Little kid Brett Favre wore #10 and played for the Hawks. I rest my case.

Posted by Kip Earlywine

The other day I was reading SB nation’s Seahawks blog Fieldgulls, and a certain article caught my eye, site-author Danny Kelly’s interview with veteran NFL scout Dave Razzano, who’s not currently active but has worked in the NFL as far back as the 1980s.  I’ll get this out of the way and mention that you might not agree with everything Mr. Razzano says, including his obvious man-crush on Nate Davis, his dismissive words for Ryan Mallett and his opinion that Russell Okung isn’t very athletic and is better served at right tackle.  But sometimes even a person you disagree with has the capability of providing unique and interesting insights from time to time.  Here is what Razzano had to say about how he looks at Jake Locker, known to be a high profile target for the Seahawks should he reach #25:

Jake Locker, to me, is a Brett Favre clone and the same things people say about Locker they said about Favre coming out of S Mississippi. Poor accuracy, can’t read defenses etc. Not shocked when I checked out favre’s total college stats vs Locker and they were identical Favre in college….55 td 35 int 53.2% completion. Locker…53 td 35 int 53.6 completion percentage. This is why you can’t put emphasis on the stat sheet. Most of the stats is the team you are on and the system. Joe Montana did not have overly impressive stats coming out of Notre Dame. When you studied him closely he made plays when team needed them most..Had “winner” written all over him, just like Locker does today.

I wasn’t even 10 years old when Favre played his final college snap, and I barely watched college football.  When I did, I sure as hell wasn’t watching Southern Mississippi games, and as such I can provide zero insight into how a young Jake Locker would compare to a young Brett Favre.  However, like anyone not living in a cave the last 20 years, I know plenty about Brett Favre, NFL quarterback.  And considering that, I’m surprised I didn’t make this connection on my own, since, you know, Brett Favre is one of the most famous and over-exposed NFL players in the history of Earth.

Brett Favre is 6’2″, 222 lbs.  Locker is 6’2.5″, 231 lbs.  Locker raised concerns among some for scoring only a 20 on the wonderlic test.  Brett Favre scored a 22.  Both were the star attractions of their college teams with very little supporting talent.  Both are exceptionally mobile quarterbacks at their best on the move (I’ve read Favre ran a 4.60 forty coming out of college), and both have strong right arms with similar mechanics.  And while Locker could very well be drafted 10th or 12th, if he gets past Minnesota, he’ll likely slip to the late 1st or early 2nd round, the place where most analysts believe he “should” be selected.  Brett Favre himself was picked near the very beginning of round 2 (#33 overall).  Though Favre was famous for not missing games, he took a beating and constantly played hurt.  So did Locker at Washington.  Favre sat his first season in the league and didn’t become a starter until his 2nd year.  Similarly, Locker is a guy you probably would wait a year before pressing into action.  And then of course you have the incredible statistical similarities Razzano mentions.  I don’t put a ton of stock into college stats, but that is a remarkably close comparison.

Already, we’ve got a pretty stunning list of similarities between the two, but the biggest similarity of them all is the mentality both players share.  Locker doesn’t slide.  He lowers the shoulder and powers through.  Though Sarkisian reigned in Locker somewhat in 2009 and especially in 2010 by specifically coaching him to throw the ball away more, you could always tell that Locker’s preference was to force passes into tight windows, completely trusting his incredible arm.  As it turns out, the “wilder” version of Jake Locker seen in 2009 was a lot better than the “safer” version we saw in 2010.  My initial diagnosis of Locker was that he’d go to a tightly controlled environment and continue his progress at being a safer quarterback, very similar to when Mike Shanahan salvaged Jake Plummer by beating those gunslinger habits out of him.  But I’m now beginning to wonder if playing it safe with Locker does his talent injustice.  Brett Favre is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all time, and he’s also the NFL’s all time interception leader.  Perhaps like Favre, Locker could loosen up his game somewhat at the expense of suffering more interceptions, with a tradeoff in yardage and touchdowns that makes up for it and then some.

I guess its worth wondering what type of approach Seattle would take to Locker.  The connection Carroll shares with Steve Sarkisian is impossible to ignore, and judging by the highly structured offense the team played Charlie Whitehurst in during week 17, it would suggest a similar “simplify and limit mistakes” approach could be in play for a young, learning quarterback.  Darrell Bevell’s resume reads to me like that of a mousy “yes-man” offensive coordinator, and though he answers to Pete Carroll, make no mistake, he’ll be the one drawing up the plays and building this offense.  Given Bevell’s experience and success with Brett Favre in Minnesota, its possible that Locker could be given the same leeway to make plays as Favre was afforded.

Obviously, Brett Favre represents an absolute best case scenario for Jake Locker, but if Locker becomes a Seahawk, the comparison is a lot of fun to think about.  And of course, if the Redskins or Vikings feel this way about Locker, then you can probably forget about him lasting to #25, even if they don’t select him 10th or 12th.  If Locker reaches #24, you better believe the Saints will be fielding some interesting calls, particularly Washington who would have no other choice but to offer future picks.  Why was it that Tampa Bay dealt a late round pick just to move up a mere two spots for Josh Freeman, knowing that the team in front of them wasn’t a serious threat?  Because they were wise enough to know how obvious of a landing spot they were, and it was very possible a team behind them could leap up and screw them out of a future franchise quarterback.  So for almost no cost at all, Tampa eliminated that possibility, in what was probably the single most intelligent trade of that entire draft.  If Locker is there at #23, Seattle should take a page from Tampa’s draft playbook and make a move.

The quarterback situation Seattle faces entering this draft is eerily similar to the one they faced in 1991, fresh off of parting ways with Seattle’s other great quarterback, Dave Krieg.  Seattle needed a new quarterback, and was willing to spend a 1st round pick on the position.  This isn’t a comparison I’d personally make, but a lot of people have compared Ryan Mallett to another 6’7″ quarterback who went in the mid-1st round that year:  Dan McGwire.  Then coach Chuck Knox, as well as the majority of the scouting department, furiously protested the selection of McGwire and had their hearts set on a different, more mobile quarterback.  But Ken Behring had his heart set on Mark McGwire’s little brother, and the rest is history.  That other quarterback Knox and company wanted so badly?  Brett Favre.

Edit 4/24:  Razzano is interviewed my Michael Silver, its worth a read.  Like the Seahawks, Razzano is a huge fan of Colin Kaepernick but likes Jake Locker even more.

The highlights haven't even started yet and I'm already entertained

Posted by Kip Earlywine

Highlights:

Strengths:

• Highly mobile with excellent acceleration and top speed
• Good running instincts
• Excellent pocket awareness
• Evasive both inside the pocket and outside it
• Gaudy career total statistics
• Accuracy took a big step forward in 2010 (65%)
• Low Interception totals
• Lightning fast arm speed (throws 95 mph and was drafted as a pitcher)
• Showed some capability of checking more than one read
• Mechanics improved as the season went on
• Very nice zip on passes short, middle and deep
• Great leadership, intangibles, coach-ability, character, hard-worker
• Ideal “wholesome” face of the franchise just like Jake Locker
• Some big time individual performances against quality competition
• Tons of college level experience
• Playmaker with speed that rivals or even exceeds Newton and Locker
• Remarkably durable in college (just one injury: ankle in ’08)
• Very high ceiling

Weaknesses:

• Worrisome “hitch” in his throwing motion, though in some games it wasn’t there (!)
• Sometimes struggles with touch on short throws
• Played in a “Pistol” offense, not much under-center experience
• Only checks 2nd read as a last resort, panics and takes off too much and too early
• Won’t get to run for 1000 yards a year in the pros
• Weak overall competition (WAC conference)
• Skinny Frame, needs to add some bulk… I worry about durability at the next level
• Comically bad ball security (holds the ball almost like “shake weights” when running)
• Runs with high center of gravity
• Needs to learn a lot; not likely to contribute immediately

Impressions:

Its not surprising to me our front office has a glimmer in the eye for quarterback Colin Kaepernick.  Kaepernick reminds me a lot of emerging phenom Josh Freeman, just in a skinnier body.  Both are guys who build their game off of running the ball to open up the pass, and throw well on the move.  The thing that makes Freeman a special talent is his sometimes ridiculous ability to sense and avoid pressure in the pocket, and though Kaepernick isn’t playing against the same caliber of opponents, that same trait is there, and it will serve him well in the NFL.  Pete Carroll saw Freeman work his magic against the Seahawks last season.  I wouldn’t doubt if he had called up John Schneider right after that game and said “I want a quarterback like that.”  Then again, who wouldn’t?

Colin Kaepernick can be a quarterback like that.  But it would probably take a least a couple years for him to reach that level.  He needs to learn the pro-style offense, and he needs to be more disciplined on making reads, running the ball less, staying calm under pressure and holding the ball properly when he does run.  You could say a lot of those same things about Jake Locker, except Locker doesn’t need to add weight and looks closer to being ready in my opinion. So in a way, you could say that Kaepernick is somewhat of a poor-man’s Jake Locker.  I’d be a little surprised if Kaepernick leaves the board before Locker does.

I recently read on Seahawks.net that “Seattle Seahawks” is an anagram for “Weak-ass athletes.”  I decided to take a look at “Colin Kaepernick” and see what anagrams it produced, and would you believe it, one of the results was “Inane Locker pick.”  Anagrams are such jerks.

First round Senior quarterbacks bust at a significantly lower rate than first round Juniors. So why is it that most great prospects declare early? Because of possibilities like Locker's 2010 season.

Posted by Kip Earlywine

Foreword: If anyone believes they are unbiased, then you can assume that they are either delusional fools or petty narcissists.  I try my best to be upfront about my biases and give a good effort to work around them, but they will always exist and play a role in my thinking, and sometimes I’m not even aware of it.  So I have to be up front when I saw that I am a diehard Washington Huskies fan, and have been since 1990, just slightly before I became a Seahawks fan.  As such, its probably impossible for me to give you an 100% unbiased view of Jake Locker, so instead I will try my hardest to give you 99%.

If you follow the Huskies, then you probably remember that just the mere news of Jake Locker committing to Washington was earth-shattering.  After all, Locker was considered by some to be a top 10 quarterback prospect nationally and a guy who grew up about a 90 minute drive north of Seattle.    When Locker made this commitment, Washington was fresh off a 2-9 record, and a 1-10 record prior to that.  The Huskies had been one of the worst BCS eligible teams in the nation for several years by this point, and Locker was seen as a messianic figure to many of the Huskies faithful.  Everyone knows that great teams begin with great quarterbacks.  It was guys like Sonny Sixkiller and Warren Moon that put Washington on the map to begin with.  Warren Moon won games by himself, and with winning comes better recruiting, and a team could get back on its feet in a competition where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

Coming out of high school, Locker dominated leading his team to a 14-0 state title winning season.  During that year he passed for 1603 yards and 25 touchdowns, while also rushing for 1329 yards and 24 touchdowns.  It was a season like one Ladainian Tomlinson would enjoy, if Tomlinson just threw the ball a little more.  After Redshirting in 2006, Locker made his college debut by crushing Syracuse 42-12 on the road.  Syracuse was hardly a powerhouse, but they weren’t Portland State either.  Beating a “real” team in a blowout road win, largely thanks to 83 rushing yards and two touchdowns from the quarterback position, set the tone for a season in which Locker nearly rushed for 1000 yards, which was a school rookie record (later broken by Chris Polk).  Locker led the Huskies to a convincing 24-10 win over Boise State the next week- and like a manager who sticks with the hot hand, Tyrone Willingham wasn’t in the biggest rush to develop Locker when just a raw athlete playing his game was winning and winning big.

That short-term mindset came to roost the next season, when Locker started battling injuries due to running too much and too physically, including a broken thumb that shelved him for the entire 2nd half of the year in Washington’s infamous and historic 0-11 season.  Admittedly, the Huskies played a brutal schedule and couldn’t catch a break (“unsportsmanlike” celebration against BYU anyone?), but excuses aside, the Huskies were a wretched team and even a struggling Jake Locker was clearly the best player they had.

When you hear people talk about how Locker is really a sophomore quarterback and not a senior, this is what they mean.  Locker may have been a 5th year senior last year, but he only played two years within Sarkisian’s system, and just a year and a half before that for a coach that didn’t want to mess with a successful but unrefined quarterback.  So while I dislike using the word “raw” in regards to Jake Locker, he’s still relatively new to the system we now judge him by, and further improvement in some areas of concern is reasonable to hope for.

Strengths:

• Elite athleticism and bulk for the position
• Excellent acceleration and top speed
• Good ball security when running
• Instinctive runner
• Runs like a fullback, can power through tackles when he takes off
• Outstanding execution on designed runs
• Sells play action very well
• Disciplined: willing to throw the ball away to avoid negative plays
• Good throwing mechanics, ball comes out at 3/4 at worst
• Quick release
• A natural when running bootlegs
• Over 70% completion rate outside the pocket
• Elite level talent rolling to his left
• Good evade and juke outside the pocket
• Surprisingly good deep accuracy and touch
• Very good arm strength
• Smooth, quick drop back.
• Very strong work ethic
• Natural leader, fiery competitor
• Has strong character
• Not easily discouraged or demoralized, battles through every snap
• Has a few truly dominant games each year
• Occasionally makes “wow” plays, can fill a highlight reel
• Good in a 2 minute offense, strong in the 4th quarter and overtime
• Played in a pro-style offense
• Makes pre-snap reads and audibles
• Completion rate is better than it looks, he suffered about 3 drops a game
• Supporting cast was more bad than good, played college football’s toughest schedule in 2010

Weaknesses:

• An alarmingly high number of injuries
• Hardly ever shies away from contact
• A completely different quarterback when playing hurt or without mobility
• His speed won’t have quite the same impact at the next level
• Erratic ball placement when passing in the pocket
• Alarmingly low completion rate from within the pocket
• Surprisingly bad pocket awareness and evasiveness in the pocket
• Unnatural footwork except when on the run
• Highly inconsistent game to game
• More mediocre performances than great ones
• Rarely checks his 2nd read
• Occasionally locks on to his receivers
• Trusts his arm too much sometimes and throws into small windows
• “Mechanical” quarterback who executes plays instead of creating them
• Is probably near his ceiling mentally
• Benefited from a pretty good running game
• Rest of the team bailed him out at the end of 2010

Conclusion:

If every  GM was like Peter King and only watched highlight videos to form opinions on prospects, Jake Locker would be in strong consideration to go #1 overall.  I mean that somewhat as a compliment- his flaws take some digging to find but his talent and play-making ability is plainly evident.  Taken on the whole, Jake Locker is like a 3rd round prospect with moments where he looks like a guy who’d go top 5.  If you only saw Locker play one game last year, and that game was USC or Oregon State, you’d wonder how he wasn’t a top 10 lock.  Or, if you saw him play Nebraska or UCLA, you’d wonder why anyone would draft him as a quarterback at all.

In fairness, I don’t really blame Locker for the Nebraska game, his receivers were draped in coverage and out of 20 pass attempts he had a wide open receiver to throw to just once.  Perhaps Blaine Gabbert or Ryan Mallett would experience better results in a similar predicament, but neither of those quarterbacks had to deal with the talent discrepancy Locker did in games like Nebraska or Stanford so its impossible to know.  In the college game, there is a bigger gulf that separates the best from the worst compared to the NFL, so I’m not really worried about Locker facing another Nebraska situation again.  Corners will be better, but at least he’ll have NFL caliber receivers to throw to avoid facing a situation like that again.

Locker is a safe quarterback who avoids mistakes most of the time.  I respect a quarterback who throws the ball away and takes an incompletion over a sack or interception, though this is something Locker had to do a lot in 2010.  Whereas Mallett hardly ever threw the ball away because he always found a good target, Locker often makes just one or two reads to one side of the field, if he doesn’t find anything, he either tucks and runs or throws the ball away.  That’s disappointingly limited, and though I can’t say for sure, I suspect he’ll probably never become the kind of guy who checks three or four reads with regularity.  Just a hunch based on the fact that he didn’t seem to grow in this regard over the last two years.    Of course, you don’t have to scan the whole field with regularity to be a good quarterback, and in fact most NFL quarterbacks don’t, including (from my own observation), Matt Hasselbeck even in his prime.  Still, it would be nice if Locker was better at finding open wide recievers, because he throws the ball away quite a lot and by his own admission its one of the biggest contributors to his low completion rate.

Speaking of completion rate, can Locker be a 60% passer in the NFL?  I believe he can, but only in an offense that moves him out of the pocket as much as possible so that his stellar mobile accuracy can help compensate for his weak pocket accuracy.  All the talk about fixing Locker’s “shortstop” stride is neat and all, but its just impossible to tell if it will make any real difference.  Some believe it will, and that’s why Locker is being talked about as an early to mid 1st rounder right now.

My two biggest worries with Locker are his mental cieling and his health history.  If you watch Locker play closely, you will notice that every motion he makes looks choreographed.  I give Locker points for good execution, but I think its clear by now that if he was an artist, he’d be limited to tracing over someone else’s image rather than sketch his own.  As said before, he’s still relatively new to a pro-style offense and so its not completely unreasonable to hold out hope that with time he’ll become more natural in the pocket, but to me he looks like a trained animal out there when he isn’t rolling out- and I suspect that what you see is what you’ll get in this regard.

In terms of injuries, Locker does not shy from contact and this led to plenty of “ding-up” injuries like concussions, broken fingers, strained hamstrings, and so forth.  Locker may be built like a fullback, but he’s still human.  I think Locker is probably going to have a solid career if he’s picked by the right team, but unless he learns to avoid contact, he’s going to flat out suck, because when he’s hurt he isn’t mobile, and when he isn’t mobile, he isn’t the least bit accurate or effective.  One of the reasons Locker’s stats look so bad over his career is because he played with at least a minor injury in the vast majority of his games.

Still, its important to remember why we’re even talking about Locker as a 1st rounder at all.  Lets not forget that this is a guy who can turn a botched snap and broken play into a 15 yard touchdown run, as he once did against Arizona.  Cam Newton aside, Locker is the ultimate playmaker quarterback in this draft, making big plays with both his arm and his legs.  While I don’t expect Locker to be putting up huge rushing totals in the pros, he’s as fast as Dexter McCluster, and McCluster had a 94 yard punt return last year.  So I fully expect the homerun ability to remain at least somewhat intact when he takes off.

NFL comparison: Vince Young

People seem to have forgotten, but Michael Vick was once a “failed” quarterback.  As it turns out, Vick just needed to go to the right team and play in the right system to reach his amazing potential.  Right now, Vince Young is in a very similar career cross-roads where it seems everyone has given up on him and become disenchanted with his obvious physical talent.  Maybe Vince Young will get traded to the right team and save his career the same way Vick did, or maybe he won’t and he’ll go down as one of the bigger draft busts of the last decade.  Vick and Young are alike in the sense that even when they struggled, they still won more games than they lost, because stats like passer rating don’t account those 16 yard runs on 3rd and 8 in the 4th quarter.  Locker didn’t have a winning record thanks to a team around him that, aside from Chris Polk, was mostly terrible, but I think on a typical NFL team, Locker could be a kindred spirit to Vick/Young by posting sub-mediocre passing stats and still winning games.  And on the right team, a team that plays Locker to his strengths while minimizing his weaknesses, he could be a good quarterback with flashes of greatness.  He’s good enough to perhaps win a Superbowl in a magical type of season where he strings together several great performances at the right time, like Eli Manning did in 2007.

Is Seattle the right team?  Possibly, yes.  Locker would have been the perfect fit for Jeremy Bates who runs a ton of play action, roll outs, and deep passes, all major strengths for Locker.  We’ve been told to expect that Bevell does not mark a dramatic shift away from the kind of scheme Bates used, and if that’s true, then Locker would still be a great fit here.  I once worried that Locker would suffer from lofty hometown expectations given his legendary status at Washington, but it seems that in the last 8 months even the locals have really cooled on him and expectations would be tempered and moderate.

Josh Freeman is a popular and flattering comp for Locker, but its one I hesitate to make because Freeman’s biggest skill, his ability to move around and make things happen from within the pocket, is actually one of Locker’s bigger weaknesses.  Still, there is some truth in the comparison in that Freeman was a late riser who’s stock was initially low because of poor stats that were influenced by a weak supporting cast.  Its impossible to statistically isolate Locker from his supporting cast, but watching the tape, you can see plenty of times he’d get a better result with more help around him, and it makes you wonder.

Michael Lombardi has some interesting draft thoughts available via NFL.com, but they’re preempted by a warning. “As the NFL draft draws closer next week, understand that this is when we will begin hearing about teams wanting to trade up or down, or targeting a certain player or position. To which I say: Believe none of it.”

Lombardi also discusses why Ryan Mallett may be an option for Washington at #10.

I’m representing the Seahawks in a community mock for NE Patriots Draft. Take a look at the picks so far.

I also recently took part in another Q&A with Dan Kelly at Field Gulls.

Brandon Adams makes the case for the Seahawks drafting Ryan Mallett and perhaps even trading up to grab him.

Peter King has been touting in his MMQB column that Seahawks GM Jon Schneider is desperate to trade down. That maybe so – he admitted as much himself yesterday. In truth it means absolutely nothing – it could be a calculated ruse to throw teams off the scent of their actual intentions.

Evan Silva has an updated mock draft with the Seahawks taking Corey Liuget of Illinois.

Danny O’Neil makes the same pick for the Seahawks in NFL.com’s beat writers mock. I’m not convinced Liuget will make it to #25.

Blaine Gabbert takes his turn to meet Jon Gruden: