2007 Best College QB?

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:15 pm

Nick wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:In the popularity contest that is the FBS they should be in the top 10. They are undefeated and many other teams are not. In the real world no 2 loss team should be ranked ahead of them.

It really doesn't matter anyway the FBS doesn't have a real NC.

Like I said if Hawaii had a defense they would play with anyone in the country, you can slow that offense down but you can't stop it.
If you are referring to Hawaii they have not played anyone within a whiff of a winning record - they barely beat LA Tech and San Diego State. They belong nowhere near the top 10.

We'll see just how good they are when they play Boise State and the Huskies and Jake Locker. If they can go undefeated, they probably should get a BCS bowl bid.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:25 pm

grizzh8r wrote:
Nick wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:In the popularity contest that is the FBS they should be in the top 10. They are undefeated and many other teams are not. In the real world no 2 loss team should be ranked ahead of them.

It really doesn't matter anyway the FBS doesn't have a real NC.

Like I said if Hawaii had a defense they would play with anyone in the country, you can slow that offense down but you can't stop it.
If you are referring to Hawaii they have not played anyone within a whiff of a winning record - they barely beat LA Tech and San Diego State. They belong nowhere near the top 10.
We'll see just how good they are when they play Boise State and the Huskies and Jake Locker. If they can go undefeated, they probably should get a BCS bowl bid.

I agree and disagree -- these games will mean alot but there are several other teams more deserving of a BCS game. Boise State and Washington are not great teams, either.

MTCAT91 · Post by **MTCAT91** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:32 am

Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:49 am

MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.

Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.

Air Force Cat · Post by **Air Force Cat** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:20 pm

Sean Carney - Air Force

I had to throw him in there

ABQCat · Post by **ABQCat** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 4:26 pm

Air Force Cat wrote:Sean Carney - Air Force

I had to throw him in there

Before you are slaughtered by these guys AFC, I'd like to tell you I'm going to be at the AFA game this Thurs in ABQ. I'll cheer on your behalf.

Ok, BN, time in. Give it to him....

maroon · Post by **maroon** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 7:49 pm

Brennan threw 5 pics against Idaho and 4 more against San Jose St.
The best QB? It's not him.

MTCAT91 · Post by **MTCAT91** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 8:35 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.

As if any of the receivers for ASU or Oregon are real household names?!? Just how many receivers can you name off the top of your head that play for these two teams? (remember Dixon is throwing to backups mostly)

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 10:09 pm

MTCAT91 wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.
As if any of the receivers for ASU or Oregon are real household names?!? Just how many receivers can you name off the top of your head that play for these two teams? (remember Dixon is throwing to backups mostly)

That's true. The Ducks' leading receiver Paisinger has been out for almost a month - and they also lost Colvin and Jones -- all three of them starters, not to mention one of the 2 power running backs.

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:09 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.

Well said Alpha.

If Locker had any semblance of a consistently decent receiving corps, he'd be very very impressive.

As a UW alum, I name them all and they are as far from a household name as you can imagine.

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:20 pm

MTCAT91 wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.
As if any of the receivers for ASU or Oregon are real household names?!? Just how many receivers can you name off the top of your head that play for these two teams? (remember Dixon is throwing to backups mostly)

Show me a freshman QB in the Pac that has EVER been truly successful.

Dixon, Longshore, Carpenter, Booty, Ostrander....are all seniors.

Locker is the only freshman QB in who knows how long that is having even a slight bit of success and that's up for debate. He's put up very average numbers so far but all you have to do is look at the team's last 5 opponents and their rankings.

Locker is throwing to receivers who arguably couldn't crack the 2nd strings on pretty much any of the other Pac 10 teams. His accuracy is questionable right now but his arm strength and ability to run the ball is better than many collegiate QB's.

He's only a RS Freshman but he needs to be surrounded by more talent before he can take the UW to the next level.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:02 am

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.
Well said Alpha.

If Locker had any semblance of a consistently decent receiving corps, he'd be very very impressive.

As a UW alum, I name them all and they are as far from a household name as you can imagine.

Dixon > Locker for everyone except Dawg homers. Russo isn't a bad receiver, either. Let's wait until Locker gets his completion % above 50 before we start crowning him the best QB in college football.

lifeloyalsigmsu · Post by **lifeloyalsigmsu** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:54 am

PapaG wrote:
lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.
Well said Alpha.

If Locker had any semblance of a consistently decent receiving corps, he'd be very very impressive.

As a UW alum, I name them all and they are as far from a household name as you can imagine.
Dixon > Locker for everyone except Dawg homers. Russo isn't a bad receiver, either. Let's wait until Locker gets his completion % above 50 before we start crowning him the best QB in college football.

Dixon = senior
Locker = freshman

Russo decided to "break out" only 2 weeks ago against ASU. Jake has no one reliable and truly talented to throw to.

Only a Schmuck homer would fail to see that. And there's nowhere where I"ve implied he's the best QB in football.

PapaG · Post by **PapaG** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:06 pm

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
PapaG wrote:
lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.
Well said Alpha.

If Locker had any semblance of a consistently decent receiving corps, he'd be very very impressive.

As a UW alum, I name them all and they are as far from a household name as you can imagine.
Dixon > Locker for everyone except Dawg homers. Russo isn't a bad receiver, either. Let's wait until Locker gets his completion % above 50 before we start crowning him the best QB in college football.
Dixon = senior
Locker = freshman

Russo decided to "break out" only 2 weeks ago against ASU. Jake has no one reliable and truly talented to throw to.

Only a Schmuck homer would fail to see that. And there's nowhere where I"ve implied he's the best QB in football.

That's what this thread is about; Locker as being the best college QB. He's a heck of a player and he looked much better last weekend than the first time I saw him live in Tempe. BTW, you missed a great tailgate. Locker will likely be a high NFL draft pick.

But he isn't the "Best College QB" at this point. He's not even close. My posts in this thread are meant to address that ridiculous notion.

AlphaGriz1 · Post by **AlphaGriz1** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:19 pm

I think he is the best all around QB in the nation.

Anyone that can make UW a competitive team is out of this world.

He has no receivers and no running game and still keeps them in games.

Dixon makes me laugh like I said earlier he is a way better baseball player.

Will Locker get better? Barring injury, hell yeah he will, but he already is as good or better than any of the overhyped QB's.

Nick · Post by **Nick** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:38 pm

AlphaGriz1 wrote:I think he is the best all around QB in the nation.

Anyone that can make UW a competitive team is out of this world.

He has no receivers and no running game and still keeps them in games.

Dixon makes me laugh like I said earlier he is a way better baseball player.

Will Locker get better? Barring injury, hell yeah he will, but he already is as good or better than any of the overhyped QB's.

Just curious when did you see Dixon play baseball since you seem to know he's a better pro baseball player??

grizzh8r · Post by **grizzh8r** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:49 pm

Nick wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:I think he is the best all around QB in the nation.

Anyone that can make UW a competitive team is out of this world.

He has no receivers and no running game and still keeps them in games.

Dixon makes me laugh like I said earlier he is a way better baseball player.

Will Locker get better? Barring injury, hell yeah he will, but he already is as good or better than any of the overhyped QB's.
Just curious when did you see Dixon play baseball since you seem to know he's a better pro baseball player??

Instead of training for football over the summer, he played baseball - that I know for sure. I think he was even drafted, if I'm not mistaken. PapaG do you know for certain?

coachouert · Post by **coachouert** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:56 pm

grizzh8r wrote:
Nick wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:I think he is the best all around QB in the nation.

Anyone that can make UW a competitive team is out of this world.

He has no receivers and no running game and still keeps them in games.

Dixon makes me laugh like I said earlier he is a way better baseball player.

Will Locker get better? Barring injury, hell yeah he will, but he already is as good or better than any of the overhyped QB's.
Just curious when did you see Dixon play baseball since you seem to know he's a better pro baseball player??
Instead of training for football over the summer, he played baseball - that I know for sure. I think he was even drafted, if I'm not mistaken. PapaG do you know for certain?

You are correct that he was drafted by the Braves.

MTCAT91 · Post by **MTCAT91** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:29 pm

lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
PapaG wrote:
lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.
Well said Alpha.

If Locker had any semblance of a consistently decent receiving corps, he'd be very very impressive.

As a UW alum, I name them all and they are as far from a household name as you can imagine.
Dixon > Locker for everyone except Dawg homers. Russo isn't a bad receiver, either. Let's wait until Locker gets his completion % above 50 before we start crowning him the best QB in college football.
Dixon = senior
Locker = freshman

Russo decided to "break out" only 2 weeks ago against ASU. Jake has no one reliable and truly talented to throw to.

Only a Schmuck homer would fail to see that. And there's nowhere where I"ve implied he's the best QB in football.

Yes, you've established that Dixon and the others are upperclassmen but how does that matter with regards to this thread? I believe that the whole point of the thread was to identify the best college QB this year - not who is the best freshman QB or who has the most potential.

Any bets on whether Locker even gets on the All-Pac 10 team?

Weltercat · Post by **Weltercat** » Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:02 pm

MTCAT91 wrote:
lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
PapaG wrote:
lifeloyalsigmsu wrote:
AlphaGriz1 wrote:
MTCAT91 wrote:Locker - the best college QB???? Are you serious? I agree he has great potential but he may be about the fourth best QB in the Pac-10 right now! Dixon 69% & 1721 yds, Carpenter (ASU) 66% & 1730 yds, Longshore (Cal) 64% & 1369 yds all have way better numbers than Locker 48% & 1193 yds. I'm sure he has way more rushing yards than these other guys but if you can't complete half your passes and your team is 2-5, I doubt you're the best quarterback in the nation.
Make sure to disregard the UW receivers, quick name one of them without looking them up on the internet.

If Locker played on any of the teams you mentioned his numbers would be as good or better. Any QB that can make UW a competitive team is playing way better than anyone else in the country.
Well said Alpha.

If Locker had any semblance of a consistently decent receiving corps, he'd be very very impressive.

As a UW alum, I name them all and they are as far from a household name as you can imagine.
Dixon > Locker for everyone except Dawg homers. Russo isn't a bad receiver, either. Let's wait until Locker gets his completion % above 50 before we start crowning him the best QB in college football.
Dixon = senior
Locker = freshman

Russo decided to "break out" only 2 weeks ago against ASU. Jake has no one reliable and truly talented to throw to.

Only a Schmuck homer would fail to see that. And there's nowhere where I"ve implied he's the best QB in football.
Yes, you've established that Dixon and the others are upperclassmen but how does that matter with regards to this thread? I believe that the whole point of the thread was to identify the best college QB this year - not who is the best freshman QB or who has the most potential.

Any bets on whether Locker even gets on the All-Pac 10 team?

I'll bet Locker gets at least an honerable mention as far as PAC 10 honers go.