Stat comparisons of almost every draft eligible QB's from 2011-2014

[reo]

If you are going to spend essentially all of your offensive resources on a singular personnel decision that will require 2-3 years to properly evaluate wouldn't you want to mitigate some of that risk by using a threshold measure with a high correlation of success?  If you don't you assume all the risk for getting your guy and potentially have to rebuild your fan base since you had to convince them that your guy or your coaching are uniquely better than the precedent.

 

Or you could just analyze his game film and leave stats to media "experts" and fans who need something quick and easy to categorize players.

[NFLStudent]

Here's another screening algorithm to ponder for prospective QBs: The rule of 26-27-60

But could a simple formula have warned us of Russell's lack of NFL readiness? And Ryan Leaf's and David Carr's and other failed, high-pick quarterbacks?

Call it the Rule of 26-27-60. Here is the gist of it: If an NFL prospect scores at least a 26 on the Wonderlic test, starts at least 27 games in his college career and completes at least 60 percent of his passes, there's a good chance he will succeed at the NFL level.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/john_lopez/07/08/qb.rule/

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2013/2/13/3981124/2013-nfl-draft-predicting-quarterback-success

VERY interesting.

[begooode]

Or you could just analyze his game film and leave stats to media "experts" and fans who need something quick and easy to categorize players.

 

Then that would be option B from what I presented -- risk taker!!

 

You offer up film analysis as if it is a fail safe, foolproof method.  Of course, NFL teams & the heavy analysts DO break down film.  But often in that process they project their own biases into the evaluation --> they all miss at some point.  Film evaluation is not the be-all end-all anymore than relying solely on stats -- rather, they should complement each other and a good player generally speaking will have good stats.  But when the results are incongruent, that could lead to "interesting" analysis/projections.

 

and BTW - almost every single film evaluation I've seen quickly categorizes players, too, (ex: player projects to Justin Tuck) for quick & easy understanding of all those digital data.

[IsntLifeFunny]

So now Matt Ryan, Jay Cutler, Colin Kaepernick and Matthew Stafford are trash? I was looking at current QB's not QB's that aren't playing anymore.

Brees by the way was BARELY over 60%.

They aren't top 10 QBs. Ryan is the closest, but I would put him behind every QB I listed earlier, plus Rothleisberger. They're squarely in the 11-16 range.

Once again, I'm not saying a guy can't be a good QB if he doesn't hit a certain benchmark in college. I'm saying there is a correlation between the odds of a QB becoming a top flight player and his college stats meeting a base criteria. If you disagree, that's fine, but the data is heavily in my favor on this.

[reo]

Then that would be option B from what I presented -- risk taker!!

 

You offer up film analysis as if it is a fail safe, foolproof method.  Of course, NFL teams & the heavy analysts DO break down film.  But often in that process they project their own biases into the evaluation --> they all miss at some point.  Film evaluation is not the be-all end-all anymore than relying solely on stats -- rather, they should complement each other and a good player generally speaking will have good stats.  But when the results are incongruent, that could lead to "interesting" analysis/projections.

 

and BTW - almost every single film evaluation I've seen quickly categorizes players, too, (ex: player projects to Justin Tuck) for quick & easy understanding of all those digital data.

 

Then they did a shitty job w/ their analysis.

 

They shouldn't be able to gain something from some broad stat that they didn't already glean from their film analysis. At best, looking at the broad view (stats) should just force them to go more in depth in their analysis in an area if that stat is outside the margin of error. It shouldn't be form of analysis or something used to categorize a player over film. Ever. At best it should make them look at the film again to explain variance.

[scine09]

Not sure. Haven't seen McElroy play a lot in the NFL. He could be a winner. No clue.

Who would you take? McElroy or Cutler? McElroy or Stafford?

[scine09]

They aren't top 10 QBs. Ryan is the closest, but I would put him behind every QB I listed earlier, plus Rothleisberger. They're squarely in the 11-16 range.

Once again, I'm not saying a guy can't be a good QB if he doesn't hit a certain benchmark in college. I'm saying there is a correlation between the odds of a QB becoming a top flight player and his college stats meeting a base criteria. If you disagree, that's fine, but the data is heavily in my favor on this.

Not really. Read my post. The average QB over the past 10 years has just over a 60% rate in college.

 

I definitely disagree on Matt Ryan. I think he's a top 10 QB.

[IsntLifeFunny]

The only way it could be slightly relevant is if you did your analysis and got your top guys and then looked at their completion percentage. The problem is that you've already done your analysis which means if he's inaccurate, you know it and you've already evaluated him accordingly b/c of it whether that means dismissing it for some reason (correctable issue, system flaw or whatever) or downgrading him. In the end the cause should already be found and factored in so the stat itself is really meaningless.

It isn't irrelevant as a baseline when looking at QBs. It's similar to looking at their physical prowess. If a guy completes 80% of his throws, but he can't throw the ball more than 20 yards, then he's obviously a flawed prospect. If a guy can throw 60 yards from his knees, but he's only completing 54% of his throws, he's a flawed prospect. I'll take the guy that can throw 60 yards from his knees, but I'm not picking him top 10. That's the point.

[reo]

It isn't irrelevant as a baseline when looking at QBs. It's similar to looking at their physical prowess. If a guy completes 80% of his throws, but he can't throw the ball more than 20 yards, then he's obviously a flawed prospect. If a guy can throw 60 yards from his knees, but he's only completing 54% of his throws, he's a flawed prospect. I'll take the guy that can throw 60 yards from his knees, but I'm not picking him top 10. That's the point.

 

And I'm not picking anyone based on that little information on either side. That's the point.

[IsntLifeFunny]

Okay I did the research:

 

I went through the last 10 years and came up with the average completion % among qualifying QB's and then the total combined completion % in the 10 years.  Here they are:

 

2013: 61.05%

2012: 61.33%

2011: 61.59%

2010: 60.78%

2009: 59.98%

2008: 60.67%

2007: 60.09%

2006: 59.67%

2005: 58.91%

2004: 58.08%

 

Total: 60.28%

 

So if we're praising guys that threw around 60% what we're doing is praising guys that were average in their college careers with completion %'s. Obviously Locker is way below that and I won't even begin to defend it. What this shows though is that completion % means absolutely squat when trying to forecast how good a pro that player will be because there are several highly successful QB's playing right now that in college had around or below the 60.28% mark. And many other QB's that were way above 60.28% and either were complete busts in the league or didn't even get a look.

Once again, the point isn't that it is indicative of future success. It is merely a baseline qualifier.

[IsntLifeFunny]

And I'm not picking anyone based on that little information on either side. That's the point.

No, that's your point, but not the original point of why Jake Locker was a stupid pick at 8. He didn't meet the base criteria.

[Cyrus]

For what it's worth, Zach Mettenberger has started 26 games at the FBS level and more if you include his JUCO year. He also scored a 30 on the Wonderlic and averaged more than 60% in completions for his career LSU (including 64.9% in 2013).

 

Would be my ideal target for the Titans in the second round.

[reo]

No, that's your point, but not the original point of why Jake Locker was a stupid pick at 8. He didn't meet the base criteria.

 

It's yet to be determined if he was a stupid pick. There should be 0 "base criteria". The mere thought of that is stupid. Do the damn in depth analysis and rank them accordingly instead of screening them w/ some stat.

 

By your criteria Favre would've been a stupid pick at 8.

[begooode]

Then they did a shitty job w/ their analysis.

 

They shouldn't be able to gain something from some broad stat that they didn't already glean from their film analysis. At best, looking at the broad view (stats) should just force them to go more in depth in their analysis in an area if that stat is outside the margin of error. It shouldn't be form of analysis or something used to categorize a player over film. Ever. At best it should make them look at the film again to explain variance.

 

So while breaking down film, a player evaluator is somehow completely without bias and can make foolproof projections, too?  Sounds like you are closer to a stats-based measure than you think.

[scine09]

Once again, the point isn't that it is indicative of future success. It is merely a baseline qualifier.

A baseline qualifier except for the guys that have succeeded that didn't hit the baseline.