vesihiisi
Footballguy
I agree. "Almost" touchdowns don't win games, but he was a couple of toe taps away from having three touchdowns. We'll see how things go with his QB coach taking over OC duties now.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Jake Locker (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter BallparkFrank
- Start date
packersfan
Footballguy
I'd rank them Wilson, Locker and Tannehill. Wilson has all the skills you want in a QB. I'm biased as a Badgers fan but he's a big-time talent in my opinion. I posted in the Wilson thread I'm debating between dropping Locker and putting in a bid for Wilson this week. The things keeping me from doing that are I like Locker's schedule and weapons a lot more. Plus the Titans' D isn't very good so you'd think there should be decent volume for Locker most weeks. But he is a very frustrating QB to watch. I'm not sure how good he is but I understand you can say that about a lot of young QBs. I actually thought he looked worse than his numbers against the Jags although if he gets one or two of those near TDs that obviously changes things quite a bit.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
He's started 6 NFL games and has played in 11 of them. I think you need to show a little patience.
Andy Dufresne
Footballguy
I wish they would make it a little more clear on what their bias is (positive or negative) towards each player that they write up.
Last edited by a moderator:
Shutout
Footballguy
I've never thought he was a franchise QB. For value in a ff league, I see him like Weeden on Shaub. If Hunter is healthy, his presence alone will probably make Locker a good play sporadically because there will probably be those couple of games where a team matches up poorly against the speed and you get some 2 TD game with long yardage out of Hunter (one of those typical "can't predict it things" where he goes 8/160/2 in a game here or there, yet his season totals are 45/867/6).
MAC_32
Footballguy
As long as he's starting. More of the same from last year and he'll be replaced midseason.
squistion
Footballguy
He played with a bad non-throwing shoulder for almost the entire season and that would not help his accuracy any. Because of that I don't count last year as a true indicator of what he can or can not do at the NFL level. I think it is premature to write him off, particularly since this will be his first season as a starter where he will be fully healthy and the Titans are tailoring their offense to his strengths.
Last edited by a moderator:
MAC_32
Footballguy
You can replace last year with the duration of his football career if it makes you more comfortable.
squistion
Footballguy
My point was, I don't think we really haven't seen what he can do at the NFL level. If you are in the EBF school that he wasn't any good at the college level either and will never be any good based on that, fine. But the Titans didn't think so, still believe in him and I share their opinion.
Last edited by a moderator:
MAC_32
Footballguy
It has much less to do with how he played in college as much as it was his specific flaws as a prospect. They are issues that are really difficult to overcome and to date in the NFL he has not done it. At this point there's really no reason to expect it to change. Blind faith is about it.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
He's played a net of one year. He was injured throughout most of that year, playing with a more or less terrible supporting cast. Has he been inconsistent? Yes he has. But it is WAY too early to nail the coffin shut on him as many have.
His completion percentage is pretty bad, but his more meaningful YPA is right around average (right there with Luck, Dalton, Stafford, Tannehill, etc). So while the concerns about his accuracy and decision making are certainly valid, they are also a bit overblown on such a small amount of tape.
Stafford was a lot worse by most metrics over his first couple of season for example - and he was throwing to Calvin Johnson. Hope nobody gave up on him after two injury riddled years. Similarly, Tannehill is considered by many to be the next big thing and he's also been far worse than Locker by almost any measure you want to look at. I LIKE Tannehill and think he has good prospects, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency in expectations here. Everyone seems to want to put Locker in the Ponder/Gabbert/Sanchez category, but he's not been nearly that bad despite pretty much everything stacked against him.
His completion percentage is pretty bad, but his more meaningful YPA is right around average (right there with Luck, Dalton, Stafford, Tannehill, etc). So while the concerns about his accuracy and decision making are certainly valid, they are also a bit overblown on such a small amount of tape.
Stafford was a lot worse by most metrics over his first couple of season for example - and he was throwing to Calvin Johnson. Hope nobody gave up on him after two injury riddled years. Similarly, Tannehill is considered by many to be the next big thing and he's also been far worse than Locker by almost any measure you want to look at. I LIKE Tannehill and think he has good prospects, but there doesn't seem to be any consistency in expectations here. Everyone seems to want to put Locker in the Ponder/Gabbert/Sanchez category, but he's not been nearly that bad despite pretty much everything stacked against him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
What are those issues specifically?
Decision making? Sure, that needs an upgrade. But that is a category that you are MOST likely to see improve after the first season or so. The great Peyton Manning was not so great a decision maker in his rookie year.
Accuracy/consistency? Yeah, that is something that isn't such a slam dunk. That needs to be there no matter what. But like I said earlier, I don't think it has been as bad as has been assumed. The numbers depend on scheme a bit. If you are looking strictly at completion %, Locker was better than Luck last year and I don't hear anybody complaining about Lucks's numbers. If you are looking at YPA, he's right there where you'd expect (almost hope) for him to be. If you are looking at TAPE - you see periods where he's dead on and periods where he's just not. But again, that isn't terribly surprising considering his situation.
MAC_32
Footballguy
Re the non Luck part, read my take on the first few pages of the thread. His issues are likely not correctable unless there is a miracle worker in the Titans braintrust.
EBF
Footballguy
Joke is the same QB he has always been.
A+ physical ability. D- mental ability.
No poise. No anticipation/recognition skills. Wildly inconsistent accuracy.
He was the exact same guy at Washington that he has been in the NFL so far. A low YPA passer with spotty accuracy who throws too many picks. Great one game. Utter crap the next. The Titans looked at the physical tools and thought they could coach up the mental stuff. I think any time you expect a player to transform his game, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. By the time you graduate from college, you are who are you are. If a player can't dominate in college with A+ physical tools then he probably won't do any better in the NFL.
A+ physical ability. D- mental ability.
No poise. No anticipation/recognition skills. Wildly inconsistent accuracy.
He was the exact same guy at Washington that he has been in the NFL so far. A low YPA passer with spotty accuracy who throws too many picks. Great one game. Utter crap the next. The Titans looked at the physical tools and thought they could coach up the mental stuff. I think any time you expect a player to transform his game, you are setting yourself up for disappointment. By the time you graduate from college, you are who are you are. If a player can't dominate in college with A+ physical tools then he probably won't do any better in the NFL.
Holy Schneikes
Footballguy
All I got out of any of your posts boils down to "poor accuracy", and the fact that you seem to think that it can't be changed. Maybe you are right. Maybe he will never be more accurate than he was as an injured 1st year starter on a bad team.
But to rule out that possibility (based on what specifically, I'm not sure), seems odd, considering quite a few of the great ones experienced a significant improvement in accuracy and/or overall effectiveness from year 1 to year 2 or 3.
Peyton Manning - I know, here come the eye rolls to add significantly to the convo - was at 57%, and averaging 6.6 YPA to go along with 31 turnovers in his first 16 games. Do you think there might have been some "where was he throwing that ball" moments in that rookie year tape?
Drew Brees averaged about 59% and 6 YPA in his first two years, with more ints than TDs. Then from his 3rd year on, he's been ON FIRE.
Rodgers also saw a significant uptick in accuracy from his first starting year to the next year (when he truly became a stud). His was not as drastic as the other two, but that isn't surprising considering he sat back learning from Favre for three years before he got rolling.
Now do I expected Locker to have a similar career track to those three guys? No, that would be unrealistic. They are three of the best QBs the game has ever seen. But the POINT is, to look at 16 game trial under FAR less then ideal circumstances and claim the guy will need a "miracle" to improve is JUST as ridiculous. The truth is, he has not been nearly as bad as has been reported in terms of accuracy (or other factors for that matter), and there is every expectation based on OODLES of historical evidence that those things might improve going forward (as opposed to the "it would take a miracle" stance).
Notice I said MIGHT improve. There is NO guarantee of it. Maybe he is just inherently inaccurate. But there really isn't a lot different about HOW he has been inaccurate compared to many other guys who HAVE improved drastically as they have naturally developed their own game, and have been put in better situations. I've seen the ugly throws. But I've seen Peyton Manning make ugly throws (mosty in the playoffs ;-) ), I've seen Andrew Luck make ugly throws, I've seen Favre make a TON of REALLY ugly throws, etc.
I'll tell you who else looked pretty bad at times last year and the year before. Matt Hasselbeck. He's not known is a terribly inaccurate QB (never mistaken for Manning, he's about as average as they come), and yet in the SAME basic situations as Locker over the last two years, he has put up SIGNIFICANTLY fewer yards per attempt than Locker has. He's not in his prime, and was never a stud, but he IS a legit NFL QB with legit accuracy, and the banged up 1st year guy no one seems to think is a legit prospect moved the ball a lot better than he did.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
I would agree that 16 starts aren't enough to judge a QB. It's not just 16 games though. His whole football career has been like this.
It was the same story at Washington. He arrived with a lot of fanfare, but never delivered on his potential. At first people blamed it on the coaching. They thought he would turn the corner after Washington hired Sarkisian. When that didn't happen, they blamed his lack of experience. They said he would be great in his senior year. When that didn't happen, they blamed the supporting cast. Then Keith Price took over as the starter the next year with mostly the same players and completed 66.9% of his passes at 8.9 YPA with a 3:1 TD to INT ratio.
People have been expecting greatness for YEARS and Locker has never delivered. At some point you run out of excuses. I've been watching Pac-12 games for a long time. I have seen a lot of QBs come through the league. Some good. Some not so good. What stands out to me about the two best players of the whole lot (Luck and Rodgers) is that they were good right away. Almost from the moment they took their first snap you could sense that they understood how to play the position and move an offense. Locker was always more like Palmer and Boller. More athlete than quarterback. A prodigious physical talent with middling mental ability. The type that you need to make excuses for ("He'll be great when...") because he doesn't actually produce.
I shy away from this kind of player in general, especially at the QB position. I think there's a pretty hard limit on how much a QB can "learn" to play the position. It never seems to work out when a team takes a raw specimen like Boller or Locker and tries to mold him into a polished quarterback. Eli Manning might have looked like crap during his first year or two in the NFL, but at least you could point towards his college career as a cause for optimism. Kaepernick. Wilson. Griffin. Newton. Luck. They all had excellent numbers in college. It might not be sufficient for NFL stardom (Mark Sanchez is proof), but it does seem necessary.
If I were taking a young Pac-12 QB, I would much rather roll the dice on Barkley or Foles than Locker. They might not pan out, but at least they've demonstrated an ability to play the position well at the college level.
squistion
Footballguy
Obligatory EBF Locker bashing along with the insulting Joke moniker (that really shows your objectively on this player).
Your bias and hate on Locker is similar to your views on DMC, another player you predicted would be a complete bust before he ever played a down in the NFL and who you still charmingly refer to as Chicken Legs (oh so funny!)
You may be completely right on Locker but it is really sad that you feel the need to come into every thread or any discussion that he is mentioned just to go out of your way to trash him. It is not like your opinion is not already well known and documented from at least 25-30 posts in the last 3 years.
With certain players it is obviously some of kind of ego thing with you. And if this turns out to be a good call (current odds seem about 50/50) I doubt this will be that much of a feather in your draft scout cap, because no one will really care that you made a correct assessment of a player that most draft scouts/analysts had mixed feeling on when taken by the Titans.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Having an opinion doesn't make you biased. I saw enough of Locker at Washington to get a pretty good idea of who he is. I've been willing to share my opinion with anyone who will listen. That's what this site is about. Sharing information and opinions. When I rip on Locker, it's about sending out a big disclaimer in flashing lights so people think twice about buying a player who's unlikely to succeed. Nothing more. You choose to latch onto these things for years and insist that they're personal. That's your hangup more than it's mine.
I follow the Pac-12 closely. I have a better grasp of the local players than the average FF player who doesn't follow the league closely. When I see a promising player, I try to share that information. Likewise, when I see a player who is overrated by the national media or people who don't actually watch the Pac-12 games, I try to chime in with a counterpoint. I'm no more biased against Jake Locker than I was against Maurice Drew, Reggie Bush, Andrew Luck, or Mike Williams. I watch the players and I provide an honest assessment. There's nothing wrong with that. Part of the reason why people visit this site is to get information and opinions from viewers who might follow a particular university/conference/NFL franchise closely.
EBF - I generally find your posts and takes on players interesting and well-thought out. But, I'll admit that when you use terms like "Joke" Locker, it certainly diminishes your credibility here, and honestly, elsewhere too. It calls into question your maturity and ability to neutrally evaluate players.
I think it's fine that you think Locker's upside is somewhere around QB 32, but I think you would be wise to keep the snarky comments to yourself.
Just my :twocents:
I think it's fine that you think Locker's upside is somewhere around QB 32, but I think you would be wise to keep the snarky comments to yourself.
Just my :twocents:
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
Can't wait to see this team in the preseason. The whispers keep getting louder about them making the read option a huge part of their offense. Frankly, that scheme is perfect for Locker. Allows him to use his athleticism and make quick, short passes. There is that little matter of him breaking something every time he gets hit. But... one thing at a time.
This could actually make him relevant in 2-QB leagues.
This could actually make him relevant in 2-QB leagues.
squistion
Footballguy
Hell, I still think he will be relevant in 1 QB leagues (admittedly a distinct minority opinion).
I don't know if Locker will be able to cut it, but at the price he is going for now (a bag of chips) you really don't have much to lose by acquiring him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
Clifford
Footballguy
Offered Darren McFadden for him in a 2QB dynasty and was rejected, so kinda depends on owner and format. I don't think he's rosterable except as a bye-week replacement in redraft and 1QB leagues. Everything coming out about him is negative and the team got a guy behind him they know can start and do fairly well. Seeing a short leash here.
B-Deep
Footballguy
Raider Nation
Devil's Advocate
I gave him up in dynasty. He can't play. I tried to see things that weren't there because I liked his potential.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Totally agree. they should give up. Put Fitz in and draft another next year. I wish NFL teams made decisions like this. Locker will probably lead the Titans to a 4-12 record cost Munchak his job and then they'll draft another.
With a good QB I really think they'd have an impressive WR corps and it'd be night and day difference especially if someone can motivate Hunter and Britt with his passes and leadership. Kendall could be such a special underneath WR if they'd actually have someone as a threat opposite him. If Locker won't throw in the middle of the field, it wouldn't matter if they had Rice out there.
This involved not using CJ so they better not. You do not go away from a stud RB that had 77 yards in the first half, giant mistake. Texans were also in their prevent type defense til they crossed the 50 then they seemed to change up. They were giving them the little passes they were trying to throw all day, they made it easy.
Hooper31
Footballguy
I can't help but root for the kid. He played high school ball in a neighboring school district. I've been watching him since he was a sophomore in high school. That said, I stopped believing he would be a star in the NFL some time ago. He's just not an accurate passer, nor does he get the ball out quickly enough. Having to "see" wide open receivers before he throws the ball mixed with inaccuracy won't get it done.
Also, he missed the wide open receiver deep on the play before the TD. On top of that the TD was a fifty-fifty ball. The receiver made a great play on it. I wouldn't call it a good pass.
squistion
Footballguy
He is starting to look as good as he did during preseason. His numbers would have been a lot better if Britt hadn't made several drops in key situations (with no receptions on five targets).
Dinkle Heimer
Footballguy
Lynden? B'ham? His Grandma and Grandpa live right down the block here in Ferndale. He's a great kid and I root for him also (and have the same doubts you do).
Mr. Retukes
Footballguy
Jake Locker has thrown 125 passes without an interception. It's the third-longest active streak in the NFL (behind Peyton Manning and Alex Smith).
Color me as surprised as anyone else...
Color me as surprised as anyone else...
