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

[GTripp0012]

Originally Posted by 30gut

Yes, that was part 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 team 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.

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.