Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Playing around with QB Ratings


InstiGATOR

Recommended Posts

Prompted by OrangeSkin's discussion of Rosenfel's upside, I decided to play around with some QB rating numbers. To see if my conjecture to OrangeSkin that players generally get worse as they move to higher levels of competion, I ran some numbers on Matthews, Rosenfel and Wuerffel. I took QB rating numbers at all levels and converted them to NFL QB ratings.

Mathews was a good QB at UF. His QB rating [NFL measure] in his best year at UF was 93.6. Matthews' QB rating in the NFL has been 75.1 or about 25% lower than in college. This is not really surprising as the NFL is tougher than college.

Rosenfel's QB rating at ISU in NFL terms was 66.8. He has not played enough in the NFL to have an established QB rating. If he were to have a similar drop off to Matthews in the translation from college to the NFL, he would have a QB rating of 53.4.

For Wuerffel I happen also to have his high school stats. [Actually I got them from his NFL.com bio.] Wuerffel's high school QB rating in NFL terms was 141.3. Wuerffel's UF QB rating his best year at UF in NFL rating terms was 120.9 or about 17% lower. His NFL-E QB rating was 107.1. or about 13% lower than his UF rating. Wuerffel like Rosenfel has not played enough to have an established NFL QB rating. If Wuerffel were to drop off in QB rating in the translation from college to the NFL as Matthews did, his QB rating would be 96.7. BTW, this number would have been second in the league last year.

Notice the trend with Wuerffel. His QB rating goes down as he moves up in competiton. That is to be expected. The NFL is a tougher league than 6A FL high school ball. But he started at a very high level. As I said to OrangeSkin, it is possible but unlike that since the SOS offense is likely better than the offense he played in at ISU that his rating will rise or not fall as much as others. But is it reasonable to think he will rise enough to become a factor at QB? And it could be that Matthew's QB rating will jump this year as he will not be playing in the Chicago offense but the SOS offense.

Finally, I realize that I am pinning alot of this analysis on Mathews' percentage decline from UF to the NFL. To me this 25% decline seems reasonable. But just to check it, I checked the decline of P.Manning moving from the SEC to the NFL. P.Manning's college QB rating in NFL terms was 101.1. In his NFL career P.Manning has had a QB rating of 85.1. That is a decline of 19%. To me this suggest that the Matthews number is not way out of line and many would suggest that P.Manning is a guy who would be expected to decline less than the average making the college to NFL transition. Certainly a full study of how much players drop from college to the NFL would be interesting and this is not such a full study.

Now all of this is predicated on each player having the minimum threshhold tools to play in the NFL and as I pointed out to OrangeSkin someone not named Spurrier has kept Matthews and Wuerffel around for a number of years. But for those who do not follow QB ratings in detail these projected or actual NFL QB ratings imply a season like:

Player-----ATT-COMP-INT---YARDS---TDs---Rating [NFL]

Matthews-480-276-35------3600----35-----75.1

Rosenfel--480-240-22-------2400---12-----53.1

Wuerffel--480-276-19-------3840----43----96.7

Now this may seem outrageous to some people here and remember I predicated this on Wuerffel's tools meeting some minimum threshhold. But a year ago this time I projected Grossman's 2001 season as

Player-----ATT-COMP-INT---YARDS---TDs---Rating [NFL]

Projected-360-229-11------3178----37-----113.4

Actual------395-276-12------3896----34-----113.9

As you can see I slightly under estimated what Grossman would do. He put up Heisman numbers and finished second in the voting. Will Wuerffel throw 40+ TD passes if he wins the job and stays healthy. Not necessarily but I would not be shocked if he did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"All this proves is that Gino Toretta is bound to be a Pro Bowl quarteback someday."

Nice line but the facts say differently. Torretta's JR season at Miami he had an NFL QB rating of 92.1. If he had a Matthews like 25% fall off in the NFL, he would be a 73.5 NFL QB. Can you see why he did not become a long term star now? In addition while the three QBs I was discussing above all played in top power conferences so this issue did not arise, Torretta's 92.1 was against a Big East type schedule so maybe he fell off even more.

"OMG what a crack-smoker."

Let's see here who is the bigger crack smoker:

1. The people who think a highly productive college player will be less productive in the NFL, but still has a chance to be productive.

2. The people who imagine that a QB who put of a 66.8 QB rating and threw more picks than TD passes has the tools to become a serviceable QB in the NFL?

Personally it is not close to me. Those who think that any college QB will be better in the NFL need to put down the pipe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great info Instigator, very well researched I must say. However, I think I must rely on the old adage that figures can lie and liars can figure. Now, hold on before you get your panties all in a wad, I wasn't calling you a liar, just quoting an old cliche.

As far as Weurfell (or however you spell it) goes, I sincerely hope I'm wrong. However, I think he just doesn't have the tools (ie the arm) to play in the NFL. You can get away with it in college due to inferior talent of the competition (yes, even in the SEC). However, when you have the best of the best playing corner and D. coordinating they'll figure out quickly that you can't throw deep and do everything in their power to take away all the underneath stuff. All that "cheating up" also makes it more difficult to run the ball and all of a sudden, your offense grinds to a halt. For a case in point, remember Norv's last season with Brad "limp arm" Johnson ? If that happens, your theory goes out the window and all the college #'s in the world won't make a difference.

Now, as I said, I sincerely hope I'm proven wrong, wrong, wrong. However, I'll believe it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stats and numbers mean nothing. There are dozens of variables from college to the NFL. They are two completely different games. Why weren't Wuerffel or Matthews first round picks? They should've been, going by your knowledge.

Josh Heupel should have been drafted No. 1 overall last year, instead of whatever late round he went in.

There are dozens, probably hundreds of examples of QBs who were standouts in college and aren't anything in the NFL.

Keep in mind that most of the players whom Danny was passing against in college did not make it in the NFL. These are world-class athletes we're talking about, not some walkon.

There has to come the realization at some time that many college players do not succeed in the NFL because they are totally different. That my friend, is a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a couple of holes in your argument, InstiGATOR:

a) Wuerffel played for Spurrier. I don't know who Sage's coach was, but he wasn't Spurrier. That makes comparing their college stats somewhat unfair. Doug Johnson sucked and he put up better stats than most QBs at most schools just because he played for Spurrier.

B) Wuerffel played on a loaded team. The top 4 WRs are all in the NFL now. The top 4 RBs are also in the NFL, although one is a FB, one a LB, and one a DB. The one who is still a RB is sometimes referred to as "the most talented back in the NFL when healthy." 4 of the 5 starting linemen are in the NFL. The TE is in the NFL and would probably already be a star at the position if he weren't behind Frank Wycheck. Who played with Rosenfels in college?

Not only is it unfair to compare Rosenfels' stats to Wuerffel's, it's unfair to compare Matthews' stats to Wuerffel's as even the teams he played on don't stack up to what Wuerffel got. Trying to extrapolate anything out from those stats is pretty meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a simple problem with this theory. What was Kurt Warner's best college QB rating? How about Aaron Brooks or Brett Favre or Rich Gannon or whoever. It's not a simple 25 percentage point drop from college to the NFL because some guys actually have had BETTER numbers in the NFL. Perhaps I'm under the wrong impression and each of these names has had huge college numbers but I don't think that's the case.

Further, if it was just a 25 percent drop in rating, then Danny Wuerffel would have found an opportunity by now to have gotten into the lineup. Is it unreasonable to expect Spurrier's QB, whoever it is, to get 3500 yards passing and a 90 QB rating? I don't think it is, though it is not probably something we're expecting.

I admit I have the same dreams of Matthews or Wuerffel that the Florida fans are telling us are alright to have. It's just hard to wrap the brain around that when these guys have been such pedestrian talents in the league.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"InstiGATOR, you are either brilliant or completely insane."

LB, I was brilliant last year predicting Grossman. I was not completely insane but not brilliant by any stretch forecasting Doug Johnson's first year based on Wuerffel, Matthews and Terry Dean's first year as SOS's QB. [Johnson was not as good as projections.] This is of course much much more speculative in this situation because of the change in competition level, players moving from one coach to another etc..

"Stats and numbers mean nothing."

OrangeSkin, Stats are the only facts we have about performance. There are very meaningful if you understand them and understand the limitations of them.

And of course one way to make them meaningful is to actually check them out before you say something. For example Heupel's SR at OU year he had an NFL QB rating of 90.5 which deflated by Matthew's 25% implies an NFL rating of 72.4. You see when you ignor the actual facts, you make statements that are not correct and imagine that a QB with a 66.8 rating in college can produce in the NFL. That is about as likely as a CB who runs a 5.0 40 producing in the NFL.

Yusf, Just keep in mind how speculative this is. There are several caveat that I have pointed out and others have reenforced:

1. Players must have some minimum threshhold of skills to translate the numbers.

2. Rosenfel is moving up in competition but also to a better offense.

3. Matthews is also moving to a better offense so maybe my 25% reduction is too high.

4. There is a random component in this. Some QB might lose 20% in the translation and a different QB might lose 30%.

But the general principle here that players perform worse as the go up in competition must hold. Wuerffel btw played for three different coaches in high school, college and NFL-Europe yet his performance consistently dropped off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's see here who is the bigger crack smoker:

1. The people who think a highly productive college player will be less productive in the NFL, but still has a chance to be productive.

2. The people who imagine that a QB who put of a 66.8 QB rating and threw more picks than TD passes has the tools to become a serviceable QB in the NFL?

Personally it is not close to me. Those who think that any college QB will be better in the NFL need to put down the pipe.

No need to wonder, you are in fact the biggest crack smoker on this board. Apparently you can't accept this, and need to have this explained to you in small words.

To refute point #1. Feel free explain how a QB rating isolates the differences in systems, talent, competition, coaching, injuries, personal problems, level of refinement vs. raw talent, etc. Also, feel free to run your stats for every starting QB in the league, instead of hand picking a few. As Art mentioned, why not include Kurt Warner and Aaron Brooks?

2. In fact, yes. If you had bothered to learn anything about Sage, instead of pulling ideas out of your ***, you would know that the book on Sage is that he was a very raw talent who played in a simple offense coming out of college, with mediocre coaching at best, who was taught poor mechanics. That alone should tell you that he has significant potential for improvement.

Honestly, to be quite blunt, your "expert analysis" is incredibly shallow and childish. It's fine for you to maintain those points of view, but when you come here and try to pass them off as anything more than bullsh*t, you will get your *** handed to you.

And the idea that you think anyone on this board is blindly following Sage is absolutely absurd. Perhaps it is because you are in fact blindly supporting the Florida QBs that you expect to see the same behavior from Extremeskins members, and amplify their support of everyone on our roster to the level of "blind support" for Sage. You obviously lack the objectivity and analytical capability to divine that the overwhelming majority of members on this board wish to see a fair battle between all of the QBs on our roster, and are simply modifying their guesses on the outcome of the competition based on the reports of the competition as it goes along.

In short, be quiet and go sit in the corner. If you persist in your silly little rantings, you will only be beaten more and more soundly, as the patience of the board wears thin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay Instigator, I like your passion, but here are all the real stats and facts that matter:

DANNY WUERFFEL

NFL CAREER QB RATING: 51.2! (another Ryan Leaf)

4 TEAMS IN 6 SEASONS

6 STARTS WITH A COMPLETION PERCENTAGE OF 48.8%

5.4 YARDS PER ATTEMPT WITH 9 TD'S AND 16 INTERCEPTIONS

I WOULD GO ON BUT DO NOT LIKE EMBARRASING REDSKINS!

TONY BANKS

NFL CAREER QB RATING: 72.0

4 TEAMS IN 7 SEASONS

75 STARTS WITH A COMPLETION PERCENTAGE OF 54.0%

6.5 YARDS PER ATTEMPT

TONY WAS A SECOND ROUND DRAFT CHOICE, WUERFFEL FELL TO A FOURTH ROUND PICK ( I WONDER WHY?)

I do not need to go any further. In fact, Tony Banks according to my projections would be a more solid back-up than Danny Wuerffel. All that matters to me though are not former Gators or stats....I just want victories. If Danny gets into a game I will be his biggest supporter, but just remember if he sucks...you now know why! Hail to the Redskins! May the Gators shape up or ship out!

:laugh: :laugh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First guys and gals, I know all of you will be big supporters of whomever wins the QB job this or any other year for the Skins. I am just trying to contribute to the discussion here and suggest why nobody should be shocked that Wuerffel is having the best camp. I expect Wuerffel to win the QB job and perform quite well for the Skins this year, but I am not 100% correct all the time. I am giving what I consider good reasons to expect him to do better than both Matthews and Rosenfel.

Now on to The Chosen Cracksmoker:

To refute point #1. Feel free explain how a QB rating isolates the differences in systems, talent, competition, coaching, injuries, personal problems, level of refinement vs. raw talent, etc.

The same way that batting average or slugging percentage controls for talent, different pitchers faced, competition, different ability of defenses, different batting philosophies, injuries, personal problems, level of refinemetn v. raw talent, etc. They are averages. They say what a player on average has done. Now that someone like Wuerffel who was coached better and has better talent than Rosenfel does better at QB rating should not be a surprise.

"Also, feel free to run your stats for every starting QB in the league, instead of hand picking a few. As Art mentioned, why not include Kurt Warner and Aaron Brooks?"

As I said a general study would be interesting. I have neither the time nor interest in the NFL to do one today. Someone should and maybe I will someday. Warner might be an exception to the rule. Of course you fail to see he is a GREAT case for Wuerffel because NFL coaches failed to identify his talent too and he only got to start due to injury. Brooks is probably not a particuarly interesting case. He was an average QB in college and has done nothing in the NFL that I have seen yet. [Actually, I went back and checked it for you and Brooks last year in his only full year of play in the NFL was 6% worse than his SR of college, 8.1 in college and 76.4 last year in the NFL. If I were the Saints, I think I would wait and see before I gave him a huge contract.]

And the bottom line is you are still on the side of the a player is likely to play better in the NFL than in college. I doubt that happens very often, but it probably does on rare ocasions.

Hoosierskin, If you had a seasons worth of data on Wuerffel, then I would be depending on the Spurrier system completely. You have very little data on Wuerffel in the NFL. It is such a small sample size as to be meaningless. It will be interesting to see if my projections are closer to reality for Wuerffel or yours are if he gets and hold the job this year for a significant part of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I think about Danny W. I wonder about Flutie. Flutie when he played under Ditka and that system was incredibly limited because of arm and system. After Pettibon showed how to deal with him he really became a nonfactor in Chicago. His second stint in Canada he came back and has been pretty sucessful. Now, I know they are different in that Flutie is a scrambler, but both are noted for weak arms and decision making. If I'm understanding Spurrier right, Danny W must also be good at improvisation because at least in line calling the system demands it. So, I wonder if he could be reborn somewhat like Flutie was? Wouldn't you be dying to go to you Washington grocer and order a box of Weurfal Wheatina for breakfast?

As for the rating thing, it seems contrived and difficult to swallow. Like others, all I want is for the QB to do really well, no matter which one is chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry Insti, but in the real world, there is more to prognisticating performance than numbers.

Some people like to base their observations on the perceived physical abilitiess they see before them. With their own eyes.

Your sample size of one (and that one being quite possibly the single greatest QB prospect of the past ten years in Manning) proves little. What other really, really good SEC QB has gone on to find any kind of success in the NFL, with an equal 25% dropoff in QB rating. Half season or not, it sure isn't Wuerffel. (And why shouldn't his numbers count until there's a full seasons worth anyway, seems to me he had QB ratings in the 160's almost every week at UF - he was a pretty consistent performer). He was consistent week to week in Europe too.

Eric Zeier? Jesse Palmer?

Numbers just don't translate like that.

I mean, what's the compasison for RB's? YPC? Then with a 30% dropoff, Trung Candidate should still be averaging 5 YPC in the NFL. 30% seems reasonable doesn't it?

Or perhaps it's yards per game. Let's go and get Troy Davis.

The fact is, you can get numbers to tell you whatever you want. For every 166 rating in college you can find for Wuerffel, you can find someone else who'll tell you that his 25 yard out patterns take 0.2 seconds longer to hit their target than Kurt Warner's. Or that his throws only have a tight spiral for 71% of their air time and that no good NFL QB can get away with less than a 77% spiral efficiency.

What the heck am I talking about? Exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Your sample size of one"

I agree with this criticism as I have said a bunch of times.

"(and that one being quite possibly the single greatest QB prospect of the past ten years in Manning)"

Sorry that you know so little about football that you could have typed that parenthetical remark there. Oh well some day you may learn to distinguish hype from performance.

"What other really, really good SEC QB has gone on to find any kind of success in the NFL, with an equal 25% dropoff in QB rating. Half season or not, it sure isn't Wuerffel."

There is no QB in the SEC or not with the numbers of Wuerffel so no other true comparison can be made. Zeier and Palmer has mediocre numbers and have yet to show they will be better in the NFL than College.

"(And why shouldn't his numbers count until there's a full seasons worth anyway, seems to me he had QB ratings in the 160's almost every week at UF - he was a pretty consistent performer). He was consistent week to week in Europe too."

I guess you did not understand your own first complaint. The reason is SAMPLE SIZE. I fully accept that criticism of may playing with QB ratings and the same hold true for Wuerffel's limited playing time.

"Numbers just don't translate like that. "

As I said a full study would answer you conjecture immediately above. You might be right but I doubt. Collge numbers mean something about the ability of players that is why you consider them along with combine numbers in picking draft choices. Or do you subscribe to the theory that you should pick WR draft choices from track programs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is one thing to talk about a player duplicating his NFL numbers going from one team to another, but to take a 28 or 30 year old player and still focus on his COLLEGE numbers shows how desperate the argument has become.

that extra second of zip on the ball that you may not need to beat cornerbacks in the SEC you may need in the NFL to beat pro bowl caliber players.

the increased pressure put on by NFL defenses may increase the importance of a quarterback's mobility, whereas in college the quarterback may have only faced two or three quality rushmen all season who will be in the NFL.

all these factors make the two games different in how they are scripted and played.

therefore it is useless to generalize stats and make them translatable on their face. :)

all you can do is try and gauge whether a guy has the composite skills necessary to be an NFL player.

that includes intelligence, athleticism, arm strength, work ethic, etc..

just looking at 30 td's thrown in a college season tells me nothing about what a guy is going to do against the Chicago Bears or Eagles defenses. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

* I'll stand by my stance on Peyton Manning, thank you very much. His numbers last year reflect the fact that QB was and in all likelihood will continue to be the worst coached position in the NFL. Everyone associated with "coaching" him last year should be embarrassed. I'll take him and SOS on the same sideline anyday, any week, against any coach-QB combo you want.

* So nobody with any less than a 166 career college QB rating fits in this study?

Then by your own rules, Manning doesn't fit the criteria either. Oh wait, except he was successful in the NFL, so it was convenient to compare him to DW.

And why bother at all comparing to Matthews?

And certainly his dropoff has nothing to do with Sage, after all, as you said, "no true comparison can be made," given that he doesn't have "the numbers of Wuerffel."

Let me try this another way Insti. Go back and look at Chris Rix's numbers from last year. What was his QB rating? 156. Pretty decent, no? Not "166", but cut me some slack. Then ask yourself, would you want him QB'ing your team?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"in all likelihood will continue to be the worst coached position in the NFL"

Pedi we can all agree on this. As for P.Manning, he lost the leading rusher in the NFL to a torn ACL. If you have followed his career any length of time you know there is a lot of hype there and less substance than many imagine. But he does have a very famous daddy that many people apparently like.

"* So nobody with any less than a 166 career college QB rating fits in this study? "

I did not say this. I said there was no one else from the SEC with a 170 QB rating to compare Wuerffel too. If someone with a 130 QB rating that converts to 95 and projects to a 75 does not win a job, it is not surprising. If you project as a journey man, you might get a job and you might not.

"Let me try this another way Insti. Go back and look at Chris Rix's numbers from last year. What was his QB rating? 156. Pretty decent, no? Not "166", but cut me some slack. Then ask yourself, would you want him QB'ing your team?"

I would not want Rix over Grossman but I am not so much a UF fan not to see that Rix is better than Doug Johnson was and is better than many college QBs. I would be happy to have him in my program although he might have to clean up his act a bit.

Finally I do not follow the comparison point you were making? I have all along said this is a tenuous analysis because I am using on guys drop off although in this debate, I have looked up several other guys and it does not seem out of line. A big point I am making is that Rosenfel will be an exceedingly exceptional guy if he does not have a drop off in the NFL and he was not that good in college.

RTerp, I agree to the extent that I was throwing this out for discussion. Numbers based on a full study of translation from college to pros, I would take it more seriously BUT human behavior is stochastic so there is not a one to one correspondence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...