If you're not accurate in college, how are you supposed to be accurate in the NFL? Lock has attempted 1,300 passes over the last four years. He's completed 55% of them. That is alarming, especially with college rules that make a screen pass an offense's most effective play.

Those aren't just numbers -- his inconsistency aiming a football shows up when you watch him, too. A good percentage of his bad throws are due to laziness, fading away in the pocket or side-arming for no reason. That is fixable. What's scarier is when he is late on his timing -- he needs to see a receiver open before he can pull the trigger, which lets defenses catch up to his throws and force incompletions.

It's a shame, because he's a natural talent for the position otherwise. Perfect build (6'4, 225) and is never labored in his movements. Gorgeous, tight release when he's dialed in. Highlights and highlights of frozen ropes down the seams.

But if you're not accurate -- really accurate, into tight windows -- your NFL potential will always be capped. It's a trait that never seems to drastically improve with coaching or experience; you either have it or you don't.

+ Looks the part; a very good arm and impressive mobility
+ Adapted to three offensive systems in three years, so a quick-study who could have unseen potential with an advanced coaching staff
+ Attacks all levels of the field and can be clinical when everything is going his way

- Sloppy with the basics (release point, footwork) even after four years starting
- Doesn't face as much pressure as you think, and has some awful ideas when you give him too much time (scramble drills are prayer drills for his coaches)
- Racks up his counting stats when stakes are lowest; threw 44 touchdowns as a junior but 18 were against Missouri State (7), Idaho (6) and UConn (5)