TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
[citation needed]
Tebow has more playoff wins than Locker does.
[citation needed]
Tebow has more playoff wins than Locker does.
HeretoBeatmyChest
New Fish
Race's "dumb as a bag of hammers" quote is conspicuously absent from dis thread.
IrishDawg22
New Fish
Trent Dilfer has more Super Bowl rings than Dan Marino.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
Not your best effort. Not even close.
Marino differentiated himself from Dilfer with sustained excellence over a long period of time. What has Locker done in the NFL to show he is better than Tebow?
CuntWaffle
New Fish
Has he ever had a "good" effort or even a "7-6" effort on this bored yet?
HillsboroDuck
New Fish
My take on Lockner is the same as it ever was. He was both a below average QB at UW AND UW's best QB (abundance and shit!). Our record with Jack under center was poor, but much better than it was in the games he missed due to injury. The idea that he should have been moved to safety makes sense in a vacuum - he would have been a better safety than QB. The same could be said about LB, IMO.
But the team would not have been better with Jake on defense, because the QB's behind him were terrible. I suppose it's possible you could say a RS frosh Price would have given us a better chance to win than Lockner, but a) when was the last time any RS frosh QB straight beat out a three year starter b) I'm not sure it's a given by any means c) if that was seriously a possibility, Jack would have just gone into the NFL after his RS junior year anyway.
Fouch was a disaster, and no one would have started a true frosh Price over junior Locker.
Jake was a guy who looked the part - big, fast, strong, TUFF. There's a reason he was a first round pick, and not just because Tennessee is stupid. He went too high, but somebody was going to roll the dice on a guy with his upside, betting that his college coaching and line was the problem.
As it turns out, he's no longer a below average QB, he's simply bad. There's still a chance he figures some things out and becomes a passable starter in the league, but that chance is low. He'll never be a franchise guy. Most likely he'll be a decent backup for most of his career and look awesome holding a clipboard.
UW is better off that he came here and played QB, but only because Ty was an epic failure at recruiting anyone else who could play the position until Price.
But the team would not have been better with Jake on defense, because the QB's behind him were terrible. I suppose it's possible you could say a RS frosh Price would have given us a better chance to win than Lockner, but a) when was the last time any RS frosh QB straight beat out a three year starter b) I'm not sure it's a given by any means c) if that was seriously a possibility, Jack would have just gone into the NFL after his RS junior year anyway.
Fouch was a disaster, and no one would have started a true frosh Price over junior Locker.
Jake was a guy who looked the part - big, fast, strong, TUFF. There's a reason he was a first round pick, and not just because Tennessee is stupid. He went too high, but somebody was going to roll the dice on a guy with his upside, betting that his college coaching and line was the problem.
As it turns out, he's no longer a below average QB, he's simply bad. There's still a chance he figures some things out and becomes a passable starter in the league, but that chance is low. He'll never be a franchise guy. Most likely he'll be a decent backup for most of his career and look awesome holding a clipboard.
UW is better off that he came here and played QB, but only because Ty was an epic failure at recruiting anyone else who could play the position until Price.
IrishDawg22
New Fish
Wow, tell me you didn't take that seriously.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
I am man enough to admit that I struggle with telling the stupid and the Sarkasm apart in your posts.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
So Sark is to Ty and Locker is to Fouch?
It's a shame Sweetman didn't have any eligibility left.
If Jake was switched to safety in '06 or '07, how do you know that we wouldn't have recruited a stud QB from high school or JUCO that saw an opportunity to take over by '08? Carl Bonnell had eligibility through '07 and was not a terrible QB and might have ended up with a decent career given the chance.
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
Strongly disagree there. When Stanback went down Bonnell was terrible going 1-4 as a starter down the stretch.
In his career Bonnell was 112-271(41.3%) passing for 1,536 yards(5.7 YPA) with 10 touchdowns and 15 INT's. His career rating was 90.0.
As for bringing in another QB I don't know if Ty was capable of that. Locker was going to come here no matter what but the rest of Ty's QB's that he brought in while coaching weren't even D-1 quality.
Bonnell sucked. Saying he wasn't terrible is like saying Cody Bruns was a reliable receiver.
Locker and his family would have been incredibly stupid to even consider changing positions. A bag of hammers isn't even that dumb. Despite not being all that great, he was picked #8 in the draft.
If he would have been in a read option spread offense like how Cam Newton or Tim Tebow were used, he would have been a much better player. He's a flawed player, and I don't think he will ever be a good NFL QB, but he could have been a very good college QB in the right system.
Locker and his family would have been incredibly stupid to even consider changing positions. A bag of hammers isn't even that dumb. Despite not being all that great, he was picked #8 in the draft.
If he would have been in a read option spread offense like how Cam Newton or Tim Tebow were used, he would have been a much better player. He's a flawed player, and I don't think he will ever be a good NFL QB, but he could have been a very good college QB in the right system.
Last edited:
Not a big enough sample set. Plus, with the environment on the team at the time he got thrust into action, it wasn't all about Carl Bonnell. Players told me (while I researched Bow Down to Willingham) that they were waiting for the inevitable collapse, regardless of quarterback.
Furthermore, there was widespread anger on the team when Jake was awarded the starting job before camp had even started in '07. The players thought enough of Bonnell to think that he should have been the starter and Jake should have had to beat him out.
When Bonnell had his one chance in '07, they beat Cal, thanks to a balanced attack and solid game from him.
The bottom line is thay if you're going to make allowances for Caesar Rayford, Chris Hemphill and several of the other guys who were poorly coached, then to not consider one for Bonnell is hypocritical.
Bonnell had a nice smile
HillsboroDuck
New Fish
[/QUOTE]
Bonnell was bettter than Fouch but not as good as Jake.
Nobody moves their best QB off the position before they have somebody else in the bag. That's crazy talk.
Bonnell was bettter than Fouch but not as good as Jake.
Last edited:
IrishDawg22
New Fish
Balanced attack? They ran the ball 56 times and Bonnell was 7-19 for 108. Rankin went for 200+ and Johnson went for 100+. And Cal helped out with 3 TOs.
Last edited:
Bonnell also sucked when given a chance in 2006 when Stanback hurt his foot. I remember him throwing 5 INT's against Cal in a game that went to OT. He flat out lost the game for us. His stats were padded by a hail mary at the end of the 4th quarter to Wood.
He didn't have all that small of a sample size. He sucked, plain and simple. He went 1-4 as a starter in 2006, and the WSU game that he won was about the luckiest game I ever saw outside of 2009 Arizona. Here are his stats. In the 2007 Cal game you speak of, he went 7-19 for 108 yards. We won because Rankin had 224 yards and Brandon Johnson went for 121 (surprised me).
http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/carl-bonnell-1.html
That's nice that players said that about Bonnell, but Jake was way better than Bonnell. Is it possible players were jealous of the hype Jake got? He was a freshman who was called the savior and Montlake Jake before he had ever played a down.
Last edited:
D
[Deleted User]
Guest
Hypocritical is ragging on Jake yet defending Bonnell who was much worse than Jake. He was less accurate and not the running threat either.
In that game he was 7-19(36.8%) for only 108 yards(5.7 YPA). If you are going to rip on Jake but defend this that is hypocritical.
If you are going to use the excuse of poor coaching, bad situation for Bonnell but ignore it when talking about Jake that is also hypocritical.
The players generally want the older guy as he knows more guys on the team and they like that a guy who paid his dues gets an opportunity. Much like players from the 1996 team have told me they wanted Fortney over Huard.
I'd say in those 5 starts in 2006 plus his other starts throughout his career we all saw enough to realize he was terrible.
He wasn't Ronnie Fouch bad or Casey Paus bad but he was still quite terrible.
TierbsHsotBoobs
New Fish
CHRIST
