Home› Hardcore Husky Board

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Sign In Register
Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Tequilla Quick Thought

TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,837
in Hardcore Husky Board
If a Jr/Sr Jake Locker was the QB of this team, we'd be 11-2 or 12-1 this year.
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«13

Comments

  • devildawgdevildawg Member Posts: 67
    Last year yes! This year? Probably not....Pete would have him at LB by now with spot duty on special teams.Playing QB for Pete is haaaaaaard!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • LoneStarDawgLoneStarDawg Member Posts: 13,336
    Keith would have them playing better
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jecorneljecornel Member Posts: 9,727
    So Stanford, ASU, Zona, UCLA all wins with Locker?

    At the start of the year, looking at the home schedule, returning players, experienced o-line, Miles with meaningful minutes last year, extra bowl practices, off season natty, and Pete's experience many saw 10 wins.

    Locker cements it?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • devildawgdevildawg Member Posts: 67
    Without a 2000 yard back,no TE,mucked up WR corp and no Sark to chuck it too on 3rd and 3...KP wouldn't make it through the year with this group. Hell he didn't make it through with last years all stars
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jecorneljecornel Member Posts: 9,727
    Think if you predicted Shelton, Shaq, Peters, playing at All AMerican level and Kikaha leading the nation in sacks what would you have predicted?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,837
    You win the Stanford game with just average QB play. Hard not to see Locker being able to make a play either with his arm/legs to be able to make a difference in that game.

    We definitely beat Arizona with Locker as a couple of extra drives get finished off.

    And given the way the ASU game went, you'd have to like the chances of Locker as a runner in that game combined with how Shaq was running. Not to mention that he'd have been a far better passing option than Williams was in that game.

    UCLA? Who knows. Oregon? Probably not. But with the current offense, you're definitely looking at a situation that once a team gets 2 scores up on us that it's hard for the confidence of the team to be positive knowing that the offense is unlikely to come back. Even with both of those being losses, you're looking at 11-2 then.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PurpleReignPurpleReign Member Posts: 5,478
    edited November 2014
    Miley fucking sucks
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    edited November 2014
    I do understand the thinking, but Locker sucked in 2010 with a better running game and better WR's. 4 games under 100 yards passing.

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13969/type/college/jake-locker
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PostGameOrangeSlicesPostGameOrangeSlices Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 25,957 Swaye's Wigwam
    10 in '10
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • VegasdawgVegasdawg Member Posts: 370
    Since Peterman contributed a great deal in both the Stanford and Arizona losses, I think a serviceable QB would have led the teams to victory, but not much more. Second guessing is tough. Hell, I'm in doubt we win another game this season.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • topdawgnctopdawgnc Member Posts: 7,838
    Tequilla said:

    You win the Stanford game with just average QB play. Hard not to see Locker being able to make a play either with his arm/legs to be able to make a difference in that game.

    We definitely beat Arizona with Locker as a couple of extra drives get finished off.

    And given the way the ASU game went, you'd have to like the chances of Locker as a runner in that game combined with how Shaq was running. Not to mention that he'd have been a far better passing option than Williams was in that game.

    UCLA? Who knows. Oregon? Probably not. But with the current offense, you're definitely looking at a situation that once a team gets 2 scores up on us that it's hard for the confidence of the team to be positive knowing that the offense is unlikely to come back. Even with both of those being losses, you're looking at 11-2 then.

    Bullshit.

    That game was lost on 4 plays.

    1 - Baby hands fumbling in the red zone ... Lockner was notorious for choking in the red zone.
    2 - Baby hands fumbling right before the half ... Lockner would have turned it over at some point too.
    3 - The holding call on 4th down that lead to...
    4 - The women's soccer team manager walking in for the score.

    Lockner would have had the same result as Baby Hands in half the game changing plays.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RapeculturedawgRapeculturedawg Member Posts: 899
    Hypotheticals are for doogs and 12s.. fuck off
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jecorneljecornel Member Posts: 9,727
    Rapeculturedawg said:

    Hypotheticals are for doogs and 12s.. fuck off

    you sound eerily similar to Race.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SwayeSwaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,421 Founders Club
    jecornel said:

    Rapeculturedawg said:

    Hypotheticals are for doogs and 12s.. fuck off

    you sound eerily similar to Race.
    One of his dads.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CanardCanard Member Posts: 504
    It's heartening to see that not everyone has forgotten just how hard Locker sucked as a QB.

    Since we're dealing in hypos, what if Lockner had been a consensus AA free safety? would sark still be coaching UW without those embarrassing defensive collapses that marked his tenure?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,837
    RoadDawg55 said:

    I do understand the thinking, but Locker sucked in 2010 with a better running game and better WR's. 4 games under 100 yards passing.

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13969/type/college/jake-locker

    He was also 2-2 in those games where he threw for under 100 yards passing.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RoadDawg55RoadDawg55 Member Posts: 30,123
    Tequilla said:

    RoadDawg55 said:

    I do understand the thinking, but Locker sucked in 2010 with a better running game and better WR's. 4 games under 100 yards passing.

    http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/gamelog/_/id/13969/type/college/jake-locker

    He was also 2-2 in those games where he threw for under 100 yards passing.
    Because Polk went off in both of those games. Locker sucked.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • RapeculturedawgRapeculturedawg Member Posts: 899
    The best play in the playbook for Locker was ALWAYS the handoff to Polk
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • TequillaTequilla Member Posts: 19,837
    Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

    It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

    They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • chuckchuck Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 10,999 Swaye's Wigwam
    Tequilla said:

    Most important stat for a QB is wins and losses ...

    It's so easy to get a rise out of the Locker haters on this board ...

    They are also so quick to point out the times that Locker sucked, but they never point out the times where he was really good.

    Unfortunately those times became increasingly rare after his first season. He was good against USC twice but still almost fucked away one of those by fumbling a breakaway TD across the goal line for a touch back. I can't really remember a "big" game after his first season where he carried the team or was even really good.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.