The Seattle Times Company

NWjobs | NWautos | NWhomes | NWsource | Free Classifieds |


Our network sites | Advanced

Husky Football Blog

Times reporter Bob Condotta keeps the news coming about the Montlake Dawgs.

E-mail Bob| RSS feeds Subscribe | Blog Home

May 24, 2008 8:55 PM

Locker named Lindy's Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year

Posted by Bob Condotta

The first college football preview magazine has hit the stands --- the first one I've seen, anyway --- the Lindy's National College Football preview.

And in its Pac-10 section, the magazine tabs UW quarterback Jake Locker as the conference's Offensive Player of the Year. Lindy's also names a Most Valuable Player and gives that honor to ASU QB Rudy Carpenter who also rates ahead of Locker on the all-conference team. The Defensive POY is USC LB Rey Maualuga and the Newcomer of the Year is Oregon RB LeGarrate Blount.

(Full disclosure --- I do some writing for Lindy's, including penning the story that accompanies the Pac-10 preview in the magazine and giving input on all-conference teams, honors, etc. But the editors there make the final call --- kind of like my wife at home --- and I honestly didn't know Locker was the Offensive Player of the Year until I picked up the magazine today.)

Even the presence of Locker, however, couldn't convince Lindy's to rate UW higher than eighth in the conference.

Here are Lindy's picks:

1, USC
2, Arizona State
3, Oregon
4, Cal
6, Oregon State
7, Arizona
8, Washington
9, Stanford
10, Washington State

No Huskies were named to Lindy's First Team, though Locker, guard Ryan Tolar and defensive end Daniel Te'o-Nesheim were all named to the second team.

Locker was rated as the QB with the strongest arm, the toughest to bring down and as the best scrambler in the magazine's "Honor Roll'' feature. Locker was also rated as the 15th best QB in the country, the only Husky listed in the magazine's national player ratings, the magazine stating that the "Great Hope of the Huskies is a Tim Tebow-style runner ... tough as nails.''.

UW was rated No. 64 nationally, ahead of only two opponents this season --- Stanford and WSU (Notre Dame is rated 59th).

Pac-10 teams rated in the Top 25 are USC (No. 2 behind Georgia), Arizona State (14) and Oregon (21).

Again, this was the Lindy's National edition. The Pac-10 edition, which includes a more in-depth look at the conference ---- including ratings of teams by position --- will be out a little later. I'll review that edition when it arrives and also discuss the position ratings then.

Digg Digg | Newsvine Newsvine

Submit a comment

*Required Field

Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Posted by RedDawg

11:15 PM, May 24, 2008

Now that's a nice headline. Go Dawgs!

Posted by mmafight

12:08 AM, May 25, 2008

about time they recognized him!!

Posted by onewoodwacker

7:01 AM, May 25, 2008

think that the Lindy analysis is fair, rating us as #64 in the nation. Taking all emotion out of it, we really haven't shown much over the past 6-7 years to say otherwise.

My hope is for a couple of things to happen. First that we get underestimated by everyone we play and second that it motivates our guys to prove that they're better than people around the country think. Either or both scenarios gets us a winning record.

If our guys start to think that they are no better than 64th nationally we better be ready for another 3-9 season.

Posted by cinbengals

8:23 AM, May 25, 2008

for all you haters and doubters uw will finish 7-5 locker will be improve defense will be better than advertise meaning more blitz,ints,bigger hits i think we gonna be last years kansas team except going to a big bowl

Posted by J2

10:22 AM, May 25, 2008


I almost made the mistake of buying Lindys. I reaaly don't wany anymore Condotta coverage then we already have. What other publications are out there?

Posted by Patrick

10:44 AM, May 25, 2008

Based on present information, Lindy's PAC-10 rating seems just about right. However, I might suggest that Arizona State and Oregon could be interchangeable.
And the bottom three? Stated bluntly: they are not very strong teams.

Posted by MelloDawg

10:49 AM, May 25, 2008


The "haters" of whom you speak do not HATE the team, that's a common misconception from Typologists. We love the team, we will always support the players and want them to achieve the best athletic experience at UW......and that's exactly why we DON'T support Tyrone Willingham.

Posted by Bob Condotta

11:29 AM, May 25, 2008

J2 --- Even if you don't like me, that's not a good reason not to buy the magazine. I only write the Pac-10 preview story and the UW preview. The other nine Pac-10 stories are written by other writers and there is an interesting story on Rick Neuheisel by Brian Dohn of the LA Daily News as well as all kinds of other good stuff written by a good staff of writers from around the country. But Athlon's should be out soon, as well. It's UW story is written by Dan Raley of the Seattle PI. Other magazines include UW preview stories generally written by writers not real close to the program.

Posted by True Husky

12:25 PM, May 25, 2008

How can Locker be OPOY when Carpenter is MVP? To be MVP arent you the best Offensive Player by definition?

I put both Athalon and Lindys in the Fluff category. They always love the early trendy picks. ASU will fold this year as Erickson always does.

Amazing comment by J2. Logins to read Condotta but then chooses to whine about it. Must be a Coug!

Posted by Formerly Guest

2:09 PM, May 25, 2008

I would not peg Jake as conference offensive MVP.

Based on what I have read about our competitors, I would peg us around 6th, ahead of UCLA and UA. I would expect OSU at least 5th, if not 4th.

I am curious what Bob's projected standings are, as it seems he ones above are from his editors...?

Posted by dawn james cheats

7:40 PM, May 25, 2008

WOW! 8th place! Sticking with Ty is worth it, no question. Let's hope this is right, we're tired of perpetual 9 or 10.Print T-shirts "We are no. 8."

Posted by Ducks 45 Dawgs 13

9:58 PM, May 25, 2008

OK, time to wake up from your dream. JJ will get it.

Posted by paul

11:24 PM, May 25, 2008

No surprises really to rate us #8 at this point since no one's played a down of the 2008 season yet. However, beyond USC and perhaps ASU and Oregon, every other team has so many big ? marks that it's really kinda silly to attempt a ranking at this stage. It's certainly silly to take it seriously. My sympathy to anyone who does.

Posted by onewoodwacker

6:33 AM, May 26, 2008

Paul - I agree whole-heartedly with your comment. That was basically my point but included my hope that the kids don't buy into it.
Based on 2007, it was fair to rate us 8th - doesn't mean it has to stay that way. Couple big win and the brain takes over - who knows what can happen.
Somehow though, my words were taken as HATE towards the team. Just not the case - I've loved this team since I first started watching them on my 5th birthday in 1960.

Posted by BoiseTruth

7:07 AM, May 26, 2008

I agree paul. I don't think too many people really care where we're rated at this point, it always comes down to the team proving that rating right or wrong on the field. Of course, we're all hoping they can prove it wrong, and prove they can have a winning record in the PAC-10. At this point, proving we can win in the PAC-10 maybe more important to me than overall record.

Based on how Cal looked at the end of last year, I'm a little surprised that they are rated as high as they are.

Onewood, your post was fine. Don't worry about it. I didn't see any hate, just an opinion, which is mostly what we do here.

Posted by UW Alum

9:47 AM, May 26, 2008

Bob, thanks for the info, went out and bought Lindy's yesterday and began looking it over. I still think Phil Steele's is much better than Lindys but since that one doesn't come out for another month, Lindy's will satisfy my college football craving for now. I do take issue with the fact Tolar isn't given much love (he's not listed as one of the best OL in the pac 10) and I think he's a stud, best OL we have and that was before Garcia went down. I also feel like EJ Savannah should have gotten some love, 111 tackles last year as a SOPH. A few other things UW fans will take issue with: the UW RB's are ranked 9th out of 10 when compared to other pac 10 teams, the WR's 8th and the DL is 10th. I realize each of these positions are unproven with regards to the UW however, there is something to be said for having recruited good players even if they are unproven. I'd take Aguilar, Polk, Goodwin and Boyles over the jokers we had last year (russo, reece and corey williams couldn't catch a cold). Look at it like this UW fans, it's better to read this magazine than watch the M's get bombed again.

Posted by MelloDawg

11:21 AM, May 26, 2008

Isn't it fun how divisive Tyrone Willingham has made the UW fanbase?

Not since Jim Owens.

Posted by husky1225

11:31 AM, May 26, 2008

We shouldn't expect national respect for our team. We haven't earned it. Over the last 5 seasons, among BCS conference teams, only Baylor, Duke, and Washington have failed to either have a winning season or at least get to a bowl game. Yes, even Vanderbilt, Syracuse, and Ole Miss have fared better than the Dawgs. For half a decade we have been terrible on the field. Only winning will change the national perception of us.

Posted by jh

11:46 AM, May 26, 2008

...I don't understand how Notre Dame, who must have been rated 100th or lower at the end of last year...could be rated 59h at the start of 2008...Condotti...would this be the largest ranking "jump" in the history of college football?...why don't you check with your buddies at Lindy's......p.s. do they actually pay you for your "writing" contribution?....or is contribution the operative word?...

Posted by Go Ty Go

3:55 PM, May 26, 2008

Isn't it funny how mello tries to be divisive? What a joker. Dude has to be a coog. If you are a Husky and aren't excited about the talent we have coming in you got to be brain dead or somethin

Posted by husky1225

5:33 PM, May 26, 2008

I missed Stanford. Baylor, Duke, Stanford, and Washington.

Posted by rickster

9:22 AM, May 27, 2008

Wow! If we finish 64th does that mean we make the Tournament!!

Posted by MelloDawg

11:19 AM, May 27, 2008

Go Ty Go,

Assuming YOU are actually a Husky, I'll respond with an honest answer.

Do you not read my posts? Anti-Ty people have NOTHING AGAINST THE PLAYERS. We are excited for the group of kids coming in, it's a decent recruiting class. Middleton, Kearse, Aguilar, Ta'amu, Thompson, good bunch.

We support their efforts to have a successful athletic experience....and that is why we don't support Ty Willingham. They could be a part of something fantastic as a Husky, but playing for Ty, all they'll get is experience at the college level. They'll think "oooh, this is so much faster than in high school, we're playing against great teams." When, in reality, they should be thinking "I'm competing for a Pac-10 championship every year, I'm on ONE of those great teams."

Posted by marcus

11:30 AM, May 27, 2008

What am I missing here? Locker is offensive conference player of the year, but he is 2nd team QB? How does that work?

Posted by ag

11:38 AM, May 27, 2008

If a person is really a UW supporter then you should be rooting hard for Coach Willingham to succeed. Because that is the best case scenario for Husky football. If he successful and proves he knows what he is doing then the ground work he has been laying for the past three years will pay off with wins and championships for years to come and Husky football will be getting back to the level we are all hoping for. If not he will be fired. You can be skeptical and you can have your doubts but dwelling on them accomplishes nothing. He’s the coach and for now at least this is his team. I for one am hoping for the best. If it all falls apart then we’ll all deal with it then. Right now Go Huskies! Beat Oregon!

Posted by Wheatus

11:58 AM, May 27, 2008


Everyone here already knows that mello is at least a coog and probably a duck. Can't let jokers like him get you down. He's reminds me of that Debbie Downer skit they used to do on SNL.

You're enjoying your day
Everything's going your way
Then along comes Debbie Downer.

Always there to tell you 'bout a new disease
A car accident or killer bees
You'll beg her to spare you, "Debbie, Please!"
But you can't stop Debbie Downer!

Posted by MelloDawg

12:12 PM, May 27, 2008


Don't worry. I am rooting for the team to win 8 games. Anyone who roots for Willingham to fail is an extremist in my book. It's just frustrating. We all KNOW that this team has the talent to win 8 games in 2008. Heck, they could have gone to a bowl LAST year but too many 2nd half collapses did them in.

If we can go 8-4 in the regular season, give Ty another year and maybe a one-year extension. The worry is that he goes 8-4 and then back to 5-7. Sustained success is not a staple of any team Willingham has coached. I don't care where he's been or what the expectations were. I'd say UW is just below Notre Dame in terms of what we expect from our team. He SHOULD win 8 this year.

Posted by onewoodwacker

12:36 PM, May 27, 2008

When as Husky fans have we entered a season with so many reasons to be excited and just as many reasons to be concerned?

IF everyone plays beyond their potential we could go undefeated. IF everyone plays to their potential we could win 8 games. IF we struggle with our WR's and/or D-Line we could be looking at a 4-6 win season. IF we lose our QB we could go winless.

Haven't seen a season like this in a LONG time. IF TY wins under the scenario he has this year, I'd say he's earned an extension; An un-proven running game - an un-proven D-Line - an un-proven WR corp - no back-up QB with game experience - over-all depth is an issue.

Winning with these adversities is the sign of a top-notch coach - I for one am REALLY interested and excited to see what happens. I'm also excited and interested to see how our new assistants prepare and execute their ideas and motivation.

Posted by Husky19

3:17 PM, May 27, 2008


Can't really support the team 100% if you don't support the head coach also. Wanting him to fail so he can be fired but wanting the kids to win? How does that work out for you?

I for one want to see an incredible season and I stand behind a prediction of a 9 or 10 win season.

Posted by dawgdays

4:53 PM, May 27, 2008

How did we get so bad? There is no way we can compete with the pac 10 powers anymore. The Trojans and Ducks are running away with the conference. Now that ASU has Erickson, that only makes the conference toughter. If it weren't for locker, I'd say we'd lose them all. Fortunately, he should will us to 3 games. Fire Willingham!

Posted by firemacnow

6:18 PM, May 27, 2008

I love Jake, the guy has HEART, just look at the Oregon St. game as an example the guy's laid out on the field, taken out on a stretcher, then comes back to the sidelines with a freakin neck brace on to be with his teamates, that's what I call a Leader!!! They didn't have predictions on Frosh of the year, I think Kavario would of had a REAL good chance to win that one.

What's up with Losingham though, ESPN scouts say that Middleton has the potential to be a dominating pass rusher on the level of a Julus Peppers or Dwight Freeney, and with the Dominating D the Dawgs have of course there gonna play him at TE, when we just got the kid from L-Dub last year and he was a top 100 player as well.

Posted by Jeff

10:46 PM, May 27, 2008

I'd rather see the dawgs rated too low than too high. Psychologically, it's always better to be in a position to under-promise and over-deliver. I'd be very worried if this team were ranked #3 or #4 at this time even though they could end up there by the end of the season (really...).

Posted by pipdawg

4:52 AM, May 28, 2008

Jake is like no other running QB I have ever seen. Tebow is great but no locker. You say then how about his hiesman? Playing for Florida and winning is always gonna do something for you...not as many eyes are on the NW.

Posted by onewoodwacker

8:34 AM, May 28, 2008


To answer your question about Middleton. I work out almost every day with his Dad (Reggie) at the Lakewood YMCA.

Kavario was with him the other day and we talked about this very issue. I can tell you from his own mouth - he wants to play TE and Ty will let him.

I talked to him about opportunities and pointed out that for every TE needed on a team, they need 2 DE and that alone increases your chance 100% at the next level. He listened but I don't think it had much impact on his decision.

Hope that helps with your question.

Posted by Formerly Guest

11:07 AM, May 28, 2008

I agree that Locker is a better runner than Tebow, but Tebow certainly eraned that Heisman. It was the 6 interceptions that did it for him. I don't recall exactly, but I think his TD:INT ration was close to, if not over, 4.

Posted by onewoodwacker

12:32 PM, May 28, 2008

Tebow gets to play in a variation spread offense as well, lots of short and intermediate passes to set up the long ball. They rely heavily on their receivers to make plays after the catch. The spread forces the LB's to cover the flats 5-10 yards off the ball which in turn opens running lanes should the QB decide to run. Great D-Line play (speed and power) is a must if you have any hope of stopping this offense. Otherwise it's a long, long day.

Although we don't run the spread I expect to see our RB's catching alot of balls out of the backfield this year as well as the TE's being more in the offensive picture. We have to force opposing defenses into single coverage if our WR's are going to be part of the O this year.

Posted by John

1:34 PM, May 28, 2008

"Although we don't run the spread..."

Uh, yes we do. Just not every down.

Posted by onewoodwacker

2:25 PM, May 28, 2008

John - Sorry, I should have stated that we don't run the spread as our primary formation. The "I" is still our basic formation (Homer lead blocking for whoever)though we did run "option, spread and shot-gun" on occassions last year. I forget sometimes just how specific I have to be on this site at times.

Posted by Formerly Guest

2:28 PM, May 28, 2008


Are you happy with the current offense, or would you rather see primary spread...or see us drop it all together?

I guess I want to see primary spread, although it seems we have the most success, and ball control, with the I.

Posted by John

2:42 PM, May 28, 2008

Why do you think the I formation is our base offense? I'd like to see some actual numbers on how many snaps we lined up in each formation before I believe that claim.

It seemed close to an even split to me last year. There were a lot of times that we stuck with the I for power running when we were ahead, and of course the California game we used primarily I-formation.

But we used a LOT of spread. Enough to where I wouldn't call either formation our "primary."

Posted by John

3:19 PM, May 28, 2008

FG: I think it's a mistake to assume that we will have better ball-control with the I-formation. I'm assuming by ball-control you mean calling more running plays.

There are plenty of college offenses that use the spread-option and call quite a few more runs than passes.

Posted by Formerly Guest

3:57 PM, May 28, 2008


My use of "ball-control" is a bit nebulous.

I loved watching Locker run, but my sense is that we sputtered a bit with the spread. By ball-control, I mean ability to sustain a drive and keep our defense of the field.

It seems like during key times in the WSU, UA and UH games, we could not do this to save our life, and it seemed heightened by our use of the spread. Maybe Jake just wasn't making the right reads. I dunno. Your inisghts are appreciated.

I was out of town for the Cal game, so I didn't see it. But it seemed that in the other games, we could more consistently sustain drives when we used more I-formation, and were more hit or miss in the spread.

Posted by John

4:09 PM, May 28, 2008

I think you're right that we were more inconsistent with the spread. I just don't think that it will necessarily be that way in the future, because I see the spread as pretty consistent when properly executed.

That said, I don't think our switching back and forth is conducive to learning proper spread execution.

I'm not saying Lappano's offense can't work, but last year I wasn't too impressed.

Posted by friremacnow

4:22 PM, May 28, 2008

Wood..Great info! I guess if the guy has his heart on playing TE, then thats what he has to do, but I agree with you if he's looking at the next level if you compare the top paid DE(Jarred Allen) what like 12 mil a year, compared to Tony Gonzalez..the money isn't even close. Did you happen to ask him or could you ask his pops, if he's gonna play hoops?? An inside force of Kavario/Brockman/Gant could be a very physical front line.

Posted by firemacnow

4:29 PM, May 28, 2008

I agree totally about Jake being a better runner that this point Tebow is a better passer, but look at the offense he played in last year. Hopefully all these weapons we have on O, will step up..Unless you play at USC, it's almost impossible to win the Heisman, imao..what voter wants to stay up till almost 3am on the East Coast listening to Petros Pappadakas...that would put me to sleep at like 3 am

Posted by Formerly Guest

4:46 PM, May 28, 2008

i hope you are right.

Man, I loved watching Jake break free out of the spread. THe only thing I would rather see would be us winning games.

I agree that the mix is a little too schizophrenic for us to make things work. Best scenario would be executing the spread consistently, which we haven't. Easier said than done.

Posted by onewoodwacker

5:47 AM, May 29, 2008

John - Guess I can't prove that we ran most of our plays from the "I" formation. I do know that we had 532 Rush Attempts and 385 Pass Attempts. Not exactly the numbers you would expect to see from the "Spread". I also know that Paul Homer was the lead blocker in most of those rushing attempts. But you’re right; I can't prove it as I can't seem to find any information on what our base Offense is.
I will provide this 2007 pre-season analysis:

By Richard Cirminiello
Posted Jul 24, 2007

Preview 2007 Washington Husky Offense;

What you need to know: All eyes in Seattle will be fixed on the debut of hot-shot rookie quarterback Jake Locker, but if there’s one priority for Tyrone Willingham in 2007, it’s to get more consistent on the ground. Conservative by Pac-10 doctrine, the third-year coach wants to pound it between the tackles to set up the pass.

Again it doesn't appear as though we were starting the season in the "Spread".

Formally Guest: I don't believe you should get too excited about us running the "Spread" as a Base Offense.

The only returning TE with any catches last year is Michael Gottlieb and he had a grand total of "12" receptions for the entire year. We basically have one returning receiver

Our returning WR corp. is basically D. Goodwin and C. Shaw. Goodwin had "6" and Shaw had "5" receptions last year.

Our returning RB's are B. Johnson and Paul Homer. Johnson had "0" and Homer had "6" receptions last year.

Considering that our entire returning starters had a combined total of 29 receptions last year, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that we probably aren't going to run the "Spread" as our Base Offense.

Posted by onewoodwacker

5:53 AM, May 29, 2008

firemacnow -

I did not ask about B-Ball. I will say that its a possibility unless it becomes an issue with grades. Reggie (Dad) makes no bones about it that Kavario is EXPECTED to get his degree.

Posted by John

1:50 PM, May 29, 2008

OWW: I'm sorry, but you're wrong to assume that we didn't run out of the spread.

Perhaps you're thinking of the NFL. In NFL Spread offenses (where they will either line up in shotgun or single-back formation) more plays will be passes, with the runs being mainly draws.

In college spread offenses, since the quarterback is usually a threat to run (as is the case with the Huskies), there are commonly more runs than passes when using the spread. Maybe you remember that play where Jake and a back would line up in shotgun, Jake would fake the handoff to the back and run in the other direction. Or he would hand it off. Seemed like we ran that play 10 times a game.

Interesting point you made about not running the spread next year because of a lack of experienced receivers. Not sure why you included receptions by backs in your argument, because unless they are lining up out wide that has no effect on the spread offense.

It is possible that we will limit our spread looks because we can't get 4 decent WRs. But there's no shortage of talent, just a shortage of experience.

Either way, we'll get a lot of option and misdirection plays. The WR sweep that Lappano keeps talking about can be incorporated into an option offense. If we can get some triple-option going, it will be fun to watch.

Posted by onewoodwacker

2:50 PM, May 29, 2008

John - Maybe we are talking apples and oranges.

I was basing my conclusion on the number of times Paul Homer was lined up in front of Louis Rankin and the fact that we had 532 rushing attempts to 385 passing attempts.

Based on your statement; "Not sure why you included receptions by backs in your argument, because unless they are lining up out wide that has no effect on the spread offense." ; it's hard to see how, if we ran the spread as our base offense how we managed 532 rushing attempts with no backs in the back field.

Considering that Jake had 172 of those attempts and the receivers had 31 of those attempts that leaves the RB's with 329 carries compared to 332 pass attempts.

Keep helping me to understand this cause I'm still not getting it. Thanks

Posted by onewoodwacker

5:07 PM, May 29, 2008

I do know that in 2005 the following was true:

Saturday, August 13, 2005
Lappano sees hope for UW's offense
Moreover, no one has any idea what the Huskies offense is going to look like. Willingham is known to prefer a possession passing "West Coast" offense. Lappano ran Erickson's potent one-back spread at OSU, but spends most of his time these days talking about a two-back, power running attack that occasionally invests in a deep, vertical passing game to keep a defense honest.

Posted by John

5:07 PM, May 29, 2008

I get it now. We're using 2 different definitions of spread formation. Spread can be run out of the shotgun or with the quarterback under center. You can also have one HB or FB there in either formation and still call it a spread because there would be 4 wide receivers (one of those could be a tight end or running back out wide).

Posted by onewoodwacker

5:11 PM, May 29, 2008

John - Thanks for the input (and being patient) - good discussion by the way.

Posted by John

5:15 PM, May 29, 2008

Yeah, this is my favorite kind of discussion. Sometimes it gets a little too political on here, which irritates me. I just love talking football.

Recent entries

May 27, 08 - 06:02 PM
Programming note

May 25, 08 - 10:18 AM
Jordan Polk wins Oregon state titles

May 24, 08 - 08:55 PM
Locker named Lindy's Pac-10 Offensive Player of the Year

May 23, 08 - 04:55 PM
Examining the schedules

May 23, 08 - 12:38 PM
More on UW and LSU







Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Browse the archives

May 2008

April 2008

March 2008

February 2008

January 2008

December 2007


Buy a link here