Saturday videos: Bowl games & Locker

Mel Kiper and Todd McShay look at the top match-ups during Bowl Season:

We’ve spent a lot of time discussing Jake Locker’s issues. Here’s what will keep team’s interested early in round one:


  1. Matt Q.

    I like the mock pick for Jake Locker in hte 1st round, i bet pete likes him and will give him a chance, how much has really changed since last season when people thought he would go #1?

  2. Cliff

    Rob, What do you think of Blaine Gabbert? If he declares would be make the first or fall into the second? Seems to have good stats but nothing that really stands out. Thanks.

    • Rob

      I liked what I saw from Gabbert against Oklahoma. Good arm, decent mobility, nice delivery. Accuracy isn’t elite but it wasn’t wild either. Like nearly every college QB though he’ll have the issue where he’s not making numerous complicated reads and he works from a small playbook. It’s whether he’s capable of adjusting. I like the fact he’s a bit of a risk taker and he’s got the arm to fight in difficult throws.

      Teams will like his overall potential due to the physical abilities. I could see him declaring if he gets the positive report from the draft committee. If that happens and he works out well – who knows? He could be a first rounder. When I watched him I thought he was a safe second round pick. He’d be the one player Seattle could potentially consider in R2 if they don’t take a QB in R1.

  3. Blake

    31 NFL starters would kill for this much physical talent…and then there’s Mike Vick who would just kill for the heck of it. Watching this makes me realize that its more inconsistency than anything else. Most of these throws are super elite. My favorites are the opening back shoulder down the seam against BYU, and the corner routes around 4:30 against OSU and Arizona. Elite, elite throws. He currently has as much pocket presence as Matt Hasselbeck. I see Hass always running backwards or simply flaring out. Locker is actually stepping up with confidence here. Obviously we are going to see his best stuff in his highlights, but he definitely has a chance to be a franchise QB. Take this video down before Shanahan finds it…

    • Blake

      After watching this video about 5 more times I noticed that he only used “touch” on a handful of these throws. It is an honest question of whether he really knows how to take a little bit off of it and add trajectory to get it over the underneath zones. A perfect example is at the 3:15 mark. Also to a lesser extent on the corner routes around 4:30.

      How about Charlie tonight? Thought he looked pretty decent, especially considering he likely didn’t get many reps this week. I hope he starts next week. We have a multitude of problems hindering our success, but the most prominent one is undoubtedly Matt. I felt sad to see him shake his head on the sideline as the crowd chanted, “Charlie! Charlie!” His demise was a quick one, and I hope he retires before he really starts to look bad. At this point, I can’t see us resigning him next year. Evaluate Charlie over the next two games, and then decide if he can be a stopgap for the future or possibly even the future.

      On a positive note, our defense actually looked awesome today, considering our top 2 corners were out. We really bottled up Burner, and got some decent pressure on Ryan. I wish we could do so with only 4 or 5 rushers, but we have to use what we got. I’m fine with the defense, and look forward to seeing how they could be if they are on the field for less than 40 mpg. Getting a physical corner is pretty important, but I think we can win with our current stop unit. After all, we held the Falcons to mostly field goals today.

      • Rob

        Agreed Blake – the defense held their own. There’s nothing they could do about the 17 points in the third quarter – all from turnovers. They gave up one big play before HT with Chancellor and Parks making the error, but also had a pick and two forced fumbles – not to mention the two near 4th down stoppages. Against a dominating possession offense they kept things tight before the offense imploded.

        Seattle’s offense really needs some attention. The need for a young QB is obvious. They need more playmakers… guys who can score the cheap points and also offer that consistency. Looking at Green Bay, they haven’t spent the house on WR’s but they’ve accumulated a good group. I hope JS can do the same here. The offensive line needs further depth and quality.

        But it all starts with the QB for me. The Seahawks have to do something there. They’ve missed a chance to find out about Whitehurst by not giving him more time. I’m not convinced he’ll start at Tampa Bay even after Hasselbeck’s performance today. They have to draft a quarterback.

  4. Frankfrog

    Splash tapes are great but so misleading. I have to admit I just don’t get it Hasselbeck is doing as well as anybody could with this cast. When you’re always playing from behind you throw a lot of picks. Rob you nailed it with the need of depth a the five tech but do we need a young project QB next or a supporting cast? CB WR seam like truly quality players at positions of need in round 1.
    Every year in resent memory has produced a few good QB that you could win the super bowl with given the right team around them, just think Bradford, Sanchez, Stafford, Ryan, Freeman, Flacco, and more, not included of course Russell Lienard Tebow Clausen
    Because their a project that may always be mediocre. Last year there was this huge buzz about Tebow but why waste a 1st round pick on a guy that in three years may or may not pan out.
    All successful young QB seem to have a line to protect them, a run game, a good defense. We don’t have those yet and should procure them ASAP.
    I’m not a Locker fan in the first round, it just seems so Al Davis, Height weight speed isn’t really paramount in the make up of a great QB. I’m just saying Whitehurst or Hasselbeck will be better players for the next couple of years than Locker why not build a better team first then get a QB, they make more every year. Thanks again Rob read your blog daily.

    • Matt

      I’m kinda getting sick of every excuse in the world for Hass. By your logic, how does Jake Locker not get an excuse because of his awful talent around him? You can’t just pick and choose who gets to use a certain excuse and who doesn’t.

      Sam Bradford and Josh Freeman have played very well despite not having an all world supporting cast. Brady, Manning, and Rivers (most of the year w/out VJ) have remained ultra productive despite nothing truly stellar lining up next to them. How do they do it?

      Bottom line, a good QB makes a world of difference. Sure, you need to be able to protect them (I’d argue Hass has received good pass pro for a majority of the season), but a good QB makes the team around him better. There are very, very, very few WRs or RBs who make a QB look good. They do exist (Andre Johnson, Adrian Peterson), but they are so hard to find, and even then, they need a good QB to maximize their production and ultimately help a team win.

      How about we use the 49ers as an example. Great talent at every position except for QB. What has that done for them? They have a developing O-line that will be elite in a few years, the most physically gifted TE in the NFL, a great running back, and talented WRs. Where are they at? It’s all about the QB.

      Can we please (I beg) stop coming up with every excuse in the book for Hasselbeck. He’s one of the biggest problems on this team and we cannot continually chalk up every poor performance by him because of the other 10 guys on the field.

    • Matt

      And I do agree, CB and WR are needs, but I will GUARANTEE you, that a great CB or WR will not help this team be competitive as long as we don’t have a QB. Hass is not the future let alone the present. All other needs can take a back seat. Until the QB position is fixed it doesn’t matter who we draft.

      The only possible time I would say to be wary of drafting a young QB, is if you don’t have a LT, but even then, I would not say that you need to do that first. Anybody think if Miami had a re-do in 2007, they might have selected Matt Ryan over Jake Long? Jake Long is one of the best LTs in the NFL. How much has that helped the Dolphins in their pursuit of the super bowl?

      • Frankfrog

        You paint a very black and white picture Matt but you make good points. I really cant discount what you are saying but to temper the logic a little bit let me respond in turn. First Lockers team is getting wins despite him where when the hawks win Hass plays well enough. Hasselbeck is a horrible fit for this offense and I would love to see Whitehurst play the rest of the season but who ever is driving this Pinto better be made of steel because they have no weapons no protection and no run game most weeks.
        Freeman and Brady both have some really good weapons Ever member of the Colts offense is a first round pick and that Gates guy is better than the rest of the TE in the league on one leg. Bradford is playing his brains out but there was such a void for years at Qb who’s to say how good his weapons are.
        I like the 49ers but like the Raiders they crippled them selfs with a project QB with all the physical gift but accuracy or decision making, sound like someone we’ve discussed . That 49er line up gets nastier every week and has really shown improvement. They have created a good line up for a young QB to play behind although a extra receiving threat would make it easier for Crabtree to develop his route tree. They remind me of the Cards a couple of years ago before that Warner guy showed up.
        Last the Dolphin went 13-3 the year after getting Long and the point in the begining was there are more Franchise QB avalible every year. How much of Matt Ryans success has to do with Turner and the play action. The Falcons have that Roddy white guy and Tony G, they also made an environment for success for the youngster. I don’t think they would redue that pick because it’s easier in todays NFL than ever to get a Franchise QB than a LT who also road grates. There are four debatable first round QB prospects this year, Locker being the most Boom or Bust option and the most in need of a good team around him.
        I like Locker’s ability alot but he is a project who could regress easily given a bad situation he just isn’t ready. You want to draft this kid to sit for a couple of years but the second the Starter has a bad game he’d get thrown to the wolves. I’m just saying it’s the if then what theory. If Hass can’t play anymore then a project that should sit a couple of years is the answer? I’m a Hawk fan for life regardless of their Draft choice but high risk Qb with accuracy issues could set us back 5 years or more ( see 49ers Alex Smith basically same type of player). How many rings does Matt Ryan have? That defense better stay in a Dome because Physical teams are going to have fun in the snow running over those speedy lineman. Saints are the anomaly. Steelers, Patriots, seem to be the modern day blue print for championships.

        • Blake

          Franchise QBs are certainly not as easy to possess as you imply. Currently there are about 16 QBs that you can win a superbowl with. I’ll name them in somewhat of an order of best to worst: Brady, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Vick, Ryan, Flacco, Romo, Schaub, Manning, Cutler, Bradford, Stafford, and Freeman. I’m even being generous on the last few as they are hardly proven and very inconsistent. Out of those 16 guys only 4 are non first rounders. Brees is included in those 4 and he was the 1st pick of round 2. One could even argue that Schaub was a first round pick because Houston gave up 2 second rounders for him. Yes, there is a huge, well documented risk of a 1st round QB. In my opinion, there is a bigger risk of not pulling the trigger on a coveted signal caller.

          I’ve shown that about half of the teams in the league have a potential superbowl winning quarterback, and that 12 of those 16 QBs were acquired in the first round. Now, we will look at past superbowl winners. The last team to win with a non franchise QB was Tampa in 2003. Top 3 defense ever. Before that? Baltimore in 2001. Top 3 defense ever. Before that? You guessed it. ’86 Bears. Top 3 defense ever. Now I have proven that very rarely-3 times in 45 years-does a non elite quarterback win a superbowl. The conclusion is that you need a 1st round QB to win a superbowl.

          The point of this is that, yes, we do need to get better in all areas of our talent pool, but we have a near zero percent chance without acquiring a QB in the first round. Why put it off with possibly 5 of them this April?

          Also there are zero reasons to start Matt Sunday and a handful as to why we should start Charlie. 1. The fans have spoken. If Charlie does not start, fans will boo and lose faith in this young front office. They need to do this to keep fan interest alive. 2. We need to figure out what we have in our 8 million dollar man before we invest 25+ in another young kid which leads me to my next point… 3. He is getting paid like a starter. Again, this is somewhat for the fans, but on principle, you play your top paid players. 4. He can’t POSSIBLY be worse than Matt. Neither Matt nor Charlie can make competent reads, but Charlie can actually spin it with some accuracy and a bunch of zip. His downfalls have been what? Turnovers. That should be Matt’s middle name. Again, he can’t be worse than Matt. 5. A QB change could spark the team as it seemed to Sunday. There is a well known betting tactic that 2nd string QBs cover at an alarming rate because the rest of the team plays harder knowing that they have a new QB to play/make up for. Somewhat different situation as that statistic usually applies to injured starters, but the principle is the same.

          Reasons for starting Matt? I guess it would be to pay respect to a classy veteran for all his years of great football. On the other hand, you might sit him to keep his legacy intact. If we don’t make the playoffs, its his fault. 13 turnovers in 4 games. We must start Whitehurst on all accounts.

          • Frankfrog

            I don’t disagree much but Montana, Warner and Brady the three best QB in my lifetime where draft day after thoughts. Even Hass, Romo, Farve, and Bulger; were late round guy’s that were at one point the top of the heap. So yes you need a Franchise QB, its just we look at the measurable and forget to ask if can they play the game? The system we run has a need for athletes at QB but I hate to not take the BPA with so many holes on the team there are still athletes avalible to compete for the job after round one.
            I worry about making a smart decision for ticket sales but a bad choice for the team kinda like the Jags Tebow buzz last year. Garrard has rewarded them nicely for making a good choice there. Like last year would love to see Taylor Mays stay home but that trade of of getting Cam in the later Rounds gave us an equal talent with more room to grow and that Earl Thomas guy worked out. If you over pay for that guy you have to have you may let a better player on you’re roster never get their Chance and miss out on the talent you should have gotten out of that pick.
            We payed handsomely for Whitehurst is 2 1/2 weeks enough to see if he’s the guy? HWS he’s all you could ever need, spins a nice ball, and is at an age that he has to make it or break it right now. I am vehemently opposed to sexy picks but man a top teir recieving threat opposite Williams could really help this team make a push to win next year. I’m just a Hawks fan, last year this became the Tim Tebow fan site this year it’s the Jake Locker site. I admit I worked for Stanford for years so of coarse I’m a Luck fan but mostly I just like the Seahawks so I prefer Mallet who is more of an athlete than credited for and just flat a winner.
            The Lewin projection model is so simple its stupid but does a great Job of ranking QB prospects we should start there in a QB hunt. I just don’t buy Locker or Newton as a
            Franchise QB I see them in that should have played TE catagory. Some where there is a Kurt Warner baging Grocery’s being missed because he doesn’t run a 4.3 and can’t throw 75 yards or is sub 6ft. You just don’t know what you have until they hit a field when it comes to a signal caller.
            I just want a guy who has great reads good accuracy and zip and some mobility but not so much as to take away from distribtion and risk getting beat up. Man what an upside to Locker far more than I’ve seen since Vick but I just don’t see any guy’s waring superbowl rings in modern era with that skill set but I see a whole lot of first round bust that are uber athlets that don’t have that (it) factor. Winners keep winning see (Colt MCoy) losers well you know see AL Davis 2000 to 2010 draft.

    • Rob

      Thanks for the kind words about the blog Frank – really appreciated.

      I like the depth at cornerback in particular, but I do think it’s time for the Seahawks to draft a quarterback. There are three guys who fit the scheme – Luck, Newton and Locker. You could make that four if Gabbert declares. If you adjust the scheme slightly, then Mallett is an option. There is some depth there – not a perfect group but plenty of reason not to avoid the quarterbacks. Unless Seattle intend to have a 1-2 win season any time soon, they’ll always be looking at the 2nd, 3rd or 4th best QB and they’ll nearly always be similar to Locker/Mallett in terms of striking positives but obvious negatives.

      Whilst building a supporting cast is a nice idea on paper, there’s little evidence it works. If we’re prepared to suffer for 3-4 years like the Rams just to become the worst team in the league then so be it. That’s where we’ll end up ignoring the QB position.

      It is a difficult balancing act. You can’t expect all your problems to be solved by a rookie QB – but you can set them up for success. The year Atlanta drafted a QB (and they were miserable until this moment)… they also signed a running back (Turner) and moved back into R1 to get their left tackle. They already had the WR and they made a big move for a top tight end the following off season. They put their QB in the right situation and molded the offense around the weapons they have. But you have to get the QB to be able to do that – and Seattle really needs to move on from the current QB situation.

© 2024 Seahawks Draft Blog

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑