Quantum physicists need not continue to pester me with tales of parallel universes existing in an infinite number of dimensions, for here in the Seattle sports world their theories have taken life.
In one universe, Washington quarterback Jake Locker is the team’s best player, a semi-finalist for a national award given to the nation’s best college QB, and a possible top five pick in next year’s NFL draft.
In another universe, Locker isn’t that good.
How else to explain the wildly different conclusions evident to our area’s sports fans? Thousands of Washingtonians buy Jake Locker’s #10 jersey. Locker gets the biggest cheers in pre-game introductions. And Seahawk fans (many of whom double as Husky adherents) want our NFL team to make Locker their quarterback after he leaves Washington.
And then there are other fans. Who note that the Huskies have lost 18 of Locker’s 24 starts. That Locker throws crippling interceptions. That he makes poor reads. That three freshman Pac-10 QBs have amassed better completion percentages and quarterback ratings than Locker.
Spurred by Locker-crazy visitors to his blog, astute Seahawks blogger John Morgan of the site Field Gulls scouted the Husky quarterback in Washington’s game against Oregon this weekend. He did not like what he saw.
(Locker) makes some curious reads and does not show consistent accuracy. Locker has a nice mix of touch and arm-strength, but those are secondary abilities, of little worth before a quarterback has mastered pocket-presence, read and accuracy. … He exhibits major red flags: pocket presence, decision making and consistent accuracy. … Locker must first prove he can be a great college quarterback before Seattle fans envision him a great Seahawks quarterback.
To be fair, Locker was struggling with a bruised quadriceps suffered early in the game. Still, a great college quarterback should be able to succeed without much mobility. Marshall University’s Byron Leftwich, a future NFLer, once led a 17-point comeback playing on a broken leg.
While there’s no question that Locker is the best athlete to play quarterback at Washington, athleticism is not important for a quarterback in a pro-style system like Steve Sarkisian’s.
Look no further than the Seahawks: Backup Seneca Wallace can dunk a basketball, while starter Matt Hasselbeck, with his wrecked back, would probably need a ladder just to touch the net. But Hasselbeck’s started the Seahawks’ only two wins this season. Wallace is 0 for 3.
Lord knows I’m rooting for Locker; I’m hopelessly addicted to Washington football, have been since I was four years old, and I’d prefer to see wins when I, inevitably, watch the games. (I’ve seen or heard every Husky game live since ’04 save one, and that one was because I was at a Husky basketball game. Yes, ladies, I’m single).
I tend to agree with Morgan, though. Locker may be a terrific, game-changing college player, but he isn’t NFL-ready. The Seahawks should be on the lookout for Matt Hasselbeck’s replacement, but Locker isn’t it.
Locker is not a great pro-style QB yet. However, he seems to be much better than any of the other “athletic” QB’s out there. I hope he stays at the UW next year to continue he crash course in quarterbacking. I’d also like to see him with an offensive line that is a bit better… though, I’d also like to see him run a bit more as well.
I tend to believe that he extreme athletic gifts, combined with his intelligence and work ethic will make him an NFL QB… just not next season. So, if he did go to the Hawks next year, he would need probably two years in the system until he could be ready. Unfortunately for him, most 1st round QB picks aren’t given that long.
Okay, after realizing how long that was, and how it was mostly built on optimism, I’ll let the real football guys continue the argument.
Jake Locker has a world of potential, but he’s not there yet, and he may never be.
With athletic skills and measurables well beyond the average quarterback, he’s been just that — average — more often than not as a Husky, especially on the biggest stages (LSU and USC excepted). Blame of it on his supporting cast — Swiss-cheese O-line, receivers with the dropsies, drive-killing penalties, etc. — but it ultimately comes down to his lack of consistency, judgment, and production, and his lack of suitability to the offense he’s being asked to run. Switching from whatever the f*** it was that Ty was running to Sarkisian’s pro-style scheme was never going to be an easy adjustment, even for a coach’s kid.
Yes, 2007 was impressive — 27 TDs (13 running); 3,000-plus yards of total offense, nearly a thousand on the ground — especially for a freshman. But even in his “breakout” year, his lack of accuracy was apparent — he completed less than half his throws and had more picks (15) than TD connections. Last season was a bust — the high point vs. BYU cruelly snatched away, the end coming abruptly on an ill-advised block vs. Stanford. Jake was much less effective running with the ball, about the same throwing it, albeit with a slightly higher completion percentage. His best number was zero — no picks in 93 attempts. The Huskies didn’t play well with him in charge of the offense but were worse without him, ending with the worst record not just in their history, but the Pac-10’s.
Under Sarkisian this year, he’s been a different player, being asked to do things that don’t necessarily play to his strengths, in an offense whose intention is to make him a better NFL prospect. Ironically, it’s actually done more to expose his serious lack of readiness to play at the next level. Saddled with another mediocre line, he’s throwing better, completing more passes (still only 56 percent, though). He’s been victimized to the tune of nearly five drops per game, but the most significant damage has been self-inflicted. He’s averaging a pick per game, and there have been far too many “pass … run? … pass!” moments resulting in incompletions or sacks (19 and counting, more than his 2007 total), The longer a play goes on, the less likely the outcome will be positive. His skills as an improviser. his spontaneity and burst — the qualities that used to keep defensive coordinators awake at night — are being neutered, by design, in an offensive scheme that values the ability to drop back, make good, quick decisions, and stay in the pocket — things he doesn’t do consistently well and will have to do much better to play on Sundays.
Running, the one element of Jake’s game that has set him apart throughout his career, is a relative afterthought in Sarkball — 75 attempts (many unscheduled) through two-thirds of the schedule, for a why-bother 2.8 yards per and four scores. A bump up in passing numbers can’t compensate for a ground effort that barely makes a blip. He’s doing all this for a 3-5 team that raised expectations after a signature win, failed to meet them, and is staring at 4-8 — not awful, but far short of where it looked to be headed six weeks ago.
And it was ridiculous a few weeks back when the reports came out concerning Chris Mortensen’s tweet about Locker as the top quarterback prospect in next year’s draft. That has much more to do with the lack of quality of that group — and with Locker’s potential if the lightbulb ever goes on — than with his on-field production. After two-plus seasons of play, he’s simply not yet a good major-college quarterback, and it’s a stretch to project him as a successful NFL quarterback. And with his successor Nick Montana — a prototypical pro-style signalcaller with the ultimate pedigree — arriving at Montlake next year, Jake needs to start thinking seriously about the Angels option, whether after this year or next. No one’s trying to crush your ribs or decapitate you on a major-league field, and his power and speed project to an above-average corner outfielder. A 10-year career, certainly longer than he’d last in the NFL, could produce a couple of nice contracts. Any NFL future could lie on the other side of the ball — at 6-3, 225, ideal size for a safety, he could take out some frustration on all those receivers who dropped his passes.