Great writeup of Locker's pro potential

If I were to assess him, this is pretty close to what I would say. Except John says it in a lot more detail, with a lot more prior knowledge, and a lot more authority.

But his conclusion is the same as mine. Jake Locker is precisely the kind of quarterback who would benefit immensely from one more year in college.

over 2 years ago Jeff Nusser 11 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

My take

I guess I’ll look at it like a baseball scout. In these days there are two kinds of scouts: toolsy scouts and stat guys. A toolsy scout would look at him and salivate while a stat guy would look at him and shrug. There’s a reason that the stat guys are starting to win in baseball, especially with the advanced metrics there are on pretty much every facet of the game.

Now, that’s not to say that you can do the same with football. The statistics aren’t advanced enough to completely evaluate a player. In Locker’s case, he’s athletic as hell but still very raw as a quarterback. His HS and collegiate experience thus far have taught him how to be an athlete and not how to be a quarterback. The coaches now at UW are trying to teaching him to be a quarterback, but you can’t unlearn the years he’s spent being an athlete back there.

At this point, his decision making is inconsistent and his ability to make throws is the same. In order to be effective at the next level you have to be able to make a large variety of throws. Also, that athleticism that everyone drools over is negated at the next level. When you have D-lineman and backers that can run mid to high 4 40’s, it becomes easier to neutralize his athleticism and force him to make throws that, for the time being, he can’t.

In college, a defense will always have a weakness he can exploit but at the next level with the change in speed there is, it becomes harder for him to out-athlete a defense like he can now. In many times, even on a bad UW team, he’s the best athlete on the field for either team. In the NFL this is not the case.

My point is that in order for him to succeed in the NFL, he has to grow as a QB. He has to learn how to put the right touch on his passes consistently, how to read a defense, and how to make the right throws for the situation. He shows flashes of it, but in order to succeed it has to be consistent. It will take quite a while, I think, to break the habits he’s had for the last 6+ years, being taught to tuck and run first and pass second. We’ve seen plenty of great college QB’s that do that flop hard in the NFL level. Unless he learns how to actually be a quarterback, he will likely suffer a similar fate.

by Brian Floyd on Oct 26, 2009 8:38 PM PDT reply actions

Excellent points

I think that’s one of the reasons that QBs in the NFL that have the highest success rates usually have 20+ starts in college. Obviously, Jake will be well over that. But he received such poor coaching his first three years on campus that he truly does need to unlearn a lot of his bad habits.

I’m of the mind that another UW quarterback, Brock Huard, was unsuccessful in the NFL in large part because of that as well (besides the injury thing). For three years he was throwing off his back foot in the face of any kind of rush at all. Those sorts of bad habits absolutely kill you at the next level.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Oct 27, 2009 8:08 AM PDT up reply actions

And they can't be broken in 1, or even 2, seasons of coaching

His tendencies and habits are ingrained into him from repetition over the years. It’s going to take time to actually turn him into a quarterback. Even if Sarkisian were a miracle worker, he can’t break all those habits before Locker moves on to the NFL.

Whoever drafts him is drafting on potential and on tools. It’s a dangerous gamble to use a high pick on him, especially seeing all the complete busts that were great athletes, but not polished products.

Brock Huard is a great example and you can look down the line and find many others. Fact is, guys with great running ability that are athletic as hell at the quarterback position never have to really learn how to be a quarterback. From the moment they pick up the football, they have a safety valve in their legs. Guys that aren’t so athletic have to learn to read defenses and have solid mechanics to be successful. At some point, usually the NFL for the great athletes, the talent level catches up to them and negates the running ability, leaving a shell of a quarterback. Without coaching on proper technique to break the bad habits, Locker could well become the next victim of this.

by Brian Floyd on Oct 27, 2009 1:11 PM PDT up reply actions

I'd argue that he's already doing a lot less of those things this year than he was

With the possibility of 16-17 more starts (if they go to a bowl next year), he could make some serious strides.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Oct 27, 2009 5:53 PM PDT up reply actions

A lot of the bad habits have been showing up less

The problem is that they aren’t staying away consistently. His coaches have done well to break him of the habits, but he all of the sudden falls back into his old habits (see: the last 2-3 games). He will make big strides, but there will also be growing pains now and at the next level when it comes. It also comes down to time and whether he stays or goes, or even whether he plays baseball. With that contract, whether the Angels say so or not, there is an expectation that he at least gives it a shot and maybe as soon as next summer ala Dennis Dixon. Something like that will also slow his development as a quarterback.

The question for UW becomes whether to use his legs and give the team the best chance at winning, or to develop him into a pro style quarterback which benefits Locker, but may not give results to the team before he’s finished. It’s not an enviable position, in my opinion. In order to develop, he’s going to have to take his lumps now, on the job. I’ve seen quite a few people calling for him to run more which will benefit the team now, but may not be best for him.

by Brian Floyd on Oct 27, 2009 6:09 PM PDT up reply actions

I think it's a matter of how he runs

If he steps up in the pocket, goes through his progression, nothing’s there, he sees green and takes off, that’s good running. If Sark calls a play where they move the pocket and he sees green and he takes off, that’s good running.

If he bolts left or right at the first sign of pressure, that’s bad running. That’s the kind of running John is talking about.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Oct 27, 2009 9:36 PM PDT up reply actions

Agreed

I agree with John talking about his idea for playcalls involving “running”. It’s the fans that want the spread option offense that I don’t agree with. They need to roll him more, especially with their line problems, and he should feel free to take off and run. The problem is that his timer right now is probably shorter than a quarterbacks should be if he were to be given that kind of green light. He’s been in that run first mode where he’s taking off as soon as, or before, he hits his drop. I think part of it is Sark putting the reins on him and pulling them tight to start the season and they will slowly get loosened when he’s showing he has proper QB mechanics and better decision making.

If he can’t decide where to pass and figure out how to go through progressions, odds are he will take off far too early, especially when he starts losing confidence in his throwing. They do need to get more creative in their playcalling for him. This isn’t USC anymore and they don’t have the athletes to run a straight pro set and just knock people over. Using Locker on rollouts or more run-pass options would do the team good and may help him learn that decision making.

by Brian Floyd on Oct 27, 2009 10:12 PM PDT up reply actions

My take on Locker.

If he is drafted this year (or probably even next year) he’d better hope he gets drafted by a team that won’t need him for 2-3 years. That would give him more time to become a refined QB. If he was asked to step in right away, he wouldn’t do so well, in my estimation. He’d be best served by an ‘Aaron Rodgers’ situatiom; a high pick behind an established, but aging, QB.

Geez, that kinda sounds like the Seahawks. I don’t know how I’d react to that.

by J.J. FeKl on Nov 1, 2009 6:11 PM PST reply actions

The only reason I wouldn't want him on the Seahawks

Is because I’d have to listen to Husky/Seahawks fans gush about how he should be playing. It would be a neverending sportsradio saga.

CougCenter

by Jeff Nusser on Nov 3, 2009 2:21 PM PST up reply actions

One thing that has kept me going with huskies around,

is comparing Marcus Trufant (awesome) and Jerramy Stevens (dropped TD in superbowl) for the Seahawks. Now with Desmond Trufant, and with Locker maybe ending up on the Seahawks…

by displacedcoug on Nov 4, 2009 2:46 PM PST up reply actions