put that physical talent to breath taking use.

Part of why I really hope Buffalo lands him and that they go out and get Jared Gaither despite the risks. They've got a nice set up on offense, provided they make a move at LT, for a young QB to step into and he's the guy I think would do the best job with it. Meanwhile I think their D will become very strong and another stud pass rusher away from pretty damn beastly.

DeepThreat
07-17-2010, 10:48 AM
If you ranked the top QB Prospects of the last couple of Years how would it go ? Stafford
Locker
Luck
Mallett
Sanchez
Bradford

Bradford
Stafford
Locker
Mallett
Luck

I honestly feel like Locker is, at this point in time, overrated. More than anything in a quarterback, I value smarts and accuracy. Locker isn't near elite in either of those categories. He has excellent physical tools, but there are many aspects of his game that need improvement.

ThePudge
07-17-2010, 11:18 AM
Mallett
Bradford
Locker
Stafford
Sanchez
Luck - give him some time though, I'm just not going to jump the gun this early. He certainly looks very good.

RealityCheck
07-17-2010, 11:21 AM
Bradford > Locker > Mallett > Stafford > Sanchez (a billion of >s) Luck

Bob Sanders Dreadlock
07-17-2010, 11:26 AM
Stafford


Locker
Mallet
Freeman
Bradford
Sanchez

descendency
07-17-2010, 11:27 AM
Bradford > Locker > Mallett > Stafford > Sanchez (a billion of >s) Luck

That's being harsh on red-shirt sophomore Andrew Luck. Let's not forget that last year was year 1 for him. He will likely stay in school next year and declare as the top QB prospect in 2011 unless he is really scared by the NFL CBA talks.

Stafford > Bradford.

Locker and Mallett both will be entering into critical years as Pro-style QBs. I would expect both to take good-sized leaps this year, as do most guys there age in their positions.

Mallett
Locker
Stafford
Luck
Bradford
Sanchez

RealityCheck
07-17-2010, 11:34 AM
Let's not forget that last year was year 1 for him.
That's the freaking reason, dammit.

Andrew Luck hasn't done anything to prove himself as one of the top QB prospects alongside Locker and Mallett.

Hell, this Luck-hype can happen with someone like Blake Bell, Bryn Renner or Jake Heaps after this season, you never know.

wicket
07-17-2010, 12:05 PM
Stafford
Locker

big gap

Bradford
Mallett
Sanchez
Luck

just my opinion

time for a new POTD though

ThePudge
07-17-2010, 12:19 PM
most of these just say, in other words, "he's on a ****** team"

It's very tough to highlight a star player's flaws when he plays with a questionable cast because anything he does wrong you can blame on others. You saw this with Jimmy Clausen, how he'd vacate the pocket a little earlier than he needed to yet it could be justified (by some) that his Offensive Line was garbage and that he'd learned to get out of the pocket for his own good. It always annoyed me that Clausen never won a game against a ranked opponent & that he never led that brilliant passing game of his to a bowl game. Had you talked to a fan of Clausen's, however, the blame for such things rested solely on the defense & running game.

The quarterback controls the game and if a QB can manage the game in a masterful way, then the pressure on the defense is going to be greatly lessened. Locker's team at UW is questionable at best, one of the nation's worse defenses, a shaky OL, and a relatively anonymous cast of skill position players. That said, one could take almost anything Locker does wrong and blame his OL, his receivers, and at the end of the day blame the defense for losing games.

To elaborate on the flaws you chose to highlight....

Locker will leave the pocket early without pressure. This was more common earlier in the season, but it's something to work on consistently. His awareness was at times shaky yet he made up for it in pure foot quickness. Later on, he seemed to show more patience and courage in the pocket but I'd ideally like to see some consistency there. He could afford to have more pocket presence and show courage, patience, stepping into his throws.

Other times Locker doesn't settle for the quick read in the passing game, he'll leave the pocket and work off a broken play (which he does very well might I add.) Still, in order to increase his playing life at the pro level and to pick up more first downs, he'd do well to utilize his quick reads instead of buying time with his feet and holding out for the big play. Again, this is something he looked to improve a bit later on in the 2009 season.

Finally, yes I'm going to hold him accountable for losses as I would do for wins. If you can't be a world-beater at QB then be a game manager and win your team some games. I'm surely not blaming their losses on Locker, yet as he matures another year I'd like to see an increase in wins. Special Quarterbacks find ways to win & though I believe his situation to be far worse than Jimmy Clausen's (tough schedule, no great receivers, no defense) I'd still like to see Locker dispose of equal opponents and continue to knock off a ranked team every now and then.

bce
07-17-2010, 02:23 PM
I imagine Locker being more like Jay Cutler, in the sense that he can take a shot and he has good moves and balance to avoid sacks.


Sans one of the worlds greatest throwing arms.

bce
07-17-2010, 02:24 PM
That's the freaking reason, dammit.

Andrew Luck hasn't done anything to prove himself as one of the top QB prospects alongside Locker and Mallett.

Hell, this Luck-hype can happen with someone like Blake Bell, Bryn Renner or Jake Heaps after this season, you never know.

Jake locker hasnt done anything either, except some "former" being the key word nfl type whispered in mel kipers ear that locker was the greatest prospect who ever lived.

bce
07-17-2010, 02:26 PM
Staffords really living up to his reputation going 2-14, being an interception machine, missing games because hes soft and cant handle hits. Other than one game against the vaunted cleveland browns, stafford was just absolutely positively undeniably awful. I think he even threw like 3 picks in his "showcase" against the vaunted cleveland browns.

bce
07-17-2010, 02:30 PM
Physically, mallett is the best prospect of all and theres not really a close second. He has a bigger arm than stafford, which is saying something, and hes not an injury prone soft serve who cant take hits and misses action because hes soft and cant take hits.

wicket
07-17-2010, 02:53 PM
Jake locker hasnt done anything either, except some "former" being the key word nfl type whispered in mel kipers ear that locker was the greatest prospect who ever lived.

maybe almost single handedly beating usc with a terrible team

Staffords really living up to his reputation going 2-14, being an interception machine, missing games because hes soft and cant handle hits. Other than one game against the vaunted cleveland browns, stafford was just absolutely positively undeniably awful. I think he even threw like 3 picks in his "showcase" against the vaunted cleveland browns.

yeah cuz the team around him was so great, had way better stats than sanchez. Stafford has been about as good as one can reasonably expect from a rookie. Peyton Manning was way worse in his rookie year on a better team.

Physically, mallett is the best prospect of all and theres not really a close second. He has a bigger arm than stafford, which is saying something, and hes not an injury prone soft serve who cant take hits and misses action because hes soft and cant take hits.

Locker has better athletisism, not as good of an arm but really close and mallet is batshit crazy. Btw who is soft in your opinion?

I dont want to be rude and stuff but are you trying to troll or are your posts legit, I'm really wondering

Sniper
07-17-2010, 03:13 PM
maybe almost single handedly beating usc with a terrible team

It was the worst USC team in almost a decade starting Aarom Corp. Pump the brakes.

really close and mallet is batshit crazy.

No one's arm is near Mallett's.

Btw who is soft in your opinion?

He said Stafford.

bce
07-17-2010, 03:22 PM
Usc wasnt agreat team by any stetch and they only scored one offensive touchdown in that game so i dont think jaek locker was carrying them to anything. I think the combination of their defense and usc being in a down year likely had more to do with it. They won, but it wasnt the jake locker fireworks show.

Im not saying sanchez was good either. he wasnt. They were equally terrible. Sanchez didnt spend a signifigant amount of time on the shelf either.

Ive seen with my own eyes a rookie go 15-1 so dont tell me that 2-14 with 20+ interceptions and missing 5 games is "as good as can be expected" from a rookie. And dont tell me he had a great team because the year before #7 they were 6-10. The list is long of qbs who had great first years in the league. Its just this simple. stafford was awful. the record says it, the stat sheet says it, everything says it. But you'll blame it on the team. problem is stafford didnt make the team any better, like great qbs do. The books not closed on stafford, but if it looks anything like this past year it is bust city.

Not even anywhere near the throwing arm of ryan mallett. Not even in the same universe. Ive never seen anyone throw the ball like mallett as far as velocity goes. Hes the most physically gifted qb prospect ever as far as throwing the football. Jake locker might have the 5th best arm in this draft. Thats how wide the gulf is physically between jake locker and mallett.

be rude i dont care i'll just make you look bad just like every other one of the herd who has stepped to me. Then you'll run and hide.

wicket
07-17-2010, 03:45 PM
be rude i dont care i'll just make you look bad just like every other one of the herd who has stepped to me. Then you'll run and hide.

so you're trollin

bce
07-17-2010, 03:58 PM
Join the ranks who have used that method too. I stated my case on why you were wrong.

Now either tell me otherwise or run back into the bushes either way, makes no difference to me.

The road is littered with know it alls who stepped to me that have been forced to tuck tail and hide.

TACKLE
07-17-2010, 04:17 PM
Well if winning is the only standard to measure a QB by, can you please explain the three QB's who are atop your big board.

1. Ryan Mallett - 2009: 8-5 (1-4 against ranked opponents)
2. Robert Griffin III - 2008: 4-8 (0-6 against ranked opponents)
3. Jerrod Johnson - 2009: 6-7 (1-2 against ranked opponents)

wonderbredd24
07-17-2010, 04:19 PM
People can try to minimize the win against USC and that's fine, but it was a big win and the final drive by Locker was fantastic.

He needs to keep developing and he needs to lead the Huskies to a Bowl game this year and for his sake, play well in said game.

bce
07-17-2010, 04:22 PM
As ive stated before, and even previously in this thread possibly, there is a requisite physical ability required to be an nfl qb. First you have to have the physical ability. There are no national champion qbs fronting the the nfl qb lists. So having the most succesful college team is not the measure.

I ask you this question. Were those teams not better after robert griffin, ryan mallett and jarrod johnson became qb? The question comes down to their physical ability and do they make their team better. Otherwise chris weinke craig krenzel and gino toretta should have been the best nfl qbs ever.

bce
07-17-2010, 04:24 PM
People can try to minimize the win against USC and that's fine, but it was a big win and the final drive by Locker was fantastic.

He needs to keep developing and he needs to lead the Huskies to a Bowl game this year and for his sake, play well in said game.


Point was i think that it wasnt the jake locker fireworks show. Jimmy claussen was far better against them. It wasnt jake locker tearing up and demoralizing the usc defense. And it helped that they didnt have to score a touchdown on that last drive.

TACKLE
07-17-2010, 05:21 PM
As ive stated before, and even previously in this thread possibly, there is a requisite physical ability required to be an nfl qb. First you have to have the physical ability. There are no national champion qbs fronting the the nfl qb lists. So having the most succesful college team is not the measure.

You're holding a double standard. Your saying in college, winning doesn't matter as far as determining who the best QB is. Though in the NFL, record is the exclusive way of determining who the best QB is.

I ask you this question. Were those teams not better after robert griffin, ryan mallett and jarrod johnson became qb? The question comes down to their physical ability and do they make their team better.

Nobody's arguing that those players did not make their teams better. I'm just showing the contradiction in your thinking. Those three QB's value to their teams success and the ability to raise the play of the players surrounding them is a very important way in determining how good of a player they are. Their win-loss record at the end of the season wasn't the only way to determine how successful they were. How is it not the same in the NFL?

Point was i think that it wasnt the jake locker fireworks show. Jimmy claussen was far better against them. It wasnt jake locker tearing up and demoralizing the usc defense. And it helped that they didnt have to score a touchdown on that last drive.

Jimmy put up better numbers (though both put up impressive numbers). Golden Tate was responsible for a very significant amount of Clausen's yards by getting a ridiculous amount of YAC and making circus catches. But when the game was on the line, they both had a chance to drive their team down the field. Jimmy had three chances from the five yard-line at the end of the game and choked with the game on the line. Whereas Locker drove his team down the field and won his team the game.

wicket
07-17-2010, 05:44 PM
Well if winning is the only standard to measure a QB by, can you please explain the three QB's who are atop your big board.

1. Ryan Mallett - 2009: 8-5 (1-4 against ranked opponents)
2. Robert Griffin III - 2008: 4-8 (0-6 against ranked opponents)
3. Jerrod Johnson - 2009: 6-7 (1-2 against ranked opponents)

because in the NFL each team is exactly as good as every other team outside of the QB, didnt you know that

bce
07-17-2010, 06:25 PM
You're holding a double standard. Your saying in college, winning doesn't matter as far as determining who the best QB is. Though in the NFL, record is the exclusive way of determining who the best QB is.

Nobody's arguing that those players did not make their teams better. I'm just showing the contradiction in your thinking. Those three QB's value to their teams success and the ability to raise the play of the players surrounding them is a very important way in determining how good of a player they are. Their win-loss record at the end of the season wasn't the only way to determine how successful they were. How is it not the same in the NFL?



Jimmy put up better numbers (though both put up impressive numbers). Golden Tate was responsible for a very significant amount of Clausen's yards by getting a ridiculous amount of YAC and making circus catches. But when the game was on the line, they both had a chance to drive their team down the field. Jimmy had three chances from the five yard-line at the end of the game and choked with the game on the line. Whereas Locker drove his team down the field and won his team the game.

Again, locker didnt have to score a td and wasnt losing. he made a couple decent plays, but the situation wasnt as pressure packed as say being behind in the super bowl in the last 2 minutes and driving your team to a td for the win (i never get tired of that)

Its different because we're trying to determine nfl success not college success. In the nfl, its all about winning. You want your qb to show winning traits in college, but they dont have to be on the best team. In the nfl, the qb on the best team determines who is the best qb. In college, the best qb isnt ever on the best team. Its the primary difference in the game.

Playing quarterback in the nfl and being succesful at it versus playing quarterback in college and being succesful at it is like comparing climbing alpe d'huez vs climbing the hill on my street. Its two totally different animals. You want your college qb to show winning traits, being clutch, making your tream better than it is

bce
07-17-2010, 06:26 PM
because in the NFL each team is exactly as good as every other team outside of the QB, didnt you know that

Its certainly a thin line as they say, generally the difference is determined by the play of the quarterback.

Babylon
07-17-2010, 06:27 PM
I think Locker's bailing out of the pocket early is more a result of a weak line that hopefully will be a stronger unit this year. Jake is perfectly fine with staying in the pocket and going through his progressions.

YAYareaRB
07-17-2010, 06:31 PM
Yeah UW's O-Line isn't anything spectacular.

bce
07-17-2010, 06:35 PM
Its certainly a thin line as they say, generally the difference is determined by the play of the quarterback.


The true answer to your question is talent level disparity. In colleg, maybe 10% of football player are great football players, professional level football players, and many of them herd to the same places. In the nfl, 95% of the players are great football players, and pretty equally distributed. In college, the talent level disparity can hide your qb. In the nfl, theres not nearly as much talent level disparity, the "fine line" as they call it, you cant hide your most important player and talent level disparity isnt going to win you football games.

TACKLE
07-17-2010, 06:38 PM
Yeah UW's O-Line isn't anything spectacular.

That's the understatement of the year.

bce
07-17-2010, 07:01 PM
That's the understatement of the year.

Blaming it on someone else isnt ever going to fly in the nfl

hockey619
07-17-2010, 07:15 PM
Blaming it on someone else isnt ever going to fly in the nfl


But since the disparity in talent wont be there in the NFL like you said it was in college, there wont be anyone to blame right? there wont be any more problems right?

Why didnt the steelers make the playoffs last year? they struggled to an average year so wouldnt that be a black mark on Big Ben?

Also, what do you think of Jake Locker as a prospect? You said you want a QB that makes his team better, well Locker made them relevant compared to the year he missed. do you not think he has the skills to compete at the next level? because id have to disagree, his ball has enough zip and he has enough size

and to be fair i actually agree with a lot of what your saying as far as winning record in college not being a huge deal, i think it can help if the guy is forced to play close games because his team isnt as good. helps him get used to the pressure

bce
07-17-2010, 07:25 PM
Jake locker is a middling physical talent who has not shown great traits in college. Do i think he could play in the nfl. probably.

Do i think hes going to be any good? The chances are about 99% against.

There were a lot of black marks on the steelers. But you cant win the super bowl every year, and when a bad year is 9-7 and tie breaker out of a playoff spot that bodes pretty well for your team and for your two time thats right two time super bowl champion qb. Now compare that with the matthew stafford apologists who think he had a good year.

hockey619
07-17-2010, 07:37 PM
But since the disparity in talent wont be there in the NFL like you said it was in college, there wont be anyone to blame right? there wont be any more problems right? you didnt address this at all

well i wouldnt say his physical traits are middling but to each his own. I think his footwork needs a lot of work even though his pockets are usually horrendous so thatll be tough for him to learn, but his accuracy will improve if he does that and can step into throws more often.

Stafford: i dont think anyone would say it was a good year by any stretch of the imagination, but he did show some flashes that with some practice he could be a player. Sanchez turned the ball over a ton too, but he got the afc championship game, so even though i think its safe to say he didnt carry his team there, the other additions to the team did, would you still say it was on him? Sanchez and Stafford had similar end of season numbers

bce
07-17-2010, 07:48 PM
Generally if youre not succesful in the nfl, its because your qb play isnt great. The reason for that is, theres not a huge talent disparity between players on nfl teams at other positions. Its difficult to be consistently succesful with subpar qb play. If your team is not good, its generally because your qb play is not good. So as opposed to being able to blame the rest of the team, most of the blame and or success over the long term should be and is attributed to the play of the qb. Thats why its so important to have a great one.

So i ask the question to you does jake locker have the physical ability of ben roethlisberger or eli manning? Thats the top level. hes more tony romo when it comes to physical ability. hes middling compared to the nfl level. Hes middling compared to this draft class, where malett, johnson, rg 3 and terrel pryor are all physically superior.

When i say middling physically i mean compared to the nfl level not compared to other pac 10 qbs or your average college qb. Thats why i always ask the question when someone says a qb has good physical ability i always ask

Good physical ability compared to whom?

hockey619
07-17-2010, 08:00 PM
Peyton has a good but not great arm and he has been consistently successful for forever even as his team at time has less than amazing complimentary parts. puts a bit of a hole in the 'middling physical abilities = failure.'

im not saying locker will be great, i think hes got a lot to work on but as ive been saying since his freshman year the potential is there. i dont think he became a lot more polished this last year like others do, his system was just much better but some of his mechanical issues remain, things that kill his zip at times and lead to guys getting a chance to make a play on the ball. his arm is comparable to eli i think, but his footwork and thus accuracy arent so he needs to work on that.

what about those guys is superior? mallett and RG3 i agree are great, i think mallett needs to work on his ball placement a bit but i think itll come with some work. RG3 i havent seen as much but really really like what ive seen. Havent seen johnson so cant comment. Pryor has shown flashes but i would certainly say Locker is better than he is, Pryor is horribly inconsistent as a passer. his career path looks a little like VY so far, big guy big time recruit (minus the lack of RS year for Pryor) who shows flashes the first two years and has a very impressive bowl game to end year two. for VY it was a sign of things to come, maybe it will be for pryor too but as of now he hasnt shown as much as locker

Sniper
07-17-2010, 08:02 PM
Pryor is horribly inconsistent as a passer.

Inconsistent would mean that he has good passing games sometimes.

hockey619
07-17-2010, 08:05 PM
Inconsistent would mean that he has good passing games sometimes.


not full games but occassionally he throws one with some zip right on the money, then unfortunately comes back with a duck that looks like an 8 year old tried to punt it

RealityCheck
07-17-2010, 08:46 PM
Yawn. Wake me up when a real QB enters this conversation.

Such as Nathan Enderle.

bce
07-17-2010, 09:19 PM
Peyton has a good but not great arm and he has been consistently successful for forever even as his team at time has less than amazing complimentary parts. puts a bit of a hole in the 'middling physical abilities = failure.'

im not saying locker will be great, i think hes got a lot to work on but as ive been saying since his freshman year the potential is there. i dont think he became a lot more polished this last year like others do, his system was just much better but some of his mechanical issues remain, things that kill his zip at times and lead to guys getting a chance to make a play on the ball. his arm is comparable to eli i think, but his footwork and thus accuracy arent so he needs to work on that.

what about those guys is superior? mallett and RG3 i agree are great, i think mallett needs to work on his ball placement a bit but i think itll come with some work. RG3 i havent seen as much but really really like what ive seen. Havent seen johnson so cant comment. Pryor has shown flashes but i would certainly say Locker is better than he is, Pryor is horribly inconsistent as a passer. his career path looks a little like VY so far, big guy big time recruit (minus the lack of RS year for Pryor) who shows flashes the first two years and has a very impressive bowl game to end year two. for VY it was a sign of things to come, maybe it will be for pryor too but as of now he hasnt shown as much as locker

6 5 230 laser rocket arm for peyton manning, just like the commercial says. And theyve been to the playoffs how many years in a row? To say that peyton manning is not a top end physical talent is simply not correct. Hes not middling in any area of playing qb, except he often chokes at important times ( inever get tired of that). But from a physical standpoint if you built a qb, it would look like peyton manning.And the idea that they have less than comlimentary parts is also not correct. Jake lockers throwing ability is nowhere near that of peyton or eli manning. Theyre closer to ryan mallett than jake locker.

What i was saying is that they are "physically superior" to jake locker.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-17-2010, 09:25 PM
Nice to see this thread got horribly derailed after only one page.

For those who don't know what to make of Locker, I like the McNabb comparison a lot. Locker has been a great leader on that Washington team, and while he's been far from perfect for arguably the worst team in the Pac-10, he's led them to wins that, if not for him, they wouldn't have come close to winning. Sit down and watch the late-season win against Cal. The Bears were playing better offensively and defensively until some fantastic play from Locker gave the Huskies the lead and allowed that team to risk bringing pressure on Cal.

If Locker had come out early, he would have been correctly viewed as a project. He needs to improve along with that UW team this year. That said, he's hugely talented and has faced as much adversity on the field as any top prospect in recent memory. We've seen him fall on hard times and still come back and perform. It's one of the most important things a QB prospect can show.

bce
07-17-2010, 09:32 PM
Blaming it on the rest of the team will not fly in the nfl.

He certainly didnt face more "adversity" than ryan mallett. Did you watch the florida or bama games? It was demolition derby day on ryan mallett. Im quite sure jake locker has never seen that type of "adversity".

And how is it derailed? We are talking about jake locker are we not? Or do you just like to say things like that because youre no longer permitted to have carte blanche for your nonsense.

princefielder28
07-17-2010, 09:45 PM
i'm a dumbass

RealityCheck
07-17-2010, 09:46 PM
He's a better prospect than Tyson Jackson and I imagine any 3-4 team sitting between 6-10 will be looking to add him. I also can't believe anyone would try to compare him to Will Smith; they've got different skill sets!
I'm assuming this was redirected to the Heyward thread, PF :)

TACKLE
07-17-2010, 09:46 PM
He's a better prospect than Tyson Jackson and I imagine any 3-4 team sitting between 6-10 will be looking to add him. I also can't believe anyone would try to compare him to Will Smith; they've got different skill sets!

lol you got the Prospect of the Day threads mixed up.

princefielder28
07-17-2010, 09:47 PM
I should get some sleep haha

wonderbredd24
07-17-2010, 09:50 PM
Nice to see this thread got horribly derailed after only one page.

For those who don't know what to make of Locker, I like the McNabb comparison a lot. Locker has been a great leader on that Washington team, and while he's been far from perfect for arguably the worst team in the Pac-10, he's led them to wins that, if not for him, they wouldn't have come close to winning. Sit down and watch the late-season win against Cal. The Bears were playing better offensively and defensively until some fantastic play from Locker gave the Huskies the lead and allowed that team to risk bringing pressure on Cal.

If Locker had come out early, he would have been correctly viewed as a project. He needs to improve along with that UW team this year. That said, he's hugely talented and has faced as much adversity on the field as any top prospect in recent memory. We've seen him fall on hard times and still come back and perform. It's one of the most important things a QB prospect can show.

A far more accurate version of McNabb. Hopefully for Locker's sake, he isn't a choke artist like McNabb either.

bce
07-17-2010, 09:57 PM
Jake locker is a far more accurate version of donavan mcnabb. And you know this how? Wheres the proof of this statement?

descendency
07-17-2010, 09:59 PM
Peyton has a good but not great arm

Peyton who? You mean Manning? Because Manning has a great arm. If your definition of Peyton Manning's arm is "good" then most QBs must have water pistols. Manning can make any NFL throw as a frozen rope except the ones where he has to lob it because the DB is between him and the receiver.

wonderbredd24
07-17-2010, 10:01 PM
Jake locker is a far more accurate version of donavan mcnabb. And you know this how? Wheres the proof of this statement?
Not even worth wasting my breath, Bayless, since you'll just spout off a couple of opinions, call them facts, and throw out a pair of cliches.

But here ya go anyway... McNabb is and always has been a scattergun behind center and Locker isn't. McNabb has never been able to throw timing routes for ****. It's that simple.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-17-2010, 10:06 PM
A far more accurate version of McNabb. Hopefully for Locker's sake, he isn't a choke artist like McNabb either.

That's a pretty rough opinion of one of the most successful quarterbacks in the last decade of football and a potential Hall of Famer.

I'm not sure Locker is more accurate than McNabb. Both are strong in the deep pass attack and a little more wild when they zip the ball in the short to intermediate game.

bce
07-17-2010, 10:08 PM
When jake locker wins as many nfl games and has as much success as donovan mcnabb at the nfl level you can say hes more accurate than donovan mcnabb.

Youre talking about a guy with a sub 60% completion percentage in colleg being more accurate than a guy whos won many nfl playoff games and has thrown for 216 career nfl tds against only 100 career interceptions. Thats what jake locker isnt.

So whenever jake locker comes close to that you may be able to call him more accurate. But i wouldnt hold my breath.

It was a moronic statement not based in anyway shape or form on any fact

bce
07-17-2010, 10:11 PM
That's a pretty rough opinion of one of the most successful quarterbacks in the last decade of football and a potential Hall of Famer.

I'm not sure Locker is more accurate than McNabb. Both are strong in the deep pass attack and a little more wild when they zip the ball in the short to intermediate game.

How is jake locker strong in the deep pass game? What basis is there for that statement.

Be sure of it, because hes not more accurate than donovan mcnabb, until proven otherwise, nor is any college qb more accurate than donovan mcnabb or any other proven nfl qb, until its proven on sundays.

FUNBUNCHER
07-17-2010, 10:15 PM
Peyton Manning doesn't have a top 10 arm in the NFL. I don't think he ever did.
He's got a solid, good enough arm, but he's not a Brett Favre/Jay Cutler in terms a pure arm strength. It's irrelevant anyway, because his preparation and anticipation allow him to maximize his arm strength on every throw.

About Locker, you take him of U Dub and that's maybe a 3 win team. The same probably applies to Mallett and Arkansas.

NFL talent evaluators still have wet dreams over extremely mobile QB prospects, a la Elway/Vick/Steve Young/Staubach/McNabb, and why I think Locker could leapfrog Mallett if UW has a big season in 2010.

Both Mallett and Locker have excelled on bad football teams and are generally the main reasons their teams are remotely competitive on Saturdays.

There are several GMs/HCs I believe who would have Locker rated as the #1 QB on their board; he seems to have all the leadership intangibles and competitiveness than can juice an entire offense, and there's very high ceiling on his upside, IMO.

For some reason when I think about Mallett, I think about him potentially having a Marino like impact in the pros. There really isn't a QB like him at present who's currently playing in the league.
His skill players at Arkansas are young and half of them are borderline garbage, and he still put up 3627/30/7.
Even those games where he had a poor completion percentage, Mallett wasn't turning the ball over, which is a good sign when evaluating his decision making skills.

Locker seems like a ultra-competitive guy under duress and I don't think the pressure of being the 'man' in the NFL will be too big for him.

I still would go for Locker right now if I had to take a QB, but I reserve the right to change that pick later in the year(!).

Locker still reminds a lot of Steve Young, and I love a QB who can pick up ten yards and a 1st down by himself.

bce
07-17-2010, 10:25 PM
Peyton Manning doesn't have a top 10 arm in the NFL. I don't think he ever did.
He's got a solid, good enough arm, but he's not a Brett Favre/Jay Cutler in terms a pure arm strength. It's irrelevant anyway, because his preparation and anticipation allow him to maximize his arm strength on every throw.

About Locker, you take him of U Dub and that's maybe a 3 win team. The same probably applies to Mallett and Arkansas.

NFL talent evaluators still have wet dreams over extremely mobile QB prospects, a la Elway/Vick/Steve Young/Staubach/McNabb, and why I think Locker could leapfrog Mallett if UW has a big season in 2010.

Both Mallett and Locker have excelled on bad football teams and are generally the main reasons their teams are remotely competitive on Saturdays.

There are several GMs/HCs I believe who would have Locker rated as the #1 QB on their board; he seems to have all the leadership intangibles and competitiveness than can juice an entire offense, and there's very high ceiling on his upside, IMO.

For some reason when I think about Mallett, I think about him potentially having a Marino like impact in the pros. There really isn't a QB like him at present who's currently playing in the league.
His skill players at Arkansas are young and half of them are borderline garbage, and he still put up 3627/30/7.
Even those games where he had a poor completion percentage, Mallett wasn't turning the ball over, which is a good sign when evaluating his decision making skills.

Locker seems like a ultra-competitive guy under duress and I don't think the pressure of being the 'man' in the NFL will be too big for him.

I still would go for Locker right now if I had to take a QB, but I reserve the right to change that pick later in the year(!).

Locker still reminds a lot of Steve Young, and I love a QB who can pick up ten yards and a 1st down by himself.


Its not bad, until you rated jake locker #1 based on "intangibles". Competitiveness, leadership, these are not quantifiable and havent led them to much success on the field so i question whether he actually has these "intangibles" that cant be proven until he gets on an nfl field

You have your qb start running for 10 yards in todays nfl his career is going to end a lot quicker and the same way steve youngs career ended. Steve young also retired about 10 years ago. hes not going to be "picking up first downs" with his legs in the nfl. Its just not the way the position is played anymore. You cannot afford on the field or financially to have your qb taking hits, and hes not a good enough athlete to run away from nfl defenders.

bce
07-17-2010, 10:26 PM
jake lockers lomngest pass play of the year 51 yards.

wonderbredd24
07-17-2010, 10:28 PM
When jake locker wins as many nfl games and has as much success as donovan mcnabb at the nfl level you can say hes more accurate than donovan mcnabb.

Youre talking about a guy with a sub 60% completion percentage in colleg being more accurate than a guy whos won many nfl playoff games and has thrown for 216 career nfl tds against only 100 career interceptions. Thats what jake locker isnt.

So whenever jake locker comes close to that you may be able to call him more accurate. But i wouldnt hold my breath.

It was a moronic statement not based in anyway shape or form on any fact
Winning games, playoff or otherwise, has little or nothing to do with the guy's accuracy. That has never been McNabb's strong suit.

He has never been good at throwing timing routes and in an offense where he threw a **** ton of dump off passes to Brian Westbrook, he's only able to complete 59% of his passes through his career, good enough for 45th all time, which is really not that impressive considering the era he's been playing in. 17 of the top 20 are active QBs and the three that aren't are Steve Young, Joe Montana, and Brian Griese. Combine that with a non that impressive career 6.93 yards per attempt and you get unimpressive accuracy. To compare, Kurt Warner had 8.11 yards per attempt, Roethlisberger has had 8.13 yards per attempt so far in his career, and Manning has 7.7 per attempt in his career. Combine Warner's 8.13 yards per attempt with his 65.5% completion percentage and you get a hall of fame QB. McNabb is not a Hall of Fame QB. He's a good QB with who is a massive choke artist in the playoffs.

Sam Bradford has never thrown an NFL pass, but I know for a fact he's more accurate than freakin Donovan McNabb. That's not even debatable. McNabb has always had somewhat of a scattergun.

bce
07-17-2010, 10:45 PM
Winning games, playoff or otherwise, has little or nothing to do with the guy's accuracy. That has never been McNabb's strong suit.

He has never been good at throwing timing routes and in an offense where he threw a **** ton of dump off passes to Brian Westbrook, he's only able to complete 59% of his passes through his career, good enough for 45th all time, which is really not that impressive considering the era he's been playing in. 17 of the top 20 are active QBs and the three that aren't are Steve Young, Joe Montana, and Brian Griese. Combine that with a non that impressive career 6.93 yards per attempt and you get unimpressive accuracy. To compare, Kurt Warner had 8.11 yards per attempt, Roethlisberger has had 8.13 yards per attempt so far in his career, and Manning has 7.7 per attempt in his career. Combine Warner's 8.13 yards per attempt with his 65.5% completion percentage and you get a hall of fame QB. McNabb is not a Hall of Fame QB. He's a good QB with who is a massive choke artist in the playoffs.

Sam Bradford has never thrown an NFL pass, but I know for a fact he's more accurate than freakin Donovan McNabb. That's not even debatable. McNabb has always had somewhat of a scattergun.


And you have all those nfl passes thrown by sam bradford and jake locker to prove what youre saying.

Its debateable until they have the level of success that donovan mcnabb has had. I wouldnt bank on it happening though. Theyre both far far far physically inferior players to donovan mcnabb.

wonderbredd24
07-17-2010, 10:54 PM
And you have all those nfl passes thrown by sam bradford and jake locker to prove what youre saying.

Its debateable until they have the level of success that donovan mcnabb has had. I wouldnt bank on it happening though. Theyre both far far far physically inferior players to donovan mcnabb.
None of this has a thing to do with their accuracy, but keep trying, Bayless.

Level of success, physical skills... they could both be total and utter busts but that doesn't mean they aren't more accurate than the 20th ranked QB in terms of completion percentage last year.

McNabb is and has been good at a lot of things in his career... his accuracy has never been one of those things.

FUNBUNCHER
07-17-2010, 10:54 PM
Its not bad, until you rated jake locker #1 based on "intangibles". Competitiveness, leadership, these are not quantifiable and havent led them to much success on the field so i question whether he actually has these "intangibles" that cant be proven until he gets on an nfl field

You have your qb start running for 10 yards in todays nfl his career is going to end a lot quicker and the same way steve youngs career ended. Steve young also retired about 10 years ago. hes not going to be "picking up first downs" with his legs in the nfl. Its just not the way the position is played anymore. You cannot afford on the field or financially to have your qb taking hits, and hes not a good enough athlete to run away from nfl defenders.

We're talking about scrambling for 10 yards, not 30. 10 yards is something Vince Young and Mike Vick can pick up at will.
It's not that big a deal for an athletic QB, especially if he slides before he takes a big hit or runs out of bounds.

Locker is at least as athletic as Tebow, another QB I'd expect to able to pick up a first down with his feet on 3rd and 8.

And the QB position has not gone through a radical overhaul over the last 15 years.
Steve Young in his prime would still beast in the NFL.

bce
07-17-2010, 11:04 PM
You think jake locker is vince young or mike vick?

The idea that tim tebow is going to be running around nfl fields taking on tacklers getting signifigant rushing yards and outrunning nfl defenders well its just not going to happen like that.

Saying what a long retired player will do in the nfl well since it cant be proven, kind of like jake lockers intangibles, its a moot point to argue because you could never prove it and i could never refute it.

Point being you have to keep your qb alive. What has changed at the qb position is the cost and thus the necessity that they dont take hits because although the nature of the position may not have changed, the nature of defense has. The players are bigger stronger and faster than they were in steve youngs mid 90s heydey. I know when i watch #7 scramble, i hold my breath and im quite sure hes much more capable of taking a big lick than jake locker and getting up.

Pocket mobility is important. Ability to run with the football is immaterial.

bce
07-17-2010, 11:05 PM
None of this has a thing to do with their accuracy, but keep trying, Bayless.

Level of success, physical skills... they could both be total and utter busts but that doesn't mean they aren't more accurate than the 20th ranked QB in terms of completion percentage last year.

McNabb is and has been good at a lot of things in his career... his accuracy has never been one of those things.


I was simply commenting on your inability to prove that sam bradford and jake locker neither who have ever thrown an nfl pass are more accurate than a player whos thrown for 30000 yards. But you seem to continue to avoid the subject.

wonderbredd24
07-17-2010, 11:29 PM
I was simply commenting on your inability to prove that sam bradford and jake locker neither who have ever thrown an nfl pass are more accurate than a player whos thrown for 30000 yards. But you seem to continue to avoid the subject.

Accuracy can be proven without NFL success, which you don't seem to understand.

Usain Bolt is faster and quicker than Plaxico Burress without ever having run a route in the NFL.

It is easy to see how accurate McNabb is not and how accurate a guy Sam Bradford is regardless of how many passes they've thrown in the NFL.

But since you're insistent on proving it with your "facts", Jake Locker's career completion percentage is 53.3% with his senior year still to be played while McNabb has 58.4% for his college career... a quality season of Locker will easily surpass that. And Bradford? Seriously? 67.6% for his career and was regarded as being accurate by most any scouting source you can find.

I'm sure you'll find some way to dismiss all of this, which I look forward to as always, Skip.

bce
07-17-2010, 11:35 PM
I'd like to see accuracy proven in some nfl games before id make a statement like "its easy to see how sam bradford is accurate and donovan mcnabb is not".

Accuracy at the college level and accuracy at the nfl level are not the same thing. Youre comparing a college completion percentage to an nfl completion percentage as your argument.

You have 0 proof for your statements, which of course i'll refute because you have no proof for your statements. Youre just stating "opinion not based on fact".

Paranoidmoonduck
07-17-2010, 11:41 PM
Okay people, let's be realistic.

Being able to keep your wits about you in the face of an NFL pass rush and deliver accurate passes isn't an attribute that can be tested at the college level. How well a player tracks a receiver, guesses how far to lead him, and delivers the ball where he means to can easily be demonstrated.

Sam Bradford has easily demonstrated that he does that better than McNabb ever did it in college or NFL. Whether Bradford can do it under NFL duress isn't representative of his accuracy, it's representative of his mental makeup.

TACKLE
07-17-2010, 11:41 PM
bce, by your logic, it is impossible to evaluate the accuracy, decision making and intangibles/leadership in a college quarterback. Those are the three most important traits needed to be a successful QB. If you feel you can't judge those three things, why waste your time evaluating college QB's at all?

bce
07-17-2010, 11:44 PM
Okay people, let's be realistic.

Being able to keep your wits about you in the face of an NFL pass rush and deliver accurate passes isn't an attribute that can be tested at the college level. How well a player tracks a receiver, guesses how far to lead him, and delivers the ball where he means to can easily be demonstrated.

Sam Bradford has easily demonstrated that he does that better than McNabb ever did it in college or NFL. Whether Bradford can do it under NFL duress isn't representative of his accuracy, it's representative of his mental makeup.


And what proof do you have that sam bradford has done anything better than donovan mcnabb at the nfl level?

bce
07-17-2010, 11:48 PM
bce, by your logic, it is impossible to evaluate the accuracy, decision making and intangibles/leadership in a college quarterback. Those are the three most important traits needed to be a successful QB. If you feel you can't judge those three things, why waste your time evaluating college QB's at all?

Its impossible to say that sam bradford or jake locker are more "accurate" than donovan mcnabb, since theyve never played in an nfl game.

You can say a qb is accurate or at least attempt to say a college qb is accurate but to say they are more accurate than an nfl qb when they have never played an nfl game is opinion not based on fact. And to say it about a qb with the success level that donovan mcnabb has had without them ever playing an nfl game, thats just idle speculation.

TACKLE
07-17-2010, 11:52 PM
Its impossible to say that sam bradford or jake locker are more "accurate" than donovan mcnabb, since theyve never played in an nfl game.

You can say a qb is accurate or at least attempt to say a college qb is accurate but to say they are more accurate than an nfl qb when they have never played an nfl game is opinion not based on fact. And to say it about a qb with the success level that donovan mcnabb has had without them ever playing an nfl game, thats just idle speculation.

How can you know say that any college QB will be an accurate passer in the NFL when he has never played a snap in the NFL?

bce
07-17-2010, 11:54 PM
Okay people, let's be realistic.

Being able to keep your wits about you in the face of an NFL pass rush and deliver accurate passes isn't an attribute that can be tested at the college level. How well a player tracks a receiver, guesses how far to lead him, and delivers the ball where he means to can easily be demonstrated.

Sam Bradford has easily demonstrated that he does that better than McNabb ever did it in college or NFL. Whether Bradford can do it under NFL duress isn't representative of his accuracy, it's representative of his mental makeup.

Doing it under duress is accuracy. If youre not accurate with people in your face getting hit, then youre not accurate.

But your determination of accuracy is what a qb does standing unfettered in the pocket throwing to wide open guys like sam bradfords done for his whole life. Thats not what happens on sundays. You dont get unfettered pockets and wide open guys.

And to say that someone did something in college and that proves theyve done it better than someone at the nfl level just proves that you have no earthly idea what it is youre talking about.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-17-2010, 11:55 PM
And what proof do you have that sam bradford has done anything better than donovan mcnabb at the nfl level?

Indeed.

What proof did I have that Adrian Peterson would ever do anything better than Ron Dayne at the NFL level?

What proof did I have that Peyton Manning would ever do anything better than Todd Marinovich?

This is skill evaluation, not algebra. You look at a player and try to project how they'll fit in the NFL. They're prospects, which makes NFL teams prospectors. If you don't get that, then I'm less than clear how you manage to put on your shoes in the morning.

bce
07-18-2010, 12:01 AM
How can you know say that any college QB will be an accurate passer in the NFL when he has never played a snap in the NFL?



Thats the point. You cant prove it. Therefore evaluating a qb based on perceived "accuracy" is a faulty evaluation. Its opinion not based on fact. because that perceived accuracy may not translate to the nfl field, and you could never know that it will.Thats why you evaluate on physical ability and traits shown between the white lines, such as being able to deliver under pressure, making your team better than it is, delivering in clutch situations, playing well against the better competition, playing well when the lights are brightest in the biggest games. These things are quantifiable. The translation of college accuracy to the nfl is not quantifiable, thats why youll never hear me say things like QB A is "accurate". Its easy to see if they are "inaccurate", but to say that a qb is accurate based on college film is speculation. Its opinion not based on fact.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-18-2010, 12:05 AM
No.

A quarterback throws the ball. There's a whole bunch of stuff that derives from that and many things that a quarterback has to do to allow him to reliably throw the ball, but he throws the ball. If you're unwilling to examine the very basic aspects to how well he throws the ball, you're ignoring step 1. This evaluation is objective and observable and can be done to college quarterbacks.

Period.

****.

bce
07-18-2010, 12:07 AM
Indeed.

What proof did I have that Adrian Peterson would ever do anything better than Ron Dayne at the NFL level?

What proof did I have that Peyton Manning would ever do anything better than Todd Marinovich?

This is skill evaluation, not algebra. You look at a player and try to project how they'll fit in the NFL. They're prospects, which makes NFL teams prospectors. If you don't get that, then I'm less than clear how you manage to put on your shoes in the morning.


Of course you didnt answer the question. How on gods green earth do you know from watching a college tape that sam bradford can do anything better than donovan mcnabb. You said sam bradford proved in college he was more accurate than donovan mcnabb. So prove it dont answer a question with a question about a non related subject.

Youre making statements of opinion not based on fact. If you want to say sam bradford is accurate thats fine. But dont say hes more accurate than donovan macnabb when you have no proof then turn around and answer a question with a question then rationalize it with some statement about how its all speculation. State what you know, which isnt anything.

TACKLE
07-18-2010, 12:09 AM
Thats the point. You cant prove it.

You feel you can't judge if a college QB will be an accurate passer because you can't prove it. You feel that you can't judge how good of a decision maker the player is because your not actually inside their head. And of course you can't test intangibles because that's what the word intangibles refers to.

How can you possibly evaluate QB prospects properly if you feel you cannot judge their accuracy, decision making or intangibles?

bce
07-18-2010, 12:14 AM
No.

A quarterback throws the ball. There's a whole bunch of stuff that derives from that and many things that a quarterback has to do to allow him to reliably throw the ball, but he throws the ball. If you're unwilling to examine the very basic aspects to how well he throws the ball, you're ignoring step 1. This evaluation is objective and observable and can be done to college quarterbacks.

Period.

****.

So how can you prove nfl accuracy then? How can you prove whats going to translate to the nfl field? how can you prove that QB A is going to be just as accurate in an nfl game against my pittsburgh steeler defense as he is against baylor?

You cant do it. Thats why you dont say college qbs are accurate when you evaluate them. because you do not know that supposed "accuracy" will tranlsate to the nfl field. You do not know. You cant know, theres no way to make that determination. Its opinion not based on fact.

Dont be giving me that unwilling basic aspects bs either. I can handle insults and differences of opinion but the nonsense you spew is just almost too much answering questions with questions and these weird lawyer statements about nothing to avoid the reality that youre not evaluating based on any tangible evidence of anything.

Youre guessing. Plain and simple. You are guessing.

bce
07-18-2010, 12:19 AM
You feel you can't judge if a college QB will be an accurate passer because you can't prove it. You feel that you can't judge how good of a decision maker the player is because your not actually inside their head. And of course you can't test intangibles because that's what the word intangibles refers to.

How can you possibly evaluate QB prospects properly if you feel you cannot judge their accuracy, decision making or intangibles?

Watch what they do on the field? Do they show nfl qb traits when theyre on the field? do they have the requisite physical ability?

Im sure as hell not going to speculate watching jake locker or sam bradford throw "accurate" passes against baylor and try to take from that whats going to happen against the pittsburgh steeler defense. Really you may as well not even bother watching. Its not going to be the same thing.

You cannot duplicate in a college game what will happen in the nfl. You look for traits on the field things that nfl qbs do that they do.

Everything else is guessing.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-18-2010, 12:20 AM
Just so I can wrap my head around this concept, just answer some basic questions for me.

If I were, say, to be walking down the street and someone sprinted by me and I remarked, "that person is going fast" I would be fine. And if, after that, a car drove past and I said "that car is going fast", I would be fine.

But if I remarked, after observing both these events, that the car was moving faster than the person, I would irrevocably and hopelessly out of my depth logically.

Observable phenomena are evidence. All statistical tracking of that isn't proof of the event, it's record of the event. I have observed that Sam Bradford in general, from the mass of footage I have seen of him (all of which took place between white lines, interestingly enough), is a tremendously accurate passer. I have observed that McNabb, is all the mass of footage I have of him, is a somewhat inconsistently accurate passer. I compare the two in my mind and come to the legitimate conclusion that Sam Bradford is a more accurate passer than Donovan McNabb.

If you have counterevidence to that, I'm happy to dicuss that with you. But you don't. You're just making completely illogical claims that any extrapolation and projection is bad and you can't evaluate using anything but facts then failing to point out how these facts aren't themselves projection considering that the definition of the entire process we're engaging is, in fact, entirely projection and nothing else whatsoever at all.

bce
07-18-2010, 12:36 AM
What on gods green earth do people walking down the street and cars going by have anything to do with anything?

And AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN youre comparing college tape to nfl tape and trying to somehow surmise from college tape that a player in a college game has some trait that an nfl player does not.

Youre watching two totally different levels of football and making determinations from the lesser level. Compare apples to apples. You cant do it though.

So youre guessing plain and simple youre guessing youre forming opinion not based on fact because youre 'experimenting" with two different controls. Yopure watching two different levels of football and grading sam bradford on his performance against the lessere level and grading donovan mcnabb on his performance against the higher level.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-18-2010, 12:42 AM
And what're you doing? If you're looking for a college player to exhibit NFL traits, isn't he exhibiting them against college competition, rendering the the evaluation utterly useless?

bce
07-18-2010, 12:49 AM
What im looking for is quantifiable real traits of nfl qbs that appear on the field. Which ive previously enumerated in this thread. Im not saying someone is the next #7 or has better accuracy than #7, or is more competitive than #7 or is a better leader than #7. Thats opinion not based on fact. I'll say they have traits that #7 has. Thats it. Thats as far as you can possibly know.Anything else is opinion not based on fact.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-18-2010, 01:42 AM
Okay. Sam Bradford has a similar accuracy trait to Drew Brees, who has better NFL accuracy than Dononvan McNabb.

dannyz
07-18-2010, 04:53 AM
Who is the New Prospect OF The Day ? Patrick Peterson would be good.

FUNBUNCHER
07-18-2010, 08:57 AM
You think jake locker is vince young or mike vick?

The idea that tim tebow is going to be running around nfl fields taking on tacklers getting signifigant rushing yards and outrunning nfl defenders well its just not going to happen like that.

Saying what a long retired player will do in the nfl well since it cant be proven, kind of like jake lockers intangibles, its a moot point to argue because you could never prove it and i could never refute it.

Point being you have to keep your qb alive. What has changed at the qb position is the cost and thus the necessity that they dont take hits because although the nature of the position may not have changed, the nature of defense has. The players are bigger stronger and faster than they were in steve youngs mid 90s heydey. I know when i watch #7 scramble, i hold my breath and im quite sure hes much more capable of taking a big lick than jake locker and getting up.

Pocket mobility is important. Ability to run with the football is immaterial.

NFL talent has not fundamentally changed over the last 20 years, sorry.

There's been a slight shift in certain defensive schemes, but whenever someone tries to sell that football players now are bigger/faster/stronger than their counterparts from 15-20 years ago, well, it sounds like the poster is under the age of 22.

We're not talking about the 1960s here. There isn't a annual exponential growth in the evolution of football athletes.

Steve Young could outrun NFL LBs in the 90s, he'd outrun those same players today. And my point was, I like the fact that Locker appears to be athletic enough to break from the pocket and pick up 10 YARDS.

Is that really setting the bar all that high??

bce, based on much of your logic, the only 'quantifiable' traits any pro prospect has are measurables; height/weight/speed and how far he can throw a football.

I'm not a scout, but I would assume most can reasonably judge whether or not a college QB exhibits NFL accuracy.

First, you look at a QB's completion percentage, next you try to gauge his level of competition, then you take into account what kinds of throws said player is completing; is he throwing 5 yard dumpoffs, 15 yard comeback routes, or hitting WRs covered by a corner and safety help over the top, etc.

It's the reason why guys like Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow were downgraded somewhat for their completions numbers in college, while Bradford was given a much higher grade by most teams because of the difficulty of throws he routinely completed that McCoy and Tebow rarely attempted.

bce, sometimes I think you're simply trying to win an argument, instead of considering what it is you're offering up for debate.

If you can't determine to a reasonable degree how accurate a college QB is, which is his ability to complete a high percentage of NFL type throws, there's no point in even scouting the position.

I get the point that we don't really know if Bradford will end up being a more accurate pro than Donovan McNabb because Sam has yet to take a snap in an NFL game, however, one can project that Bradford has the potential to develop into a more accurate passer than McNabb, based on what he's demonstrated at OU.

McNabb's highest completion percentage seasons in Philly were roughly 64%, 60%, 60% and 61%. Every other year he was throwing at a 59% clip or below.

I don't think it's a stretch to speculate, as one should if they are considering whether to draft a college QB in an upcoming draft, that Bradford appears to be a more accurate QB than McNabb and should eclipse his completion percentages.

hockey619
07-18-2010, 10:12 AM
I know when i watch #7 scramble, i hold my breath and im quite sure hes much more capable of taking a big lick than jake locker and getting up.


This is opinion not based on fact.

hockey619
07-18-2010, 10:21 AM
And AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN youre comparing college tape to nfl tape and trying to somehow surmise from college tape that a player in a college game has some trait that an nfl player does not.


So you cant evaluate Mallett's arm then right? you said you evaluate arms against nfl arms (which is correct) but how can you do that without comparing college tape to nfl tape? thats just opinion not based on fact.

hockey619
07-18-2010, 10:28 AM
And what did you think of Jarmarcus Russell coming out?

He was clutch in a big game (like #7)
He had a big arm (like #7)
He was reasonably mobile with escapability (like #7)

But then he sucked. you cant blame his team, thats not how it works remember. so whatd you think? because hes pretty much the loop hole in all of your evaluating ideas.

hockey619
07-18-2010, 10:36 AM
Thats the point. You cant prove it. Therefore evaluating a qb based on perceived "accuracy" is a faulty evaluation. Its opinion not based on fact. because that perceived accuracy may not translate to the nfl field, and you could never know that it will.Thats why you evaluate on physical ability and traits shown between the white lines, such as being able to deliver under pressure, making your team better than it is, delivering in clutch situations, playing well against the better competition, playing well when the lights are brightest in the biggest games. These things are quantifiable. The translation of college accuracy to the nfl is not quantifiable, thats why youll never hear me say things like QB A is "accurate". Its easy to see if they are "inaccurate", but to say that a qb is accurate based on college film is speculation. Its opinion not based on fact.


This entire post is evaluating using opinion not based on fact.

How can you evaluate physical ability? its done on a college field against college competition, therefore its useless. so what if he looks fast or his arm looks strong against college guys? the nfl game is faster, and you cant tell how itll compare there, therefore none of that holds water.

Petyon Manning team won the national championship the year after he left Tennessee. He never beat Florida and struggled in the clutch situations. But then you say hes great in the pros. But didnt he fail almost all of your evaluating facts except physical ability? and if it was based on physical ability alone then what happened with Russell? prove it

And how are any of those things quantifiable? show how they quantify. do you keep track of numbers and then whoever has the most is the best? prove it

This is all opinion not based on fact, brought to you by whats happening between the white lines that your not allowed to evaluate on, also co-sponsored by loopholes

hockey619
07-18-2010, 10:38 AM
Just so I can wrap my head around this concept, just answer some basic questions for me.

If I were, say, to be walking down the street and someone sprinted by me and I remarked, "that person is going fast" I would be fine. And if, after that, a car drove past and I said "that car is going fast", I would be fine.

But if I remarked, after observing both these events, that the car was moving faster than the person, I would irrevocably and hopelessly out of my depth logically.

Observable phenomena are evidence. All statistical tracking of that isn't proof of the event, it's record of the event. I have observed that Sam Bradford in general, from the mass of footage I have seen of him (all of which took place between white lines, interestingly enough), is a tremendously accurate passer. I have observed that McNabb, is all the mass of footage I have of him, is a somewhat inconsistently accurate passer. I compare the two in my mind and come to the legitimate conclusion that Sam Bradford is a more accurate passer than Donovan McNabb.

If you have counterevidence to that, I'm happy to dicuss that with you. But you don't. You're just making completely illogical claims that any extrapolation and projection is bad and you can't evaluate using anything but facts then failing to point out how these facts aren't themselves projection considering that the definition of the entire process we're engaging is, in fact, entirely projection and nothing else whatsoever at all.



This post is full of win

Babylon
07-19-2010, 11:02 AM
Jake locker is a middling physical talent who has not shown great traits in college. Do i think he could play in the nfl. probably.

Do i think hes going to be any good? The chances are about 99% against.

There were a lot of black marks on the steelers. But you cant win the super bowl every year, and when a bad year is 9-7 and tie breaker out of a playoff spot that bodes pretty well for your team and for your two time thats right two time super bowl champion qb. Now compare that with the matthew stafford apologists who think he had a good year.

Middling physical talent? The guy is 6-3 230 with legit 4.5 speed and can throw the ball 70 yards. What is your definition of superior physical talent?

bce
07-20-2010, 06:15 PM
Okay. Sam Bradford has a similar accuracy trait to Drew Brees, who has better NFL accuracy than Dononvan McNabb.


Again, you know this based on what? its the same argument as with donovan mcnabb. Sam bradfords never faced an nfl defense, so how can you say hes as accurate as drew brees? Its the same thing again. Using two different controls in your experiment. Its speculation. You have no documentation to back up these statements. Youre stating opinion not based on fact. Youre guessing.

bce
07-20-2010, 06:19 PM
NFL talent has not fundamentally changed over the last 20 years, sorry.

There's been a slight shift in certain defensive schemes, but whenever someone tries to sell that football players now are bigger/faster/stronger than their counterparts from 15-20 years ago, well, it sounds like the poster is under the age of 22.

We're not talking about the 1960s here. There isn't a annual exponential growth in the evolution of football athletes.

Steve Young could outrun NFL LBs in the 90s, he'd outrun those same players today. And my point was, I like the fact that Locker appears to be athletic enough to break from the pocket and pick up 10 YARDS.

Is that really setting the bar all that high??

bce, based on much of your logic, the only 'quantifiable' traits any pro prospect has are measurables; height/weight/speed and how far he can throw a football.

I'm not a scout, but I would assume most can reasonably judge whether or not a college QB exhibits NFL accuracy.

First, you look at a QB's completion percentage, next you try to gauge his level of competition, then you take into account what kinds of throws said player is completing; is he throwing 5 yard dumpoffs, 15 yard comeback routes, or hitting WRs covered by a corner and safety help over the top, etc.

It's the reason why guys like Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow were downgraded somewhat for their completions numbers in college, while Bradford was given a much higher grade by most teams because of the difficulty of throws he routinely completed that McCoy and Tebow rarely attempted.

bce, sometimes I think you're simply trying to win an argument, instead of considering what it is you're offering up for debate.

If you can't determine to a reasonable degree how accurate a college QB is, which is his ability to complete a high percentage of NFL type throws, there's no point in even scouting the position.

I get the point that we don't really know if Bradford will end up being a more accurate pro than Donovan McNabb because Sam has yet to take a snap in an NFL game, however, one can project that Bradford has the potential to develop into a more accurate passer than McNabb, based on what he's demonstrated at OU.

McNabb's highest completion percentage seasons in Philly were roughly 64%, 60%, 60% and 61%. Every other year he was throwing at a 59% clip or below.

I don't think it's a stretch to speculate, as one should if they are considering whether to draft a college QB in an upcoming draft, that Bradford appears to be a more accurate QB than McNabb and should eclipse his completion percentages.


You have no comparative film to verify these statements. All you have is sam bradfords college film, against donovan mcnabbs nfl film. Its apples and oranges, night and day. You cannot prove that a player in college has better accuracy than a player in the nfl, especially one with 30000 career passing yards.

I certainly wouldnt bank on sam bradford being more succesful in any aspect of football than donovan mcnabb. Chances are about 5%.

bce
07-20-2010, 06:24 PM
So you cant evaluate Mallett's arm then right? you said you evaluate arms against nfl arms (which is correct) but how can you do that without comparing college tape to nfl tape? thats just opinion not based on fact.

Ability to throw the ball is a physical trait.YOu dont need nfl film to see that he can gun the ball. I would never say he was more accurate than any particular nfl qb. Playing well in big bgames, being clutch,performing at the end of games, playing well against the top competition, performing well under pressure, those are nfl qb traits. Outside of those traits and their physical ability, everything else is just speculation.

bce
07-20-2010, 06:26 PM
This entire post is evaluating using opinion not based on fact.

How can you evaluate physical ability? its done on a college field against college competition, therefore its useless. so what if he looks fast or his arm looks strong against college guys? the nfl game is faster, and you cant tell how itll compare there, therefore none of that holds water.

Petyon Manning team won the national championship the year after he left Tennessee. He never beat Florida and struggled in the clutch situations. But then you say hes great in the pros. But didnt he fail almost all of your evaluating facts except physical ability? and if it was based on physical ability alone then what happened with Russell? prove it

And how are any of those things quantifiable? show how they quantify. do you keep track of numbers and then whoever has the most is the best? prove it

This is all opinion not based on fact, brought to you by whats happening between the white lines that your not allowed to evaluate on, also co-sponsored by loopholes


Like i said, you dont need nfl film to see a qb has a cannon. Whether hes playing baylor or the steelers, hes still going to have a cannon.

My opinion of jamarcus russel was he was one of the most physically gifted prospects ever, which he was.

bce
07-20-2010, 06:30 PM
Middling physical talent? The guy is 6-3 230 with legit 4.5 speed and can throw the ball 70 yards. What is your definition of superior physical talent?


Ill believe it when i see it and since his longest td pass of the year was 51 yards.

I'll also believe when i see it that hes as fast as your average nfl tb or wr.

Babylon
07-20-2010, 06:37 PM
Ill believe it when i see it and since his longest td pass of the year was 51 yards.

I'll also believe when i see it that hes as fast as your average nfl tb or wr.

I've seen him throw a baseball 95 mph and i've been at Husky Stadium when he's thrown it over 60 yards with ease. As for his footspeed i thought that was a foregone conclusion the guy is real fast. That to me seems pretty obvious.

Sniper
07-20-2010, 06:38 PM
I've seen him throw a baseball 95 mph and i've been at Husky Stadium when he's thrown it over 60 yards with ease. As for his footspeed i thought that was a foregone conclusion the guy is real fast. That to me seems pretty obvious.

He's fast for a QB. We'll just have to wait and see on the 4.5 part of things.

bce
07-20-2010, 06:58 PM
Hes not going to be running q b keepers or running away from nfl defenders im quite sure of that.

Like i said i'll believe it when i see him throw a pass 60 yards in the air and complete it. Certainly didnt do it last year.

FrankGore
07-20-2010, 07:03 PM
Hes not going to be running q b keepers or running away from nfl defenders im quite sure of that.

Like i said i'll believe it when i see him throw a pass 60 yards in the air and complete it. Certainly didnt do it last year.

Well, a QB's quickness/speed/footwork doesn't always have to come down to whether he can run the ball like Mike Vick or not. It plays into a lot of important fundamentals that a QB has to have ie. quick dropback, ability to move around in the pocket and get outside of it, etc. So even though he may not be a rushing threat in the NFL, it's not a negligible attribute IMO.

bce
07-20-2010, 07:14 PM
It is negligible. Thats why its unimportant how fast he is. Speed is not a necessary physical trait for an nfl qb. Nor is the ability to run with the ball.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 07:41 PM
Like i said, you dont need nfl film to see a qb has a cannon. Whether hes playing baylor or the steelers, hes still going to have a cannon.

My opinion of jamarcus russel was he was one of the most physically gifted prospects ever, which he was.


Petyon Manning team won the national championship the year after he left Tennessee. He never beat Florida and struggled in the clutch situations. But then you say hes great in the pros. But didnt he fail almost all of your evaluating facts except physical ability? and if it was based on physical ability alone then what happened with Russell? prove it

you ignored this. so ill bring it up again and again until you can explain it. your entire way of evaluating failed enormously in these two polar opposite cases. explain why.

If Jruss had so much talent, why did he fail? what is it that you missed? he was an amazing talent but he sure as hell didnt play up to it. why not?

i can see on film that Locker's arm is plenty good enough and that hes far from a middling talent. There now its fact.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 07:42 PM
Hes not going to be running q b keepers or running away from nfl defenders im quite sure of that.

Like i said i'll believe it when i see him throw a pass 60 yards in the air and complete it. Certainly didnt do it last year.


You said Russell had amazing physical skills but that locker doesnt based on his longest completion being 50 something yards? Russells longest in college was 58. so he must have no physical skills too.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 07:46 PM
Ability to throw the ball is a physical trait.YOu dont need nfl film to see that he can gun the ball. I would never say he was more accurate than any particular nfl qb. Playing well in big bgames, being clutch,performing at the end of games, playing well against the top competition, performing well under pressure, those are nfl qb traits. Outside of those traits and their physical ability, everything else is just speculation.


So a guy could perform against college guys, big freaking deal. I thought completing passes against college d's wasnt the same? so why is doing it against them in crunch time the same as in the nfl? its not. wrong again, this is opinion not based on fact.

bce
07-20-2010, 07:47 PM
What does jake locker have to do with peyton manning beating florida? Its not requisite that a qb win the national championship or beat florida. Just probably werent the best team, but in colege the qb isnt the most important factor in winning

Really if you just evaluated him on his physical ability that would have been enough to make him the #1 or #2 prospect in the draft.

I didnt say they had to win every game. I said they had to show physical ability and nfl traits.

he does however show traits of choking in big games though. Therefore you could have evaluated peyton manning perfectly. Great physical ability. Doesnt show up against the top competition and will choke when its money time. Will throw pick sixes and make bad decisions when the pressure is on against the best competition (i never get tired of that).Sounds like the real peyton manning. Its exactly what he is. he does everything except show up when its crunch time against the top competition.

Sorry i dont respond to everything right away.

bce
07-20-2010, 07:49 PM
You said Russell had amazing physical skills but that locker doesnt based on his longest completion being 50 something yards? Russells longest in college was 58. so he must have no physical skills too.

When i see jake locker throw a football like jamarcus russell maybe ill change my tune. But i wouldnt bank on it happening.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 07:53 PM
What does jake locker have to do with peyton manning beating florida? Its not requisite that a qb win the national championship or beat florida. Just probably werent the best team, but in colege the qb isnt the most important factor in winning

Really if you just evaluated him on his physical ability that would have been enough to make him the #1 or #2 prospect in the draft.

I didnt say they had to win every game. I said they had to show physical ability and nfl traits.

he does however show traits of choking in big games though. Therefore you could have evaluated peyton manning perfectly. Great physical ability. Doesnt show up against the top competition and will choke when its money time. Will throw pick sixes and make bad decisions when the pressure is on against the best competition (i never get tired of that).Sounds like the real peyton manning. Its exactly what he is. he does everything except show up when its crunch time against the top competition.

Sorry i dont respond to everything right away.



Peyton is a huge hole in your logic, thats how he relates. He had the physical skill, then nothing else in his profile met the one you look for. except hes been an amazing pro. so your evaluation criteria may need to be reconsidered.

honestly i agree with some of what you are saying and the general ideas you just dont seem to apply them very well. saying locker is middling is crap. hes got the arm to get it done. i think he has some bad habits to fix but his arm isnt a problem at all.

prock
07-20-2010, 07:53 PM
You have no comparative film to verify these statements. All you have is sam bradfords college film, against donovan mcnabbs nfl film. Its apples and oranges, night and day. You cannot prove that a player in college has better accuracy than a player in the nfl, especially one with 30000 career passing yards.

I certainly wouldnt bank on sam bradford being more succesful in any aspect of football than donovan mcnabb. Chances are about 5%.

You can't prove it, but you can extrapolate it. That is what scouting is, there is no 100% set in stone proof. There is extrapolations, assumptions, projections that all go into it. Your logic is quite hilarious. You claim because McNabb has 30k passing yards, Bradford will never be better at anything than him. Rookies will never develop to be better than veterans by your logic.

And where did you get your 5% from? That is just opinion, not based on fact.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 07:56 PM
When i see jake locker throw a football like jamarcus russell maybe ill change my tune. But i wouldnt bank on it happening.


Oh so now its not that he didnt throw it far enough for his longest completion, its an eyeball test? why the sudden change? because evaluating based on the previous criteria made your argument wrong so you 'changed your tune'?

well i eyeball it as being a pass with plenty of zip. so i must be right because i said so.

prock
07-20-2010, 07:57 PM
Ill believe it when i see it and since his longest td pass of the year was 51 yards.

I'll also believe when i see it that hes as fast as your average nfl tb or wr.

I will believe Robert Griffin is the number two overall prospect when I see him completing passes to pros, and running away from NFL defenders.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 07:58 PM
And where did you get your 5% from? That is just opinion, not based on fact.

Damn, you beat me to it. i saw this and was like boom i get to drop his line on him for real, i was very pumped up.

Babylon
07-20-2010, 07:59 PM
He's fast for a QB. We'll just have to wait and see on the 4.5 part of things.

You drinking the Kool Aid lately? I figured you if anyone could watch a guy play and read his speed.

Sniper
07-20-2010, 08:01 PM
You drinking the Kool Aid lately? I figured you if anyone could watch a guy play and read his speed.

Wait, what? Why's that?

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:01 PM
I will believe Robert Griffin is the number two overall prospect when I see him completing passes to pros, and running away from NFL defenders.


Jake Locker = career long of 98 yards (not 51 bce)
Robert Griffin = career long of 61
Terrelle Pryor = 78 career long

so i guess RG3 and TP doesnt have the necessary physical tools to play in the nfl by using your flawed logic from before bce. quit now, go hide like the others who have tried to stand before me.

Sniper
07-20-2010, 08:04 PM
Jake Locker = career long of 98 yards (not 51 bce)
Robert Griffin = career long of 61
Terrelle Pryor = 78 career long

so i guess RG3 and TP doesnt have the necessary physical tools to play in the nfl by using your flawed logic from before bce. quit now, go hide like the others who have tried to stand before me.

This is most definitely rep-worthy. Bow down, bitches!

I don't quite get bce's use of career long as a bench mark for arm strength. If, say, Tate Forcier is on his own one and he hits Daryl Stonum on a five-yard slant and Stonum gets 93 yards after the catch, does that mean that Tate Forcier has the strongest arm EVARZ?

bce
07-20-2010, 08:08 PM
Peyton is a huge hole in your logic, thats how he relates. He had the physical skill, then nothing else in his profile met the one you look for. except hes been an amazing pro. so your evaluation criteria may need to be reconsidered.

honestly i agree with some of what you are saying and the general ideas you just dont seem to apply them very well. saying locker is middling is crap. hes got the arm to get it done. i think he has some bad habits to fix but his arm isnt a problem at all.

I just explained it. hes a choker who doesnt show up in big games against the best competition.

Is he not? Isnt that exactly what happened in college? Isnt that exactly what happened in the nfl? if anything it validates my point. He lacked a trait. A trait which he still lacks to this day. I certainly dont remember but probably why they maybe lost more games than they should have and didnt beat the best competition. Its no different than the nfl peyton manning.

Again i ask the question. Does jake locker have the physical talent of a joe flacco or a #7? If not hes middling. Hes tony romo at best. middling from a purely physical standpoint, and he hasnt shown the great intangibles on the field either. he shows neither great physical traits nor great intangible traits. hes middling.

prock
07-20-2010, 08:08 PM
This is most definitely rep-worthy. Bow down, bitches!

I don't quite get bce's use of career long as a bench mark for arm strength. If, say, Tate Forcier is on his own one and he hits Daryl Stonum on a five-yard slant and Stonum gets 93 yards after the catch, does that mean that Tate Forcier has the strongest arm EVARZ?

The proof is in the pudding, Sniper, you are just using opinion not based on fact!

bce
07-20-2010, 08:10 PM
This is most definitely rep-worthy. Bow down, bitches!

I don't quite get bce's use of career long as a bench mark for arm strength. If, say, Tate Forcier is on his own one and he hits Daryl Stonum on a five-yard slant and Stonum gets 93 yards after the catch, does that mean that Tate Forcier has the strongest arm EVARZ?


No. It just means that jake locker with all this supposed "deep game" didnt not throw a pass longer than 51 yards this year. So he's not displaying this "deep passing ability" that everyone says he is.

A Perfect Score
07-20-2010, 08:10 PM
Guys...bce is right. Always. Jake Locker sucks. Hes Tony Romo at best. It isnt like Tony Romo is a top 10 NFL QB. Clearly, the only way to measure QB's is based on the YAC of their receivers. Everyone knows this.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:16 PM
before you get embarrassed again maybe you should leave it to the big boys who are trying to discuss legitimately these prospects and leave your personal agendas and beefs for prock to validate.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:17 PM
Again i ask the question. Does jake locker have the physical talent of a joe flacco or a #7? If not hes middling. Hes tony romo at best. middling from a purely physical standpoint, and he hasnt shown the great intangibles on the field either. he shows neither great physical traits nor great intangible traits. hes middling.


What in the hell has joe flacco won? he has two more playoff wins than tony romo, during which he completed 24 passes. in 3 games. not exactly carrying the team. by comparison tony completed 23 in his one playoff win.


bce Quote:
No. It just means that jake locker with all this supposed "deep game" didnt not throw a pass longer than 51 yards this year. So he's not displaying this "deep passing ability" that everyone says he is.


and flaccos college long completion = 44 yards. so i guess he had even less physical skills than locker and must suck horribly.

A Perfect Score
07-20-2010, 08:17 PM
Nothing you say is legitimate, don't fool yourself. You've never embarrassed me or anyone else in an argument, which is the sole reason you bail on every thread in which you are made to look like a fool.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:20 PM
No. It just means that jake locker with all this supposed "deep game" didnt not throw a pass longer than 51 yards this year. So he's not displaying this "deep passing ability" that everyone says he is.


but he has completed one longer than that before, see the post he quoted? longer than any of your favorites ever have. maybe its because that is the lamest cop out for measuring a players ability youve tried so far?

face it. i proved you wrong. admit it and get over it or keep talking and ill make you look even worse.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:24 PM
What in the hell has joe flacco won? he has two more playoff wins than tony romo, during which he completed 24 passes. in 3 games. not exactly carrying the team. by comparison tony completed 23 in his one playoff win.


bce Quote:
No. It just means that jake locker with all this supposed "deep game" didnt not throw a pass longer than 51 yards this year. So he's not displaying this "deep passing ability" that everyone says he is.


and flaccos college long completion = 44 yards. so i guess he had even less physical skills than locker and must suck horribly.


Again I ask the question from a physical standpoint, does jake locker "measure up" to the elites of the game. Does he measure up to the flaccos and #7s of the world from a physical standpoint.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:25 PM
Nothing you say is legitimate, don't fool yourself. You've never embarrassed me or anyone else in an argument, which is the sole reason you bail on every thread in which you are made to look like a fool.

I just go to bed or do something else. but i always come back dont i.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:27 PM
I see youve gotten off the peyton manning thing as well. Now its just on to the next feeble attempt. Now its since jake locker hasnt exhibited the deep passing game hes renowned for were going to go back and find any qb who didnt have a long td pass, which wasnt the point to begin with. Nobody questions whether jamarcus russel or joe flacco have cannon arms.

It is a question for jake locker.

prock
07-20-2010, 08:28 PM
Again I ask the question from a physical standpoint, does jake locker "measure up" to the elites of the game. Does he measure up to the flaccos and #7s of the world from a physical standpoint.

How many NFL quarterbacks measure up to the "elites"? Very few quarterbacks are the size of Big Ben and Flacco. You don't need to have 6'6" to be a good quarterback.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:29 PM
i mean throwing the ball. measure up physically not actual height.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:29 PM
Again I ask the question from a physical standpoint, does jake locker "measure up" to the elites of the game. Does he measure up to the flaccos and #7s of the world from a physical standpoint.


according to your measuring stick of college longest completion, he not only measures up, he blows the competition away.


Jake Locker = career long of 98 yards (not 51 bce)
Robert Griffin = career long of 61
Terrelle Pryor = 78 career long
Flacco = 44 yards
mallett = 97 (ooo almost)

so i guess RG3 TP Flacco and Mallett dont have the necessary physical tools to play in the nfl by using your flawed logic from before bce. quit now, go hide like the others who have tried to stand before me.

now ive added to the pile of evidence that your wrong that you still havent bothered to address.

prock
07-20-2010, 08:30 PM
i mean throwing the ball. measure up physically not actual height.

Same ****. You don't need a Flacco-esque arm to be a great quarterback. Very few players do, and a lot of players with weaker arms are much better quarterbacks than Flacco or Big Ben.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:32 PM
according to your measuring stick of college longest completion, he not only measures up, he blows the competition away.


Jake Locker = career long of 98 yards (not 51 bce)
Robert Griffin = career long of 61
Terrelle Pryor = 78 career long
Flacco = 44 yards
mallett = 97 (ooo almost)

so i guess RG3 TP Flacco and Mallett dont have the necessary physical tools to play in the nfl by using your flawed logic from before bce. quit now, go hide like the others who have tried to stand before me.

now ive added to the pile of evidence that your wrong that you still havent bothered to address.


No youre just addressing or attempting to address different evidence since ive invalidated your previous arguments. Nobody has a question whether terrel pryor or ryan mallett or rg 3 or joe flacco have cannon arms.

There is a question about jake locker, which you have yet to answer.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:32 PM
I see youve gotten off the peyton manning thing as well. Now its just on to the next feeble attempt. Now its since jake locker hasnt exhibited the deep passing game hes renowned for were going to go back and find any qb who didnt have a long td pass, which wasnt the point to begin with. Nobody questions whether jamarcus russel or joe flacco have cannon arms.

It is a question for jake locker.



no you did a piss poor job explaining that so i want to hear it again but with a real explanation, not some cop out crap.

you said the two biggest things for qbs are physical traits and clutch and all that noise. peyton only nailed the first part, he failed everything about the second part. and yet hes won it all before hasnt he? jamarcus nailed the first part also and performed well in a big game. but he sucked. even though he met more of your criteria.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:33 PM
No youre just addressing or attempting to address different evidence since ive invalidated your previous arguments. Nobody has a question whether terrel pryor or ryan mallett or rg 3 or joe flacco have cannon arms.

There is a question about jake locker, which you have yet to answer.


false again.

you said locker only completed a pass of 51 yards (which was wrong btw) and therefore didnt have the arm to compete. but the rest of these guys do have the arm, yet there completions are even shorter.

so how is that so?

A Perfect Score
07-20-2010, 08:34 PM
Same ****. You don't need a Flacco-esque arm to be a great quarterback. Very few players do, and a lot of players with weaker arms are much better quarterbacks than Flacco or Big Ben.

Not to mention the number of QB's who have had arms stronger then a guy like Flacco and have failed miserably. See, Jamarcus Russel, Tim Couch, Kyle Boller, Byron Leftwich, J.P Losman, Derek Anderson and a bevy of others. A strong arm, or a career long pass higher then others, doesn't make you a good QB. In fact, thats one of the more stupid things you have ever said. And trust me, thats an esteemed list to be on.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:34 PM
Same ****. You don't need a Flacco-esque arm to be a great quarterback. Very few players do, and a lot of players with weaker arms are much better quarterbacks than Flacco or Big Ben.


its not the norm though. Its the excpetion. Flacco and #7 are the norm. I dont bet on exceptions.

I know ill regret this and it will probably throw things off but who the **** is better than #7? I know there aint no one with more rings in the last 5 years than #7.

Hurricanes25
07-20-2010, 08:37 PM
its not the norm though. Its the excpetion. Flacco and #7 are the norm. I dont bet on exceptions.

I know ill regret this and it will probably throw things off but who the **** is better than #7? I know there aint no one with more rings in the last 5 years than #7.

Are you telling us that Ben Roethlisberger is the best QB in the NFL? If you truly believe this, you should just get the **** out of here.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:38 PM
What in the hell has joe flacco won? he has two more playoff wins than tony romo, during which he completed 24 passes. in 3 games. not exactly carrying the team. by comparison tony completed 23 in his one playoff win.


bce Quote:
No. It just means that jake locker with all this supposed "deep game" didnt not throw a pass longer than 51 yards this year. So he's not displaying this "deep passing ability" that everyone says he is.


and flaccos college long completion = 44 yards. so i guess he had even less physical skills than locker and must suck horribly.

Again I ask the question from a physical standpoint, does jake locker "measure up" to the elites of the game. Does he measure up to the flaccos and #7s of the world from a physical standpoint.

No youre just addressing or attempting to address different evidence since ive invalidated your previous arguments. Nobody has a question whether terrel pryor or ryan mallett or rg 3 or joe flacco have cannon arms.

There is a question about jake locker, which you have yet to answer.


so your telling me that im ignoring your argument when the bold is your response to what i said above. you didnt answer or address anything. like the fact that longest completion is clearly the wrong way to evaluate a prospect and that you were very very wrong when you said it.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:38 PM
no you did a piss poor job explaining that so i want to hear it again but with a real explanation, not some cop out crap.

you said the two biggest things for qbs are physical traits and clutch and all that noise. peyton only nailed the first part, he failed everything about the second part. and yet hes won it all before hasnt he? jamarcus nailed the first part also and performed well in a big game. but he sucked. even though he met more of your criteria.


hes also choked many more times than hes gotten it done. Actually, he succeeded in everything except the fact that hes a choker. hes a great player, except that he chokes.

Jamarcus russell eats pancakes with coediene syrup and a side of hash for breakfast. But i guess that had nothing to do with it.

Sniper
07-20-2010, 08:38 PM
mallett = 97 (ooo almost)

Mallett's 97-yarder consisted of a five-yard slant to Mario Manningham who outran the defense the rest of the way. This proves Mallett's big-play ability. I swear!

bce
07-20-2010, 08:39 PM
Are you telling us that Ben Roethlisberger is the best QB in the NFL? If you truly believe this, you should just get the **** out of here.

ive got my nice two big shiny rings to prove it. Whats your guy got?

I never should have said it. Im not responding to anymore whos the best qb posts. Iknow who has the most rings in the last 5 years and thats my argument, if theres another argument i dont care.

A Perfect Score
07-20-2010, 08:40 PM
Your argument was purposed around a strong arm and elite measurables leading to success in the NFL. You stated that since Locker has failed to produce adequately in the deep game (which we had since proven to be wrong, but regardless), he isn't a top tier QB. Therefore, guys like Jamarcus Russel, Tim Couch, Derek Anderson, Kyle Boller, and others who possess elite measurables are the epitome of what an NFL QB should be. Hell, Kyle Boller was 6'3, 230 and ran a 4.61 and could throw a football threw the goalposts from 60 yards away on his knee. How has his pro career gone?

Paranoidmoonduck
07-20-2010, 08:41 PM
I care deeply if quarterback prospects measure up the physical standard set by Jeff George and JaMarcus Russell.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:41 PM
so your telling me that im ignoring your argument when the bold is your response to what i said above. you didnt answer or address anything. like the fact that longest completion is clearly the wrong way to evaluate a prospect and that you were very very wrong when you said it.

You never answered the question. you jkust came back with a stat of longest td passes.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:41 PM
hes also choked many more times than hes gotten it done. Actually, he succeeded in everything except the fact that hes a choker. hes a great player, except that he chokes.

Jamarcus russell eats pancakes with coediene syrup and a side of hash for breakfast. But i guess that had nothing to do with it.


But i thought if he was a choker in college he couldnt make it in the nfl? what happened to all that noise? is it because your wrong that you are all of a sudden changing your tune?

But he had the physical traits and big performances. none of that takes work ethic into account meaning your system is tragically flawed if a guy can meet all your criteria and fail that miserably.

Hurricanes25
07-20-2010, 08:43 PM
ive got my nice two big shiny rings to prove it. Whats your guy got?

I never should have said it. Im not responding to anymore whos the best qb posts. Iknow who has the most rings in the last 5 years and thats my argument, if theres another argument i dont care.

Haha, who is my guy?

According to your logic, Brad Johnson, Trent Dilfer and Jeff Hostetler are all better than Dan Marino.

You're a ******* tool.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:45 PM
You never answered the question. you jkust came back with a stat of longest td passes.

That is opinion not based on fact.

No thats what you brought up and said and i quote

Ill believe it when i see it and since his longest td pass of the year was 51 yards.

then i brought up how awful of an argument that was and now your spouting this crap.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:47 PM
Your argument was purposed around a strong arm and elite measurables leading to success in the NFL. You stated that since Locker has failed to produce adequately in the deep game (which we had since proven to be wrong, but regardless), he isn't a top tier QB. Therefore, guys like Jamarcus Russel, Tim Couch, Derek Anderson, Kyle Boller, and others who possess elite measurables are the epitome of what an NFL QB should be. Hell, Kyle Boller was 6'3, 230 and ran a 4.61 and could throw a football threw the goalposts from 60 yards away on his knee. How has his pro career gone?


quoted because he needs to answer why kyle boller met his standards and flamed out too.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:48 PM
I care deeply if quarterback prospects measure up the physical standard set by Jeff George and JaMarcus Russell.


You should because for every jamarcus russel and jeff george theres a #7, a joe flacco, a carson plamer, a brett favre, a tom brady, a manning, an aaron rodgers etc etc etc.

See in your feeble mind, every mid level talent is drew brees and every top level talent is jamarcus russel. Every mid level scrub like sam bradford is a superstar. and every physically gifted qb is jeff goerge.

Problem is, most of the superstars are more jamarcus russel physically than they are drew brees, and that is what you fail to grasp. Its a numbers game, and the numbers favor the elite physical talents being succesful. The numbers do not favor the sam bradfords and jake lockers of the world having the highest success level.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-20-2010, 08:49 PM
Yes, how could I have forgotten the physical specimen and top prospect that was Tom Brady?

It must be my feeble mind.

prock
07-20-2010, 08:49 PM
its not the norm though. Its the excpetion. Flacco and #7 are the norm. I dont bet on exceptions.

I know ill regret this and it will probably throw things off but who the **** is better than #7? I know there aint no one with more rings in the last 5 years than #7.

Saying they are the norm is opinion not based on fact. They really aren't. They have ideal physical traits, but most quarterbacks don't.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:50 PM
That is opinion not based on fact.

No thats what you brought up and said and i quote



then i brought up how awful of an argument that was and now your spouting this crap.


Just answer the question. Does jake locker physically measure up to the elite physical talents of the nfl. Does he measure up to joe flacco or #7 or the likes. Dont get mad, dont get frustrated. You'll turn into prock.

Just answer yes or no and we'll continue from there.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:51 PM
[QUOTE=bce;2235961]You should because for every jamarcus russel and jeff george theres a #7, a joe flacco, a carson plamer, a brett favre, a tom brady, a manning, an aaron rodgers etc etc etc.
[QUOTE]


they have a combined 0 playoff wins. but i thought the great ones got it done in big games? if theyre elite they should play like it and win in the playoffs.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:51 PM
Yes, how could I have forgotten the physical specimen and top prospect that was Tom Brady?

It must be my feeble mind.


Well since ive seen him throw the ball 75 yards in the air in a super bowl game with a pass rush in full pads id say hes certainly an elite physical talent. Are there any throws he cant make?

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:52 PM
Just answer the question. Does jake locker physically measure up to the elite physical talents of the nfl. Does he measure up to joe flacco or #7 or the likes. Dont get mad, dont get frustrated. You'll turn into prock.

Just answer yes or no and we'll continue from there.



and again, according to your idea that longest completion shows arm strength that ive alread highlighted for you many times, he surpasses all of them. so why dont you address that for the third time now im asking. is longest completion the way to measure arm strength like you claimed? because if it is, as you claimed, then locker crushes them all.

so yes he does.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-20-2010, 08:53 PM
Well since ive seen him throw the ball 75 yards in the air in a super bowl game with a pass rush in full pads id say hes certainly an elite physical talent. Are there any throws he cant make?

Were those skills apparent and easily predicted when he was a college player?

bce
07-20-2010, 08:54 PM
[QUOTE=bce;2235961]You should because for every jamarcus russel and jeff george theres a #7, a joe flacco, a carson plamer, a brett favre, a tom brady, a manning, an aaron rodgers etc etc etc.
[QUOTE]

Theyre elite physical talents. Not everyone is as great as #7. Not everyone can be the 2 time thats right two time world champion

We cant go forward until you answer the question. At that point when you finally bring yourself to admit hes not the same level of specimen, That jake lockers middling physically, and middling intangibly, it just cant go forward until you accept the truth and answer the question.


they have a combined 0 playoff wins. but i thought the great ones got it done in big games? if theyre elite they should play like it and win in the playoffs.


Theyre elite physical talents. Not everyone is as great as #7. Not everyone can be the 2 time thats right two time world champion

We cant go forward until you answer the question. At that point when you finally bring yourself to admit hes not the same level of specimen, That jake lockers middling physically, and middling intangibly, it just cant go forward until you accept the truth and answer the question.

prock
07-20-2010, 08:55 PM
Well since ive seen him throw the ball 75 yards in the air in a super bowl game with a pass rush in full pads id say hes certainly an elite physical talent. Are there any throws he cant make?

He got drafted in the 6th round because he was too skinny and didn't have the physical ability of an NFL QB.

A Perfect Score
07-20-2010, 08:55 PM
quoted because he needs to answer why kyle boller met his standards and flamed out too.

I had my issues with Kyle Boller, and I had my issues with the selection of Joe Flacco, and the issues with the latter stemmed mainly from the fact that he was selected purely on the same traits that Boller was. While I was an advocate of Troy Smith getting a season to prove what he could of, I also believed that Flacco was very similar to Boller and that the Ravens should of just drafted Leodis McKelvin that year and continued to develop the talent they had on the roster.

Needless to say, I've learned my lesson at this point. There is much more to being a successful NFL QB then what you see on the surface. Which is exactly why Locker is better then Mallet.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 08:57 PM
[QUOTE=hockey619;2235973][QUOTE=bce;2235961]You should because for every jamarcus russel and jeff george theres a #7, a joe flacco, a carson plamer, a brett favre, a tom brady, a manning, an aaron rodgers etc etc etc.



Theyre elite physical talents. Not everyone is as great as #7. Not everyone can be the 2 time thats right two time world champion

We cant go forward until you answer the question. At that point when you finally bring yourself to admit hes not the same level of specimen, That jake lockers middling physically, and middling intangibly, it just cant go forward until you accept the truth and answer the question.



when are you going to answer any of mine? when are you going to admit that your longest completion argument was horrible and stupid and that you arent always right because your logic is clearly flawed due to other case studies that prove as much?

and tony romo has won more playoff games then both of them combined. so i guess they are middling and he is the elite one.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:57 PM
Because having the longest completion does not determine throwing ability. Everyone can see joe flacco has a cannon. You dont need a stat.

Everyone can see that jake locker doesnt. The stat is just evidence. proof of what you see. Joe flacco having a 44yard completion does not verify what you see.

You can see joe flacco is a flamethrower. You can see that jake locker is middling. throw whatever stat you want out there.

The answer to the question is he doesnt measure up. hes middling. hes going to have to be the exception to excel in the nfl rather than the rule.

bce
07-20-2010, 08:59 PM
[QUOTE=bce;2235986][QUOTE=hockey619;2235973]



when are you going to answer any of mine? when are you going to admit that your longest completion argument was horrible and stupid and that you arent always right because your logic is clearly flawed in the past?

and tony romo has won more playoff games then both of them combined. so i guess they are middling and he is the elite one.


I did, not everyone can be as great as #7. But they are certainly as physically gifted as #7. They just dont have the "intangibles" that #7 has.

A Perfect Score
07-20-2010, 09:00 PM
Yeah, you are right. Not everyone can ride the success of dominant running games or defenses while crashing motorcycles and raping girls.

prock
07-20-2010, 09:00 PM
Because having the longest completion does not determine throwing ability. Everyone can see joe flacco has a cannon. You dont need a stat.

Wow, nice 180. Way to 100% contradict yourself.

Everyone can see that jake locker doesnt. The stat is just evidence. proof of what you see. Joe flacco having a 44yard completion does not verify what you see.

You can see joe flacco is a flamethrower. You can see that jake locker is middling. throw whatever stat you want out there.

The answer to the question is he doesnt measure up. hes middling. hes going to have to be the exception to excel in the nfl rather than the rule.

Well considering you are the only person on this planet who thinks he is middling by logic that is completely irrational...

hockey619
07-20-2010, 09:03 PM
[QUOTE=hockey619;2235999][QUOTE=bce;2235986]


I did, not everyone can be as great as #7. But they are certainly as physically gifted as #7. They just dont have the "intangibles" that #7 has.


I thought you couldnt judge on those, so why can you now?

and no you havent answered any of my questions. go back and look, you ignored where i repeatedly showed you were wrong and danced around questions you had no response to. just like you are now.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 09:06 PM
Because having the longest completion does not determine throwing ability. Everyone can see joe flacco has a cannon. You dont need a stat.



Today, 07:30 PM (permalink)
bce
Veteran

Ill believe it when i see it and since his longest td pass of the year was 51 yards.


So.......care to explain this large bit of hypocrisy FINALLY? or are you going to dance your why around this one too?

hockey619
07-20-2010, 09:09 PM
ParanoidMoonDuck posted this:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by bce
Well since ive seen him throw the ball 75 yards in the air in a super bowl game with a pass rush in full pads id say hes certainly an elite physical talent. Are there any throws he cant make? "


PMD "Were those skills apparent and easily predicted when he was a college player?"

an explanation for this please. or a little more salsa-ing. a waltz maybe?

bce
07-20-2010, 09:14 PM
[QUOTE=bce;2236005][QUOTE=hockey619;2235999]


I thought you couldnt judge on those, so why can you now?

and no you havent answered any of my questions. go back and look, you ignored where i repeatedly showed you were wrong and danced around questions you had no response to. just like you are now.

You cant prove it, as i ve stated before. You can only evaluate based on physical ability and the traits they show in games that nfl qbs have. Thats why i dont "evaluate on intangibles". Because you dont know. You could never know how a player is going to react in the nfl situation until he's in it. Some like #7 will overachieve and show greatness. Some like peyton manning will choke.Some like carson plamer will dispappear. Physically theyre basically the same qb though. But when the money is on the line is where the greats show. But physically theyre pretty much the same player. You have your drew brees exceptions. But those are exceptions. Jake locker is going to have to be an exception, because no one in thier right mind will physically compare jake locker to #7 or joe flacco or any of the other host of great physical talents. hes going to have to be the next tony romo. There just arent that many on earth like that and generally theyre only moderately succesful in todays nfl.

You need the physical gifts and the intangibles for the most part to be an elite qb. There are maybe 2 or 3 exceptions in todays nfl, but they are the exceptions. Jake locker is going to have to be the exception.

I bet on the favorites. They win most of the time.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 09:26 PM
ok i see what your saying here. we dont know a qbs intangibles until he reaches the pros and proves them, up until then they are speculation. i can agree with that thats true.

but peyton was a choker in college and that carried over as you said. you even pointed out that consistency of not coming through in the clutch went all the way back to college. so why couldnt we evaluate on it if it were consistent from college to pros. maybe because it only works one way here. if you cant hack college pressure, you definitely cant hack pro, but just because you can handle college doesnt mean you will handle the pros. not really arguing here just observing.

just looking at it i see a lot of double standard in how you decide whos good and whos not but i feel like if keep pointing things out youll never answer the other things i asked that you keep ignoring as it is.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 09:26 PM
and you still havent responded to the things i said below that thing you quoted, and really to a lot of the things ive said so far....so im waiting. explain those to me.

P-L
07-20-2010, 09:33 PM
I know there aint no one with more rings in the last 5 years than #7.
There also isn't anyone who has committed more rapes than #7.

bce
07-20-2010, 09:37 PM
He can hack pressure, to a certain point. He can perform when its not a big pressure situiation. He excells in the normal pressure of an nfl situation. he just doesnt excel at the biggest times against the best, when the pressure is greatest. You cant pass on an elite qb talent based on that though, although from your info thats probably exactly what happened to peyton manning in college, when he faced the best, he couldnt deliver consistently, and it carried over to the pros.

And therin lies the great mystery of it all. That which you cannot evaluate, because you cant know. Can you pass on peyton manning because you think he might have a problem with the big pressure? Even if it turns out to be true? I dont think you can pass on a player with the requisite physical ability. But they have to have peyton mannings physical ability. Because if they do, you hope that they overcome whatever bad intangible they show.

But to use a high pick on a player like jake locker, a guy you know doesnt have the top level physical skill set, youre starting from behind. Because when you walk into a game and #7 is the opposing qb youre already physically overmatched. You can only hope and try your best to evaluate intangibles, but they dont have the top end physical traits, its going to be tough. Its going to be tough for jake locker to excel in the nfl, just from a purely physical standpoint. Hes going to be overmatched, and he certainly hasnt proven that he has the intangibles to overcome it, few have that gift, and even if you thought he had those type intangibles you could never prove it until he stepped on the nfl field.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 09:41 PM
He can hack pressure, to a certain point. He can perform when its not a big pressure situiation. He excells in the normal pressure of an nfl situation. he just doesnt excel at the biggest times against the best, when the pressure is greatest. You cant pass on an elite qb talent based on that though, although from your info thats probably exactly what happened to peyton manning in college, when he faced the best, he couldnt deliver consistently, and it carried over to the pros.

And therin lies the great mystery of it all. That which you cannot evaluate, because you cant know. Can you pass on peyton manning because you think he might have a problem with the big pressure? Even if it turns out to be true? I dont think you can pass on a player with the requisite physical ability. But they have to have peyton mannings physical ability. Because if they do, you hope that they overcome whatever bad intangible they show.

But to use a high pick on a player like jake locker, a guy you know doesnt have the top level physical skill set, youre starting from behind. Because when you walk into a game and #7 is the opposing qb youre already physically overmatched. You can only hope and try your best to evaluate intangibles, but they dont have the top end physical traits, its going to be tough. Its going to be tough for jake locker to excel in the nfl, just from a purely physical standpoint. Hes going to be overmatched, and he certainly hasnt proven that he has the intangibles to overcome it, few have that gift, and even if you thought he had those type intangibles you could never prove it until he stepped on the nfl field.


all well and good and explains some of your evaluations.

but you still havent answered my posts that ive pointed to a number of times now....

bce
07-20-2010, 09:49 PM
all well and good and explains some of your evaluations.

but you still havent answered my posts that ive pointed to a number of times now....


I dont know which ones i havent responded to. Ive responded that jake lockers longest pass shows that hes not stretching the field as advertised. Ive responded that joe flacco doesnt need an 80 yd td pass in college to prove he has an elite thrwoing arm. Ive responded that length of longest pass isnt the determining factor in a qbs arm strength. If i missed something i dont know.

None of it changes the fact that jake locker is a mid level physical talent at best, when compared to the nfl elites in general.

Babylon
07-20-2010, 10:08 PM
I dont know which ones i havent responded to. Ive responded that jake lockers longest pass shows that hes not stretching the field as advertised. Ive responded that joe flacco doesnt need an 80 yd td pass in college to prove he has an elite thrwoing arm. Ive responded that length of longest pass isnt the determining factor in a qbs arm strength. If i missed something i dont know.

None of it changes the fact that jake locker is a mid level physical talent at best, when compared to the nfl elites in general.

I've been away for a few months so this may be just an act, i hope you arent serious.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 10:09 PM
This from the previous page when discussing tom brady:

ParanoidMoonDuck posted this:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by bce
Well since ive seen him throw the ball 75 yards in the air in a super bowl game with a pass rush in full pads id say hes certainly an elite physical talent. Are there any throws he cant make? "


PMD "Were those skills apparent and easily predicted when he was a college player?"

an explanation for this please. or a little more salsa-ing. a waltz maybe?

And this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bce
Because having the longest completion does not determine throwing ability. Everyone can see joe flacco has a cannon. You dont need a stat.


Today, 07:30 PM (permalink)
bce
Veteran

Ill believe it when i see it and since his longest td pass of the year was 51 yards.

So.......care to explain this large bit of hypocrisy FINALLY? or are you going to dance your why around this one too?
You directly contradicted yourself in those two posts. Which leads us to this that you danced around very clearly:

according to your measuring stick of college longest completion, he not only measures up, he blows the competition away.


Jake Locker = career long of 98 yards (not 51 bce)
Robert Griffin = career long of 61
Terrelle Pryor = 78 career long
Flacco = 44 yards
mallett = 97 (ooo almost)

so i guess RG3 TP Flacco and Mallett dont have the necessary physical tools to play in the nfl by using your flawed logic from before bce. quit now, go hide like the others who have tried to stand before me.

now ive added to the pile of evidence that your wrong that you still havent bothered to address.

This is called a double standard. You cant say that having a short longest completion hurts one guy but doesn’t mean anything to the other because your eyes say so. I was trying to tell you for a few pages that that argument was very stupid and illogical and you ignored and danced with it for two pages. Address it properly now.

You also said Palmer and Rodgers have elite skills (which they do). But I guy with less skills in your opinion, Romo, has won more playoff games. I thought only elite qbs won in the playoffs? Explain that for me please because that is again hypocratic and having a double standard. If a guy proves he wins more in the playoffs than the other guys, hes better according to you. That’s it.

Also, explain why Kyle Boller and others with their giant arms failed so bad at the nfl level? A perfect score asked you this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Perfect Score
Your argument was purposed around a strong arm and elite measurables leading to success in the NFL. You stated that since Locker has failed to produce adequately in the deep game (which we had since proven to be wrong, but regardless), he isn't a top tier QB. Therefore, guys like Jamarcus Russel, Tim Couch, Derek Anderson, Kyle Boller, and others who possess elite measurables are the epitome of what an NFL QB should be. Hell, Kyle Boller was 6'3, 230 and ran a 4.61 and could throw a football threw the goalposts from 60 yards away on his knee. How has his pro career gone?

Also my jamarcus and peyton points. They basically show that if we follow your evaluation method, peyton shouldn’t have been successful and jamarcus should’ve been a star. But that’s not what happened. Why? Tell me why? And don’t blame the drugs bs please spare me. I want to know what your brilliant formula didn’t account for that lead to them failing/succeeding. why is it that if we followed your formula for evaluations itd have led us astray? why should i believe it isnt wrong now?

bce
07-20-2010, 10:24 PM
This from the previous page when discussing tom brady:

ParanoidMoonDuck posted this:

"Quote:
Originally Posted by bce
Well since ive seen him throw the ball 75 yards in the air in a super bowl game with a pass rush in full pads id say hes certainly an elite physical talent. Are there any throws he cant make? "


PMD "Were those skills apparent and easily predicted when he was a college player?"

an explanation for this please. or a little more salsa-ing. a waltz maybe?

And this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bce
Because having the longest completion does not determine throwing ability. Everyone can see joe flacco has a cannon. You dont need a stat.


Today, 07:30 PM (permalink)
bce
Veteran

Ill believe it when i see it and since his longest td pass of the year was 51 yards.

So.......care to explain this large bit of hypocrisy FINALLY? or are you going to dance your why around this one too?
You directly contradicted yourself in those two posts. Which leads us to this that you danced around very clearly:

according to your measuring stick of college longest completion, he not only measures up, he blows the competition away.


Jake Locker = career long of 98 yards (not 51 bce)
Robert Griffin = career long of 61
Terrelle Pryor = 78 career long
Flacco = 44 yards
mallett = 97 (ooo almost)

so i guess RG3 TP Flacco and Mallett dont have the necessary physical tools to play in the nfl by using your flawed logic from before bce. quit now, go hide like the others who have tried to stand before me.

now ive added to the pile of evidence that your wrong that you still havent bothered to address.

This is called a double standard. You cant say that having a short longest completion hurts one guy but doesnít mean anything to the other because your eyes say so. I was trying to tell you for a few pages that that argument was very stupid and illogical and you ignored and danced with it for two pages. Address it properly now.

You also said Palmer and Rodgers have elite skills (which they do). But I guy with less skills in your opinion, Romo, has won more playoff games. I thought only elite qbs won in the playoffs? Explain that for me please because that is again hypocratic and having a double standard. If a guy proves he wins more in the playoffs than the other guys, hes better according to you. Thatís it.

Also, explain why Kyle Boller and others with their giant arms failed so bad at the nfl level? A perfect score asked you this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Perfect Score
Your argument was purposed around a strong arm and elite measurables leading to success in the NFL. You stated that since Locker has failed to produce adequately in the deep game (which we had since proven to be wrong, but regardless), he isn't a top tier QB. Therefore, guys like Jamarcus Russel, Tim Couch, Derek Anderson, Kyle Boller, and others who possess elite measurables are the epitome of what an NFL QB should be. Hell, Kyle Boller was 6'3, 230 and ran a 4.61 and could throw a football threw the goalposts from 60 yards away on his knee. How has his pro career gone?

Also my jamarcus and peyton points. They basically show that if we follow your evaluation method, peyton shouldnít have been successful and jamarcus shouldíve been a star. But thatís not what happened. Why? Tell me why? And donít blame the drugs bs please spare me. I want to know what your brilliant formula didnít account for that lead to them failing/succeeding. why is it that if we followed your formula for evaluations itd have led us astray? why should i believe it isnt wrong now?



yes tom bradys skill should have been apparrent, why it wasnt, one of the great mysteries of nfl history


Theres no flawed logic in any of it. You dont know if a player has intangibles. You evaluate on their physical ability and you try to see traits. As to why peyton manning turned out great and jamarcus russell didnt, probably has something to do with pancakes with coediene syrup and hash for breakfast. You dont think being on drugs and being lazy and not putting forth your best ability, or being stupid is a bs argument then i dont know how to answer that. I didnt do a psych evaluation on jamarcus russel, the handy exception for the day. He certainly is one of the most physically gifted prospects ever.Again ive answered the question about the length of the passes has nothing to do with proven arm strength it only had to do with proving jake locker was not a deep passing machine as previously touted, for the fouth time.

But none of the questions have anything to do with nor are they comparisons for jake locker. Which shows that when it came down to it there was nothing to do with jake locker in any of the questions just feeble attempts to dissect every word to find a rebuttal.

Now you can answer my question and my only question having to do with the subject at hand mr jake locker.

Does he measure up physically to the elites of the game other than the basically 1 exception?

FUNBUNCHER
07-20-2010, 10:47 PM
This thread is what happens when one guy is trying to WIN arguments instead of just defending a point (of view).

Too much, bce.

If you use this board right, IMO, it's supposed to enhance your knowledge base, not make you become more entrenched and myopic.

If Sam Bradford doesn't eclipse McNabb's best completion percentage in Sam's 3rd year as a pro, I will loan you $5 dollars, bce.

prock
07-20-2010, 11:12 PM
Locker isn't as tall, but he is faster, that most quarterbacks, which defenses have to account for, and if they don't they will pay. Locker's arm strength is above average compared to NFL quarterbacks. Locker is tall enough at 6'3". He is big enough at 230 pounds. Yes, physically he is very very well off.

hockey619
07-20-2010, 11:57 PM
yes tom bradys skill should have been apparrent, why it wasnt, one of the great mysteries of nfl history


Theres no flawed logic in any of it. You dont know if a player has intangibles. You evaluate on their physical ability and you try to see traits. As to why peyton manning turned out great and jamarcus russell didnt, probably has something to do with pancakes with coediene syrup and hash for breakfast. You dont think being on drugs and being lazy and not putting forth your best ability, or being stupid is a bs argument then i dont know how to answer that. I didnt do a psych evaluation on jamarcus russel, the handy exception for the day. He certainly is one of the most physically gifted prospects ever.Again ive answered the question about the length of the passes has nothing to do with proven arm strength it only had to do with proving jake locker was not a deep passing machine as previously touted, for the fouth time.

But none of the questions have anything to do with nor are they comparisons for jake locker. Which shows that when it came down to it there was nothing to do with jake locker in any of the questions just feeble attempts to dissect every word to find a rebuttal.

Now you can answer my question and my only question having to do with the subject at hand mr jake locker.

Does he measure up physically to the elites of the game other than the basically 1 exception?


is this post is full of stupid.

you still didnt answer anything i wrote none of what you said responds to anything, especially the part where you contradicted yourself and held double standards.

i have answered your question straight up a few times now, go back and read.

A Perfect Score
07-21-2010, 01:57 AM
Don't bother arguing with him. In one post he tells us elite measurables are all there is to evaluating QB's, but when someone brings up Jamarcus Russel, all of a sudden intangibles are anything and everything. bce is a well documented idiot who can barely comprehend the positions played in football, let alone what is required to be successful at those positions.

Tom Brady being a success in the NFL isn't one of the great mysteries of the league. It has to do with hard work, moxy, and the ability to improve things like arm strength and accuracy. Do you really believe that when Tom Brady came out of Michigan he can throw the ball like he can now? He absolutely couldn't. Things like arm strength and technique can be taught, and while there are obviously going to be guys like Jamarcus Russel who can naturally toss a ball, you can't teach the skills that make guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning successful.

So you and your stupid ******* logic can argue against Locker all you want, but until Mallett starts proving he can put his remarkable physical tools to good use and outperform a guy like Locker, he isn't going to be regarded as a better prospect and you certainly aren't going to be right in any of this.

dannyz
07-21-2010, 02:06 AM
There also isn't anyone who has committed more rapes than #7.

Maybe LT. :()

niel89
07-21-2010, 06:13 AM
#7
http://johnelwaybiography.com/images/john_elway_5.jpg

Mr. Goosemahn
07-21-2010, 12:01 PM
While this is slightly off topic, I saw a Chris Rock bit yesterday and reading this reminded me of it.

Arguing with bce is like arguing with women. You simply won't win the argument. Why? Because men argue to make sense, while women just argue to win the argument, regardless of making logical and coherent claims.

Same goes with bce. We'll argue to make sense and logical and coherent posts, but he'll just argue to win the argument.

That aside, Locker truly is a physical specimen for a QB. I want to see him play for an already developed team, not a rebuilding one, but I guess that will never happen. I think he'll really struggle if placed in a situation like Stafford was, or most early pick QB's are. Like Bradford will be.

Babylon
07-21-2010, 12:54 PM
While this is slightly off topic, I saw a Chris Rock bit yesterday and reading this reminded me of it.

Arguing with bce is like arguing with women. You simply won't win the argument. Why? Because men argue to make sense, while women just argue to win the argument, regardless of making logical and coherent claims.

Same goes with bce. We'll argue to make sense and logical and coherent posts, but he'll just argue to win the argument.

That aside, Locker truly is a physical specimen for a QB. I want to see him play for an already developed team, not a rebuilding one, but I guess that will never happen. I think he'll really struggle if placed in a situation like Stafford was, or most early pick QB's are. Like Bradford will be.

You needed Chris Rock to tell you not to argue with a woman?:-D

Mr. Goosemahn
07-21-2010, 01:07 PM
You needed Chris Rock to tell you not to argue with a woman?:-D

No, but it applied nonetheless.

Babylon
07-21-2010, 01:30 PM
#7
http://johnelwaybiography.com/images/john_elway_5.jpg

Not sure the implication here with Elway being in a Locker discussion but i like it.

Paranoidmoonduck
07-21-2010, 02:22 PM
Not sure the implication here with Elway being in a Locker discussion but i like it.

He's saying that calling Roethlisberger just "#7" is crazy because Elway, in most people's minds, has supreme ownership of that number.

bce
07-23-2010, 06:06 PM
I've been away for a few months so this may be just an act, i hope you arent serious.


Put it in writing if you believe otherwise son.

bce
07-23-2010, 06:07 PM
Say hes gods next gift to nfl qbs if you believe it to be so and why.

AntoinCD
07-24-2010, 03:15 AM
Don't bother arguing with him. In one post he tells us elite measurables are all there is to evaluating QB's, but when someone brings up Jamarcus Russel, all of a sudden intangibles are anything and everything. bce is a well documented idiot who can barely comprehend the positions played in football, let alone what is required to be successful at those positions.

Tom Brady being a success in the NFL isn't one of the great mysteries of the league. It has to do with hard work, moxy, and the ability to improve things like arm strength and accuracy. Do you really believe that when Tom Brady came out of Michigan he can throw the ball like he can now? He absolutely couldn't. Things like arm strength and technique can be taught, and while there are obviously going to be guys like Jamarcus Russel who can naturally toss a ball, you can't teach the skills that make guys like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning successful.
So you and your stupid ******* logic can argue against Locker all you want, but until Mallett starts proving he can put his remarkable physical tools to good use and outperform a guy like Locker, he isn't going to be regarded as a better prospect and you certainly aren't going to be right in any of this.

That's a great point there. I read a piece a few years ago that when Tom Brady was in camp as a rookie he was walking by a meeting room and saw the QB evaluation book. The negatives against him were he had a slow release and took too long in his decision making. No one can now argue that he is not one of the top QBs in the game at these two things.

Some people are physically gifted enough to do everything easily. However those people are few and far between. Manning, Brady, Brees etc are the best because they work the hardest at perfecting their craft. There's no way to measure that desire.

bce
07-24-2010, 08:54 PM
Right theres no way to measure intangibles. I saw Tom brady throw a ball in a real game under a real rush 75 yards in the air. The idea that he or peyton manning dont have great physical skills is simply not correct. That its all intangibles is not correct. The evaluation about the slow release was wrong, and the "decision making" portion was obviously wrong and an attempt by someone to "evaluate on intangibles"

Tom brady's slide from what should have been #1 overall surely to the 5th round probably had most to do with the fact that he was a platoon qb and not really a great looking physical specimen. Everything else was obviously there.

Hurricanes25
07-24-2010, 10:20 PM
Tom brady's slide from what should have been #1 overall surely to the 5th round probably had most to do with the fact that he was a platoon qb and not really a great looking physical specimen. Everything else was obviously there.

Of course it's easy to say that now. Go watch an old game of him in college. He wasn't the same QB as you see now.

AntoinCD
07-26-2010, 07:49 AM
Having a slow release and not great decision making skills are very much so tangible. You can measure how slow someone's release is. You can disect a play and say "You made a bad decision there". Intangibles are things like desire, work ethic etc. These things can not be measured. And anyone who says the only reason Tom Brady wasn't the first overall pick was because he wasn't ripped is an idiot.

Halsey
08-28-2010, 11:51 AM
I just looked at Kiper's most recent top 5 Draft eligible prospects and he has Locker rated #1 overall. It made me realize that pretty much every ranking of prospects I've seen for 2011 has Locker in the top 2. From what I've read and heard, we can expect Locker to be at the top of Scott's rankings as well. Scott, Mel and some of the other people I've heard/read have a pretty good track record in recent years for knowing who the elite QB prospects are.

Mr.Regular
08-29-2010, 08:03 AM
I just looked at Kiper's most recent top 5 Draft eligible prospects and he has Locker rated #1 overall. It made me realize that pretty much every ranking of prospects I've seen for 2011 has Locker in the top 2. From what I've read and heard, we can expect Locker to be at the top of Scott's rankings as well. Scott, Mel and some of the other people I've heard/read have a pretty good track record in recent years for knowing who the elite QB prospects are.
We probably won't know Scott's rankings until next May or something.
He's still working on his first 2010 review.

Anyway, ya Lockers a consensus top pick in the draftnik community. Mallet is high on some boards, and not on others. I think everyones concerns with Mallet are another year of developing, improved accuracy, and that he checks out well in interviews. If he can do all that he could challenge Locker, but right now its safe to go with Jake as #1.

Babylon
08-29-2010, 02:01 PM
Locker will be facing BYU, Nebraska and USC by Oct 2nd so we should see early on what he looks like.

Sniper
10-31-2010, 10:04 AM
7-14, 64 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT. 8 carries for 1 yard. Stud.

ElectricEye
10-31-2010, 10:15 AM
7-14, 64 yards, 0 TD, 2 INT. 8 carries for 1 yard. Stud.

Hahah seriously dude? You ignore all the good things he's done the past couple weeks and drop in to say something about him when he's hurt because his offensive line is trying to get him killed? Where were after Oregon State and the first half in Arizona? You bump the thread, even.

Babylon
10-31-2010, 12:18 PM
Hahah seriously dude? You ignore all the good things he's done the past couple weeks and drop in to say something about him when he's hurt because his offensive line is trying to get him killed? Where were after Oregon State and the first half in Arizona? You bump the thread, even.

Go easy on Sniper at least he's consistant. I doubt he even saw the game, if he had i trust he's smart enough to see what the kid had to work with out there, maybe not.

In the postgame on the radio one of the former NFL guys that works the games said he talked to a scout this week that said he was more interested in how Locker looked in practices leading up to the game, the thinking is his supporting cast is so ****** you cant really scout him properly.

D-Unit
10-31-2010, 12:31 PM
You guys are endless with the excuses. Face the facts. He's not a good NFL QB prospect. Just an overrated one. Totally got exposed by coming back. Made a stupid decision and will never make up the money he could've earned. But that's ok because supposedly he's from a rich family and he'll be happy NOT earning $50M dollars.

wonderbredd24
10-31-2010, 12:40 PM
You guys are endless with the excuses. Face the facts. He's not a good NFL QB prospect. Just an overrated one. Totally got exposed by coming back. Made a stupid decision and will never make up the money he could've earned. But that's ok because supposedly he's from a rich family and he'll be happy NOT earning $50M dollars.

He's no Marvin Austin, that's for sure.

The Browns will take this bum off your hands.

Babylon
10-31-2010, 12:45 PM
You guys are endless with the excuses. Face the facts. He's not a good NFL QB prospect. Just an overrated one. Totally got exposed by coming back. Made a stupid decision and will never make up the money he could've earned. But that's ok because supposedly he's from a rich family and he'll be happy NOT earning $50M dollars.

You're covering a few topics here so let's start with his family is rich. Wrong. He comes from a middle class family and dad is the highschool football coach.

Jake Locker didnt forget how to play QB from a great game against SC and OSU to getting overrun by a pass rush against Arizona and Stanford. He's been battling rib and thigh issues and the offensive line starts 2 freshman and 2 sophomores and has had guys in new positions in 6 of the 8 games they've played this year. That isnt an excuse just a fact.

We've talked about giving up a lot of money by not coming out last year and i'm of the belief that he should have come out based on what the team is he would have been coming back to.

D-unit i will say you better keep your powder dry because the way your Cowboys are playing you may just see him in Dallas next year.:-D

wonderbredd24
10-31-2010, 12:54 PM
Seriously, as far as Locker is concerned, there are the people who like him, which sounds like it's down to me and UDub fans and people who think he should be doing far more than what he's doing.

Personally, I think he's got an FCS supporting cast in a BCS conference and he has to be Superman just for them to have a shot against anyone in the PAC-10 as illustrated by USC and Oregon State.

I do not think he's a finished product by any means, but between his intangibles and his ridiculous physical tools, he's got the ability to be incredibly special at the next level. The kid's ability to stay cool amazes me. With some of these look out blocks and horrific drops, the kid would be in the right if he punched a few of his teammates in the throat, but he just tries to rally the troops.

I think Luck is a safer pick, but Locker has the slightly higher ceiling. I hope he goes to the Senior Bowl, because I think he'll surprise people with just how good he is.

ElectricEye
10-31-2010, 01:27 PM
You guys are endless with the excuses. Face the facts. He's not a good NFL QB prospect. Just an overrated one. Totally got exposed by coming back. Made a stupid decision and will never make up the money he could've earned. But that's ok because supposedly he's from a rich family and he'll be happy NOT earning $50M dollars.

I don't think he's been exposed at all. Washington's been exposed for talent, but Locker has been downright spectacular at times for Washington this year. It's not consistent, but there's glimpses of excellence. He's already ahead of half of the other quarterback prospects in country just because of how NFL orientated the offense he runs is. He actually has to read coverages, something he does fairly well.

The reason the number have not been there the past few weeks are because his mobility is limited. All of Washington's big pass plays have come outside of the pocket this year, which is a testament to a young, talent deprived offensive line. With the injuries, his ability to run has been compromised and thus the dip in production.

I really hope he goes to the Senior Bowl and plays with some competent players.

EvilNixon
10-31-2010, 01:36 PM
Yeah, let this bum or Ryan Mallet drop to the 2nd round. I'd sure like to have him.

D-Unit
10-31-2010, 01:50 PM
Tired excuses.

Sark was supposed to take him to the next level. That hasn't happened.

Why didn't anyone bring up the fact that he was returning to a bad team last year as a reason for him to leave? Because people thought he'd make Washington good. That hasn't happened.

People said money wasn't important to him. Wrong again.

He should've declared last year. He's gained NOTHING by coming back.

Babylon
10-31-2010, 02:02 PM
Tired excuses.

Sark was supposed to take him to the next level. That hasn't happened.

Why didn't anyone bring up the fact that he was returning to a bad team last year as a reason for him to leave? Because people thought he'd make Washington good. That hasn't happened.

People said money wasn't important to him. Wrong again.

He should've declared last year. He's gained NOTHING by coming back.

Both Jake and his dad said money wasnt a factor in his decision, why do you dispute that? Also he did receive a 300k bonus from the Angels to basically have his rights to play baseball. My guess is he isnt obsessed with money as some people are.

Sniper
10-31-2010, 02:17 PM
Tired excuses.

Excuses? For Jake Locker? Never. Always remember, D. It's the receivers' fault. Or the O-Line. Or Sarkisian's playcalling. Or the lunar eclipse. Or the positioning of the Sun when he threw the pass. Or he had some injury. Or he was trying to be Robin Hood by giving the ball to the other team. Or...well, I'm running out of excuses for Locker.

Paranoidmoonduck
10-31-2010, 02:18 PM
Yeah, let this bum or Ryan Mallet drop to the 2nd round. I'd sure like to have him.

This. I'd love to have Locker in a Raider uniform if they can get him in the 2nd round.

619
10-31-2010, 02:27 PM
Once an accident, twice a trend.

RaiderNation
10-31-2010, 02:31 PM
If Locker drops to the 2nd and the Raiders draft him... 8===D~~~

Sniper
10-31-2010, 02:34 PM
If Locker drops to the 2nd and the Raiders draft him... 8===D~~~

Then they'll have another crappy QB on their hands. Awesome.

Paranoidmoonduck
10-31-2010, 02:36 PM
Then they'll have another crappy QB on their hands. Awesome.

Because no quarterback who doesn't play well enough to get drafted in the 1st round is automatically crappy.

Sniper
10-31-2010, 02:39 PM
Because no quarterback who doesn't play well enough to get drafted in the 1st round is automatically crappy.

If he sucks with a bad supporting cast at Washington, how, exactly, is he going to be a top QB with a crappy supporting cast in Oakland?

619
10-31-2010, 02:41 PM
Then they'll have another crappy QB on their hands. Awesome.

I have faith in Hue Jackson. There would not be much to fret over, considering the minimal investment that would be involved this time around.

wonderbredd24
10-31-2010, 02:42 PM
Then they'll have another crappy QB on their hands. Awesome.
Listen to Sniper here. He knows something about crappy QBs after pimping Tate Forcier, Denard Robinson, and Ryan Mallett.

Paranoidmoonduck
10-31-2010, 02:43 PM
If he sucks with a bad supporting cast at Washington, how, exactly, is he going to be a top QB with a crappy supporting cast in Oakland?

Yeah, Jay Cutler will never find success in the NFL!

Wait, who are we talking about?

Halsey
10-31-2010, 02:45 PM
It's pretty rare for a QB to go from being in everyone's top 2 to out of the first round. I wouldn't bet on Locker falling as far as it seems many fans think he will.