Locker And Drop Rates

[Superhorn]

The interesting thing is that the thrown wide, overthrow, etc  only show about 3% difference between his throws and the other qbs.  Yet when blitzed, the completion percentage drops 10%

 

Wouldn't you expect those numbers to match more? 

Inconsistent footwork + slow read progression + poor pocket movement = accuracy issues.  Additional pressure exacerbates these problems (which are his most glaring issues, IMO).

[cenj]

Too many people are looking at stats (not aiming this at Jamal) and trying to figure out how to make them explain how Locker wasn't as inaccurate many claim. It's always bad when you search every conceivable metric for any evidence that explains an already decided upon stance.

 

Stats are always deceptive either way. I don't think we should even worry about the numbers -- Locker last year clearly looked inaccurate and inconsistent (as well as uncomfortable in the pocket and lacking pocket presence). As Jamal said, the eyeball test is hard to deny.

 

The question isn't was he inaccurate, but why -- and is it fixable? We'll see soon.

[Pragidealist]

Inconsistent footwork + slow read progression + poor pocket movement = accuracy issues.  Additional pressure exacerbates these problems (which are his most glaring issues, IMO).

 

Those make sense. They don't explain the stats. 

[Pragidealist]

Too many people are looking at stats (not aiming this at Jamal) and trying to figure out how to make them explain how Locker wasn't as inaccurate many claim. It's always bad when you search every conceivable metric for any evidence that explains an already decided upon stance. Thats my point. I think its wrong.

 

Stats are always deceptive either way.Stats are never deceptive. They are concrete facts.  Its the interreptation that can be deceptive.  I don't think we should even worry about the numbers -- Locker last year clearly looked inaccurate and inconsistent (as well as uncomfortable in the pocket and lacking pocket presence). As Jamal said, the eyeball test is hard to deny.

 

The question isn't was he inaccurate, but why -- and is it fixable? This is playing with semantics.  I would say the truth is, his completeion percentage has horrible.  The question to THAT, is why. We'll see soon.

 

Having said that, the last few games are hard to watch.  He had some throws that clearly looked to me to be injury issues.  The pick against GB where he threw it to Britt and it floated. There was a throw to Stevens on one play where he was WIDE open and Locker threw a duck.  Things that I honestly think were related to his injury.

 

 

But the stats themselves paint a picture. They are concrete facts.  Its interuppting them in a way that makes sense that can be hard.

 

Here are some possibilities.. because as I've said... I have fully written off some of his worst games late in the season to his shoulder. 

 

1) The over, under, wide misses some inaccurate throws.  This is possible, but it would miss those same inaccurate throws with other qbs.

2) The volume of throws effect the relevance or easy of the throw.   Maybe.  He threw A LOT less later in the season. It could be that as CJ started getting his game on better, he was taking easier throws.  So they inaccuracies are excerbated.  I don't think that explains the discrepencies in the stats though...

 

 

Its just a mystery. I am open to explainations that align the facts.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Pragidealist

[Superhorn]

Those make sense. They don't explain the stats. 

Sure it does.

 

I thought last year Locker showed that when he keeps balance and his feet beneath him, and squares to the target, that his accuracy is just fine.  But, he's not getting through reads quick enough, and post snap progression was a problem.  If the first read wasn't there, the play seemed to be rarely successful.  

 

Anyhow, dial up some pressure -> the footwork gets rushed and progression reads become more difficult (a problem highlighted by a bet up interior line).  Doesn't help that he struggles to maintain eye level while moving within the pocket.  As pressure increases, footwork/reads fall apart and accuracy issues get worse than normal...

Edited May 22, 2013 by Superhorn

[Pragidealist]

Sure it does.

 

I thought last year Locker showed that when he keeps balance and his feet beneath him, and squares to the target, that his accuracy is just fine.  Further, he's not getting through reads quick enough.  Post snap progression was a problem.  If the first read wasn't there, the play seemed to be rarely successful.  

 

Anyhow, dial up some pressure -> the footwork gets rushed and progression reads become more difficult (a problem highlighted by a bet up interior line).  Doesn't help that he struggles to maintain eye level while moving within the pocket.  As pressure increases, footwork/reads fall apart and accuracy issues get worse than normal...

 

Yes. This paints a different picture though.  It puts the pressure the blitz as the catalyst for teh accuracy failures.   IT creates or excerbates the footwork inconsistencies enough to create an accuracy issue that wasn't there before.   The last part being teh important part

 

Otherwise, I think that is how I see the problems.

 

Expereince handling the blitz, scheme change to fewer option reads, improved offensive line (helps with footwork), and improved running game/running scheme emphasis (should give him fewer reads and more time with a more open target.  

 

But yes...  the point being... Locker was not simply erractic or was inaccurate outside of controllable conditions.

 

 

Now there are still plenty of to critique him on and be concerned that he develops well... but its a completely different story to saying he's an inaccurate passer and always will be.... which seems to be a poplar opinion by fans and media alike.   Its a rather shallow analysis of his game that leads to inaccuracies that I find annoying.

 

Critique the kid

Have concerns

Doubt his abiltiy to develop even.. just do it because of the right problems .

 

thats my point.

[Superhorn]

Yes. This paints a different picture though.  It puts the pressure the blitz as the catalyst for teh accuracy failures.   IT creates or excerbates the footwork inconsistencies enough to create an accuracy issue that wasn't there before.   The last part being teh important part

I intend to do a full review of all his throws later this summer, but in just going back and watching a handful of plays here and there...he looks much more comfortable pre-injury.  That's also represented in ~10% jump between his play in September versus the rest of the year.  

 

Back to the point, I don't think it paints a different picture.  There was a problem there before.  You said it yourself:

The interesting thing is that the thrown wide, overthrow, etc  only show about 3% difference between his throws and the other qbs.  Yet when blitzed, the completion percentage drops 10%

3% = Existing issue.  10% = When the pressure is turned up.  

 

Anyhow, I think his accuracy issues themselves are largely overstated.  When the mechanics are there, he's just fine (especially on deep throws).  Where things fall apart are when the pre-snap design doesn't go as planned and he's asked to maintain comfort in the pocket, maybe slide to buy time, get through reads, set and throw.  I really think part of that was also a lack of trust with the offensive line and discomfort with his injury (though that's TOTALLY speculative).  

 

Now, those things shouldn't be dismissed.  They are a huge part of playing the QB position.  It's just a little more complicated than just saying he's inaccurate.

[cenj]

"The question isn't was he inaccurate, but why -- and is it fixable?" This is playing with semantics.  I would say the truth is, his completeion percentage has horrible.  The question to THAT, is why.

 

No, it's not just semantics, and your stance above illustrates my distinction: apparently deep down you don't believe he really was inaccurate -- I think he was and I think we should move on from that denial. You are trying to excuse the stats because they don't match up with your personal eyeball test/bias. I don't care about stats as I don't think they matter if you just watch the tape.

 

I know saying this will potentially spark a 10 page explanation on how to define "interpretation" and what "inaccurate" really means -- try not to get too academic in the argument. It isn't necessary and will lead to unrelated tangents. I think you know exactly what my point is without needing to clarify every single word definition and deny the argument based on semantic minutia.

 

Stats are never deceptive. They are concrete facts.  Its the interreptation that can be deceptive.

 

Talk about playing with semantics...of course it's the interpretation of stats.

 

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this -- my point is pretty clear: forget searching the stats and trying to make them paint the picture you want. The eyeball test of Locker is hard to deny. He was inaccurate last year. It may be fixable, but he was inaccurate. At least, that's my (and many others') stance.

[Pragidealist]

I intend to do a full review of all his throws later this summer, but in just going back and watching a handful of plays here and there...he looks much more comfortable pre-injury.  That's also represented in ~10% jump between his play in September versus the rest of the year.  

 

Back to the point, I don't think it paints a different picture.  There was a problem there before.  You said it yourself:

3% = Existing issue.  10% = When the pressure is turned up.  No, I don't think so.  Check me here, but those stats aren't separated.  Thats a 3% difference INCLUDING the blitzes.  Those under, over, wides, are not only throws win not blitzed.   That was why I found the stat striking.  Even though his OVERALL under, over wides, was only 3% difference.. his overall numbers were 10% when blitzed.... those numbers should align.  They don't.  That means if you take blitzing out of the under, over, wide throws... they would be BETTER (or close to) than several top qbs.  I just don't know how much better.

 

Anyhow, I think his accuracy issues themselves are largely overstated.  When the mechanics are there, he's just fine (especially on deep throws).  Where things fall apart are when the pre-snap design doesn't go as planned and he's asked to maintain comfort in the pocket, maybe slide to buy time, get through reads, set and throw.  I really think part of that was also a lack of trust with the offensive line and discomfort with his injury (though that's TOTALLY speculative).   I completely agree. Add to this, he played behind a poor oline in college.  That to me is his bigges hurdle.. getting comfortable in the pocket after a long history of playing behind bad olines.  Thats about mental toughness. I think he has that.. but only time will tell.

 

Now, those things shouldn't be dismissed.  They are a huge part of playing the QB position.  It's just a little more complicated than just saying he's inaccurate. I agree.

 

 

I think we mostly agree. 

Edited May 22, 2013 by Pragidealist

[cenj]

Every starting NFL QB is accurate when they have zero pressure, a wide-open WR, and understand their progression and the defensive coverage. The ability for a QB to remain accurate in the context of a game -- sliding away from pressure, moving through progressions with a deceptive defense, adjusting to injuries -- is what puts them on another level.

 

Favre remained accurate with a broken thumb on his throwing hand. A Rodgers and Roethlisberger manage to run away from crazy pressure and still hit guys in stride.

 

There is a reason why every single QB pro-day throwing, even scrubs hit 90%+ of their targets. All these guys are generally accurate -- just like all these guys are athletes, everyone is fast and strong. The comparison is between each other, the elite level.

[Pragidealist]

No, it's not just semantics, and your stance above illustrates my distinction: apparently deep down you don't believe he really was inaccurate -- I think he was and I think we should move on from that denial. You are trying to excuse the stats because they don't match up with your personal eyeball test/bias. I don't care about stats as I don't think they matter if you just watch the tape.

 

I know saying this will potentially spark a 10 page explanation on how to define "interpretation" and what "inaccurate" really means -- try not to get too academic in the argument. It isn't necessary and will lead to unrelated tangents. I think you know exactly what my point is without needing to clarify every single word definition and deny the argument based on semantic minutia.

 

 

Talk about playing with semantics...of course it's the interpretation of stats.

 

I'm not entirely sure where you are going with this -- my point is pretty clear: forget searching the stats and trying to make them paint the picture you want. The eyeball test of Locker is hard to deny. He was inaccurate last year. It may be fixable, but he was inaccurate. At least, that's my (and many others') stance.

 

I didn't search the stats. I read them. I agree with Superhorn.    Look, stats are facts.  What you see is subjective.  The two should align. If you can't align them, something is wrong.

 

My subjective thought was that he was inaccurate after the (really second) injury.  Some of his later games were just painful.   However, the stats did NOT align with my subjective opinion.  I wanted to know why.  Superhorn puts together a pretty nice explanation. It doesn't explain it completely.. but it does pretty well.

 

Locker was not as inaccurate in the later part of the season as I remembered him. His base throwing mechanics and performance without pressure was fine.  Under pressure.. it was significantly worse. 

 

pretty much end of story

[Pragidealist]

Every starting NFL QB is accurate when they have zero pressure, a wide-open WR, and understand their progression and the defensive coverage. The ability for a QB to remain accurate in the context of a game -- sliding away from pressure, moving through progressions with a deceptive defense, adjusting to injuries -- is what puts them on another level.

 

Favre remained accurate with a broken thumb on his throwing hand. A Rodgers and Roethlisberger manage to run away from crazy pressure and still hit guys in stride.

 

There is a reason why every single QB pro-day throwing, even scrubs hit 90%+ of their targets. All these guys are generally accurate -- just like all these guys are athletes, everyone is fast and strong. The comparison is between each other, the elite level.

 

This is simply not true.  Tebow is not accurate - at all. Cam Newton isn't particular accurate.  There are several others.   I agree that all of those other things are important to a QB developing and will be tests for Locker.  I have no problem with identifying those things.   Those are not purely mechanical/accuracy issues.   They are issues with progessions, comfort in the pocket, etc.  Calling those things accuracy issues is a mislabel.  Thats the point.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Pragidealist

[Jamalisms]

@Pragidealist

10% is on roughly 1/3 of the snaps. Mathematically it holds out pretty well that it could be entirely related to inaccuracy on blitzes only. Assume accuracy on the other 2/3 is the same as another QB... 10% spread across one third comes down to about 3%.

I'd wager it's more convoluted than that, but as it relates to your question... the 3% is pretty well in line with the 10%.

[Superhorn]

Back to the point, I don't think it paints a different picture.  There was a problem there before.  You said it yourself:

3% = Existing issue.  10% = When the pressure is turned up.  No, I don't think so.  Check me here, but those stats aren't separated.  Thats a 3% difference INCLUDING the blitzes.  Those under, over, wides, are not only throws win not blitzed.   That was why I found the stat striking.  Even though his OVERALL under, over wides, was only 3% difference.. his overall numbers were 10% when blitzed.... those numbers should align.  They don't.  That means if you take blitzing out of the under, over, wide throws... they would be BETTER than several top qbs.  I just don't know how much better.

Ah...I see what you're saying now.

 

I stand by what my eyes told me, but I'm not sure how I can reconcile that with those two stats without digging a little more.

[Superhorn]

Every starting NFL QB is accurate when they have zero pressure, a wide-open WR, and understand their progression and the defensive coverage. The ability for a QB to remain accurate in the context of a game -- sliding away from pressure, moving through progressions with a deceptive defense, adjusting to injuries -- is what puts them on another level.

 

Favre remained accurate with a broken thumb on his throwing hand. A Rodgers and Roethlisberger manage to run away from crazy pressure and still hit guys in stride.

 

There is a reason why every single QB pro-day throwing, even scrubs hit 90%+ of their targets. All these guys are generally accurate -- just like all these guys are athletes, everyone is fast and strong. The comparison is between each other, the elite level.

I agree with this.  Whether Locker can get these nuances dialed in remains to be seen.  I think if anyone can it's him considering his work ethic and character (or at least as I understand them from a distance).  Though, I totally understand the skepticism as well.