2011 NFL Draft

[GTripp0012]

Michael Vick completed 54% of his passes in 2000, then came out and made multiple pro bowls. I think that may be the answer. But what if we exclude Vick as part of the past generation?

(Mark Brunell, after all completed about what Jake Locker did at Washington, but in a different era. Anyway, I don't want players who played college ball in the 90s).

[Swarley]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

Does anyone know who the last quarterback who started fewer than 27 games and completed fewer than 60% of his passes AND had considerable NFL success was? I'd say there's some guys you just don't take.

Let's simplify this: I want to find the quarterback with the LOWEST college completion percentage to be drafted in the last ten years and achieve some reasonable degree of success. I am guessing that we're going to be dealing with a 58% or better passer.

Brett Favre's college completion percentage was 52.4% according to this:

When are QB accuracy rates important? - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

I doubt Minnesota is serious about taking a QB at #12. They're built to win now and will likely look to add a veteran QB like McNabb to make another run. And they already have a young QB to develop in Webb. Plus it's not as if Locker is our only QB target, or even our top option.

Matty is correct. I would add that Locker does not fit Minny's system the way he fits ours.

It seems unlikely that Minny would take Locker at #12.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GreekSkin

Brett Favre's college completion percentage was 52.4% according to this:

When are QB accuracy rates important? - NFL Nation Blog - ESPN

That's why he is the all-time leader in INTERCEPTIONS.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by Dirtbag59

Jake Locker: Mayock, Gruden say Locker fits Redskins
Jake Locker - QB - CLG - Apr. 21 - 9:38 am et
NFL Network's Mike Mayock and ESPN's Jon Gruden agree that Washington QB Jake Locker is a good fit for the Redskins' offense.
NFLN's Mike Lombardi is in this same boat as the idea of Locker going 10th gains steam a week before the draft. "Locker likes getting out on the edge and he’s mostly accurate off play-action rolling out," Mayock said. "That’s what Mike Shanahan’s scheme is. ... If (Locker) has a chance to play early and play effectively, I think that’s the kind of system he’s set up for." Apr. 21 - 9:38 am et
Source: Washington Post

Locker's is very accurate when throwing on the run. That is probably the first thing that I noticed about him that I really liked. Remember how deadly Joe Theismann was in the Red Zone when he rolled out? I think that's what I was seeing in Locker. And Jake is an even better runner than Joe was.

Another thing that I liked about Locker when I saw him play was that when he was forced out of the pocket he kept his eyes downfield and made a number of big passing plays down the field. He can really keep a play alive.

I know that he needs some work on a few things, but I believe that this guy can play well in the NFL. Now I read that Mike Mayock and Jon Gruden think that Locker is a good fit for the offense we run and I think that I'm finally convinced that he should be our pick at #10.

BTW, there has been a lot said in the media about how Mike Shanahan would have taken Locker at #4 last year. If that's true, then why wouldn't Mike take Locker at #10 this year?

[GTripp0012]

David Garrard: 54.5% in final two college seasons.
Brooks Bollinger: 52%
Sage Rosenfels: 51% in 2000
Derek Anderson: 51%

I'll finish this research later, but I'm seeing mostly NFL backups with a David Garrard sighting. I would make a point that Locker could possibly be the next Garrard, but if he gets drafted in the first two rounds, he's on a different career path from the get go.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by GTripp0012

David Garrard: 54.5% in final two college seasons.
Brooks Bollinger: 52%
Sage Rosenfels: 51% in 2000
Derek Anderson: 51%

I'll finish this research later, but I'm seeing mostly NFL backups with a David Garrard sighting. I would make a point that Locker could possibly be the next Garrard, but if he gets drafted in the first two rounds, he's on a different career path from the get go.

Shouldn't you add the qualifiers of "while running for his life behind a poor offensive line, being asked to carry the ball as much as a starting RB, and playing with bad receivers"? That would make any comparisons more fair.

BTW, of the players you listed, only Garrard could be considered to be anywhere near as mobile as Locker and he is currently the only NFL starter among them. Mobility is an aspect of Locker's game that is discounted in your analysis.

Disclaimer: I am a Locker supporter.

[NC_Skins]

It's going to be interesting on who they draft to say the least, but I keep hearing how the Skins house is divided on which QB is better. It had been said that some of the Skins scouts thought Locker was a younger version of McNabb, which makes you wonder why you would draft a guy just like the one you just benched.


What makes me nervous about this whole thing is that there obviously is a difference of opinions on QBs, between the head coach and the offensive coordinator. Normally that probably wouldn't mean much, but this duo happens to be father and son. Also, it's obvious Mike chose to go the McNabb route while it was rumored that Kyle didn't want him to begin with.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the Skins war room on draft day.

[KI Skins Fan]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's going to be interesting on who they draft to say the least, but I keep hearing how the Skins house is divided on which QB is better. It had been said that some of the Skins scouts thought Locker was a younger version of McNabb, which makes you wonder why you would draft a guy just like the one you just benched.
What makes me nervous about this whole thing is that there obviously is a difference of opinions on QBs, between the head coach and the offensive coordinator. Normally that probably wouldn't mean much, but this duo happens to be father and son. Also, it's obvious Mike chose to go the McNabb route while it was rumored that Kyle didn't want him to begin with.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the Skins war room on draft day.

That's an easy question to answer: it's because the younger version of McNabb was a much better player than the current version.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SmootSmack

Just for clarity me saying maybe they'll take Locker at 14 is just my own speculation

I think the Shanny will take Locker at 14 if the move back happens. I dont see it at 10. I think Minnesota will give Locker very strong consideration at 12as well, I bet they have Locker in their top 3 at 12.

My personal opinion is Quinn or Locker are not very good choices at either for us.

[Alvin Walton]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's going to be interesting on who they draft to say the least, but I keep hearing how the Skins house is divided on which QB is better. It had been said that some of the Skins scouts thought Locker was a younger version of McNabb, which makes you wonder why you would draft a guy just like the one you just benched.


What makes me nervous about this whole thing is that there obviously is a difference of opinions on QBs, between the head coach and the offensive coordinator. Normally that probably wouldn't mean much, but this duo happens to be father and son. Also, it's obvious Mike chose to go the McNabb route while it was rumored that Kyle didn't want him to begin with.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the Skins war room on draft day.

If it was the much younger McNabb version I'd be very glad to have him.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's going to be interesting on who they draft to say the least, but I keep hearing how the Skins house is divided on which QB is better. It had been said that some of the Skins scouts thought Locker was a younger version of McNabb, which makes you wonder why you would draft a guy just like the one you just benched.


What makes me nervous about this whole thing is that there obviously is a difference of opinions on QBs, between the head coach and the offensive coordinator. Normally that probably wouldn't mean much, but this duo happens to be father and son. Also, it's obvious Mike chose to go the McNabb route while it was rumored that Kyle didn't want him to begin with.

I'd like to be a fly on the wall in the Skins war room on draft day.

Because you have the chance to mold him and coach him up in your scheme.

[skinsfaninok]

If Shanny believes JL is his franchise QB of the future , he would take him at 5, so I wouldn't be shocked at all if he's our guy at 10.

[celts32]

Originally Posted by Lotus

Matty is correct. I would add that Locker does not fit Minny's system the way he fits ours.

It seems unlikely that Minny would take Locker at #12.

Well all this talk about which QB fits our system seems to hinge around which coach you are talking about. Everything I am reading lately makes it sound like Kyle likes Dalton who is more of a pocket Qb like Schaub and Mike is the one who likes the mobil type like Locker. I hope this is not true becasue I would like to think they are all 100% invested in whatever QB they end up taking.

[Dirtbag59]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

I think the Shanny will take Locker at 14 if the move back happens. I dont see it at 10. I think Minnesota will give Locker very strong consideration at 12as well, I bet they have Locker in their top 3 at 12.

My personal opinion is Quinn or Locker are not very good choices at either for us.

I don't see why they wouldn't take Locker at 10 but would be willing to take him 4 spots later at 14. If you think a guys your franchise QB you try moving back if you feel confident you can get him after the trade, but you don't pass him up when you can't find the trade you're looking for.

Originally Posted by Mattyk

Because you have the chance to mold him and coach him up in your scheme.

That seems to be the company line, or at least the whispers coming out of Redskin park. Basically McNabb had a track record of success and wasn't really looking to come in and retool his game. He might be willing to accept more coaching with his next team, but just as easily he might just ask the coaching staff to let him improvise.

Shanahan's system is suppose to be QB friendly. It's suppose to let guys get away with 58%-60% completion rates in exchange for selling play action and getting the ball down the field. For whatever reason McNabb seemed to insist on working outside the system and the mechanics the Shanahans wanted to employ and it resulted in him being benched for the last 3 games.

The theory with Locker is that he has a very similar skill set to McNabb but at the same time doesn't know the NFL and has experienced a recent fall from grace. Making him twice as likely to soak up everything the Shanahan's teach him in hopes that it will help him prove that he belongs in this league.

Hopefully that theory, if true will work out for the Skins if they decide to draft him.