QB Draft Analysis 2.0

[Agent 91]

On 1/28/2018 at 9:29 AM, SoCal Deek said:

Really well done. I think it gives great insight into the kind of analysis that NFL teams actually do. I'm always shocked at how spotty the rate of return is on top QBs...but you have to keep rolling the dice none the less. You can't win consistently in the NFL without a legitimate starting QB. (Dying to find out who the one responder says is the guy he 'knows when he sees him' actually is.)

Probably the typical Rosen Darnold or  Mayfield... the consensus "Slam dunk". I wish he would go on record with Mike White or the guy from Troy. Someone obscure. You know? 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 1/27/2018 at 8:16 PM, KzooMike said:

I did a study I posted  recently on the forum involving career college passing yards and career college rushing yards for QB's as a % of total yardage gained vs correlation to success. Part of the fault in that study was using subjective material to qualify success. This is the same study, just objective criteria.  

 

I included career winning % in games started for each subset of data

 

Busts are defined by any QB that did not start at least 64 games (4 seasons) in his career in the NFL. Active players were excluded from the sample on Busts unless near certain 64 game expectation exists (Derek Carr/62 games, etc). Active player are included toward winning%. 

 

Draft pick sample is from 2000 on

 

QB's who had 17.5% or more total yards from rushing in college drafted in 1st or 2nd round 

• Record Starting Games in NFL: 227 and 204 (52.7%)
• Bust Rate: 8 of 10 (80%)
• Qualifiers: Lamar Jackson

QB's who had between .5% and 17.5% total yards from rushing in college drafted in 1st or 2nd round  

• Record Starting Games 1,362 and 1,289 (51.4%)
• Bust Rate: 12 of 26 (46.2%)
• Qualifiers: Baker Mayfield, Josh Allen, Sam Darnold

QB's drafted who had .5% or less total yards from rushing in college drafted in 1st or 2nd round  

• Record Starting Games 336 and 396 (45.9%)
• Bust Rate: 10 of 13 (76.9%)
• Qualifiers: Josh Rosen, Mason Rudolph

 

Analysis: This is one of the most dominant stat profiles in the study on who to avoid. It's a small sample, but you could see some logic behind the data. If you are running as a means to generate offense in college at a high rate you are also using that escape ability as a means to generate offense in the air through unconventional means. You will be less likely to be successful running the ball at the NFL level. Conversely at very low levels most QB's have negative career rushing yards in college. This could lend itself to poor pocket awareness.  

 

All and all the bust rate on outliers as it relates to yards gained on the ground is a staggering 18 of 23 (78%) with Rosen, Rudolph, and Jackson all being in outlier profiles. While the bust rate on non outlier profiles is just 46.2%, with prospects that include Mayfield, Allen, and Darnold. 

 

QB's with 9,300 or more career passing yards in college drafted in 1st or 2nd round

• Record Starting Games in NFL: 1,025 and 877 (53.9%)
• Bust Rate: 10 of 20 (50%)
• Qualifiers: Mason Rudolph, Baker Mayfield, Josh Rosen

QB's between 5,500 and 9,300 passing yards in college drafted in 1st or 2nd round 

• Record starting Games: 490 and 708 (40.9%) 
• Bust Rate: 19 of 24 (79.2%)
• Qualifiers: Sam Darnold, Lamar Jackson

QB's with less than 5,500 career passing yards in college drafted in the 1st or 2nd round  

• Record Starting Games: 410 and 304 (57.4%)
• Bust Rate: 1 of 5 (20%)
• Qualifiers: Josh Allen

 

Analysis: Passing yards/production in the air does matter, especially when you partner it with NFL scouts giving you a high grade. Players that are above 9,300 yards in large part have started since day one in college, have been either consistently productive or excessively productive over 2-3 years. More likely to have stayed a full 4 years improving maturation. Rudolph, Mayfield, and Rosen fit this profile, with Mayfield having the highest career passing yardage numbers out of any 1st or 2nd round pick drafted since 2000. 

 

Once you go under 5,500 yards you see a clear trend emerge. Very high draft picks. These tend to be the freak type QB's that either explode on the scene or have measurable's off the charts. It's not common to see this occur but we likely will see Allen fall into this profile.

 

Middle of the rode QB's on the production front have been awful since the 2000 draft, 40.9% winning % and nearly an 80% bust rate on 24 players. Think EJ/JP, they fit in this group. They have the measurable's but generally speaking they weren't able to translate that into elite production on the field (Jackson would be an exception to that statement). Scouts should be very cautious of this combination.

 

So what does the passing data look like when you get out of elite draft pick status?

Pretty much the same. .....

 

QB's with 9,300 or more career passing yards in college drafted outside the top 10 but selected in the 1st or 2nd round  

• Record Starting Games 500 and 416 (54.6%)
• Bust Rate: 7 of 12 (58.3%)

QB's between 5,500 and 9,300 passing yards in college drafted outside the top 10 but selected in the 1st or 2nd round  

• Record starting Games: 271 and 380 (41.6%) 
• Bust Rate: 16 of 17 (94.1%)

QB's with less than 5,500 career passing yards in college drafted outside the top 10 but selected in 1st or 2nd round   

• Record Starting Games: 107 and 60 (64.1%)
• Bust Rate: 1 of 2 (50%)

 

Analysis:  Middle level bust rate is nearly 100%, that number is spared thanks to Jay Cutler. 

 

Final Analysis: The only two QB's to avoid all of the high bust rate levels are Mayfield and Allen. Darnold, Rosen, Rudolph all fit in at least one of the larger bust rate groupings. Jackson fits in 2 of them.  I know it's far from a sure fire selection guide. I do find some of the bust rate data to be a tad overwhelming to not give it any merit. Last year Mitch fell into the same grouping as Allen, avoiding any major bust categories but in the very low production buckets. Then Watson and Mahomes fell into the same categories as Mayfield with both those QB's also avoiding any of the major bust categories.   

 

 

Interesting.  I will say from the bits of college film I'm watching, that if you can't manuever around and escape those college linemen, you might not last long enough to make it to 64 games in the pros.

 

But, I do wonder a bit if your criteria for "bust" are permissive enough that it scews the data.  After all, most folks would not be happy if a guy plays 64 games like Alex Smith's first 5 years in the league.  He made his way onto a number of "bust" lists.  My own analysis of the NFL performance of guys drafted at different positions does not select Cutler as a "yes" QB.

 

I hate to ask someone who's done a lot of work for a thing, but if you could share the names and numbers of the QB who fall into your different groupings (assume you already have this) it would be helpful to interpret the data.

 

[dave mcbride]

3 hours ago, KzooMike said:

 

Thank you, of note, Brain Brohm lives here

 

QB's drafted who had .5% or less total yards from rushing in college drafted in 1st or 2nd round  

• Record Starting Games 336 and 396 (45.9%)
• Bust Rate: 10 of 13 (76.9%)
• Qualifiers: Josh Rosen, Mason Rudolph

Re the rushing yards metric, which i admit to being suspicious of as a correlative measure: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/tom-brady-1.html

[Mikie2times]

14 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Re the rushing yards metric, which i admit to being suspicious of as a correlative measure: https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/players/tom-brady-1.html

 

Brady is the biggest outlier in NFL history. If you chase examples like Tom Brady (as many teams have) you will find a list a mile long of failed scenarios. My point isn't to debate how valid this information is. It has some logic, it might have validity, it might not. Throwing out two names like Brain Brohm (who belongs in this sample in a negative way contrary to what you stated) or Tom Brady (who doesn't even fit in this sample) does nothing to provide any clarity to this discussion.  

 

 

15 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Interesting.  I will say from the bits of college film I'm watching, that if you can't manuever around and escape those college linemen, you might not last long enough to make it to 64 games in the pros.

 

But, I do wonder a bit if your criteria for "bust" are permissive enough that it scews the data.  After all, most folks would not be happy if a guy plays 64 games like Alex Smith's first 5 years in the league.  He made his way onto a number of "bust" lists.  My own analysis of the NFL performance of guys drafted at different positions does not select Cutler as a "yes" QB.

 

I hate to ask someone who's done a lot of work for a thing, but if you could share the names and numbers of the QB who fall into your different groupings (assume you already have this) it would be helpful to interpret the data.

 

 

I can do that. I have the information but would have to put it back into the proper buckets. It might be a bit, I have some high level business meetings today 

Edited January 30, 2018 by KzooMike

[dave mcbride]

3 hours ago, KzooMike said:

 

Brady is the biggest outlier in NFL history. If you chase examples like Tom Brady (as many teams have) you will find a list a mile long of failed scenarios. My point isn't to debate how valid this information is. It has some logic, it might have validity, it might not. Throwing out two names like Brain Brohm (who belongs in this sample in a negative way contrary to what you stated) or Tom Brady (who doesn't even fit in this sample) does nothing to provide any clarity to this discussion.  

 

 

 

 

Let's look at the best QBs, however -- the current top six, in my humble opinion, based on longevity and consistent success : Brady, Rodgers, Rothlisberger, Ryan, Rivers, and Brees (plus Peyton Manning just because). See Brady's numbers above. For Aaron Rodgers, of his 5805 total yards, 336 came on the ground (0.57 percent). Sure he neatly fits into your scheme (greater than 0.5 percent), but barely; his rushing numbers were genuinely negligible. Of Roelisberger's 11,075 yards, 246 came on the ground (0.22 percent). Of Matt Ryan's 9371 yards, 58 came via rushing (less than 0.1 percent).  Philip Rivers had 13,580 total yards, and all of 96 of them came on the ground (under 0.1 percent). Payton Manning had 11,201 passing yards and -181 rushing yards. 

 

Even Drew Brees is under one percent (0.78 percent; 900 rushing yards out 12,692 total) and barely qualifies.

 

Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Rivers, and Manning all fall WELL below your threshold. Rodgers is at the bare minimum and Brees is only barely above it. 

 

Bottom line: I simply don't buy that metric. If the best qbs are all clear or borderline outliers, then something is wrong with the metric.  

 

EDIT: I just looked up Stafford (not elite, but very good) and he's well below the threshold too.  So are Goff and Carson Palmer. My basic point is that we need to factor in the fact that just about all of the classic dropback passers who go at the top of the draft and become good to great don't meet the threshold or only barely so.  Cousins, a good qb yet a fourth rounder, doesn't fit either. He had negative rushing yards.

 

EDITED AGAIN: I realize that I made ridiculously stupid math errors above which I will let stand as a testament to sloppy thinking and too-fast typing. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Luka]

This is the kind of thing that got the analytics department fired.

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

 

Let's look at the best QBs, however -- the current top six, in my humble opinion, based on longevity and consistent success : Brady, Rodgers, Rothlisberger, Ryan, Rivers, and Brees (plus Peyton Manning just because). See Brady's numbers above. For Aaron Rodgers, of his 5805 total yards, 336 came on the ground (0.57 percent). Sure he neatly fits into your scheme (greater than 0.5 percent), but barely; his rushing numbers were genuinely negligible. Of Roelisberger's 11,075 yards, 246 came on the ground (0.22 percent). Of Matt Ryan's 9371 yards, 58 came via rushing (less than 0.1 percent).  Philip Rivers had 13,580 total yards, and all of 96 of them came on the ground (under 0.1 percent). Payton Manning had 11,201 passing yards and -181 rushing yards. 

 

Even Drew Brees is under one percent (0.78 percent; 900 rushing yards out 12,692 total) and barely qualifies.

 

Brady, Roethlisberger, Ryan, Rivers, and Manning all fall WELL below your threshold. Rodgers is at the bare minimum and Brees is only barely above it. 

 

Bottom line: I simply don't buy that metric. If the best qbs are all clear or borderline outliers, then something is wrong with the metric.  

 

EDIT: I just looked up Stafford (not elite, but very good) and he's well below the threshold too.  So are Goff and Carson Palmer. My basic point is that we need to factor in the fact that just about all of the classic dropback passers who go at the top of the draft and become good to great don't meet the threshold or only barely so.  Cousins, a good qb yet a fourth rounder, doesn't fit either. He had negative rushing yards.

 

• Rodgers is 5.79% not .57%, you do understand the difference between 5% and 1/2 of 1 % is a pretty big difference, Yes? I assume you do, so let's keep going.  Rodgers is under 5,500 career passing yards, not 5,805. So Rodgers actually fits no bust profiles while you have him fitting in two.
• Rothlisberger 2.22%, again, nearly 4 times .50%, 10,829 passing yards (are you adding rushing and passing yards together? Where are you getting this stuff?) . Big Ben, like Rodgers,  does not fit any of the bust profiles
• Matt Ryan, while extremely close at 9,300 yards passing and a .62% rushing, does not fit any of the bust profiles
• Phillip Rivers, similar to Ryan, 13,484 passing, .71% rushing, again, does not fit any of the bust profiles. 
• Drew Brees. 11,792 passing,  7.6% rushing rate, again, does not fit any of the bust profile

So based on your refined calculations, the study I provided would have indicted that every selection you made would have been a good decision outside of Peyton Manning (a #1 overall pick, Stafford (who actually has a run % north of 2% but does fall into the middle tier in passing production (another #1 OVR pick), and Geoff (Yet another #1 OVR pick). Then Tom Brady who doesn't even fit in the sample.  You are right, when you look at success rate of only #1 overall picks it will always rival any analytics. No purpose in them at that level, the hit rate is almost a perfect 50/50 split. 

 

I never said this is gospel. If you disagree, so be it. Just don't be dumb about it. This is just dumb, on so many levels it's dumb. It's not accurate. If anything your samples validated the information. Then you used 3 #1 OVR selections and Tom Brady to dispute further? COME ON......

Edited January 30, 2018 by KzooMike

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, KzooMike said:

I can do that. I have the information but would have to put it back into the proper buckets. It might be a bit, I have some high level business meetings today 

 

Thanks.  Will appreciate and look forward to it.  Enjoy those high level business meetings

I plan to enjoy a few of my own

 

PS is "high level business meeting" the new TBD euphemism, like "Netflix and chill"?

[Fadingpain]

The gaps between your rushing yardage % groups are too broad for this to be a meaningful analysis.

 

Though if you are suggesting your data demonstrates that QBs who are not run-dominant in college do better in the NFL than those who are run dominant at the college level, well, we already knew that.

 

The "athletic running type" of QB, of which there are many every year in college, having limited value in the NFL.

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

29 minutes ago, Fadingpain said:

The gaps between your rushing yardage % groups are too broad for this to be a meaningful analysis.

 

Though if you are suggesting your data demonstrates that QBs who are not run-dominant in college do better in the NFL than those who are run dominant at the college level, well, we already knew that.

 

The "athletic running type" of QB, of which there are many every year in college, having limited value in the NFL.

 

The part of Kzoo's analysis that interests me is the very-low-rushing-yard % group; I'm interested in the names in this group and the group above.

 

On the one hand, I wonder if it means a guy has such a bad OL in college that he comes into the league pre-beaten (this might be true of White)

On the second hand, I wonder if it means a guy has such limited ability to adjust in the pocket that he gets killed in the NFL.

On the gripping hand, does it mean it's too much of a guy's game to run back and forth behind the LOS until something opens up?

 

Sam Bradford would I think fall into low rushing yards bust group (0.4%), and he has certainly gotten killed in the NFL (though I'm guessing Kzoo's analysis calls him a success)

[dave mcbride]

2 hours ago, KzooMike said:

 

• Rodgers is 5.79% not .57%, you do understand the difference between 5% and 1/2 of 1 % is a pretty big difference, Yes? I assume you do, so let's keep going.  Rodgers is under 5,500 career passing yards, not 5,805. So Rodgers actually fits no bust profiles while you have him fitting in two.
• Rothlisberger 2.22%, again, nearly 4 times .50%, 10,829 passing yards (are you adding rushing and passing yards together? Where are you getting this stuff?) . Big Ben, like Rodgers,  does not fit any of the bust profiles
• Matt Ryan, while extremely close at 9,300 yards passing and a .62% rushing, does not fit any of the bust profiles
• Phillip Rivers, similar to Ryan, 13,484 passing, .71% rushing, again, does not fit any of the bust profiles. 
• Drew Brees. 11,792 passing,  7.6% rushing rate, again, does not fit any of the bust profile

So based on your refined calculations, the study I provided would have indicted that every selection you made would have been a good decision outside of Peyton Manning (a #1 overall pick, Stafford (who actually has a run % north of 2% but does fall into the middle tier in passing production (another #1 OVR pick), and Geoff (Yet another #1 OVR pick). Then Tom Brady who doesn't even fit in the sample.  You are right, when you look at success rate of only #1 overall picks it will always rival any analytics. No purpose in them at that level, the hit rate is almost a perfect 50/50 split. 

 

I never said this is gospel. If you disagree, so be it. Just don't be dumb about it. This is just dumb, on so many levels it's dumb. It's not accurate. If anything your samples validated the information. Then you used 3 #1 OVR selections and Tom Brady to dispute further? COME ON......

I combined passing and rushing yards (total yards) because I think it's a better measure of ratio with regard to overall productivity, but it really doesn't matter given how small the rushing numbers are. And yeah, I garbled .5 and 5 and ran with it (thank you for assuming that I do know this and garbled it). My apologies; it was lazy because I didn't look back at the OP and was working from memory.  Regardless, I strongly believe that any stat in which we're quibbling about 1 percent vs. 0 percent is not indicative of anything other than a rounding error. The fact that Roethlisberger had 200 rushing yards in 3-4 seasons of 11,000 plus total yards and Philip Rivers had 96 out of 13,000 plus and Carson Palmer, Brady, and Manning essentially zero says nothing about whether they're going to be a bust or not. None of them were runners or all anything resembling elusive outside-the-pocket scramblers in college. More broadly, one can find correlation, but correlation is in no way shape or form causation. The correlation one finds can also simply be random chance. 

 

Re picks, come on. Where Brady went doesn't matter at this point; what matters is who is elite at the current moment. I believe that all of the people I selected above are elite, and that only a small few had any running ability whatsoever. Some got sacked more than others, which explains the difference between those around 2 percent and those at 0 percent (again, a negligible difference).  But that may just be their offensive line and game situations (e.g., always having to pass and play catch-up because the defense is historically terrible, which was Rosen's situation).

I do appreciate your effort here. I just don't value this particular metric as a predictive indicator of anything given the current elite QB stratum in the NFL. And I don't understand why anyone would leave out top picks in an analysis because they're assumed to be outliers (which appears to be what you're saying above;  let me know if I'm misinterpreting). Should we really leave, say, Eli Manning out (negative rushing yards) simply because he's a #1 overall pick? He's oscillated between near-elite and ordinary, but he is also a lock for the hall of fame.

 

I am admittedly focusing on the elite tier, because that's what the Bills need after all these years. The best dropback qbs' rushing numbers are all pretty negligible save for Brees. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Like A Mofo]

Great stuff here and I enjoyed the read and shows very interesting results.

 

I am not sure if there is something out there available to show this: I always feel how a QB performs under duress would be a good indicator for success too. And throws made into tight coverage. Some college QB's look great because the defenses they play are swiss cheese and there are open receivers all over the field. This is why Im always skeptical of Louisville and Oklahoma QB's.

[Mikie2times]

48 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

The part of Kzoo's analysis that interests me is the very-low-rushing-yard % group; I'm interested in the names in this group and the group above.

 

On the one hand, I wonder if it means a guy has such a bad OL in college that he comes into the league pre-beaten (this might be true of White)

On the second hand, I wonder if it means a guy has such limited ability to adjust in the pocket that he gets killed in the NFL.

On the gripping hand, does it mean it's too much of a guy's game to run back and forth behind the LOS until something opens up?

 

Sam Bradford would I think fall into low rushing yards bust group (0.4%), and he has certainly gotten killed in the NFL (though I'm guessing Kzoo's analysis calls him a success)

Under .5% Rushing Yards 

On the Bust data I had to make some guesses/omissions based on active players. All winning % information is included. That said, I omitted Hackenberg and made assumptions that Bradford would not hit 64 games while Goff will. Those could be pretty big assumptions. Depends on your outlook.

 

Sam Bradford

Brian Brohm

John Beck

Matt Leinart

Jared Goff

Eli Manning

Patrick Ramsey

Rex Grossman

Brandon Weeden

Carson Palmer

Kyle Boller

Christian Hackenberg

Chad Henne

Jimmy Clausen

 

 

Over 17.5% Rushing QB's

I assumed Kaep would not reach 64 games. That one is a real crap shoot. 

 

Cam Newton

Vince Young

Colin Kaepernick

Michael Vick

Tim Tebow

Johnny Manziel

Jake Locker

Marques Tuiasosopo

Drew Stanton

Robert Griffin

35 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I combined passing and rushing yards (total yards) because I think it's a better measure of ratio with regard to overall productivity, but it really doesn't matter given how small the rushing numbers are. And yeah, I garbled .5 and 5 and ran with it (thank you for assuming that I do know this and garbled it). My apologies; it was lazy because I didn't look back at the OP and was working from memory.  Regardless, I strongly believe that any stat in which we're quibbling about 1 percent vs. 0 percent is not indicative of anything other than a rounding error. The fact that Roethlisberger had 200 rushing yards in 3-4 seasons of 11,000 plus total yards and Philip Rivers had 96 out of 13,000 plus and Carson Palmer, Brady, and Manning essentially zero says nothing about whether they're going to be a bust or not. None of them were runners or all anything resembling elusive outside-the-pocket scramblers in college. More broadly, one can find correlation, but correlation is in no way shape or form causation. The correlation one finds can also simply be random chance. 

 

Re picks, come on. Where Brady went doesn't matter at this point; what matters is who is elite at the current moment. I believe that all of the people I selected above are elite, and that only a small few had any running ability whatsoever. Some got sacked more than others, which explains the difference between those around 2 percent and those at 0 percent (again, a negligible difference).  But that may just be their offensive line and game situations (e.g., always having to pass and play catch-up because the defense is historically terrible, which was Rosen's situation).

I do appreciate your effort here. I just don't value this particular metric as a predictive indicator of anything given the current elite QB stratum in the NFL. And I don't understand why anyone would leave out top picks in an analysis because they're assumed to be outliers (which appears to be what you're saying above;  let me know if I'm misinterpreting). Should we really leave, say, Eli Manning out (negative rushing yards) simply because he's a #1 overall pick? He's oscillated between near-elite and ordinary, but he is also a lock for the hall of fame.

 

Dave, I have used the forum since the beginning and don't post as often as I once did, but I do remember you. Didn't mean to come off as such a prick in my responses. I didn't agree with how you were attacking the data in your other posts and please keep in mind part of the foundation of what I'm saying is analytics+draft status. The draft status portion being important because it places a grade on the player outside of just the stat line. Having said all this, everybody will have different views and again didn't mean to be overly critical toward you.   

Edited January 30, 2018 by KzooMike

[dave mcbride]

16 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

Under .5% Rushing Yards 

On the Bust data I had to make some guesses/omissions based on active players. All winning % information is included. That said, I omitted Hackenberg and made assumptions that Bradford would not hit 64 games while Goff will. Those could be pretty big assumptions. Depends on your outlook.

 

Sam Bradford

Brian Brohm

John Beck

Matt Leinart

Jared Goff

Eli Manning

Patrick Ramsey

Rex Grossman

Brandon Weeden

Carson Palmer

Kyle Boller

Christian Hackenberg

Chad Henne

Jimmy Clausen

 

 

Over 14.5% Rushing QB's

I assumed Kaep would not reach 64 games. That one is a real crap shoot. 

 

Cam Newton

Vince Young

Colin Kaepernick

Michael Vick

Tim Tebow

Johnny Manziel

Jake Locker

Marques Tuiasosopo

Drew Stanton

Robert Griffin

FYI, not sure you caught this because it's not on the college reference site (only his negligible Pitt stats are), but Flacco had 76 rushing yards in two season with Delaware and 7,046 passing yards (1.1 percent by your measure). http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerQB.asp?id=1203436 

16 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

Under .5% Rushing Yards 

On the Bust data I had to make some guesses/omissions based on active players. All winning % information is included. That said, I omitted Hackenberg and made assumptions that Bradford would not hit 64 games while Goff will. Those could be pretty big assumptions. Depends on your outlook.

 

Sam Bradford

Brian Brohm

John Beck

Matt Leinart

Jared Goff

Eli Manning

Patrick Ramsey

Rex Grossman

Brandon Weeden

Carson Palmer

Kyle Boller

Christian Hackenberg

Chad Henne

Jimmy Clausen

 

 

Over 17.5% Rushing QB's

I assumed Kaep would not reach 64 games. That one is a real crap shoot. 

 

Cam Newton

Vince Young

Colin Kaepernick

Michael Vick

Tim Tebow

Johnny Manziel

Jake Locker

Marques Tuiasosopo

Drew Stanton

Robert Griffin

 

Dave, I have used the forum since the beginning and don't post as often as I once did, but I do remember you. Didn't mean to come off as such a prick in my responses. I didn't agree with how you were attacking the data in your other posts and please keep in mind part of the foundation of what I'm saying is analytics+draft status. The draft status portion being important because it places a grade on the player outside of just the stat line. Having said all this, everybody will have different views and again didn't mean to be overly critical toward you.   

No worries, and I really do appreciate the work. I'm not exaggerating either. However, I am going to ask you a question: irrespective of the overall numbers you've charted about rushing yardage percentages, do YOU personally think it's a valid metric or just oddly correlative given what we know about who the truly long-term elite drop-back QBs are?  

Edited January 30, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Mikie2times]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

FYI, not sure you caught this because it's not on the college reference site (only his negligible Pitt stats are), but Flacco had 76 rushing yards in two season with Delaware and 7,046 passing yards (1.1 percent by your measure). http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerQB.asp?id=1203436 

No worries, and I really do appreciate the work. I'm not exaggerating either. However, I am going to ask you a question: irrespective of the overall numbers you've charted about rushing yardage percentages, do YOU personally think it's a valid metric or just oddly correlative given what we know about who the truly long-term elite drop-back QBs are?  

I can apply a rational theory to the rushing information both from a high and low standpoint. I certainly can't validate that theory based on the sample size.  My take? If I'm looking at a #1 overall pick/top 3 pick, I think you throw it out. Do that and you eliminate every successful QB on the list . Outside that you have a 100% bust rate on 18 QB's. 18 of 18 QB's drafted from 2000 on that weren't #1 overall selections did not start more than 64 games. Every QB from this list that did start 64 or more games was drafted 1st overall. Lamar Jackson is within the 18 of 18 trend and so is Mason Rudolph. Maybe Josh Rosen falls into it, he wouldn't scare me as much. Jackson and Rudolph scare the living crap out of me.   

Edited January 30, 2018 by KzooMike

[MTBill]

Nice work - only thing I might change up....

 

Those passing stats are for a career - since not all players play 4 years, maybe just take it to average/year?  That settles the underclassmen stuff out.

 

What about # of Sacks?  Did you look at that - and did it predict anything?  What about conference or opponents?

 

(Just another analytics guy who is too busy/lazy to find the dataset myself...)

 

Thanks!