Monday, September 26, 2011

The Price of being wrong

The NFL is littered with so-called “busts”—college stars who were top-ten draft picks expected to translate into NFL stars, but who for one reason or another not only failed to meet expectations, but did so miserably. A “bust” could be injury-prone or could not adjust to the speed or complexity of the professional game; in college, where in any given year there are10,000 players from over 100 Division 1 programs—of whom only a tiny fraction are NFL caliber—a player of mediocre to good talent can appear to be far better than he really is. In the college game, because there is such frequent player turnover, a player can out-physical—or outsmart—other players who are inexperienced or even less “gifted,” those who are athlete-students rather than student-athletes. Players who initially impress may also play in a “system” that simply highlights one strength. Bellevue high school football team on the Republican side of Lake Washington is an example of a program that appears impressive on the surface; they run a version of the option game that nobody else plays, and because teams don’t “game plan” for them, Bellevue has become a local “powerhouse.” Yet despite its success in the wins/losses column, Bellevue produces few college prospects, because its “game” doesn’t translate on the next level. Once a one-dimensional player reaches the NFL, it’s like playing chess with a person who doesn’t have a clue of how to play the game, but if you don’t know this, you might be confused by his “strategy” and lose a game or two. But once you figure out that your opponent has no idea about what he is doing, he can be easily beaten every time.

The question of how do we know if a college player will translate on the professional level is generally a crap shoot, and for the most part there is no such thing as a “safe” pick, only hopes and guesses. I bring this up because I’ve been listening to local sports commentators trying to solve the riddle of why Washington Huskies quarterback Keith Price, in his first season as a starter, appears to play the position at a much more accomplished level than his predecessor, Jake Locker, ever did. Although Locker was an 8th round pick by the Tennessee Titans, there seemed to be very little on paper to justify this pick. He was never a true passer, even in high school; his passing statistics were anything but impressive, his mechanics never seemed to improve, and in his only winning season, running back Chris Polk was the team’s principle offensive weapon. Nevertheless, Locker seemed to impress draft “experts” by his as yet unrealized “potential,” based on his “intangibles” and athleticism; Locker may develop in time, but no one is claiming that he is “ready” now—ironic, given the lack of enthusiasm accorded Cam Newton by the same “experts.”

While Locker struggled to develop into an NFL-ready quarterback in an offensive system that had made USC a national powerhouse, Price, seemingly out of left field, has done nothing but impress with his passing skills; he is the ninth-rated quarterback in the country at the moment, (while Locker never cracked the top-50), and no one has thrown for more touchdown passes through four games. He is clearly a more accomplished passer than Locker ever appeared to be, and the Huskies have not been this offensively potent in what seems like decades. This reality has clearly irritated and flustered one local commentator, Dick Baird. Through thick and thin, Baird was Locker’s biggest cheerleader, frequently providing various rationalizations to explain why this stud prospect, who was promised the world if he stayed local, simply did not deliver what was expected. When it came to Price, Baird is considerably less effusive, finding reasons to disparage him in order to avoid comparisons with Locker which only shed a negative light on the latter. When asked his opinion on a recent impressive performance by Price, Baird was clearly agitated; the first thing out of his mouth was to observe that Price was “fragile,” and went on to say that (something he has said many times ad nauseum) that Price had three years to sit around and learn the “system.” The irony here is that there is a big difference in learning to quarterback on the field and simply watching it; the Seattle Seahawks failed to learn this lesson when the San Diego Chargers pulled a major con-job on the organization in the Charlie Whitehurst deal. Huskies coach Steve Sarkisian himself seemed to be guilty of under-estimating Price’s ability in the season opener against Eastern Washington, to the detriment of the offensive efficiency; since then Price has flourished with an open playbook. Some local commentators have tried to find other reasons to explain why Price flew under the radar during the Locker era; again ironically, Price’s mechanics were said to be “flawed” early in his career, but have since improved markedly—and yet by most accounts, Locker’s mechanics never measurably improved despite first-team attention.

What fascinates about this particular case is that the player who displayed fewer skills expected at the NFL-level QB position (Locker) is nevertheless held in higher esteem than a player who has. Locker can be said to have been a minor “bust” in college, but he is being treated as an “NFL” quarterback who just skipped a grade. Price, on the other hand, will merely be viewed as a good “college” quarterback. Is Locker being given a pass because he has “leadership” skills and an NFL-ready physique, while Price will never make it to the next level because he is relatively “slight” and is supposed to have “suspect” knees? Or are there other, less subtle reasons? Who knows? In any case, one observer covering the Titans thought that Locker looked “polished” in the preseason, except that it was “against a bunch of rookies and un-drafted fringe players.” We’ve heard that story before.

No comments:

Post a Comment