The Curious Case of Jake Locker

Bringing the House illustration

"If you had to ask me right now who is going to be the number one pick in the 2011 draft, I would say it's etched in stone it's going to be Jake Locker. You can mark that down. Jake Locker, if he's not the number one pick, it's an upset."

ESPN draft expert Mel Kiper, Jr., made the above remark during a conference call with reporters this past April, months after Locker passed up a chance at millions of guaranteed dollars by declining to enter the 2010 NFL Draft. Barring a catastrophic injury, everyone believed Locker's decision would pay dividends for both the star and his school. By returning for his senior season, the 6'3" quarterback put himself in a position to:  1) gain another year of experience in a pro-style offense, 2) create a legacy by winning the Heisman Trophy, and 3) help lead the Washington football program to its first winning season and bowl game since George W. Bush's first term in the Oval Office, all while keeping a stranglehold on the number one overall pick.

Well, fast forward to week three of Locker's much-anticipated senior season, and the only thing that looks attainable is a full year of experience leading Steve Sarkisian's offense. Through three games, Locker has not only posted disappointing individual numbers in comparison to other Heisman hopefuls, but he has also buried the Huskies in a 1-2 hole that grows deeper every time the team glances at its upcoming schedule. And unless the Huskies manage to string together several monumental upsets this fall, a winning season will elude them for an eighth consecutive season. But for us in the blogosphere, Locker's draft stock is the most interesting component in all this. And after analyzing Locker's career to date and comparing it to those of other quarterbacks taken in the top ten of the NFL Draft in the past six years, it is clear that Locker does not deserve top pick consideration.

I don't care how Locker measures up physically or athletically. It doesn't matter that scouts says he has great size, speed, and arm strength. Because, at the end of the day, I measure quarterbacks by the number and magnitude of games that they win. And if I need to evaluate further, I look at individual passing statistics. By those numbers--the ones that matter--Locker simply does not measure up.

In the past six NFL drafts, nine (9) quarterbacks have been selected in the top ten:  Matthew Stafford, Mark Sanchez, Matt Ryan, Jamarcus Russell, Vince Young, Matt Leinart, Alex Smith, Eli Manning, and Philip Rivers. Because some of the aforementioned quarterbacks entered the draft after their junior year and others after their senior season, I took averages of statistics/numbers instead of raw totals to adjust for any discrepancies that may result from sheer number of opportunities.


Winning Percentage

Leinart - 97.2%
Smith - 95.0
Young - 93.8
Sanchez - 86.7
Russell - 81.3
Stafford - 76.5
Ryan - 71.2
Rivers - 65.9
Manning - 62.8

Locker - 29.0

As you can see, each of Locker's predecessors had at least a 60% winning percentage over the course of his career. Meanwhile, Locker's winning percentage currently stands at a paltry 29 percent. He has not even won one-third of his games. No position in sports is measured by winning more than starting quarterback. From this standpoint, Locker not only fails to compare, but he even falls short of mediocrity.

Locker advocates will quickly mention that his supporting cast has not been good enough to help Locker win games. At what point does that excuse become out of style? Unlike the NFL, teams in college football can have decent success by relying on a single game-changing player. And it's not like I expected Locker to lead UW to the Rose Bowl each year; but at the very least I expected a .500 winning percentage. Apparently those expectations were too high.

Bowl Record/Appearances

The nine former first-round picks have a combined 20-4 record in bowl games. That  works out to an 83.3 winning percentage. Meanwhile, Locker has never even reached--and probably will not reach--a bowl game. Those quarterbacks not only played in big games, but they delivered in big games on a consistent basis; each of the nine had at least two (2) bowl victories. Enough said.

Completion Percentage

Smith - 66.0%
Leinart - 64.8
Sanchez - 64.2
Rivers - 63.5
Russell - 62.0
Young - 61.8
Manning - 61.1
Ryan - 60.5
Stafford - 57.2

Locker - 53.0

Again, Locker sits dead last in another statistic. Granted, he does not sit too far behind Stafford, but if you did not win games, then you better have had great statistical accomplishments. Look at Dan Marino. Never won a Super Bowl, but to his credit, he went out and captured major NFL records. Seems like a reasonable give and take. But as you see here, and as you will see in the next few comparisons, Locker does not even put up great numbers as a consolation to his lack of winning pedigree.

Pass Yards/Game

Leinart - 297.0
Rivers - 286.9
Ryan - 282.8
Manning - 268.9
Sanchez - 260.8
Smith - 255.7
Stafford - 225.9
Russell - 206.0

Locker - 193.5

Young - 183.7

Finally, Locker breaks the trend. If he finishes his career at his current rate, he will have gained ten (10) more pass yards per game than Vince Young. While that is a positive note amidst all the negative, I'd like to note that Young made up for his lack of passing by being the most dangerous dual-threat quarterback in college football history. He single-handedly dominated and won games by keeping teams off-balance. By the numbers, Young averaged 92.0 rush yards per game. Locker? About half that (53.4). So for those who want to say, "Locker is a dual-threat quarterback so you should compare apples to apples and find another dual-threat QB," how do you answer the comparison to VY? In terms of total yards, he out-gained Locker by more than 30 total yards per game. And Young was not even the number one pick in his draft.


TD:INT Ratio

Smith - 6.43
Leinart - 4.30
Rivers - 2.79
Sanchez - 2.73
Russell - 2.48
Manning - 2.38
Stafford - 1.56
Young - 1.54
Ryan - 1.50

Locker - 1.50

Tied for last. Pretty self-explanatory.

Ultimately, what more is there to say? Shouldn't on-the-field performance, such as wins and completion percentage, outweigh generic off-the-field measures like height and arm strength? If you spend a top-10 pick on a quarterback, you send a message to your organization, players, and fans that you believe that the player is your franchise quarterback of the future. You commit money, time, and energy to his development. With so much invested, how can you focus solely on potential and ignore history? I couldn't. And I pity the team that inevitably will.