{image1}Two words leapt from the lips of all Wisconsin Badgers fans Saturday after UW's fourth-quarter interception of Michigan quarterback Chad Henne was followed two plays later by a similar Badgers turnover: Stocco sucks!

In all likelihood, it wasn't the first time the words had been uttered during Saturday night's eventual victory over UM. And the sentiment has been fairly prevalent ever since the Badgers finished 2004 with three ignominious defeats under Stocco's stewardship. But is it valid?

Yes and no. Stocco may not be a pure dropback quarterback like Henne or recent Big 10 stars such as Drew Brees, Kurt Kittner or Kyle Orton. But he may be just as successful as all of them, at least when it comes to wins and losses. If you can put up with periodic overthrows and a passing "attack" built on well-executed screens and flat patterns, Stocco is your guy.

Look, Stocco is not pretty at times. In fact, his style is ugly most of the time. As a football aesthete, that admittedly bugs me. But it truly bothers me only when accompanied by a lack of production.

Saturday was a fairly typical day for Stocco. He completed 15-of-32 passes for 147 yards, 0 TDs and 1 interception. Seven of his completions were to running back Brian Calhoun and three were to tight end Owen Daniels; nearly all 10 of them were designed screen or flat passes. It should also be noted that several of them converted third-and-long situations in Saturday's second-half comeback. Basically, Stocco is most adept at throwing short ball-control passes.

One of the reasons that wide receiver Jonathan Orr's production has dropped off since his freshman year is that Stocco has well-documented problems throwing the deep ball. Orr is a big target adept at stretching defenses, but that's not Stocco's strength. As a result, Orr has just 21 receptions since the beginning of 2004.

Stocco is also no Brooks Bollinger when it comes to running with the football. Like Jim Sorgi, he tends to stay in the pocket too long and takes more than his fair share of sacks (21 in 2004; 7 this year). Where Bollinger had the inclination and skill to take off and scramble for a first down, Stocco generally does not. He's not terrible in this regard, as witnessed by his game-winning QB draw Saturday. But he's not Michael Vick, either.

Stocco does have two things going for him, however: he's tough and he wins. The junior takes a lot of hits inside and out of the pocket, but he manages to get back to his feet after each tackle. While Sorgi took a lot of hits and missed a lot of time as result (as did Bollinger), Stocco has been able to answer the call after some fairly brutal tackles.

And whatever else you say about him, Stocco wins games. Some would argue the Badgers win despite rather than because of him, but I doubt his coaches or teammates feel the same way. As a sophomore starting for the first time at the collegiate level in 2004, Stocco drove the team to a 9-0 record. This year, he's led the Badgers to a 4-0 start that few fans or experts expected. With a couple more victories, UW will once again be a contender in the Big 10 title race.

Above all, Stocco's critics have to remember who he is and what his role is. John Stocco is not as vital to the Badgers as Brett Favre is (was?) to the Packers. Stocco's job is to facilitate touchdown drives, primarily via ball distribution. To put it simply, he can often do that by handling the snap cleanly and handing it off to Calhoun. Or by selling the downfield pass and throwing a tight end screen to Daniels. Or, to be more specific, by using Calhoun as a decoy and running for a touchdown against Michigan. In fact, Saturday's game-winning play was a perfect example of why Stocco is the right QB for this team: he succeeds in large part because the opposition is so willing to overlook him.

In addition to his less tangible leadership qualities, Stocco is also getting better statistically. The interception in the fourth quarter Saturday was grievous (though on another look, it's hard to tell if it was Stocco's fault, the offensive line's or Orr's), but it was just his second of the year. His completion percentage, just 52.6 last year, has risen to 58.3 this season. Both areas have been criticized roundly.

Stocco is still no Bollinger -- or even Mike Samuel -- but he is improving. And as long as the rest of the offense remains intact, I see no reason why that trend won't continue.