30gut
04-27-2011, 03:23 AM
GP
I certainly do not think Locker plays on a different level of mental and physical duress than Gabbert. That would draw a distinction where one does not exist. But he's been battling since 2007, which should not be overlooked.This is one area we disagree.
I think Locker has clearly played under far more duress especially physically then Gabbert.
As they say in boxing everyone has a gameplan until they get punched in the face and we've seen Locker get punched in the face and respond.
Will Gabbert?
Maybe they're under equal scrunity and mental pressure but I still say Locker was more under the microscope then Gabbert who is still basically flying under the radar.
I think you're right that we know what we're getting in Locker (character-wise). Ultimately, that's the knockout punch against him as a prospect (ability-wise), but it's still valuable to know that you're getting a good kid that has been through the worst of it in college and can handle the worst of what the NFL throws at him.You love your presuppostions.
But anyway, if you can't see Locker's ability on film then you won't see it.
But, as much as character shines through the physical skills that make him one of top prospects also shine through after all his character doesn't make clucth plays to win games his arm and legs do.
You get a prospect that can carry a team with 0-12 talent to 7-5 record/bowl game victory on the strength of both his mental and physical skillset.
Ultimately because of the lack of talent around him and his relative newness in his scheme (basiclly a sophmore in Sarks offense) you get a prospect who's best is yet to come.
But we also should be more certain that he can do it because Gabbert at his "worst" helped to build a 2010 season where Missou was in the Nat'l title picture for 2/3 of the regular season before taking a loss to OU, where as Locker at his best took a less than able team to roughly .500, and did most damage through individual key big plays against weaker competition whereas Gabbert was more consistent down to down and accomplished what he did not through highlights but through staying ahead of the opponent on first, second, and third down, the traits that will make him successful in the NFL.Why would this year be an example of Gabbert's worst but Locker's best?
When did Washington face weaker competition?
Again I think you fall into the trap of mistaking the team for the prospect.
You know I don't go by stats but lets look at their stats in relation to the quality of the their teams:
I think you would agree that Gabbert has the better team?
Gabbert: QB Rating:127--63.6 comp %---16 TD---9 Ints----23 sacks
Locker: QB Rating: 124--55.4 comp%----17 TD---9 Ints----19 sacks
Yet their production doesn't show the disparity you imply in their consistency or 'staying ahead of the opponent on first, second, and third down'.
Especially when Gabbert plays in a spread offense designed to increase efficiency and consistency.
Now, lets say you put Gabbert on Washington and have him take the pounding that Locker received and give Locker the bump in talent that Mizzou would provide in its wide open spread attack.
Do you think the resulting production numbers would be the same as the above?
Also, you didn't address their physical skillsets.
I certainly do not think Locker plays on a different level of mental and physical duress than Gabbert. That would draw a distinction where one does not exist. But he's been battling since 2007, which should not be overlooked.This is one area we disagree.
I think Locker has clearly played under far more duress especially physically then Gabbert.
As they say in boxing everyone has a gameplan until they get punched in the face and we've seen Locker get punched in the face and respond.
Will Gabbert?
Maybe they're under equal scrunity and mental pressure but I still say Locker was more under the microscope then Gabbert who is still basically flying under the radar.
I think you're right that we know what we're getting in Locker (character-wise). Ultimately, that's the knockout punch against him as a prospect (ability-wise), but it's still valuable to know that you're getting a good kid that has been through the worst of it in college and can handle the worst of what the NFL throws at him.You love your presuppostions.
But anyway, if you can't see Locker's ability on film then you won't see it.
But, as much as character shines through the physical skills that make him one of top prospects also shine through after all his character doesn't make clucth plays to win games his arm and legs do.
You get a prospect that can carry a team with 0-12 talent to 7-5 record/bowl game victory on the strength of both his mental and physical skillset.
Ultimately because of the lack of talent around him and his relative newness in his scheme (basiclly a sophmore in Sarks offense) you get a prospect who's best is yet to come.
But we also should be more certain that he can do it because Gabbert at his "worst" helped to build a 2010 season where Missou was in the Nat'l title picture for 2/3 of the regular season before taking a loss to OU, where as Locker at his best took a less than able team to roughly .500, and did most damage through individual key big plays against weaker competition whereas Gabbert was more consistent down to down and accomplished what he did not through highlights but through staying ahead of the opponent on first, second, and third down, the traits that will make him successful in the NFL.Why would this year be an example of Gabbert's worst but Locker's best?
When did Washington face weaker competition?
Again I think you fall into the trap of mistaking the team for the prospect.
You know I don't go by stats but lets look at their stats in relation to the quality of the their teams:
I think you would agree that Gabbert has the better team?
Gabbert: QB Rating:127--63.6 comp %---16 TD---9 Ints----23 sacks
Locker: QB Rating: 124--55.4 comp%----17 TD---9 Ints----19 sacks
Yet their production doesn't show the disparity you imply in their consistency or 'staying ahead of the opponent on first, second, and third down'.
Especially when Gabbert plays in a spread offense designed to increase efficiency and consistency.
Now, lets say you put Gabbert on Washington and have him take the pounding that Locker received and give Locker the bump in talent that Mizzou would provide in its wide open spread attack.
Do you think the resulting production numbers would be the same as the above?
Also, you didn't address their physical skillsets.