Can QB accuracy be improved?

Accuracy is the single-most important characteristic of any quarterback, especially when you expand the definition to include decision-making. After all, throwing to the right person should increase the chances of a completion.

ESPN analyst Jon Gruden made clear that "accuracy can be improved" but that Locker needs to "work hard" at re-establishing his fundamentals.

"Sometimes it's because of your fundamentals," Gruden said. "Sometimes you're out of rhythm, you're in the shotgun, you're underneath the center. Sometimes you're under duress and out of rhythm. Sometimes you're hurrying, you're playing too fast. You're anticipating congestion around you when maybe there isn't."

But Gruden warned: "Accuracy sometimes can be terminal. Sometimes you can't cure that. I think that's a big concern with Jake Locker, because he does miss some throws."

We can't conclude that Locker or Gabbert are destined for NFL failure because they sometimes struggled to complete throws in college. The necessary improvement has been made over the past decade in this division, be it from a Hall of Fame quarterback like Favre or a journeyman like Brian Griese.

But it's also a reason for pause. Based on our sample size, at least, it's more likely that a relatively inaccurate college quarterback will be inaccurate at the NFL level. Scott of Harrisonburg probably didn't need me to tell him that.

Not many people probably knew that Brett Favre completed just 52.4 percent of his passes while a quarterback for Southern Mississippi. And I doubt many remember that four-time Super Bowl winning quarterback Joe Montana only connected on 52.0 percent of his throws at Notre Dame. Yet Favre went on to complete 61.9 percent of his passes and Montana completed 63.2 percent of his in each of their NFL careers. Other notable NFL quarterback who improved their completion percentages from college to the NFL include Warren Moon (48.8 percent to 58.4 percent), Dan Fouts (50.4 to 58.8), Mark Brunell (52.0 to 59.5), Matt Hasselbeck (55.6 to 60.1), Trent Green (55.8 to 60.6), Jeff Garcia (56.8 to 61.6), and Jay Cutler (57.2 to 61.6).

When you look at Favre and Montana, you can hypothesize a few reasons why each improved with their accuracy from college to pro football. The biggest reason is that each quarterback learned under great offensive coaches. Montana learned under Hall of Fame coach Bill Walsh, as well as Mike Holmgren later in his 49er career. Favre got his NFL career kick-started with Holmgren at Green Bay and also received great coaching from Jon Gruden, Steve Mariucci, and Andy Reid with the Packers.

Another reason that Favre improved his accuracy is that he played for a college team at Southern Miss that had sub-par talent, compared to the talent he played with in the NFL. Favre also played in a wishbone offense in high school, which slowed his development a little as a college quarterback.

 

Anything can be improved, including Carolina's overall QB situation. Accuracy, on the surface, is often judged by stats. Schematics play an important role. Did Vick suddenly become as fundamentally sound as Joe Montana in one season? No. Did a system that often yields higher completion rates help? You bet.

Which is why I agree with Collin, in that McNabb is a pretty fair comparison (to Newton), in terms of accuracy. I would suspect Newton would never complete more than 58% of his throws in a WCO, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't help lead his team to 4 straight title games.

So many variables, including surrounding cast.

 

I'm pretty sure judging accuracy by completion percentage gives a, well, incomplete picture.

Surrounding cast for sure, McNabb had basically shit for most of his Philly time.

Other guys have had guys who could go get it.

Film would be king here.

 

Newton's receiving corps at Auburn were all studs, too, which skewed his numbers higher.

 

I don't give a shit about completion %.

I do care about winning %.

So, again, try to work the offense around the player, rather than jamming the player into a rigid system. Be innovative and flexible. Hell, get Edwards the fuck on the field and teach him how to play WR.

Sorry--I know some here think it's dogshit, but there's no way Fox and his staff were "all in" as a complete unit in 2010. Around week 5, there was a lot of "going through the motions".

Ownership is ultimately to blame for that.

 

Yep, JR should have just paid Fox off, got a coach in here last year and installed the new systems so Rivera/staff/players wouldn't be handcuffed by this lockout.

As far as Fox goes, I sensed that early on and it's why I soured on him so much. I went from liking him to can't wait until he's gone.

 

I don't think Fox suddenly stopped coaching. I do think it's impossible to get the job done with a thin roster, 15 players on IR, and no coaches under contract for the following season.

 

I have no empiral evidence, I just thought his attitude was pretty nonchalant. Turnoff.

 

Foxy coached his ass off. Still doesn't change that we had a terrible, terrible staff (so bad when our defense was just ok, many posters here developed crushes and homosexual fascinations with this man, and rallied around him with pitchforks in hand ready to fend off any who opposed or who didn't think he was THE GREATEST COACH IN THE WOOOOOORRRRRRRLLLLLD!!!!!11111) and an overall run the ball and punt for field position philosophy. A lot of that was on Clausen too though, I'm sure. Can't open up the offense if the kid is shitting the bed every time.

But I won't take that away from Fox. He coached all the way through. He was beaten, tired, at times unprofessional, but he coached. I believe he loved this team for a long time. I won't hate him because he got fired. I'm glad we made the move- the time was right.

I don't wish him well. I hope he fails, so that we save face for firing him. But I won't ever dislike him. He did wonderful things for us. He gave us back our respect.

 

Regarding the stats, that has to be broken down not only by the receivers' ability or inability to secure passes targeting them, but also the types of routes thrown. Gabbert has a pretty solid completion percentage, but that is heavily inflated by his totals on targets under 10 yards. If you look at anything beyond 10 yards, suddenly you think "holy shit, he's awful." I had some questions about Colt McCoy for similar reasons, as something like 80% of his passes at Texas were targeting receivers less than 10 yards downfield. Meanwhile I loved Sam Bradford because he was hitting guys perfectly in stride on routes 20-25 yards downfield. So the base numbers help, but you need to look at more specific data to make useful statements about a player's performance.

As for the original question, I believe that accuracy can be improved, but it's damn hard. Honestly if I was drafting someone like Locker, I would segregate him from the team almost entirely, hire a separate QB coach just to work with him that whole first season, and have him do nothing but work on technique and precision for that rookie year. You'd still have him studying some opponents and sitting in meetings to get a feel for that, but don't have him running reps or doing anything on the practice field but working with his own private coach to perfect his technique and practice hitting moving targets accurately. That's where I think a lot of teams go wrong with young quarterbacks. Game experience doesn't improve your technique. You don't become more accurate by shitting the bed against NFL defenses. Nor will it happen by running reps and preparing for next Sunday's opponent. There is precious little time in the weekly schedule for guys to improve themselves at the NFL level, which is why that needs to be done beforehand. The mental shit will develop through that process, but the technique has to be done separately. I just wish some team had the courage to do it, because it would be really interesting to see how Locker turned out if you put him through that kind of development.