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

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;778376]It floors me that people don't understand this question. Yeah I get it alot of us don't wanna take a QB at the 10th pick but this question CLEARLY states "IF" we take a QB....... I've read over 15 post saying no I wouldn't take a qb or we need to address the Oline or Dline first!!! OMFG REALLY.[/quote]

Yes people are stupid. No suprise there.

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

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;778376]It floors me that people don't understand this question. Yeah I get it alot of us don't wanna take a QB at the 10th pick but this question CLEARLY states "IF" we take a QB....... I've read over 15 post saying no I wouldn't take a qb or we need to address the Oline or Dline first!!! OMFG REALLY.[/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]People can read and they do understand the question. People do not like being forced into a decision that they do not agree with. They feel that they are intelligent and want to be heard. Telling them to not respond to the question is ridiculous. Asking someone for their opinion but telling them only if "condition a" exists is not really asking someone for their opinion.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Perhaps the better way of doing this would have been to ask "Who are the best QB's available this year?" and "Which of those are worthy of a top 10 pick?" [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]To suggest that the Skins take a QB at number 10 and then to ask who I want is not fair because I do not want a QB nor do others on here. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I want the BPA... period if it just so happens that the BPA when we pick is a QB then so be it. In my opinion however, there is not a single QB in this draft that is worth a top 10 pick so taking a QB at 10 is a reach.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]For shits and giggles if I have to take a QB at the 10 spot then I am going to take the guy that I believe is the best QB in the Draft (See previous posts).[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Go ahead and laugh now but I would rather look like the fool now and the genius later than the genius during the draft and the fool later. This QB class is extremely weak. Tyrod Taylor will be the only one with a job 5 years from now.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

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

[quote=EARTHQUAKE2689;778411]Yes people are stupid. No suprise there.[/quote]

You mean surprise? :silly:

Angry, it's called a hypothetical question. To say that you can't ask a question where conditions exist is simply not true. We have plenty of threads talking about the draft in general, who will be there at our pick, who/what position we should take, etc. This thread is designed to look at the QBs only, and there's not a problem with that. If people want to be 'heard' there are multiple other threads they can post in. Keeping a thread on topic is important. If I read through this thread, I expect to find insight on QBs, not debate on if we should or shouldn't draft a QB.

Hypothetical threads play an important part in a Redskins off-season and it is perfectly acceptable to post a question that limits responses.

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

[quote=Angry;778418][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]People can read and they do understand the question. People do not like being forced into a decision that they do not agree with. They feel that they are intelligent and want to be heard. Telling them to not respond to the question is ridiculous. Asking someone for their opinion but telling them only if "condition a" exists is not really asking someone for their opinion.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Perhaps the better way of doing this would have been to ask "Who are the best QB's available this year?" and "Which of those are worthy of a top 10 pick?" [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]To suggest that the Skins take a QB at number 10 and then to ask who I want is not fair because I do not want a QB nor do others on here. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I want the BPA... period if it just so happens that the BPA when we pick is a QB then so be it. In my opinion however, there is not a single QB in this draft that is worth a top 10 pick so taking a QB at 10 is a reach.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]For shits and giggles if I have to take a QB at the 10 spot then I am going to take the guy that I believe is the best QB in the Draft (See previous posts).[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Go ahead and laugh now but I would rather look like the fool now and the genius later than the genius during the draft and the fool later. This QB class is extremely weak. Tyrod Taylor will be the only one with a job 5 years from now.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

There will be plenty more threads and polls between now and draft day where we'll ask "Who do you want to draft?" "Should we trade down/" "Should we trade up?" "Who's the best available QB" "Do we even need a QB"

But with so much speculation about the Redskins taking a QB at #10, I simply asked if that did happen who would you want the Redskins to take a #10.

I don't understand why this question has to cause such consternation.

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

[quote=30gut;778220]I'm not sure why you choose to post in this manner and to be honest i'm a bit surprised and dissappointed.
But, to each their own.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

[quote=SmootSmack;778426]There will be plenty more threads and polls between now and draft day where we'll ask "Who do you want to draft?" "Should we trade down/" "Should we trade up?" "Who's the best available QB" "Do we even need a QB"

But with so much speculation about the Redskins taking a QB at #10, I simply asked if that did happen who would you want the Redskins to take a #10.

[B]I don't understand why this question has to cause such consternation[/B].[/quote]

Because we have been burned by drafting QB's in the first round.

Because we are weaker at so many more positions. We do not have the tools to surround the QB with to be successful.

Because drafting a QB in the first round does not put an impactfull player on the field right away. We know that it will take 2 or 3 years in the Kyle Shannahan system to start.

Drafting a QB with the 1st pick does not support the "win now" mentality.

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

You just want to be difficult I guess

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

[quote=GTripp0012;778428]Ugh.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

Smootsmack,
I think this is a great thread...it's pretty clear to me....otherwise you would have said, who do you want to take with the 10th pick..but you cant possibly poll the huge # of options.

I don't neccessarily agree with the best player available, since that was Vinny's angle.
We just don't have the luxury to take the best player if the guy happens to be a TE, LT or SS.

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

[quote=Buster;778435]Mallett and Newton, along with the obvious Luck and Gabbard who will be gone at #10 are all better picks than Locker in Round 1. I'd perfer Andy Dalton (TCU) over Locker as well.[/quote]You stopped at 4 there, but I could keep going.

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

[quote=Daseal;778421]You mean surprise? :silly:

Angry, it's called a hypothetical question. To say that you can't ask a question where conditions exist is simply not true. We have plenty of threads talking about the draft in general, who will be there at our pick, who/what position we should take, etc. This thread is designed to look at the QBs only, and there's not a problem with that. If people want to be 'heard' there are multiple other threads they can post in. Keeping a thread on topic is important. If I read through this thread, I expect to find insight on QBs, not debate on if we should or shouldn't draft a QB.

Hypothetical threads play an important part in a Redskins off-season and it is perfectly acceptable to post a question that limits responses.[/quote]

That is exactly what I mean : )

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

OMG.......im sorry i opened my mouth. I just dont get why people can't say "if i had to choose it would be Mallet" or whomever. SS just asked a hypothetical........ people just seem to veer off is all.

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

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;778447]OMG.......im sorry i opened my mouth. I just dont get why people can't say "if i had to choose it would be Mallet" or whomever. SS just asked a hypothetical........ people just seem to veer off is all.[/quote]

Don't sweat it

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

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;778447]OMG.......im sorry i opened my mouth. I just dont get why people can't say "if i had to choose it would be Mallet" or whomever. SS just asked a hypothetical........ people just seem to veer off is all.[/quote]

Not your fault. A perfectly reasonable offseason "what if" conversation starter went haywire. And I say this as someone who doesn't want a QB at #10.

I change my answer to Christian Ponder.

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

[quote=GTripp0012;778428]The point was that you made a argument based around Locker's dropped passes. It's not the first time I've heard the argument; Todd McShay (for example) made the same one before he changed his opinion on Locker. "He's accurate, but the numbers don't show it. You'll just have to trust me on this one." It's not a unique or insane argument, it's just weak.[/quote]
Yes, that was [I]part[/I] of my point.
Your post seems to look at Locker only from a statistical standpoint.
(I haven't read the entire thread only started reading around your post)
My point was that without [I][B]context[/B][/I] the stats aren't very meaningful.
Comp % like most stats in football are very much affected by the [I]team[/I] on which the QB plays.
And i don't think you'll disagree that Washington is a team w/ limited talent on offense other then Locker.
E.g. Washington hasn't had an NFL caliber OL or WR in 5 years.

[quote]There is a standard expectation for ability for a college quarterback who wants to be drafted in 2011, and Locker falls well short of that standard. That's what his whole body of work says.[/quote]
Why? Because of some statistical model?
[quote]I am far less interested in trying to cross my eyes while watching said film to see a passer with requisite NFL accuracy. Which apparently is something that Bill Walsh didn't value.[/quote]
Your a touchy fella aren't you?
Why would you have to cross your eyes?
If you're refering to a statistical measure of accuracy you would be right Walsh didn't list that in the criteria he does consider actually accuracy though its a cross between touch and throwing a complete inventory of passes.
[quote]I'm perfectly willing to give you that Locker had five dropped passes in the USC game against him if you're willing to give me the fact that, in the course of a college career, that doesn't change much (he won the game after all).[/quote]
You don't have to 'give' me the drops b/c they actually happened.
You seem to imply that b/c he won the game that the drops didn't have an effect on the outcome.
But, if you can't accept that drops have an effect on the game then we're probably having a pointless conversation.


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

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

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

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

[quote=30gut;778551]Yes, that was [I]part[/I] of my point.
Your post seems to look at Locker only from a statistical standpoint.
(I haven't read the entire thread only started reading around your post)
My point was that without context the stats aren't very meaningful.
Comp % like most stats in football are very much affected by the [I]team[/I] on which the QB plays.


Why? Because of some statistical model?


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




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


Just out of curiosity how many Washington Huskies games have you watched?
B/c if you've seen more then the Bowl game when Nebraska's DBs owned Washington's DBs you'll see that Locker is more accurate then his stats suggest.[/quote]Can I (carefully) point out that you've done nothing to give any context for Lockers numbers? You've just attributed 5 incompletion in his statistical record against USC to drops. That's attribution, not context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[quote=GTripp0012;778555]Can I (carefully) point out that you've done nothing to give any context for Lockers numbers? You've just attributed 5 incompletion in his statistical record against USC to drops. That's attribution, not context.[/quote]
I wasn't trying to give context i was pointing out that stats w/o context aren't very meaningful.

[quote]I already considered all of the above when looking at the gap between Jake Locker and the next worst guy at completing his college passes.[/quote]
Have you? B/c you're apparently relying on the comp% stat as the most significant measure of a QB skillset.
My point again is that comp % is very much effected by the quality of the team around the QB.

[quote]Jake Locker is not the only college quarterback who had five or more of his passes dropped this year. I don't think you were unaware of this, it just seems like you don't care.[/quote]
You're right he's not but why would you assume that i don't care?
B/c i disagree w/ your statistical prediction based on comp %; a comp% which is effected not only by drops but the overall quality of the team that surrounds the QB?

[quote]And although He's your guy. His drops matter, and Blaine Gabbert's don't. That's your point. It's a very biased one, but you're entitled to have it. I'm entitled to not care, and still hold objectivity.[/quote]
I'm telling you what my point is; but you're trying to tell me its something else?
What kind of way is this to have a discussion?
What you've done is created a strawman argument based on drops between Locker and Gabbert.

I'm gonna quote my entire post here for the sake of clarity to prevent further strawman arguments:
[quote=30gut;778161]Wait how do you know what expect from Locker?
I wouldn't have pegged you as a stat guy when it comes to QB evaluation.
I've watched quite a few Washington games and if you haven't watched them play you don't have a context to understand Locker's stats/comp%.

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

Did i say that other QBs drops don't matter?
(And for the record i actually like Gabbert as prospect)

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

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

[quote] and expecting him to be something else at the professional level would be, in my opinion, a poor interpretation of the available evidence,[/quote]
Well yeah if you think the guy is a wild thrower then logically you wouldn't expect him to improve by much.

[quote]It's not a be-all end-all. It's merely showing that players who struggle with their completion percentage have a tendency to not make it up elsewhere.[/quote]
Conversely i could show some QB who comp% have been effected by the quality of the team and coaching around them.
Drew Brees-
[url]http://www.pro-football-reference.co...B/BreeDr00.htm[/url]
SDG-62.2%
NOR-67%
Steve Young-
[url]http://www.pro-football-reference.co...Y/YounSt00.htm[/url]
SF-65.8
TB-53.8
Trent Green-
[url]http://www.pro-football-reference.co...G/GreeTr00.htm[/url]
KSC-61.9
STL-58.7
WAS-54.5
There's also Brian Greise, Jeff George, Drew Bledsoe, Jake Plummer


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

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

[quote=30gut;778565]Have you? B/c you're apparently relying on the comp% stat as the most significant measure of a QB skillset.
My point again is that comp % is very much effected by the quality of the team around the QB.[/quote]The evidence says...not really. I mean, sure, it does matter some. Receiver catch rates are a variable that alters quarterback completion percentages, but it's, by far, the most static of all conventional stats. I asserted that I believe Locker's completion percentage would be higher in the pros than in college, but not that much better. If he goes from 53% to 57% in the NFL when he's not at Washington anymore...he's still probably busting. If you think he's going higher that would be...pretty unprecedented.

Regardless, it's probably not healthy analysis to assume that everything is going to be easier for him once he reaches the NFL. I'm not making that assumption, but I can't tell if you are or aren't.

If you want a different example, [URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PlumJa00.htm"]you can look at Jake Plummer[/URL]. He improved in comp % going from a horrible offense to a good one, but he didn't suddenly become proficient in accuracy. The case of Steve Young is an entirely different scenario. He went from the worst team to the best team and matured many years before playing in a large sample for San Francisco.

[quote]You're right he's not but why would you assume that i don't care?
B/c i disagree w/ your statistical prediction based on comp % a comp% which is affected not only by drops but the overall quality of the team that surrounds the QB?[/quote]The point isn't that Locker was lower than the average. The point is that he's in an unprecedented level of bad. Jay Cutler was many percentage points better in the same statistic at Vanderbilt, and his career has been rocky if mildly successful. There's no way a less accurate Cutler could succeed in the NFL, but that's exactly who Locker is.

[quote]I'm telling you what my point is; but you're trying to tell me its something else?
What kind of way is this to have a discussion?
What you've done is created a strawman argument based on drops between Locker and Gabbert.

I'm gonna quote my entire post here for the sake of clarity to prevent further strawman arguments:

Notice that the drops are a part of my point and not the point.
I mentioned the drops as an example hence e.g.

Did i say that other QBs drops don't matter?
(And for the record i actually like Gabbert as prospect)[/quote]I feel like you're drawing a line between what you said and meant to imply and what you didn't say and can't imply, and that line is meaningless to me because I'm not in your head. Either your drops argument was weak and you're letting it go (without saying it), or you ACTUALLY did imply that Locker's receivers must have dropped a percentage of his balls that was way more significant than anyone else. I can't tell which side you're on now because you're being ambiguous.

Maybe Locker has been hammered by drops at a higher rate than other QBs. Seems plausible at least. But this is what I meant by crossing ones' eyes. The drops argument seems aimed in trying to manipulate the perception of available evidence to show that Locker -- at a microscopic level -- might not be the least proficient passer in the class. Maybe the second or third least proficient. But to me, even if you took 500 hours of tape study and proved that (provided of course that the original assumption wasn't just upheld), he's still an awful first round selection. I prefer to take the shortcut and [U]just not call Locker the least proficient passer at the top of the draft, even though it looks that way at first, second, and third glance.[/U]

[quote]
Conversely i could show some QB who comp% has been affected by the quality of the teams and coaching around them.
Drew Brees-
[url]http://www.pro-football-reference.co...B/BreeDr00.htm[/url]
SDG-62.2%
NOR-67%
Steve Young-
[url]http://www.pro-football-reference.co...Y/YounSt00.htm[/url]
SF-65.8
TB-53.8
Trent Green-
[url]http://www.pro-football-reference.co...G/GreeTr00.htm[/url]
KSC-61.9
STL-58.7
WAS-54.5
There's also Brian Greise, Jeff George, Drew Bledsoe, Jake Plummer
[/quote]Green's STL and KC numbers are essentially identical once you account for the passing environment. His one Washington season was much lower, but as a formative player, that's different from being under a different effect. That effect was simply playing experience. You're likely seeing something similar with Steve Young, at least if you're taking his 53.8% at face value.

I think Brees is an excellent example of the environment point you make, that Sean Payton and his offense have made Brees a better player than most thought he was capable of becoming. If you try to apply the same effect to Locker, you lose sight of the point entirely. Does anyone anywhere expect Locker to turn into a 62% passer under the tutlidge of some QB guru? Wouldn't that be a ridiculously fortunate outcome for the team that drafts him? If you put a wild thrower in a great environment...well, that's the Mark Sanchez experiment, is it not?

(Sanchez actually did complete 63% of his throws in college, so perhaps not the best example).

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

[quote=GTripp0012;778569]The evidence says...not really. I mean, sure, it does matter some. Receiver catch rates are a variable that alters quarterback completion percentages, but it's, by far, the most static of all conventional stats. I asserted that I believe Locker's completion percentage would be higher in the pros than in college, but not that much better. If he goes from 53% to 57% in the NFL when he's not at Washington anymore...he's still probably busting. If you think he's going higher that would be...pretty unprecedented.[/quote]
But comp% is effected by much more then receiver catch rates.
And you're the one that keeps bringing up this projection of stats.
My point is that the stats don't equal the evaluation.

[quote]Regardless, it's probably not healthy analysis to assume that everything is going to be easier for him once he reaches the NFL. I'm not making that assumption, but I can't tell if you are or aren't.[/quote]
I don't need to make that assumption b/c i don't believe there is anytihing wrong with Locker's accuracy now.
You're the one that thinks he's a wild thrower.
And as far as i can tell you're using the comp% to support your point and not an actual evaluation of the prospect.

[quote]If you want a different example, [URL="http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PlumJa00.htm"]you can look at Jake Plummer[/URL]. He improved in comp % going from a horrible offense to a good one, but he didn't suddenly become proficient in accuracy. The case of Steve Young is an entirely different scenario. He went from the worst team to the best team and matured many years before playing in a large sample for San Francisco.[/quote]
You explain away the uptick any way you want but the fact that uptick occured goes against the point you're making and speaks to my point.
The team around the QB effects their comp% and therefore comp% alone is not reliable predictor of success.
And quite frankly i think its pretty lame when people say that player X won't make it in the NFL or won't become a pro-bowler etc.
We're talking about the [I][B]NFL [/B][/I]the majority of people that attempt to make it fail and those that make it often have short careers.
You're not exactly going out on a limp when you say that player X won't make it.
When it comes to the NFL saying someone won't make it is always the safe side.

[quote]The point isn't that Locker was lower than the average. The point is that he's in an unprecedented level of bad. Jay Cutler was many percentage points better in the same statistic at Vanderbilt, and his career has been rocky if mildly successful. There's no way a less accurate Cutler could succeed in the NFL, but that's exactly who Locker is.[/quote]
This is going in circles.
If Locker is so bad how come the scouts don't see it?
If Locker reaches an 'unprecedented level of bad' why is he even draftable?
But, the scouts don't rely on models they actually look at the prospects.

[quote]I feel like you're drawing a line between what you said and meant to imply and what you didn't say and can't imply, and that line is meaningless to me because I'm not in your head. Either your drops argument was weak and you're letting it go (without saying it), or you ACTUALLY did imply that Locker's receivers must have dropped a percentage of his balls that was way more significant than anyone else. I can't tell which side you're on now because you're being ambiguous.[/quote]
No, you're ignoring my point and focusing on the drops.
I used the drops as an example of how the context of QB stats are important:
Drops or talent level of the receivers, quality of scheme, talent of OL, TEs, RBs all effect a QB stats including comp %.

[quote]Maybe Locker has been hammered by drops at a higher rate than other QBs. Seems plausible at least. But this is what I meant by crossing ones' eyes. The drops argument seems aimed in trying to manipulate the perception of available evidence to show that Locker -- at a microscopic level -- might not be the least proficient passer in the class. Maybe the second or third least proficient. But to me, even if you took 500 hours of tape study and proved that (provided of course that the original assumption wasn't just upheld), he's still an awful first round selection. I prefer to take the shortcut and [U]just not call Locker the least proficient passer at the top of the draft, even though it looks that way at first, second, and third glance.[/U][/quote]
Again you're focused on the stats and ignoring the point.
Evaluation is more then stats.
And the stats have a context.
According to your logic why even bother scouting?
Just take the QBs w/ the highest comp% b/c their sure to suceed right?
Timmy Chang, Colt Brennan, Graham Harrell and the many other high comp % all should be NFL champions right?

[quote]Green's STL and KC numbers are essentially identical once you account for the passing environment. His one Washington season was much lower, but as a formative player, that's different from being under a different effect. That effect was simply playing experience. You're likely seeing something similar with Steve Young, at least if you're taking his 53.8% at face value.[/quote]
Again you account for and explain away the uptick anyway you want but every example goes against your point.
Comp% like most other football stats is effected by the context of the situation where the stats are produced.

[quote]Does anyone anywhere expect Locker to turn into a 62% passer under the tutlidge of some QB guru? Wouldn't that be a ridiculously fortunate outcome for the team that drafts him? If you put a wild thrower in a great environment...well, that's the Mark Sanchez experiment, is it not?[/quote]
I'm sure the coaches of the QB who've had success all expected their QBs to improve.
You can focus on the stats.
But the crux of the matter is that you view Locker as a 'wild thrower'.
But, when i watch Locker play that's not what i see.
I see a good QB an accurate QB especially on the run, not statistically accurate but [I][B]actually[/B][/I] accurate.

-Btw you didn't answer the question about how many Washington games you've watched?
-Also, from watching the USC youtube game cut-ups which throws do you think show Locker's 'wild throwing'?

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

I have a headache reading that back and forth. Back to the overriding question, if we are picking a QB at 10 I'd have to go with Newton simply because I think he has the highest upside of all of the incoming QB. Unfortunately, I also think he's the furthest away from a making an impact as a starter due to his limited college experience and the gimmick offense he came from. I also wonder about his adaptability to Kyle's system. That being said, a 6'6, 255 specimen with a championship pedigree who supposedly loves football and is willing to put in the work is rather enticing long term.

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

[quote=Angry;778418][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]People can read and they do understand the question. People do not like being forced into a decision that they do not agree with. They feel that they are intelligent and want to be heard. Telling them to not respond to the question is ridiculous. Asking someone for their opinion but telling them only if "condition a" exists is not really asking someone for their opinion.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Perhaps the better way of doing this would have been to ask "Who are the best QB's available this year?" and "Which of those are worthy of a top 10 pick?" [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]To suggest that the Skins take a QB at number 10 and then to ask who I want is not fair because I do not want a QB nor do others on here. [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I want the BPA... period if it just so happens that the BPA when we pick is a QB then so be it. In my opinion however, there is not a single QB in this draft that is worth a top 10 pick so taking a QB at 10 is a reach.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]For shits and giggles if I have to take a QB at the 10 spot then I am going to take the guy that I believe is the best QB in the Draft (See previous posts).[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Go ahead and laugh now but I would rather look like the fool now and the genius later than the genius during the draft and the fool later. This QB class is extremely weak. Tyrod Taylor will be the only one with a job 5 years from now.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR][/quote]

You may be right about Taylor, but if he is the only one with a job in 5 years, it'll probably be as a wr. I just don't see him as a starting qb. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

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

[quote=Terpfan76;778614]You may be right about Taylor, but if he is the only one with a job in 5 years, it'll probably be as a wr. I just don't see him as a starting qb. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.[/quote]

I have only one comment for this post. Drew Brees. Side note: (stop trying to keep down the short man)

Edit: I think the P.C. term for it is height challenged, pardon my indiscretion.

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

[quote=30gut;778572]You explain away the uptick any way you want but the fact that uptick occured goes against the point you're making and speaks to my point.
The team around the QB effects their comp% and therefore comp% alone is not reliable predictor of success.
And quite frankly i think its pretty lame when people say that player X won't make it in the NFL or won't become a pro-bowler etc.
We're talking about the [I][B]NFL [/B][/I]the majority of people that attempt to make it fail and those that make it often have short careers.
You're not exactly going out on a limp when you say that player X won't make it.
When it comes to the NFL saying someone won't make it is always the safe side.
[/quote]You're right. Your absolutely right. I'm on the safe side of this argument, and make no outlandish claims otherwise. It's the easy prediction to say that Locker won't be much in the pros because he didn't amount to much in college. The world is not promising Jake Locker anything.

It would be a huge blanket statement to say that passing environment doesn't affect completion percentages at all. That's not really true. It is true as a generalization compared to all other well-known statistics. It's one of two or three QB stats where the primary variable is the ability of the quarterback. It's not the only variable, but you can change the quality of receivers and see a drop in yards, TDs, an increase in INTs, and a relatively stable completion percentage. That would be pretty normal.

Which isn't to say that Jake Locker's college completion percentage might not be lower than his college skill level based on his environment. Unless the scouts who study Locker intently are just into BSing the general public and scouting community, his skill level HAS to be above his numbers. And I believe it is. It just means you have to be mindful of the chasm between Locker and the next-worst guy in a pretty stable statistic, and what it means for him in the pros.

Before you started, I linked a list that demonstrated what it meant. Your concern with my parameters was legitimate, but I hope by now you realize exactly how rarified the air would be if Jake Locker didn't end up with a majority of his seasons on the list I linked. I've got the smart money, plus plenty of room for error, on my side the the pickett fence.

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

This QB class needs a nickname.

Let's call them the "Red Flag Brigade."

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

[quote=GTripp0012;778713]Which isn't to say that Jake Locker's college completion percentage might not be lower than his college skill level based on his environment. Unless the scouts who study Locker intently are just into BSing the general public and scouting community, his skill level HAS to be above his numbers. And I believe it is.[/quote]
Which was my point all along, there is a context to the stats and if you look only at the stats you miss the evaluation.

[quote]Before you started, I linked a list that demonstrated what it meant. Your concern with my parameters was legitimate, but I hope by now you realize exactly how rarified the air would be if Jake Locker didn't end up with a majority of his seasons on the list I linked. [/quote]
Again were back to a looking at the stats.
If the stats were the sum of his ability then according to your view it would be long odds for Locker to improve his comp%.

When you repeatedly avoid the question about how many Washington games you've watched leads me to believe that you haven't seen Locker play very often.
If stats were excluded from the discussion and we just look at Locker as a prospect i bet you would have a different opinion of him; especially his accuracy.

HTTR!

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

Stats are like 64 bps MP3s but worse. What physically goes on the field, such as ball location, routes thrown, etc are not carried over in the transfer to stats.

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

[quote=SkinzWin;778638]I have only one comment for this post. Drew Brees. Side note: (stop trying to keep down the short man)

Edit: I think the P.C. term for it is height challenged, pardon my indiscretion.[/quote]

I never said a thing about his height. I don't care how tall he is, I just don't think he'll become a starting qb.

I think it's vertically challenged. I'm 6'2" but horizontally challenged lol...

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

[quote=SOUL-SKINS;778447]OMG.......im sorry i opened my mouth. I just dont get why people can't say "if i had to choose it would be Mallet" or whomever. SS just asked a hypothetical........ people just seem to veer off is all.[/quote]

Ok to make those happy who are stuck on the question....
I'd take Andy Dalton at #10. now you want my constructive criticism after right? Because his team didn't lose a game all season, they won 16 games, cause he looks more mobile then the other top prospects to me, cause he can make all the throws, cause he's got good character, cause he looks like he'd fit the scheme well to me.

Now is he worthy of the top 10 spot? Most say no. So I'll take the OL ( Center) that we need and take Andy Dalton later in the draft to make the rest of you happy that we didn't waist a top 10 pick on Dalton.

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

A top 10 pick on a center... That's even worse than Dalton.

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

Locker or newton will be successful on the redskins if they are properly coached by shannahans. If either are subject to what campbell went through, they probably will do the same thing, and be a mediocre starter. Start them when they are ready, and build the team around them.

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

[quote=SBXVII;778792]Ok to make those happy who are stuck on the question....
I'd take Andy Dalton at #10. now you want my constructive criticism after right? Because his team didn't lose a game all season, they won 16 games, cause he looks more mobile then the other top prospects to me, cause he can make all the throws, cause he's got good character, cause he looks like he'd fit the scheme well to me.

Now is he worthy of the top 10 spot? Most say no. So I'll take the OL ( Center) that we need and take Andy Dalton later in the draft to make the rest of you happy that we didn't waist a top 10 pick on Dalton.[/quote]

Why not get a guy whose value is at #10, like Von Miller, get Dalton in the 4th round, where he will still be available, and a center in the 4th-5th round, where they usually go. Or I'll even go as high as 3rd for a center if there was a really good one and we got a 3rd from a McNabb or Haynesworth trade.

Why are you trying to reach for everything a lot higher than their draft value is? You sell the team short by doing that. Over reaching for players is why we got Orakpo. Oakland over reaching for Heyward-Bey at 7 was the domino that screwed up the rest of the draft and handed us Orakpo IMO. So I'm okay with other teams doing it, but not the Redskins.

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

[quote=SkinzWin;778864]Why not get a guy whose value is at #10, like Von Miller, get Dalton in the 4th round, where he will still be available, and a center in the 4th-5th round, where they usually go. Or I'll even go as high as 3rd for a center if there was a really good one and we got a 3rd from a McNabb or Haynesworth trade.

Why are you trying to reach for everything a lot higher than their draft value is? You sell the team short by doing that. Over reaching for players is why we got Orakpo. Oakland over reaching for Heyward-Bey at 7 was the domino that screwed up the rest of the draft and handed us Orakpo IMO. So I'm okay with other teams doing it, but not the Redskins.[/quote]

I wonder if we should be thinking about the 3rd or 4th rounds, where we have no picks. Certainly we might get more picks in trades. But with the CBA uncertainty, there is a chance that there will be no trading of players until after the draft. What this means is that we might get only 2012 draft picks in trades.

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

I'm digging through the vault and watching game tape from this past season. I'm still really sold on Ponder. Tremendous pocket presence, underrated arm. His delivery can be a bit awkward though

But as for the guys likely to be taken in the 1st round, I'm less impressed with Mallet. He doesn't handle pressure as well as I'd thought he would and his balance looks off, particularly when hurried

Watching Locker next

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

^ I've got to say, SS, ESPN3 is a godsend for those of us who want to go back through game video.

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

[quote=Lotus;778908]^ I've got to say, SS, ESPN3 is a godsend for those of us who want to go back through game video.[/quote]

You're welcome

I'm using that and other video which gives some other angles

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

[quote=Lotus;778880]I wonder if we should be thinking about the 3rd or 4th rounds, where we have no picks. Certainly we might get more picks in trades. But with the CBA uncertainty, there is a chance that there will be no trading of players until after the draft. What this means is that we might get only 2012 draft picks in trades.[/quote]

I was just hypothesizing this based on the possibility of trading for what people are assuming we would get those players for. I know we obviously can not do that if we don't have the picks to do it with. Positive thoughts. If you think it, it will happen....

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

[quote=Lotus;778462]Not your fault. A perfectly reasonable offseason "what if" conversation starter went haywire. And I say this as someone who doesn't want a QB at #10.

I change my answer to Christian Ponder.[/quote]

Ponder would be the QB I'd like to get, but not at #10.

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

[quote=SmootSmack;778904]I'm digging through the vault and watching game tape from this past season. I'm still really sold on Ponder. Tremendous pocket presence, underrated arm. His delivery can be a bit awkward though

But as for the guys likely to be taken in the 1st round, I'm less impressed with Mallet. He doesn't handle pressure as well as I'd thought he would and his balance looks off, particularly when hurried

Watching Locker next[/quote]I don't feel like Mallett does any one thing better than any other QB in this draft...but as a complete package near the back end of the first round, I think you could do worse. I think it's very difficult to develop a quarterback who plays like a statue, but Mallett would benefit from a timing offense that allows him to get the ball out quick when he feels pressure.

I don't think I'd take him before Ponder, though.

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

Newton is on a rocket ship and it's headed right for DC ... i change my opinion on this guy on a day to day basis