Jake Locker, NFL prospect?!?

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 6, 2009 10:36 AM PDT Comment 40 comments

Am I the only one blown away by his performance against LSU?

I know the numbers weren't incredible, but they certainly seemed solid to me.

25-45, 55%; 320 yards 2TD/1INT

Several of those incomplete passes seems more like great decisions to get the ball out and avoid trouble, something you just don't see from many college QB's. In addition, his pocket presence was excellent, his touch much improved and he still has the speed to leg one out when needed.

I really feel he is a better NFL prospect today, right this minute, than Tim Tebow. Of course he doesn't play for Florida so he doesn't have the "is this guy the next Brett Favre all the announcers love him intangibles" Tebow owns.

I do admit I'm thankful for that...

I look at his coach and new system, with newfound touch and pocket presence, and I see a guy that will in a year, or two if he stays, be a better long term NFL option at QB than Colt McCoy or Timmy T. I ask you how many great (or even playable) pro QB's came out of Mack Strong's offense, or even Urban Meyer's?!? Even their elite level guys have not panned out to date. Maybe Sark is the key to resurrecting Quarterback U...

Admittedly with the third of the "Big Three" I do like Bradford a lot, but he's injured already and you can't help but to think that his smallish frame may not ever let him realize his full NFL potential. He looks like injuries could be a long term issue for him, even if you see this one as a "freak event."

Thoughts, people???

Oh, one more note-- while a fan, I'm not a bleeding purple Husky grad putting this thought process together. And before last night, I didn't feel nearly as confident in Locker. I just think he was incredible; that it wasn't a highwater mark, but it was a show of things to come...

A place to bury strangers.

0 recs | Comment 40 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Uhm, Mack Brown...

sorry, error cause by Seahawk love.

Also, John Morgan, in a thread a couple days ago you and someone else expressed concern over Nick Montana TRANSFERRING. Not sure if you saw my comment after.

Nick Montana is starting his senior year in high school right now, and is in a perfect scenario to come in and play as a redshirt frosh after Locker leaves his senior year. He can’t transfer because he isn’t a UW guy… yet.

He is an oral commit, albeit a hard commit not a soft one, as the letter of intent signing day hasn’t actually happened yet, he can’t sign until February of this coming year. However, he IS coming, and there is no reason for him not to head north to Seattle.

An interesting one to me is Jesse Scroggins who just committed to USC. He may want to rethink that, given a true frosh QB is taking the reins and looked great in his first college game.

But I believe Sark got the guy HE wanted more than Heaps, that Montana will be our next starting QB following Locker, and that he will be the next starting QB following Locker to be an NFL qb…

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 6, 2009 10:44 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I saw the comment

I love the Huskies but can’t follow them much with how much I follow the Seahawks.

by John Morgan on Sep 6, 2009 11:03 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Locker definitely has the tools.

I missed the game yesterday, but I think his biggest problem last y ear was throwing the 15+ yard pass accurately. It’s hard to tell if he doesn’t read defenses well or if his line and WRs just suck.

by LantermanC on Sep 6, 2009 11:06 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

So,

Kinda a QB in the build of Pennington with an upgrade in his legs?

2/3 of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Marcus Trufant.

by Chickadee on Sep 6, 2009 11:45 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not at all...

Pennington can BARELY throw a 15 yard pass. Locker has a cannon but he’s been unable to totally harness it.

I would say his closest comparable if assuming (and this is a big if) that yesterday’s improved touch will be consistent is that Locker is a right-handed Steve Young. He runs like Young, he’s faster but Young was a little stronger when it comes to breaking tackles. Locker has a stronger arm, but Young was considerably more accurate (to this point.)

Jeez. That’s not high praise or anything. Seriously though, the guy has upside through the roof, and the type of coach that might just be able to help him actualize it…

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 6, 2009 12:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'd compare to a different Young

Vince Young. Great arm, great running instincts, big, strong and powerful. Previous to this year, Locker relied on his legs to a fault, which is the same for Vince Young as a pro. It may not seem like high praise to compare Locker to a 1st round bust QB, but Vince Young was one of the best college QB’s this decade, and Locker has about that same level of talent that Young possessed.

by kearly on Sep 6, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He had an oustanding pass in the third quarter.

Perfect spiral, lead the receiver. Went for 46 yards (and less than 10 of those were YAC).

A Mariners fan in Seattle

by Coach Owens on Sep 6, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Locker signed an MLB contract with the Angels a few weeks ago.

I imagine he will be pursuing a career in baseball if he can’t be a QB in the NFL.

I’ve always liked Locker. He is a great athlete with a great mindset. He chose UW knowing the program wasn’t going to be in the best shape. But Locker was loyal to the school he wanted to play for and I admire him for that.

And I agree with him being better than Tebow; I’ve always thought that. It is amazing how ‘good’ you are when you have talent surrounding you. Locker doesn’t have half the talent Tebow has around him. If he did, he would be holding a Heisman trophy.

by Wilder. on Sep 6, 2009 11:29 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Lets stop the Tebow stuff..

Tim Tebow is a great college QB. He has played extremely well irrespective of what was around him. Many think Locker has a lot better pro potential and I might agree, but saying Locker would have a Heisman if he played at Florida is just unwarranted. The main difference between Tebow and Locker as far as pro-potential goes is arm strength. Both guys have the size and speed, but Tebow’s arm is average at best, while Locker has a cannon. Tebow has excelled in a system that has featured his strengths and hid his weaknesses. He has thrived in that system though and college players should be judged by how they played and Tebow has outplayed Locker.

Locker is turning heads right now. Although the lack of experienced and athletic skill position players will severely restrict his stats, theres no denying that Locker looks poised in the pocket making multiple reads. NFL teams want dropback and pass QB’s and Locker is showing he has the potential to be a great one. Throw in the great athleticism and Locker has the makings of a big time prospect. To reach that upper echelon he will have to stay healthy and build up his body of work a bit more. #1 overall pick is not out of the question if he really turns it on over the next couple of seasons. Not likely, but not out of the question.

As an aside, the Huskies have shifted to a pro-style, USC sort of offense under the new coach. This is great for Locker as he gets a chance to really prove himself, but I wonder whether this is best for the Huskies. UW will never compete with USC in recruiting athletes, so why try to beat them with the same system? A good example of the alternative is Georgia Tech right now under Paul Johnson. He has brought in the full-on triple option offense. The great thing about this is that they aren’t going head-to-head with Goergia for all their recruits now, a war they could not win.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 6, 2009 12:15 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Why?

but saying Locker would have a Heisman if he played at Florida is just unwarranted.

Tebow earned that Heisman largely because of the talent around him. If Locker were in his shoes, he most certainly would have won the award. It’s not taking anything away from Tebow, but Locker is the better athlete and would have just as much national recognition if he was at a Florida, USC, Texas, etc. What makes this kind of statement unwarranted?

by Wilder. on Sep 6, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

As an aside, most Heisman awards are earned because of the talent around the player.

That is why you see the player often acknowledging the award is a reflection of the team, not himself.

by Wilder. on Sep 6, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

See

This is not an argument:

Tebow earned that Heisman largely because of the talent around him. If Locker were in his shoes, he most certainly would have won the award.

Unless this going to turn into a “nu-uh” – “yes, so” argument, you need to back this up somehow and I don’t see how. Tebow has outperformed Locker and by a very wide margin. Could Locker have succeeded on Tebow’s team, I don’t know and I don’t know any way we could know. The “surrounding talent” argument, personally, seems very weak to me. How do we know Tebow doesn’t make the players around him look better? He is the one constant for three years now, and he has not slowed no matter the talent around him.

by John Morgan on Sep 6, 2009 1:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly what I was trying to get at.

It’s not an unwarranted statement because we simply do not know what would happen if Locker were in Tebow’s situation.

I think Locker would have succeeded.

by Wilder. on Sep 6, 2009 5:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It's the classic "If Barry Sanders had Emmitt Smiths O-Line" argument.

One that many people feel very strongly about, but it’s totally pointless to argue because it’s impossible to prove.

by Mind of no mind on Sep 7, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

that's...

a perfect analogy.

Speaking of which, do you think Dan Marino cusses under his breath every time he hears “Two Time Super Bowl Winning Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger?”

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 7, 2009 12:50 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Locker hasn't shown he can consistently be a quarterback yet.

Last year when healthy he was still marred by inaccuracy and poor decision making, even though he has the added bonus of being able to run at will.

by Mariner John on Sep 6, 2009 3:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Interesting thoughts...

one, it isn’t completely unwarranted to say Locker could/would have a Heisman if he went to Florida with that support talent around him. This is the Pac10 frosh of the year, remember, and he did that while Tebow was winning a Heisman with far greater talent around him. My biggest gripe about Tebow’s award is it came too soon, and I don’t think he did enough to earn it as a sophomore, although he did have damn good numbers.

I’m just not at all sold on your statement that “college players should be judged by how they played and Tebow has outplayed Locker.” If you take Tebow away from last year’s Florida team, they still win 8-10 games. However, Locker was taken away from UW early, and they went winless.

I’m just not sold Tebow has outplayed Locker so much as his team has… Locker’s frosh year he actually outran Tebow both by total yards and average, and that was Tebow’s Heisman year. Tebow had a much better passing year than Locker, but Locker played a real non-league schedule, and Tebow did most of his flashy numbers work against the have-nots of the SEC that year, not the better teams… I’m not saying his numbers were overall better than Tebow’s, but if the two guys flipped teams to start that season, I think you have an intriguing argument that Florida does better and UW does no better and maybe worse.

Anyway, on this year’s Locker— his skill position players may be inexperienced, but they showed against a solid defense last night that they are talented, he just got over 300 yards against LSU!!!! How many Pac10 Defenses will be as good as LSU’s?!? I don’t think his stats are going to be all that restricted, to be honest.

As for the philosophy switch that came with Sark, it was perfect and needed. I see what you are saying about Paul Johnson’s O, but I wonder if they can even beat Georgia using the option?!? Why recruit to a unique system if you’ll just lose the game anyway? Also, UW doesn’t have to win every recruiting war with USC, the Dawgs just have to A) win the Washington players first, B) win enough battles overall/in SoCal to field a talented team.

A great example in recruiting is Cali boy and current Dawg Chris Polk. He was recruited heavily by both SC and UW, but when USC brought in a couple other guys that were relatively equal to him, he chose UW and the opportunity to play early instead of just being “another guy.” USC hasn’t always been, nor will they always be, the only power getting talent in southern Cal.

Another factor in the Sark O vs. a gimmicky option attack— Sark is a hell of a personality/recruiter. He also has a track history of success with QB’s who leave him NFL ready. This makes him far more capable than many to pull in a top 5 in the nation level QB on a frequent basis. And this of course, turns into a recruiting chip on a wider scale. Top 5 recruits and QB’s in particular can become pied pipers bringing talent with them to the school.

UW has a proud storied history and tradition, and to think we need to change offenses to a gimmick just because the other traditional big boy on the block does the same thing as us is a defensive/passive move, a lateral one. It’s admitting you just aren’t as good as the other guy, and that you can’t be as good. That’s what got UW into this mess in the first place, hiring the wrong guy with Willingham. Also, Sark’s offense seemed to run pretty damn effectively last night.

Bottom line, isn’t it about running your stuff well, no matter what your stuff is, as opposed to being reactive toward the other team? If Sark can continue this forward push, I have no doubt he will make UW into a national power again, and he may even make our “USC-style offense” better than it is at USC. Wouldn’t be the first time the protege left and built a stronger, improved, organically altered version of the original creation…

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 6, 2009 1:10 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This seems like total speculation and a lot of undue optimism.

One good game against LSU does not mean a whole lot. We don’t even know how good LSU is. Last season, Casey Dick had a pretty good game against LSU. He had a better completion percentage, no interceptions and a similar number of yards per attempt. And no one is touting Dick for dick.

I want Washington to be a good team, but we can’t take one kind of close loss at home to a national power without its starting quarterback and say the Huskies are reborn.

And, again, this is just weird, non-comparative guess.

I’m just not at all sold on your statement that "college players should be judged by how they played and Tebow has outplayed Locker." If you take Tebow away from last year’s Florida team, they still win 8-10 games. However, Locker was taken away from UW early, and they went winless.

Washington was also winless with Locker. It got stomped twice, and was lousy in 2007, too. And one of their four wins, and one of only two wins against winning teams, was against California when Locker didn’t play.

by John Morgan on Sep 6, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

John I knew that Cal game was going to come up...

heheh. Good call there. And they did struggle, but it was also his true freshman season, and his numbers were very solid. Very few frosh start out of the gate.

Now in the 4 games last year that locker played, he got hurt early in the last one, and the other 3 included a game that is only an “L” in the books but not in (my) reality, due to the worst call in college football that year vs. a top 20 team BYU, and a loss to national championship contender Oklahoma. Tough sample size from which to judge.

There is certainly a lot of speculation in this thread of course. It isn’t solely undue optimism however. And there are certainly parallels between Tebow and Locker’s overall games that would make comparison a valid “bar room argument” if not a proper scientific one.

One good game against LSU did mean a lot. LSU has more talent on the field at any given time than will all but maybe 5-10 teams in college football. So it means a lot from a competitive standpoint on a broader scale evaluation of UW. This team is going to get some wins this year, and be competitive in the Pac10 sooner, rather than later.

And the first half really was UW’s. If not for a great play on a ball by a LB (and Locker’s only real miscue all night) and a fumble by Polk at like the 8 yard line, UW goes into the locker room ahead, maybe even by 10. Unfortunately, it didn’t play out that way. Felt like SB XL in that regard.

I guess I partially rail against Tebow to try to balance the universe compared to Thom Brennaman… I had to relisten to this again just to throw up in my mouth. Interesting analysis included by whoever it was that was breaking down the audio:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQ5SVMK3mOM

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 6, 2009 2:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

UGA

I see what you are saying about Paul Johnson’s O, but I wonder if they can even beat Georgia using the option?!? Why recruit to a unique system if you’ll just lose the game anyway?

Paul Johnson coached Tech to a 45-42 victory @Georgia last year. Jackets gained 409 yards on the ground. One of the best games of the ’08 season between any two teams IMO.

I dunno if I accept that any offense is inherently “gimmick”… Just contrarian, thats all. I am not sure running a dropback and pass O is bad for UW… I just sort of wonder about it. They do have the state on lock for recruiting, but could we do better? Vis a vis UW and Locker we should wait and see. LSU is good but maybe fringe top-25, not fringe top-10- it will take more games to be sure of anything. UW hung with BYU early last year, its been mentioned, and that didn’t mean much. I would like to say we have improved a lot from last year, but winning more than four games will be hard, the schedule is rough.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 6, 2009 4:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I used the term "gimmick"

for lack of a better way to express things. And as a basketball coach I used a 1/2 court 1-1-2-1 trap that was gimmicky as hell, and effective as well. I’m not against “gimmicks” that work, by any means.

Another thought about this sort of offense though, can you find coaches who CAN coach it to maximize the personnel, as well as being able to RECRUIT players to play within that system. That makes a unique offense harder to shift to as well…

And while you may be right that LSU is fringe top25 not top10, their talent IS top10, and for this UW team being able to compete against that was just a tremendous step in the right direction…

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 6, 2009 5:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

ok let me be blunt..

1. small sample size- it might be a step and it might be noise
2. so lets grant that their talent is top 10 for arguments sake… so what? there is a reason why the raiders don’t win the super bowl every year.

by michaelfox99 on Sep 6, 2009 6:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm. Well,

I guess I just didn’t see it as “just noise” in my eyes. Down below DieHard expresses well how he looked, and that just didn’t seem the noise of an exceptional game, but the play of a much improved player and team.

And we are talking about a guy that was a top 5 QB in the nation as a senior, so it isn’t completely crazy to think that a top5 in the nation senior year QB that started out of the gate in the Pac10 as a freshman could, in basically his 2nd year of college ball, be significantly improved to an elite level talent.

I’m not sure your second point using the Raiders…

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 6, 2009 7:46 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love QBs like Locker

Who are capable of being either a pocket passer or rusher

by SPENCEMAN on Sep 6, 2009 12:16 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

And here I was entering this FanPost expecting to read a hackneyed multi-paragraph speculation of why Jack Locker could eventually become a top-tier safety.

After reading it, I don’t know whether to be disappointed or excited.

"Part, fools!
Put up your swords. You know not what you do."

by Fearless Frog on Sep 6, 2009 3:30 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Sorry to both...

disappoint and thrill you.

I’m like ABC’s Wide World of Sports, I guess. ;)

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 6, 2009 5:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/Top-2009-junior-prospects.html

Quarterbacks
1. Sam Bradford, Oklahoma (6-4, 223)
2. Jake Locker, Washington (6-3, 226)
3. Jevan Snead, Mississippi (6-3, 215)
4. Adam Weber, Minnesota (6-3, 218)
5. Jimmy Clausen, Notre Dame (6-3, 226

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Jevan Snead, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer

by Misfit74 on Sep 6, 2009 3:40 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Clausen is way too low.

by LantermanC on Sep 6, 2009 6:29 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Bottom line is that Locker is clearly much improved

based on one game against a very good LSU team. I watched the game and yes he threw away 4-5 passes to avoid getting sacked. Also had an equal amount dropped that should have been caught. Aside from the INT which he should not have thrown (totally his fault), I thought he looked very good, solid, steady, calm, stepped up into the pocket well, scrambled for several 1st downs and ran at least one designed run for another. At one point they were 8 of 10 on third down conversions. Not sure how they wound up. If he can avoid the injury bug, I think he has a very bright future in the NFL.

by diehard82 on Sep 6, 2009 7:39 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

One more note if you didn't watch the game

I was VERY pleasantly surprised at the talent at Offensive skill positions, although they all seemed to be Freshman. I attribute that to Sarkesian recruiting, along with a couple talented Frosh who were also injured last year and got a medical redshirt, so are still redshirt freshman. I doubt Locker has a shot at Heisman this year due to lack of overall talent around him, and not winning enough, but assuming he stays for his senior year that could change.

by diehard82 on Sep 6, 2009 7:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If any of you watched the Huskies in 2007

Locker absolutely, 100% carried that team. They had no defense, and their only other offensive player who didn’t suck was Louis Rankin, and he had sucked in previous years but had a good 2007. The games the Huskies won that year were games that Locker totally took over.

Locker did have some nice weapons added last year- guys like Goodwin, Polk and Polk. However, Polk the RB was terrible and got hurt in his first game, and Locker himself battled hamstring injuries that robbed him of his speed. Still, Locker’s passing efficiency improved in 2008 despite losing every game. But because Locker lost his speed, he was no longer able to carry the team, except for the BYU game early on.

Honestly, I’m not sure why most of us were so surprised by Locker’s very good performance last night. He possesses as much pure talent as almost any QB in all of College football, he’s healthy, and he’s now got a premiere pro-style OC/QB coach showing him the ropes and help him with the skills half. Whats really exciting though, is that the surrounding cast started to show up last night. Polk (the RB) had a killer game, finally showing why he was considered an elite talent out of high school. Aguilar made a lot of good looking catches. The team’s backup RB caught a screen and ran 53 yards with it. And even TE Goodwin’s backup, (forgetting his name), had a terrific game. Right now, the Huskies have 2 good Tight ends, 2 good WR, and a good RB to compliment Locker. I don’t know how talented the O-line is, but if last night is any indication, they should not be a problem area.

The Huskies put up almost 470 yards against LSU, and didn’t do it with fluky big plays but with long drives and a balanced run/pass offense. If that isn’t a fluke, Locker’s going to finish the year with some pretty good numbers, and may actually end up tempted to enter the draft.

And with the Huskies defense still understocked with talent, the Huskies will be involved in a lot of shootouts and face a lot of relaxed defenses. The Huskies defense looks a lot better scheme wise than last year, but its still a bad defense that must give 110% effort to look average.

If Locker does return for his senior year and continues the improvement he showed last night, we could have a every exciting 2010 season on our hands.

by kearly on Sep 6, 2009 11:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

corrections

Goodwin = WR
“2nd string TE” is Middleton, who’s actually the 1st string guy, I think. I thought Goodwin was a TE.

Also, 7 different UW players recorded 2 or more receptions. Locker was seriously spreading the ball around.

by kearly on Sep 7, 2009 3:52 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jake Locker = Tim Lincecum.

The hooplah and the hype.

I saw the game, and Locker looked pretty darned good actually. He was getting off some very nice passes. Some with some decent touch, some with some hard zip, and some hitting receivers in stride. He doesn’t really have a great team around him.

Chris Polk, for example, is a terrible rusher. I don’t know how many times I saw him not notice the hole he was given. He doesn’t have great vision and doesn’t get through to the point of attack very well. He’s a pretty good receiving back, though. He caught quite a few passes on crossing routes over the middle towards the end of the game that looked like his bread and butter.

The O-Line performed well, all things considered. The wide receivers were a mix of “good play” and “fail”. A lot of Locker’s incompletions were on catchable balls. I don’t think the tight ends really got into the game much until the very end there.

Fans are typically idiots.

by The Typical Idiot Fan on Sep 7, 2009 2:08 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I'm not sure how you could possibly

derive from that game that Chris Polk is a terrible rusher….

I don’t even know what to say about that comment, honestly. Were we watching the same game?!?

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 7, 2009 8:14 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i saw on play where he could have cut back for a big gain

but instead plouded through the middle, picking up 9. so no worries there

bayless leaves over my dead body
andre miller>hedo

by thomasikehara on Sep 7, 2009 12:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah,

you always miss a cut here and there, nobody’s perfect. Overall though, I thought he was tremendous.

Mancrushed. Jake Locker for Heisman 2010.

by whiskey chainsaw on Sep 7, 2009 12:51 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

i agree

he was impressive

bayless leaves over my dead body
andre miller>hedo

by thomasikehara on Sep 7, 2009 1:57 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Tim Lincecum was insanely good in college and is now insanely good in the pros.

by BrianL on Sep 7, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Lincecum is a very flattering but dead on comparison

Locker is not THAT talented relative to his position, Lincecum is the 2nd coming of Randy Johnson, from his crazy K rate to his crazy hair. Locker is not the 2nd coming of Steve Young. But I totally get what you mean about hype. Both these guys played for UW, and coming out of UW Lincecum had crazy hype up here. Lincecum was overhyped but actually lived up to it and then some. Locker is overhyped too, and is now starting to live up to a portion of that hype. That said, he’s still overhyped. I think that’s what you were getting at and I agree.

Polk looked terrific in the first half. He had 60 yards on his first 6 carries. Of those 60 yards, probably 20 of them came after first contact. He had one fantastic run where he stiff armed two defenders in the face in the span of 2 seconds sending both to the turf. In the second half, LSU made adjustments and Polk was nailed in backfield multiple times through no fault of his own. I came into this game about as biased against him as I can be, but he really put on a show early on and showed some very tough running and good speed.

The O-line looked like a below average line that was outmatched almost every play, but played about as well as you could possibly hope for against LSU (they were like 5 Steve Vallos’s). Kind of like when Brian Russell had a good game on rare occasion or when Washburn threw a 1 hitter. It doesn’t mean they are good, but sometimes it’s ok to be happy about a good result even if the reason isn’t sustainable. UW has a bad OL, but I’m ok with a bad OL if they can overachieve and look passable in a big game.

I think that Locker has weapons around him- OL is the only area I think needs significant improvement. In his first game in almost a year, in a new offense with a new coach and new players to throw to, he led an offense to 470 yards against LSU’s defense. That’s pretty incredible, and as talented as Locker is, that speaks to the talent that is now complimenting him. On defense though, thats another story. While not as awful looking as last year, this is still a really bad defense and it almost felt like they should have been nailed by even more big plays than they suffered.

by kearly on Sep 7, 2009 3:48 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs