Objective thoughts: I think he's got a long way to go before he's a NFL QB, and his question marks/issues are, in my opinion, the most important parts of being a QB - decision making and accuracy. I'd love to see him step into more throws and stop floating the ball high, too. But, the kid was basically a RB in HS and had Ty Willingham as his QB for his first few years. Someone mentioned "Go Jake Go" in one of these other threads. He's basically in year 2 of being a real QB. He's got great intangibles, and works his ### off. Writing him off at this point in time is as silly as crowning his ###.
I really question the amount of slack that people are willing to cut young QBs who appear to have "tremendous upside" on the basis of their physical talent. You say Locker has only been a real QB for two years. He has been a QB since high school. This is his fourth year on campus at Washington. While I realize that their coaching hasn't always been tremendous, I find it hard to believe that Willingham's staff didn't introduced him to concepts like throwing mechanics and progressions. That's basic stuff that any self-respecting
high school QB coach will preach to his kids. And yet here we are 5-6 years after Locker first emerged as a blue chip high school QB prospect, still wondering when he'll put the puzzle together.
How many years does someone need to play QB before we can expect him to start doing the things that a QB is supposed to do? How long is it reasonable to wait for potential to become production? 2-3 years from now if he's still struggling, will we still hear the same excuses? When can we finally pull the plug and finally say, "You know, maybe he's just a great quarterback."
I don't know the exact answer, but I think Denny Green was onto something when he said, "They are who we thought they were." Kyle Boller, Charlie Whitehurst, and Josh McCown are great physical specimens at the QB position. They look like a QB is supposed to look. They're big guys wiith above average mobility who can chuck the ball a mile. But you know what? They're not good quarterbacks. For the most part, they never have been. Their production has never matched their alleged upside.
In college Derek Anderson was a big, statuesque pocket passer who would have been a brilliant prospect if only he could have improved his accuracy and cut down on the interceptions. Fast forward a few years. After a fluke season with the Browns in which he pieced together a handful of good games, everyone suddenly thought Derek Anderson was a franchise QB. Well...not so fast. A few years later he's the same exact guy he was at Oregon State: a big INT-machine with terrible accuracy.
My philosophy with QBs is that what you see is what you get. Look at what these guys did in their first seasons as NCAA starters:
Aaron Rodgers - 61.6% completions, 8.3 yards/attempt, 19 TD, 5 INT, 147 QB rating
Mark Sanchez - 65.8% completions, 8.8 yards/attempt, 34 TD, 10 INT, 165 QB rating
Sam Bradford - 69.5% completions, 9.2 yards/attempt, 36 TD, 8 INT, 177 QB rating
These guys basically fell out of the crib and dominated. Call it coaching. Call it scheme. Call it situation.
I call it ability. If you're an NFL QB in college, you're supposed to dominate. So what if your coaching isn't great and your teammates are mediocre? You're playing against amateurs, 95% of whom will never start an NFL game. If you can't find a way to get it done, I don't like your chances in the NFL where everyone on the field is as good as the best players you faced in college.
Locker did okay in 2009. 58.2% completions, 7.0 yards/attempt, 21 TD, 11 INT, 130 QB rating. That's not awful, but it's not up to snuff with what you expect to see from an elite passer. I think he's closer to a Charlie Whitehurst/Stephen McGee/Kevin O'Connell than a Aaron Rodgers/Mark Sanchez/Sam Bradford. He's not a guy you draft in the first round. He's a guy you take in the middle rounds as a developmental backup with the hope that you can correct his bad habits.