[30gut]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 NFL 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 %.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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 actually 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'?