Your vote for Top QB in 2011 (for the 49ers)

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Go49erss:

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Go49erss:
Luck is probably not going to declare, so we should go with Cutler 2.0/ LOCKER!!!

Cutler? Is that a good or bad thing, I'm confused how are they comparable? Serious question

Both have rocket arms, iffy accuracy, and force throws into coverage which results in a lot of INT.

Locker is far from Cutler, Cutler is more of a pocket passer to Michael Vick 2.0.

Locker has a better arm and more accuracy than Michael Vick. And he's more clutch at the the end of games too BTW.

And even if Vick is your comparison. How is he doing this year? Compared to our situation?

How is Locker more accurate, right now he has a 53.8 comp/pct to Vick's 2000 year in college with a 54.0. As of right now the accuracy is spot on in terms of comparison, and I won't even count his first year starting 12 games which ended up being a 47.3 comp/pct. Lockers decision making isn't all that great either, INT's as of right now in his college career hes 43-29 TD/INT, that's pretty bad for a QB that runs a lot, and he only played in 4 games in 2008.

And speaking of clutch, what games was he clutch in, certainly not the first game against BYU or the Nebraska game, and I'm pretty sure its not his 4 games losing streak he was clutch in, in 2009.

But in terms of the Locker to Vick comparison, I think its pretty spot on. Well the Mike Vick of old, before 2010 at least, I don't know where the pocket passer Vick came from, but kudo's to Vick for learning how to pass (after what 8 or 9 years in the league).

Clutch is beating USC every time you play them even though USC is twice as good of a team. Willing your team to victory and carrying them on your back is a real good sign. He throws an accurate ball. He's good in the pocket. He has outstanding athleticism. He has the "it" factor. You bring up one Nebraska game yet you don't mention multiple USC games. Do you honestly think UW is anywhere near as good on a talent level compared to USC? How did they win those games?

Locker is Steve Young #2.

[ Edited by SanDiego49er on Oct 7, 2010 at 23:01:20 ]

Originally posted by spizzy:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Go49erss:

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Go49erss:
Luck is probably not going to declare, so we should go with Cutler 2.0/ LOCKER!!!

Cutler? Is that a good or bad thing, I'm confused how are they comparable? Serious question

Both have rocket arms, iffy accuracy, and force throws into coverage which results in a lot of INT.

Locker is far from Cutler, Cutler is more of a pocket passer to Michael Vick 2.0.

Locker has a better arm and more accuracy than Michael Vick. And he's more clutch at the the end of games too BTW.

And even if Vick is your comparison. How is he doing this year? Compared to our situation?

How is Locker more accurate, right now he has a 53.8 comp/pct to Vick's 2000 year in college with a 54.0. As of right now the accuracy is spot on in terms of comparison, and I won't even count his first year starting 12 games which ended up being a 47.3 comp/pct. Lockers decision making isn't all that great either, INT's as of right now in his college career hes 43-29 TD/INT, that's pretty bad for a QB that runs a lot, and he only played in 4 games in 2008.

And speaking of clutch, what games was he clutch in, certainly not the first game against BYU or the Nebraska game, and I'm pretty sure its not his 4 games losing streak he was clutch in, in 2009.

But in terms of the Locker to Vick comparison, I think its pretty spot on. Well the Mike Vick of old, before 2010 at least, I don't know where the pocket passer Vick came from, but kudo's to Vick for learning how to pass (after what 8 or 9 years in the league).

The Locker-Vick comparison is pretty fair I'd say. I'm a UW football nut so I've pretty much watched every game of Lockers. I'm not a homer, but I can definitely see both sides of the argument when it comes to Locker. I can see why all the scouts are blowing their loads watching this guy, and I can see why critics hate on him.

He is inaccurate, but I think it comes more from a fundamental standpoint. From his high school days (running wing t option) up until last year, Locker had been a straight option qb. Last year, Sark brought in USC's offense and Locker responded pretty well (58% completion percentage, not great but a hell of a lot better than it was before that). If you take out his Nebraska game, he is completing exactly 60% of his passes.

Speaking of Nebraska, if you guys watched the game you would see it was not ALL his fault. The entire UW team got manhandled. Physically and schematically. He was not put into a position to succeed, although I will admit that he made some very poor decisions.

The biggest thing Locker has going is POTENTIAL. If you knew anything about UW football, you would know that up until last year Locker has been on basically some of the worst teams talent-wise in Pac 10 history. If you flipped Locker for Tebow, I would bet my soul that he would have had even more success if thats even possible. And Locker is clutch. Sure you could point out the games that he didnt lead the dawgs to victory (BYU this year for instance) but he can only do so much. His two biggest games were against USC, and he willed his teams to victory.

In summary, Locker's tools (speed, arm strength, "it factor") can be either overlooked or appreciated compared to his negatives (shaky accuracy, questionable decision making). Personally, I believe that the only way Locker would succeed in the NFL is that he would have to go to a QB minded coach and sit behind a veteran for a couple years and work on fundamentals.

Under these conditions, then yes: He would be a Steve Young type player. I'm not saying that I would take him #1 overall, but it is very clear that if he can reach his POTENTIAL he is easily the best player in the draft.

I think it's this. He has the highest upside of anybody in the draft.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Go49erss:

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Go49erss:
Luck is probably not going to declare, so we should go with Cutler 2.0/ LOCKER!!!

Cutler? Is that a good or bad thing, I'm confused how are they comparable? Serious question

Both have rocket arms, iffy accuracy, and force throws into coverage which results in a lot of INT.

Locker is far from Cutler, Cutler is more of a pocket passer to Michael Vick 2.0.

Locker has a better arm and more accuracy than Michael Vick. And he's more clutch at the the end of games too BTW.

And even if Vick is your comparison. How is he doing this year? Compared to our situation?

How is Locker more accurate, right now he has a 53.8 comp/pct to Vick's 2000 year in college with a 54.0. As of right now the accuracy is spot on in terms of comparison, and I won't even count his first year starting 12 games which ended up being a 47.3 comp/pct. Lockers decision making isn't all that great either, INT's as of right now in his college career hes 43-29 TD/INT, that's pretty bad for a QB that runs a lot, and he only played in 4 games in 2008.

And speaking of clutch, what games was he clutch in, certainly not the first game against BYU or the Nebraska game, and I'm pretty sure its not his 4 games losing streak he was clutch in, in 2009.

But in terms of the Locker to Vick comparison, I think its pretty spot on. Well the Mike Vick of old, before 2010 at least, I don't know where the pocket passer Vick came from, but kudo's to Vick for learning how to pass (after what 8 or 9 years in the league).

Clutch is beating USC every time you play them even though USC is twice as good of a team. Willing your team to victory and carrying them on your back is a real good sign. He throws an accurate ball. He's good in the pocket. He has outstanding athleticism. He has the "it" factor. You bring up one Nebraska game yet you don't mention multiple USC games. Do you honestly think UW is anywhere near as good on a talent level compared to USC? How did they win those games?

Locker is Steve Young #2.

Settle down there champ with the Steve Young stuff, Locker hasn't even taken an NFL snap yet. For all we know he could be the next Ryan Leaf or better yet Eric Crouch.

But I get it, you're a Locker fan, like I said, I'm not saying he isn't good, but I just wouldn't spend a top 10 pick on him. And its not like I wouldn't want him as a 9er, its just that I'd pick Luck, Mallet and probably even Stanzi over him. I just prefer a pocket passer, a QB that will utilize his weapons around him more than just taking off.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Go49erss:

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Go49erss:
Luck is probably not going to declare, so we should go with Cutler 2.0/ LOCKER!!!

Cutler? Is that a good or bad thing, I'm confused how are they comparable? Serious question

Both have rocket arms, iffy accuracy, and force throws into coverage which results in a lot of INT.

Locker is far from Cutler, Cutler is more of a pocket passer to Michael Vick 2.0.

Locker has a better arm and more accuracy than Michael Vick. And he's more clutch at the the end of games too BTW.

And even if Vick is your comparison. How is he doing this year? Compared to our situation?

How is Locker more accurate, right now he has a 53.8 comp/pct to Vick's 2000 year in college with a 54.0. As of right now the accuracy is spot on in terms of comparison, and I won't even count his first year starting 12 games which ended up being a 47.3 comp/pct. Lockers decision making isn't all that great either, INT's as of right now in his college career hes 43-29 TD/INT, that's pretty bad for a QB that runs a lot, and he only played in 4 games in 2008.

And speaking of clutch, what games was he clutch in, certainly not the first game against BYU or the Nebraska game, and I'm pretty sure its not his 4 games losing streak he was clutch in, in 2009.

But in terms of the Locker to Vick comparison, I think its pretty spot on. Well the Mike Vick of old, before 2010 at least, I don't know where the pocket passer Vick came from, but kudo's to Vick for learning how to pass (after what 8 or 9 years in the league).

Clutch is beating USC every time you play them even though USC is twice as good of a team. Willing your team to victory and carrying them on your back is a real good sign. He throws an accurate ball. He's good in the pocket. He has outstanding athleticism. He has the "it" factor. You bring up one Nebraska game yet you don't mention multiple USC games. Do you honestly think UW is anywhere near as good on a talent level compared to USC? How did they win those games?

Locker is Steve Young #2.

Settle down there champ with the Steve Young stuff, Locker hasn't even taken an NFL snap yet. For all we know he could be the next Ryan Leaf or better yet Eric Crouch.

But I get it, you're a Locker fan, like I said, I'm not saying he isn't good, but I just wouldn't spend a top 10 pick on him. And its not like I wouldn't want him as a 9er, its just that I'd pick Luck, Mallet and probably even Stanzi over him. I just prefer a pocket passer, a QB that will utilize his weapons around him more than just taking off.

But that's the thing. He does a lot more than just take off. That's a misconception with Locker. He can throw from the pocket. Look at the USC games. He makes plenty of outstanding pocket throws.

I don't see the Eric Crouch comparison. Crouch is like a 4.7 guy in the 40. Locker may run in the high 4.3's. He's in the outstanding athlete category. At least 4.4. No comparison at all. It's night and day for athleticism between those two. I don't see any Ryan Leaf comparison. He's not a head case. Just a hard worker and and a great athlete.

You know there was a time around the NFL and SF fans too that people used to say Steve Young was not a pocket passer. All he does is take off and run... Just thought you should know people used to say the same about him.

Luck is the favored son on this site. And what a surprise... A Bay Area mostly site. They probably follow Stanford. Maybe even go to the games. Luck reminds me of Jim Drunkenmiller. He's big and real stiff. He's unathletic. If you look at the good throws he makes he has a brick wall in front of him and like 5 seconds of time. All 5 linemen blocking perfectly and maybe a back or extra TE. I'm not sure how well that will work for him in the pros. He won't get that much time. Not that I don't like him some. He throws a good ball if he has lots and lots of time.

[ Edited by SanDiego49er on Oct 7, 2010 at 23:44:55 ]

For the record Eric Crouch ran a 4.49 and a 4.45 at the Combine.

Andrew Luck and Jim Druckenmiller comparison.....argument is now over.

STANZI FTW!

Originally posted by Kolohe:
For the record Eric Crouch ran a 4.49 and a 4.45 at the Combine.

Andrew Luck and Jim Druckenmiller comparison.....argument is now over.

Crouch is 6'0". Locker is 6'3" 226 lbs. Big difference there. Plus Crouch was more pure runner. Locker can throw. A much better arm.

Luck and Druckenmiller are both real stiff QB's who need lots of time to throw. An accurate comparison.

[ Edited by SanDiego49er on Oct 8, 2010 at 00:01:54 ]

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
For the record Eric Crouch ran a 4.49 and a 4.45 at the Combine.

Andrew Luck and Jim Druckenmiller comparison.....argument is now over.

Crouch is 6'0". Locker is 6'3" 226 lbs. Big difference there. Plus Crouch was more pure runner. Locker can throw. A much better arm.

Luck and Druckenmiller are both real stiff QB's who need lots of time to throw. An accurate comparison.

I see the brakes pumping hard on this one, LOL.

First it was Crouch is a 4.7 guy, now hes 6 foot to Lockers 6'3".

You lose all credibility by your Luck and Druck comparison......no soup for you.

You do know that scouts are looking at Luck as the #1 overall pick right now if he declares for the draft, yes, even over your boy Locker.

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
For the record Eric Crouch ran a 4.49 and a 4.45 at the Combine.

Andrew Luck and Jim Druckenmiller comparison.....argument is now over.

Crouch is 6'0". Locker is 6'3" 226 lbs. Big difference there. Plus Crouch was more pure runner. Locker can throw. A much better arm.

Luck and Druckenmiller are both real stiff QB's who need lots of time to throw. An accurate comparison.

I see the brakes pumping hard on this one, LOL.

First it was Crouch is a 4.7 guy, now hes 6 foot to Lockers 6'3".

You lose all credibility by your Luck and Druck comparison......no soup for you.

You do know that scouts are looking at Luck as the #1 overall pick right now if he declares for the draft, yes, even over your boy Locker.

It's a big difference between 6'0" and 6'3". That's a world of difference for a QB.

Once upon a time Alex Smith was the #1 pick. So what does that mean? Scouts have so and so rated this or that... A lot more will be determined when they get to the pros and play a few years.

Don't get me wrong. I like some things Luck does. But he is big and stiff. He needs a lot of time to throw. I rarely if ever see him create something when the play breaks down. O Lines aren't perfect in the pros against outstanding pass rushers. I'm not 100% sold. I do believe Luck can throw pretty well if you give him LOTS of time. What happens if he doesn't have lots of time?

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:
For the record Eric Crouch ran a 4.49 and a 4.45 at the Combine.

Andrew Luck and Jim Druckenmiller comparison.....argument is now over.

Crouch is 6'0". Locker is 6'3" 226 lbs. Big difference there. Plus Crouch was more pure runner. Locker can throw. A much better arm.

Luck and Druckenmiller are both real stiff QB's who need lots of time to throw. An accurate comparison.

I see the brakes pumping hard on this one, LOL.

First it was Crouch is a 4.7 guy, now hes 6 foot to Lockers 6'3".

You lose all credibility by your Luck and Druck comparison......no soup for you.

You do know that scouts are looking at Luck as the #1 overall pick right now if he declares for the draft, yes, even over your boy Locker.

These comparisons don't mean s**t but he is right on the money when saying that Crouch cant even touch Locker on a physical standpoint. The dude is a legit 6'3 230, and runs a LEGIT 4.4 range 40. If you don't believe that (not saying you dont) youtube him.

Anyways, rating Luck above Locker is completely justified. Luck is more of a sure thing in terms of NFL translation. I don't agree that Luck is completely immobile, he's just nowhere near the athleticism of Locker.

Physically, there isn't a throw that Locker can't make that Luck can. It's just that right now, Locker doesn't have the confidence/experience in an NFL offense to make that read and make the throw. You can TRY and mold Locker into a pocket passer, but you can't mold Luck into the elite athlete Locker is.

Here's the thing, I could careless about my QB being an athlete, Peyton Manning is a horrible athlete but his football IQ is second to none. And Luck is still very young yet, hes already surpassed his freshman numbers in 5 games from what he did in 12. Luck has all the tools to start from day one in the NFL, can't say the same for Locker.

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Go49erss:

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Go49erss:
Luck is probably not going to declare, so we should go with Cutler 2.0/ LOCKER!!!

Cutler? Is that a good or bad thing, I'm confused how are they comparable? Serious question

Both have rocket arms, iffy accuracy, and force throws into coverage which results in a lot of INT.

Locker is far from Cutler, Cutler is more of a pocket passer to Michael Vick 2.0.

Locker has a better arm and more accuracy than Michael Vick. And he's more clutch at the the end of games too BTW.

And even if Vick is your comparison. How is he doing this year? Compared to our situation?

How is Locker more accurate, right now he has a 53.8 comp/pct to Vick's 2000 year in college with a 54.0. As of right now the accuracy is spot on in terms of comparison, and I won't even count his first year starting 12 games which ended up being a 47.3 comp/pct. Lockers decision making isn't all that great either, INT's as of right now in his college career hes 43-29 TD/INT, that's pretty bad for a QB that runs a lot, and he only played in 4 games in 2008.

And speaking of clutch, what games was he clutch in, certainly not the first game against BYU or the Nebraska game, and I'm pretty sure its not his 4 games losing streak he was clutch in, in 2009.

But in terms of the Locker to Vick comparison, I think its pretty spot on. Well the Mike Vick of old, before 2010 at least, I don't know where the pocket passer Vick came from, but kudo's to Vick for learning how to pass (after what 8 or 9 years in the league).

Clutch is beating USC every time you play them even though USC is twice as good of a team. Willing your team to victory and carrying them on your back is a real good sign. He throws an accurate ball. He's good in the pocket. He has outstanding athleticism. He has the "it" factor. You bring up one Nebraska game yet you don't mention multiple USC games. Do you honestly think UW is anywhere near as good on a talent level compared to USC? How did they win those games?

Locker is Steve Young #2.

Settle down there champ with the Steve Young stuff, Locker hasn't even taken an NFL snap yet. For all we know he could be the next Ryan Leaf or better yet Eric Crouch.

But I get it, you're a Locker fan, like I said, I'm not saying he isn't good, but I just wouldn't spend a top 10 pick on him. And its not like I wouldn't want him as a 9er, its just that I'd pick Luck, Mallet and probably even Stanzi over him. I just prefer a pocket passer, a QB that will utilize his weapons around him more than just taking off.

But that's the thing. He does a lot more than just take off. That's a misconception with Locker. He can throw from the pocket. Look at the USC games. He makes plenty of outstanding pocket throws.

I don't see the Eric Crouch comparison. Crouch is like a 4.7 guy in the 40. Locker may run in the high 4.3's. He's in the outstanding athlete category. At least 4.4. No comparison at all. It's night and day for athleticism between those two. I don't see any Ryan Leaf comparison. He's not a head case. Just a hard worker and and a great athlete.

You know there was a time around the NFL and SF fans too that people used to say Steve Young was not a pocket passer. All he does is take off and run... Just thought you should know people used to say the same about him.

Luck is the favored son on this site. And what a surprise... A Bay Area mostly site. They probably follow Stanford. Maybe even go to the games. Luck reminds me of Jim Drunkenmiller. He's big and real stiff. He's unathletic. If you look at the good throws he makes he has a brick wall in front of him and like 5 seconds of time. All 5 linemen blocking perfectly and maybe a back or extra TE. I'm not sure how well that will work for him in the pros. He won't get that much time. Not that I don't like him some. He throws a good ball if he has lots and lots of time.

Have you even seen him play?

Originally posted by TexasNiner84:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by SanDiego49er:

Originally posted by Kolohe:

Originally posted by Go49erss:

Originally posted by teeohh:

Originally posted by Go49erss:
Luck is probably not going to declare, so we should go with Cutler 2.0/ LOCKER!!!

Cutler? Is that a good or bad thing, I'm confused how are they comparable? Serious question

Both have rocket arms, iffy accuracy, and force throws into coverage which results in a lot of INT.

Locker is far from Cutler, Cutler is more of a pocket passer to Michael Vick 2.0.

Locker has a better arm and more accuracy than Michael Vick. And he's more clutch at the the end of games too BTW.

And even if Vick is your comparison. How is he doing this year? Compared to our situation?

How is Locker more accurate, right now he has a 53.8 comp/pct to Vick's 2000 year in college with a 54.0. As of right now the accuracy is spot on in terms of comparison, and I won't even count his first year starting 12 games which ended up being a 47.3 comp/pct. Lockers decision making isn't all that great either, INT's as of right now in his college career hes 43-29 TD/INT, that's pretty bad for a QB that runs a lot, and he only played in 4 games in 2008.

And speaking of clutch, what games was he clutch in, certainly not the first game against BYU or the Nebraska game, and I'm pretty sure its not his 4 games losing streak he was clutch in, in 2009.

But in terms of the Locker to Vick comparison, I think its pretty spot on. Well the Mike Vick of old, before 2010 at least, I don't know where the pocket passer Vick came from, but kudo's to Vick for learning how to pass (after what 8 or 9 years in the league).

Clutch is beating USC every time you play them even though USC is twice as good of a team. Willing your team to victory and carrying them on your back is a real good sign. He throws an accurate ball. He's good in the pocket. He has outstanding athleticism. He has the "it" factor. You bring up one Nebraska game yet you don't mention multiple USC games. Do you honestly think UW is anywhere near as good on a talent level compared to USC? How did they win those games?

Locker is Steve Young #2.

Settle down there champ with the Steve Young stuff, Locker hasn't even taken an NFL snap yet. For all we know he could be the next Ryan Leaf or better yet Eric Crouch.

But I get it, you're a Locker fan, like I said, I'm not saying he isn't good, but I just wouldn't spend a top 10 pick on him. And its not like I wouldn't want him as a 9er, its just that I'd pick Luck, Mallet and probably even Stanzi over him. I just prefer a pocket passer, a QB that will utilize his weapons around him more than just taking off.

But that's the thing. He does a lot more than just take off. That's a misconception with Locker. He can throw from the pocket. Look at the USC games. He makes plenty of outstanding pocket throws.

I don't see the Eric Crouch comparison. Crouch is like a 4.7 guy in the 40. Locker may run in the high 4.3's. He's in the outstanding athlete category. At least 4.4. No comparison at all. It's night and day for athleticism between those two. I don't see any Ryan Leaf comparison. He's not a head case. Just a hard worker and and a great athlete.

You know there was a time around the NFL and SF fans too that people used to say Steve Young was not a pocket passer. All he does is take off and run... Just thought you should know people used to say the same about him.

Luck is the favored son on this site. And what a surprise... A Bay Area mostly site. They probably follow Stanford. Maybe even go to the games. Luck reminds me of Jim Drunkenmiller. He's big and real stiff. He's unathletic. If you look at the good throws he makes he has a brick wall in front of him and like 5 seconds of time. All 5 linemen blocking perfectly and maybe a back or extra TE. I'm not sure how well that will work for him in the pros. He won't get that much time. Not that I don't like him some. He throws a good ball if he has lots and lots of time.

Have you even seen him play?

Yes I have. He needs lots of time to throw.

[ Edited by SanDiego49er on Oct 8, 2010 at 00:58:47 ]

Originally posted by Kolohe:
Here's the thing, I could careless about my QB being an athlete, Peyton Manning is a horrible athlete but his football IQ is second to none. And Luck is still very young yet, hes already surpassed his freshman numbers in 5 games from what he did in 12. Luck has all the tools to start from day one in the NFL, can't say the same for Locker.

I like Luck if he has lots of time to throw. But we don't have that with our line. Locker is ready day one. His pocket presence is great. Go back and look at the USC games. He makes plays from the pocket and has very good football IQ.

I like Locker and I wouldn't mind picking him up. But I disagree with everything you've said about Luck