Quote:
Originally Posted by 30gut
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.
|
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,
you can look at Jake Plummer. 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?
|
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)
|
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
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.
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).