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

Trade down and focus on our offensive line.

I have not said that you are wrong or I am (unconditionally) right, just that I feel I have no reason to change my opinion of Locker based on anything you've argued.The bolded underlined portion of your quote is another fundamental disagreement that we touched on earlier.
Evaluation isn't done by sitting around looking at stats.
Talent evaluators know this that is why they look at film its part of the reason for events like the Senior Bowl and the combine.
Its a controlled situation where the prospect can be evaluated independent of the talent or lack thereof around them.
I mentioned how one of the greatest QB talent evaluators didn't even mention college stats as part of evaluation criteria.

Everyone knows the QBs because of positional value are drafted higher then grade. The question wasn't where should Locker get drafted the question was IF we take a QB at 10 who do you want?Ugh. This is a particularly shameless post because it came after you criticized me for being more concerned with being right on the bottom line grade than being thorough. I told you that criticism was fair, but you might as well not bother being surprised when a struggling college player becomes a bad pro.You think you can isolate a single stats.
Which once again is a blind reliance on the stats.
And you're assuming he can't complete passes based on his comp % rather then watching him play.You've been kind enough to offer an instructional on how to offer a minority opinion and somehow be strangely confident that someone else's methodology is stupid. I, of all people, can respect that, but look: your entire argument for Locker has been built around the idea that you've seen him and you would feel confident with him at no. 10 over anyone else. It's not a deeper position than that, no matter what Bill Walsh told you above evaluating QBs before you were born.

It's simply not a convincing methodology. I've been adamant that people need to realize that you've interpreted the evidence one way, but that I still feel it points strongly in another direction. I've done plenty to support my opinion, you've done...basically nothing but bitch about the strength of my supporting arguments and my methodology -- fairly unconvincingly.you strike me as someone that really hasn't evaluated Locker at all you maybe saw the Bowl game and looked at his stats and made your conclusions.Look, I know you asked me point-blank how many Washington games I watched and didn't give an answer, but I've also given you no reason to believe this which you have stated above. I could have answered your loaded question, but decided that the debate would be better if I was treated as neither an expert nor an amateur on the subject. I didn't want to say "I've seen 11 complete Washington games," or "I've just watched watched the bowl game and jumped to conclusions". Neither statement is true, nor particularly relevant.

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

I claim not to be an expert, just very good at what I do. You're desire to try to get information solely for the desire of labeling me (as you did above when I didn't answer) was probably more shameless than I think you intended. It is my only personal criticism in this exchange.Gabbert shares the same flaws as you mention for Newton.
Mizzou has a spread attack and Gabbert regularly only reads half the field.
Personally i don't view that as a knock b/c Sam Bradford and many other QBs only read half the field in the NFL.
But, if you're gonna knock one prospect for operating in 1 or 2 read system, you gotta be fair.
Also, college QBs in general don't make a lot of pre-snap reads.
Reading coverages is something they'll learn as they progress in NFL.Fine. Well argued.

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

And where is this 4th round pick coming from? The draft fairy?

I'll tell you where. Via ___________________ in a draft day trade of either McNabb or Haynesworth for a 4th round pick. Tyrod Taylor in B & G?

I have also been saying I DO NOT want Cam Newton. I still think I don't but I feel like I may be on the verge of starting to talk myself into it. As far as raw skill and upside, Newton is most likely at the top of the list. However, as we have seen, that doesn't always translate into a winning QB, and that is what scares me about drafting him. It is one of those big risk/big reward type of picks. You could win big or bust big with this pick.

And where is this 4th round pick coming from? The draft fairy?

Ummmmmm, yeaaaaa http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSYVp5BQrLUYgR_y_FSFpYQJyhsVXIrK M5D0NskQo_4webzleT3 Where else???

This has probably been mentioned but Mel Kiper has Newton going to skins. Charles Davis of the NFL Network has Newton going to the skins too. I believe Shannahan see's Cam as a challenge, something that will reap great benefits if he reaches his full potential.

You've been kind enough to offer an instructional on how to offer a minority opinion and somehow be strangely confident that someone else's methodology is stupid. I, of all people, can respect that, but look: your entire argument for Locker has been built around the idea that you've seen him and you would feel confident with him at no. 10 over anyone else. It's not a deeper position than that, no matter what Bill Walsh told you above evaluating QBs before you were born.
One would think that this late in the argument you wouldn't attempt a strawman i.e claiming that i think your methodology is stupid.
If i thought it was stupid i would say so.
My point is that evaluation isn't done by looking at stats.
And stats alone don't paint the picture of a prospects ability especially a QB, the position that many consider the most dependent position on the field.
No.
I responded to your post where you used a statistical model to pan a prospect without any mention of the prospect abilities.
My position is that if you've seen Locker play you wouldn't have the opinions you have about him especially about him being a 'wild thrower'.

I've done plenty to support my opinion, you've done...basically nothing but bitch about the strength of my supporting arguments and my methodology -- fairly unconvincingly.
Nice.
First strawman then profanity.
Wrong again, unless pointing out some obvious flaws in your theory is 'bitching'.

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

The evidence isn't different when you've seen more of it, it's just more representative of the whole. Of course, in this debate, I am most certainly not the one who is losing sight of the whole picture.
The difference is that i wanted to discuss actual plays from actual games, but you didn't want to budge from your scouting via stats.

There are plenty of differences between Newton and Gabbert, but that's another 10,000 words, and dispassionate words at that. Lets not go there just yet. I'm sure we will at some point.
I don't see what the point would be.
You've already demonstrated your posting style and its tedious and needlessly contentious.
Also, i actually like talk about the prospects play in games and you thus far have only mentioned stats and an only a statistically supported claim of Locker's 'wild throwing'.
And you already showed to grade prospects w/ a double standard in the case of Newton/Gabbert.
Oh, and you've also shown that you ignore any question you don't like e.g. about Gabbert vs Locker's efficiency rating.

HTTR!

30gut and GTripp .... Just exchange numbers and call each other already !!!! You two sound like an old married couple.

All I was really responding to was the fan upset that we could not simply answer the question as posted with out all the extra diatribe. Unfortunately the QB I like and would like to see the Skins pick up was not on the list. Which is why I originally gave a diatribe about what I'd do with the #10 pick. So I gave him the simple answer .... I'd take Andy Dalton.

On another note I mention taking a OL cause we have need there and people say that's too high. I mention taking a NT and other people say that's too high. I mention LB/DE and people say that's too high.

So can anyone please tell me what's appropriate to take in the first round without saying WR, CB, and RB? Is FS a safe answer cause we have need there also.

Hey, I meant no opposition with my comment about 3rd and 4th round picks. I've been thinking myself in terms of trading AH and/or DMac5 for more picks like those. And we still could get such choices as part of a draft day trade-down.

But it occurred to me that trading any players for picks may not be possible until well past the draft. This means that we can't really count on getting choices for current players unless the now-famous draft fairy intervenes. So I shared.

As for your question, unlike others with whom you have spoken IMHO I think a #10 pick is an excellent time to pick up a NT especially (see Raji at Green Bay), a DE (see Shaun Ellis, Jets), or a LB (see DeMarcus Ware). All of those players were taken in the neighborhood of the 10th pick. A high quality safety also makes for a good choice, as we saw with #5 pick Eric Berry at KC or our own Sean Taylor.

30gut and GTripp .... Just exchange numbers and call each other already !!!! You two sound like an old married couple.
30gut seems to have a sense of what constitutes empirical observation in football.

30gut seems to have a sense of what constitutes empirical observation in football.Sometimes, empirical observation results in someone saying that Mark Sanchez is the only good first round pick in the last five years...or that Bruce Gradkowski has good pocket presence.

People say dumb stuff sometimes, empirical or not.