You Make the Call: Jake Locker or Ryan Mallett??
As I spent the 2010 season watching QB Matt Hasselbeck look less and less like the All-Pro player of 2005 it became clear to me that his days in the NFL are numbered. It also became clear to me that Charlie Whitehurst is not the long term solution. Whitehurst is a career backup who might be able to win the occasional game off the bench but he is certainly not someone who you can build the offense around. I think the victory over the Rams in week 17 is exactly what Whitehurst is capable of, stepping in for an injured starter and playing a conservative game that keeps the Hawks competitive against average teams. At this point it is uncertain what roles Hasselbeck and Whitehurst will play in 2011 for the Hawks. While these points can be argued back and forth let's assume the Seahawks are going to spend a first round pick on a QB, who should they take?
Now that more and more 2011 NFL Mock Drafts have been posted in the past few weeks we can begin to see what the experts say the Seahawks will do with the #25 pick in round one of the draft. We could sit here all day long and talk about what Missouri's Blaine Gabbert or Auburn's Cam Newton could do for the Hawks but the chance of either of them being available to Pete Carroll is slim. I think the next two QB's available in my mind, Washington's Jake Locker and Arkansas' Ryan Mallott, are players the Hawks will be watching closely and comparing.
I took a peak on ESPN.com to see what Mel Kiper's thoughts were and he has Seattle selecting Mallett at #25 and Locker slipping out of the first round altogether. Their other primary draft analyst, Todd McShay, has Locker going to the Titans at #8 and Mallett to the Jaguars at #16 (Hawks take Wisconsin DE JJ Watt). McShay had predicted Locker as the #1 overall pick in the 2010 NFL Draft before Locker decided to return to UW for his senior year. Kiper had predicted Locker at the #1 overall pick in the 2011 NFL Draft prior to the college season beginning. Their selections are conflicting and couldn't be less helpful to me in determining which of the two will be a better NFL QB. Another NFL Draft Mock site I like (WalterFootball) has Locker to the Vikings at #12 and Mallett falling to round two (Hawks take Miami CB Brandon Harris).
Mallett has an absolute cannon for an arm and at 6'6" is quite a specimen. He torched SEC defenses for 7500 yards, 62 TD's and 19 INT's in two years at Arkansas, completing 60% of his passes during that time. While these numbers are impressive, Mallett quite simply played well against weaker teams and struggled against stronger opponents. He threw 11 TD's against UTEP, Tennessee Tech, and UL Monroe while only 3 versus Alabama, LSU, and Auburn this past year. While it is clear he is a great passer, he is not particularly mobile, something Seahawks fans have become used to seeing at the QB position recently. As NFL veterans like Michael Vick and Aaron Rodgers, as well as rookies like Tim Tebow, show what a versatile QB can bring to the game, Mallett's lack of mobility both inside and outside the pocket is concerning.
Locker passed for 7600 yards over four years at Washington along with 53 TD's and 35 INT's while his completion percentage was 54%. It's Locker's inaccuracy that has negatively affected his draft position this past season. Locker brings a different dimension to the QB position however, his ability to run the ball, accounting for nearly 2000 yards on the ground at UW. Of course, statistics don't tell the whole story. Locker can be frustrating in that he will sometimes play well against top teams (two wins vs USC) then struggle against weaker opponents, his inconsistency is maddening.
Mallett was surrounded by plenty of talent at Arkansas, who finished #12 in the nation this past year. Locker was often a one-man show at UW, a team that would most definitely have been well below .500 this past year without him. Locker also has a slight advantage in his favor, in my mind, in that he played his high school and college football in Washington. If the Hawks decide that Locker and Mallett are very closely rated I think Locker is the best choice simply because Hawks fans, for the most part, know and love Jake Locker (okay, maybe not WSU fans). I don't see how the Hawks could risk passing on the local hero and taking the chance that Locker is successful elsewhere if they select Mallett and he is not. I know many of you will think taking this into account is ridiculous, but I think that Hawk's fans would love a player like Locker to get behind and create a waiting list for season tickets again.
What's happening off the field? More recently, reports are swirling that Mallett is perhaps a bit of a meathead and that his Wonderlic score may challenge Vince Young's for the lowest of all-time. There is also speculation of further off the field problems. Of course, I don't know this to be true, but it's something the Hawks will be looking into. Locker, from what I can tell, seems like a standup guy, the kind of guy who will stay out of trouble for the most part. Again, I certainly don't know the details, but if it's true that Mallett has baggage and Locker has a level head on his shoulders, this should matter to the Hawks.
On a related note, I would like to see John Carlson play a bigger role in the passing game. I think a mobile QB like Locker can better use play action passing, role out of the pocket, and utilize Carlson better. I think that Jake Locker would be a fantastic pick at #25 for the Seahawks. I think if the Hawks have the choice between Locker and Mallett they should pick Locker. If Todd McShay is correct and Locker is gone prior to pick #25 then I think the Hawks should focus on another position, especially if they intend to bring Hasselbeck back next year. I think the aforementioned players Brandon Harris (CB) or JJ Watts (DE) would be excellent selections as those are positions that the Hawks need help in.
How does everybody else rate Locker/Mallett?? Should the Hawks focus on a different position entirely in round one?
125 comments
|
7 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
And if he is I hope he is there at 26 as well...
by Trojan Knight on Jan 25, 2011 3:17 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Because if he has one good showing
all the bad is erased?
by TXHawkfan on Jan 28, 2011 3:23 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
If he gets past Jacksonville at 16, and nobody trades up between 16 and 25?
Yes. But I don’t think he drops to us. Too much talent, rawness notwithstanding.
Cake for me too, please.
No Locker for rational and irrational reasons.
by eeezzbok on Jan 25, 2011 3:58 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Yes
Irrational reason is easy: Always been a Coug fan, and went to WSU. Although I have to admit that after watching him play, and hearing his interviews, I’ve grown to like Locker a little. The thought of a Husky as a Seahawk doesn’t actually bother me, it’s the inevitable unconditional, overly-biased, blind love that Husky/Hawk fans will have for him that I dread.
Rational: I just don’t think he has the accuracy to make him worth our #1 pick. I don’t buy the “bad receivers” excuse, or any other excuse involving the lack of talent around him. He underperformed when I expected a large step forward. That scares me.
by eeezzbok on Jan 25, 2011 5:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I don't buy the bad receivers thing for a second
but the bad offensive line could definitely have impacted his accuracy.
Yeah, he had a crappy O-line..
I just think that the excuses for Locker have been way overblown and used by some to completely gloss over some glaring weaknesses.
So you didn't actually watch any games?
by stufr on Jan 26, 2011 3:42 AM PST up reply actions 2 recs
He's WSU fan.
so other then the Apple Cup……
Learn JiuJitsu, it's fun.
by RolloTomasi on Jan 26, 2011 10:30 PM PST up reply actions
If Locker is gone...
do we take Mallett as the best QB available or ride Hasselbeck/Whitehurst for another year and use the 25th pick for something else?
A CB is needed.
The worst thing we could do is burn a 1st round pick on a bust QB.
Learn JiuJitsu, it's fun.
I agree...
completely. As I mentioned above, if Locker doesn’t fall to #25 I would love a DL or CB. Mel Kiper has University of Miami CB Brandon Harris going #26 to the Ravens, I would love us to snatch him at #25.
That's exactly who I've been keeping my eye on.
A Miami CB that might contribute……wouldn’t THAT be nice.
Learn JiuJitsu, it's fun.
He contributes
Just to the other teams offense
So is Peyton Manning.
I don’t need a scrambler, I just want an arm with good range, quick release and high accuracy.
Mallet has been termed lazy...
with a lack of discipline. That’s pretty much opposite Peyton in every way other than shape and form.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 30, 2011 8:00 PM PST up reply actions
Manning is NOT a statue.
His footwork is one of his strengths.
Mallet has slow poor footwork.
Learn JiuJitsu, it's fun.
Manning's footwork is good but he's no scrambler
He moves well in the pocket. Not as well as Brady, but well
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 31, 2011 10:53 AM PST up reply actions
I never said he was a scrambler.
But to say he’s a statue is just wrong.
And we can’t have people being wrong on the internet…
Learn JiuJitsu, it's fun.
by RolloTomasi on Jan 31, 2011 12:59 PM PST up reply actions
Another thing.
I don’t need a scrambler, I just want an arm with good range, quick release and high accuracy.
Mallet has a slow release, partly due to his long stride in his footwork.
Learn JiuJitsu, it's fun.
Nick..
I hate a poll that gives only two answers… there are more options, like “none of the above”…
Also, you kinda lost me in the opening paragraph with this:
It also became clear to me that Charlie Whitehurst is not the long term solution. Whitehurst is a career backup who might be able to win the occasional game off the bench but he is certainly not someone who you can build the offense around. I think the victory over the Rams in week 17 is exactly what Whitehurst is capable of, stepping in for an injured starter and playing a conservative game that keeps the Hawks competitive against average teams.
I don’t know how you have such clairvoyance, but can you at least acknowledge the fact that you just put Whitehurst’s max ceiling at what he did in his second game ever as a starter?!? Is there, just maybe— let me throw this out there for you— a chance at all that the ceiling is maybe a tad higher?
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 25, 2011 3:02 PM PST reply actions
Well...
Fair enough about the poll but my whole thought was simply trying to compare two players.
As far as Whitehurst goes you make a good point, but I guess the fact that he will be 29 when the 2011 season starts tells me that perhaps if he were quality enough to start in the NFL, somebody would have given him a shot at some point, especially with how needy teams are to find good QB’s these days. I would love to be wrong and have Whitehurst be a rare QB who doesn’t hit his prime until after 30.
I think in general that's true, but consider how little opportunity teams have had to evaluate Whitehurst.
Obviously the Chargers weren’t going to play him. So while the fact that he hasn’t started already could be a bad sign, it also might be the product of an unfortunate situation (behind a star QB).
I truly hope you are correct
i have a feeling Charlie will get the most snaps in 2011 if we don’t draft a QB.
like steve young?
Drafted by the bucs, allowed to play a full season in his 2nd year and stink up the joint. Young was then traded for peanuts before sitting on the bench for another 4 year. I believe Steve young finally started for the 49ers in his 6th or 7th year in the league….then of course he become one of the best QBs of all time.
by plyka on Jan 25, 2011 10:34 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Green started a full season at age 28
so even a late bloomer like Green turned the corner before Whitehurst possibly ever does.
True, but Green as also cut and an a CFL roster for one season
Also, I believe Gus Frerotte was scheduled to be the starter that season but got injured, which is why Green started the majority of his age 28 season. Without that injury, we may never have seen Green as a starter anywhere.
by SmartAssCoug on Jan 27, 2011 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
Great Example
I think we can all agree that most QB’s who don’t earn a starting position by age 29, or possibly later for Whitehurst if Hasselbeck returns, don’t end up in the Hall of Fame. Young is an outlier.
Plus...
If I truly had such clairvoyance (I am going to assume you spelled that right because I have no clue), I wouldn’t need to guess as to which QB was better, I would tell you exactly what was going to happen then take over Mel Kiper’s job.
Hah! Well said.
I didn’t mean to give you too hard a time… and up above in response you said, “my whole thought was simply trying to compare two players.”
That’s fine. And you did, by the way, a great job with the information. Be careful though, with the premise. By putting the Charlie statement out there first, you inherently brought him into the argument as a third player. I understand where you were going with intent, but be careful with the construction so that doesn’t happen.
Sorry, I’m not trying to be pedantic or anything. This is just the ex-English teacher in me trying to help a guy with his writing. As I said, the actual comparison of the two was good. In fact, it was the best comparison of those that I’ve seen anywhere.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 26, 2011 11:25 AM PST up reply actions
Thanks!
I appreciate the feedback, more than you know. Often times I get ideas rolling too fast in my head and don’t articulate them well on paper. I’m actually studying to take the GMAT right now so I need all the help I can get from an English teacher!!
None of the above. (Someone show me awesome tape of these QBs to prove me wrong)
Hasselbeck will remain the starting QB, much to the chagrin of most of of the fans at FG, while Whitehurst and Davis will battle it out for backup. Losman.. well it’s Losman.
You sir, are an omnipotent juicebox.
I'm chagrined that the Seahawks will (probably) continue starting a lousy old QB.
Standing pat with one of the worst collections of QB talent in the NFL is a horrible idea (sorry if I’m not optimistic about a QB who couldn’t beat out either Alex or Troy Smith for snaps). A 1st round pick is a 1st round pick, but at #25 the Seahawks can afford to take a chance with a flawed QB; we’d be lucky to get either Locker or Mallett at that spot. That is how serious the QB situation is here.
Right now I would
But I like to sink my teeth into a lot more draft coverage before making any conclusions. I don’t follow college football closely, so I try to keep an open mind. But if there is a QB at #25 who has a 1st round grade, whoever that is, the Seahawks should draft him. There seems to be a lot of QB talent in this draft, and it would be AWFUL if the Seahawks went home empty-handed.
I agree
If Mallet or Locker falls to us, provided there aren’t players who unexpectedly fall that low, we should pick one of them, or if our guys don’t like them, there is good looking QB talent to be had in later rounds. We better take our best shot.
Oh yeah: I guess I'd take Locker over Mallett right now
and hope that his natural talent guides him to become a better, more accurate NFL quarterback. At #25 his ability is worth the (somewhat low) risk.
im with you
Watching locker vs kapernick, I can’t see how anyone thinks locker is the better prospect.
by plyka on Jan 26, 2011 10:59 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Little tidbit from NFLDraftScout. . .
01/27/11 – SENIOR BOWL PRACTICE, WEDNESDAY
… The best passer on the field was Kaepernick, who threw tight spirals to either side of the field, had an exceptional touch throw into the back right corner of the end zone, and looked smooth and fluid running out of the pocket when his primary receiver was covered. When he sets his feet and throws a tight ball, Kaepernick’s velocity is more than what’s needed to make every NFL throw.
The price will probably going to be too high
I’m hearing 2nd round pick, which would be way too much
No way
I hope there is no way the Hawks are dealing for Palmer. I wouldn’t be surprised is Carroll gives Leinart a chance at camp though, he loved his USC guys!
I don't think so.
He got rid of Lawrence Jackson and LenDale White. He passed up on Taylor Mays. He even released the almighty David Kirtman. He hasn’t shown any bias towards USC players.
Really?
He got rid of LenDale White but he is the one who brought in LenDale White. Carroll only got rid of him because White got a drug suspension. You think Mike Williams would have been given a chance in Seattle if not for Carroll? I love Williams, so the small USC bias isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Sixth round pick Anthony McCoy, maybe I don’t know. It’s not a huge bias but LenDale White and Mike Williams would never be here without Carroll. As far as passing on Mays I think the consensus is that Thomas was just flat out better. I’m not saying it’s a bad thing, just that I wouldn’t be surprised to see Leinart given a tryout.
It doesn't seem Carroll favors Trojans any more than any coach favors former players
All coaches use their knowledge of former players to bring in talent. But Carroll has passed over chances to pick up (or retain) former Trojans when getting them would have been an obvious move and met with little criticism. He passed on Matt Leinart after he was released when all it would have cost was releasing Losman.
Seems to me that to argue for a bias Carroll would have to go to the USC well above and beyond what you might expect from any coach.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
This claim keeps getting brought up, but I don't think it really has any validity
For every BMW he brings in and trying out, he’s just as comfortable cutting (LenDale) or trading for very low return (Jackson). In fact, I think we had more USC players on the roster under Ruskell than we have now, though I could be mistaken about that.
by SmartAssCoug on Jan 25, 2011 10:45 PM PST up reply actions
Mallett put up his big numbers against South West Mother Teresa Tech.
And sucked against the few real opponents the SEC teams allow themselves to play. And wears cement shoes on game day. Classic Ruskell pick, except he’s big, and a meathead.
Locker has much better upside. Higher quality opponents, big performances in big games, coachability. He got to play for that recruiting and motivational genius Walkingdead Willingham, so we have to take that into account.
Locker looked at least decent against good competition, and sometimes great, with a crappy supporting cast (Oline) and a pretty good back in Polk, while Mallett looked below average against good competition with blue chip linemen and Mark Ingram in his backfield.
Locker, by a mile. If Mike Pouncey is not available.
I say what I say every year: draft nothing but linemen, offensive and defensive. When the opposition is laying on the ground, even below average players can make plays.
by bleedshawkblue on Jan 26, 2011 12:41 AM PST reply actions
His stock is rising
This morning Chris Mortenson says he sees Locker going in the top half of round 1, says he’s showing a lot of intangibles at the Senior Bowl.
What?
How the heck do you show intangibles at Senior Bowl practice?
Man, as little love as I have for “he’s got intangibles!” nonsense usually, that’s just ridiculous.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 26, 2011 9:22 AM PST up reply actions
There are a multitude of ways
Grasps the playbook immediately. Fixes things based on coaches inputs. Lots of little things that will be tough to see from the stands and will only be seen by the coaches. Heck it could be film room type things.
I don't want Mallett
Mostly for his baggage/character question marks. Now you can flame me back and say that I am making assumtions and you would be right, but… where there is smoke there is usually fire. Is there even a whiff of an issue with Luck, Gabbert, Locker, Ponder, or any other big time college QB? No. 90 percent of the time when there are question marks about a guys character coming out of college, it turns out bad in the long run. So yes I would take Locker.
Sometimes the character thing is self-fulfilling
I don’t have a position on Locker vs. Mallet, but the easiest thing in the world is for people to toss the “character” label around. It can mean anything from outright law-breaking to some scout or media type who “doesn’t like the cut of someone’s jib.”
As for that 90% of the time character stuff turns out bad in the long run, all you have to do is apply the label and wait for a person to make a mistake. The funny part is that we often ignore the other side — those times when someone doesn’t have the “character” label coming out of school but then goes on to make the same mistake.
For example, imagine the difference in reaction if Lofa came out of USC with the “character” rap because he got cited for underage alcohol and then years later got his DUI in Seattle. Many people would be saying, “See. Told ya.” But, had Lofa gone to Mizzou or Indiana perhaps an underage drinking citation would have been more likely than in LA.
I have no problem with teams looking into so-called character issues. It’s just it too often seems like the label is enough and that people don’t even look into the substance.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 26, 2011 6:14 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Problem with the "law" i.e. college issue isn't what I am talking about
Its the comments that he isn’t and never has been the leader of the team in the huddle or the locker room. That the coaches had to nearly beg him to watch film. Those are the character concerns that worry me.
Depends on the issue
Underaged drinking is a ‘mistake’ that nearly every single honest person would admit to making. Just because they play college ball doesn’t exempt them from being human any more than it should exempt them from the rules. Similarly to, me, taking money ranks as a complete non-factor since I consider the NCAA a bunch of crooked fools.
Violence, serious drug or criminal charges, or repetive minor behavior would be a no-fly zone.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
by Azimeir on Jan 27, 2011 12:14 AM PST via mobile up reply actions 1 recs
Normally I'd disagree
But I found some scouting tape on Mallett and it’s not pretty
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 26, 2011 7:04 AM PST up reply actions
Holy jesus, where in the hell did you find that?!?
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 26, 2011 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
Apologies
It’s a youtube link and with the link name as “it’s not pretty”. I assumed NSFWness was implied.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 26, 2011 2:00 PM PST up reply actions
Truth
Life on the internet has made me jaded to the point where I don’t click video sites at work.
by Thomas Beekers on Jan 26, 2011 2:19 PM PST up reply actions
You think those two things are connected?
Perhaps correlation does not equal causation.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 26, 2011 4:06 PM PST up reply actions
Mallett was completely exposed in his bowl game
Where as Locker did, as he always has done, just enough to win. IF I had to pick (which thankfully, I don’t) I’d go Locker and never look back.
Jason Gesser’s career arc (or lack thereof) bothers me though with regards to Locker, and I’m not sure I can put my finger on it, but it does.
I don't see the similarities between Locker and Gesser.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
by Azimeir on Jan 27, 2011 12:08 AM PST via mobile up reply actions
Just the seemingly unrelated, but numerous, injuries.
He played tough in college, but then continued to get hurt in the pros.
OK, one REC for you
Just because you actually came back and groveled.
I like just two choices, it is like a game of “would you rather.” It shows Locker as a landslide if you had to pick one or the other.
Now try Locker vs. that Nevada kid.
Having seen more of Locker and less of Mallett, and not being any kind of scout...
I’d go with Locker if the talent is comparable (which I don’t know if it is). No knock on Mallett whatsoever, but Locker has always been praised everywhere for his coachability, work ethic, etc. In a vacuum, those are somewhat incidental to raw talent, but if you’re asking for the choice between allegedly super-great work ethic versus whatever is behind door number two, I’ll go with the guy who has the consensus character reference over the guy I don’t know about.
Secondly, Locker’s athleticism means he has somewhere to go if he completely flops as a passing quarterback: my consolation prize is that I have somebody to use in Wildcat situations, or as an H-back or on special teams or something. It’s not much given the investment, but it gives me a slightly higher floor than Mallett, whose physical traits offer no such insurance policy. Designated Hail Mary-er is not a valuable enough position. Plus, the Seahawks already signed Isaiah Stanback to do that.
As you can see, this opinion contains no scouting insight or talent evaluation whatsoever. Just pick the best quarterback and we promise to love him.
Locker
Not a Husky fan specifically, root for both the Cougs and the Huskies, but love it when teams can draft local.
I’ve seen Locker play quite a bit, and I like what I see. Accuracy doesn’t concern me since there’s no way to be certain of the cause and its a problem that’s been fixed in the past with other signal-callers. I feel better trying to fix a QB’s accuracy issues when he has all of Locker’s other strengths working for him.
Aside from the obvious physical skills that are sexy sexy, being a consistent performer in the NFL (especially at QB) seems often to be accompanied by that weird mix of humble and cocky. And I think Locker’s got it.
Most of my cliches aren't original.
- Chuck Knox
by Azimeir on Jan 27, 2011 12:30 AM PST via mobile reply actions 2 recs
Locker
If Uncle Pete takes either one of those guys in the draft I’ll change my mind completely about his ability to spot talent. The ’Hawks need to get either Gabe Carimi or whoever the top remaining CB in the draft is.
Quarterback is a need and someone like Locker is a toolsy, physical freak.
If the Seahawks take Locker, plenty of valid arguments can be made for the selection.
I don't want us to draft Locker in the 1st
But I agree with BrianL here, I can see some valid reasons why they would. I hope it doesn’t happen, but it won’t “completely change my mind about (Pete’s) ability to spot talent.”
Locker and Mallet
Remind me of Dan McGuire
It's the Mirer-McGuire Constant.
Whenever the topic of the Seahawks drafting a quarterback arises in an online discussion, the prospect QB in question will inevitably be likened to Rick Mirer and/or Dan McGuire. At this point, the debate can progress no further.
Compare to: Godwin’s Law
by BrianL on Jan 27, 2011 8:52 AM PST up reply actions 4 recs
As the discussion of drafting a Seahawks QB grows longer
the probability of a comparison involving Rick Mirer and/or Dan McGuire approaches one.
by BrianL on Jan 27, 2011 9:00 AM PST up reply actions 6 recs
Awesome.
/Smiles
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 27, 2011 11:33 AM PST up reply actions
It's drafting a QB in the first round.
Not just drafting a QB.
Mallett.
Give me accuracy and ability to read a defense over arm strength any day.
Oh wait, Mallett has arm strength, too!
Neither.
Although I’m slightly more open to Mallett knowing Bates is gone and he would’ve been an awful fit.
I love Jake Locker but as an NFL QB I have not seen anything to suggest he will be a good pro.
Fire Gus "What's a screen?" Bradley.
I prefer the Playoff Weevil
(over the Bowl)
by Kryten on Jan 28, 2011 11:33 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
I think it's Mallet and it's not even close
Mallet is an NFL QB type while Locker simply is not. Mallet has a rocket of an arm, is accurate and can read defenses. Locker is a physical freak and goes to UW. Those are the only positives i can see for Locker.
Mallet, if not for the “off field concerns” would probably be the first QB taken in this draft. If the Hawks do their due dilligence and find out that these “concerns” are overblown, taking him with the 25th pick would be my favorite option. 2nd favorite option would be a CB like Smith.
The only game I ever saw Mallet, he completely did NOT read a defense...
but hey, at least it was when his entire season was on the line. I’m sure that was a meaningless blip on the radar.
"Life does not cease to be funny when people die, anymore than it ceases to be serious when people laugh." - George Bernard Shaw
by Tyler Jorgensen on Jan 28, 2011 11:44 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Mallet read defenses and looked great
Against the high school teams that the SEC plays out of conference. Against good competition he looked a lot more like a relatively immobile statue who did well with his first read and his dump off, but had trouble with anything else. Tough to tell if he can’t read complicated/unexpected defenses yet, or if he just has trouble doing it under pressure. He really does look like a big oaf when he is scrambling and not a planned roll out. His bowl game was a great example.
Accurate and able to read defenses is not a description that is difficult to apply to Mallet
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 29, 2011 8:44 PM PST up reply actions
is a description*
Damn it. When is there going to be an edit button?
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 31, 2011 7:41 PM PST up reply actions
Nothing we've seen or heard from Mallett
shows an “I’m in” attitude from the guy. Locker’s on the opposite end of that spectrum, however.
Go Pack?
Honestly, if it's a choice between the two, I cannot see how it's even remotely a question.
Jake Locker.
Covets: Mark Ingram, Marcell Dareus, Prince Amukamara, Rodney Hudson, and Owen Marecic.
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 29, 2011 8:43 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
Is there a possibility of Jake giving us the hometown discount?
And if so, does that factor in much? I haven’t seen that addressed at all, which makes me think it’s not a realistic possibility, but has anyone besides me asked?
by central_scrutinizer on Jan 30, 2011 8:35 PM PST reply actions
Given the offense we run
Locker would probably be the FO’s choice. Add in the homegrown factor and I can’t imagine a scenario where these go head-to-head and Mallett comes out ahead.
Which one is actually better? Haven’t a clue.




































