ESPN.com: Finding context in the Stafford debate (intriguing J. Campbell reference)

[skinsfannyc76]

Finding context in the Stafford debate

Link for full article: http://myespn.go.com/blogs/nfcnorth/0-9-44/Finding-context-in-the-Stafford-debate.html

Hey guys--I thought this was an interesting article, not so much for where Stafford rates (although I suppose that's all fine and well for the Lions and other such teams), but more so for where J. Campbell (and to a lesser degree, our old friend P. Ramsey) fell within the spectrum of results from this formula derived by ESPN Research. The idea behind this is for the formula, "Using time-honored performance standards, to predict future success for "blue-chip" quarterbacks..."

"The formula takes into account three statistics: Career starts, completion percentage and touchdown-interception ratio. The theory is that experience, accuracy and production versus mistakes can provide substantive indicators for college quarterbacks."

Needless to say, some of the results are telling and intriguing with regards to the company of QBs Jason Campbell is grouped with (although there are clearly certain QBs who are exceptions to the rule). With regards to JC though, I would like to hope that we continue to support him (yes, even all you Colt Brennan fans and lately, "let's trade for Jay Cutler" guys as well)...I know that many of us wish JC would sling it a little more courageously (but with good judgment) so that he could actually put the offense more on his shoulders, but I think we've got to give the guy a little time to make those decisions, right? I still think JC could be our franchise QB given a little more help on the O-Line...so, here's to hoping for a break-out 2009 season! Hail.

Formula Explanation ESPN Research developed this formula to measure quarterbacks relative to a baseline completion percentage of 60 and a touchdown-interception ratio of 2.25. The multipliers allow each figure to have equal weight with career starts, which provides an important measure of experience.

The total score is the sum of the three adjusted figures.

The separate parameters for BCS and non-BCS quarterbacks help level the statistical playing field. They are based on the assumption that NFL-caliber quarterbacks playing against non-BCS opponents are going to have inflated numbers.

[Thinking Skins]

Here it is a little bit more readable.

Scores of First-Round Quarterbacks, 1997-2008  

Group I: Strong likelihood of success  
Player                School           Draft year    Score 
Matt Leinart          USC              2006          64.04 
Philip Rivers         NC State         2004          48.44 
Tim Couch             Kentucky         1999          47.64 
Alex Smith            Utah             2005          44.88 
Aaron Rodgers         California       2005          40.58 
Peyton Manning        Tennessee        1998          39.47 
Jason Campbell        Auburn           2005          38.75 
Byron Leftwich        Marshall         2003          36.39 
Ben Roethlisberger    Miami (Ohio)     2004          33.85 
Chad Pennington       Marshall         2000          33.53 
Daunte Culpepper      Central Florida  1999          30.00 
David Carr            Fresno State     2002          23.97 
Joe Flacco            Delaware         2008          23.92 
Eli Manning           Ole Miss         2004          23.14 
Donovan McNabb        Syracuse         1999          21.62 

Group II: Hit-or-Miss  
Player                School           Draft year    Score 
Brady Quinn           Notre Dame       2007          18.93 
JaMarcus Russell      LSU              2007          18.64 
Rex Grossman          Florida          2003          18.39 
Vince Young           Texas            2006          18.21 
Carson Palmer         USC              2003          16.35 
Matt Ryan             Boston College   2008          9.14 
Patrick Ramsey        Tulane           2002          9.06 
J.P. Losman           Tulane           2004          7.86 
Jay Cutler            Vanderbilt       2006          2.39 

Group III: Busts  
Player                School           Draft year    Score 
Akili Smith           Oregon           1999          0.00 
Cade McNown           UCLA             1999          -6.41 
Joey Harrington       Oregon           2002          -6.85 
Michael Vick          Virginia Tech    2001          -11.32 
Ryan Leaf             Washington St.   1998          -16.92 
Jim Druckenmiller     Virginia Tech    1997          -20.25 
Kyle Boller           California       2003          -50.67 

[skinsfannyc76]

Thanks, that's extremely helpful.

[Mr. Grundle]

Let's see if JC steps up in his contract year. I've got confidence in the kid if we can give him a solid OL to work with.

OT....I feel bad for Detroit. They finally get rid of Millen, but the damage is done and they become the first team to go 0-16. The only consolation is getting the #1 overall pick.

Except, there is no player in the upcoming draft worth a #1 overall pick and the money you would have to give him. Andre Smith ruined his shot at it. Jason Smith....are you really gonna pay a converted TE #1 overall money? No franchise QB. Aaron Curry is the safest pick but you can't take a LB #1.

Honestly, if I was Detroit, I would pull a 2003 Minnesota Vikings and let the clock expire. I wouldn't make the pick. I'd wait until 3 or 4 other teams picked and then take a Eugene Monroe or Jason Smith at #5.

[Shilsu]

ESPN Research proves once again that they are worthless.

[pointyfootball]

Wow. The Cardinals are SET!

[Thinking Skins]

oh, and here's the formula:

For BCS quarterbacks

(Career Starts x 0.5) + [(Career completion pct. - 60)x5] +[(Career touchdown-INT ratio - 2.25)x10]

For non-BCS quarterbacks

(Career Starts x 0.5) + [(Career completion pct. - 60)x2.5] + [(Career touchdown-INT Ratio - 2.25)x5]

Now to agree with Shilsu, this is just some BS research. they happen to have a formula that correlates with a few successful QBs over the first round. I wonder how that correlation would look if they did it over the first 3 rounds or over all rounds?

There are things that the formula can't measure, like leadership. There are others that it neglects, like scrambling ability or delivery, or pocket presence.

But ESPN did it so its going to be the ammunition to start another QB debate.

[MattFancy]

I didn't really see too many surprises on that list. It is strange that Leinart had the best score out of everyone. This draft just seems horrible for drafting skill players though. Besides Crabtree, who has questions too, there really aren't any great skill players. This seems like a draft that will be all about linemen...

[Jizmaglobin]

If you look at the list it basically indicates that their research and findings tell us nothing about future success. Alex Smith rated higher than Peyton? Meaningless!

[bubba9497]

ESPN Research proves once again that they are worthless.

unless of course they say what you want to hear

:thumbsup:

[TheREALJBird]

Well they got the bust part right....on the other hand according to the "formula" Leinhart is the man and Peyton Manning is only a little better than Jason Campbell lol.

[AKM311]

I don't think these are rankings as far as who should have been better than who.

I think it is more about the safety in picking a player who is over 20. Now part of the evaluation is the system they played in (which is why Smith is high in there) and the moving parts around them, but overall this seems to be a good factor to look at entering drafts.

[Taylor 36]

unless of course they say what you want to hear

:thumbsup:

But, that goes both ways, doesn't it, Bubba?:saber:

[IbleedBnG83]

That was really interesting. There are always intangibles.

[Destino]

ESPN Research proves once again that they are worthless.

I don't see it as worthless at all... in fact it seems pretty damn good.

[Justsomeguy]

Hopefully this chart is right and JC will be the next peyton manning.

[SkinsMaster88]

Waiting for the Colt lovers to put in his stats from college and have him be at least 2x higher than anyone else...

[Going Commando]

I think that David Carr and Byron Leftwich both should have worked out better. David Carr just got drafted to a terrible Houston team, and Leftwich really got derailed by injuries.

Matt Leinart's number is really out of hand. Maybe they should figure out a way to factor in how great the surrounding talent for the QB was in college, and whether they started their Freshman year.

Its also good to see JC mentioned in a positive context for once too. Moseley is also a big fan of JC too so I always like to read him when he discusses Campbell. People have forgotten how good JC was in the first half of this season. There were a lot of points early in the year where I distinctly remember watching him make plays and think to myself, "Holy ****, look at our quarterback!" It's been a long time since I can remember watching the Redskins and doing that. When we are making an assessment of him, lets remember those games instead of all the bad ones at the end of the year and realize that he will only get better and more consistent with time. It takes some time to develop the stamina and mental toughness to put together an entire 16 games season. And it wasn't just him that started playing badly after week 8 or so, it was the entire team. If he takes us to the playoffs next season, I think we have to bring him back.

Lastly, pretty much our best case scenario fiscally would be if he plays well enough get a new long term contract, but not so well that he takes us for what Tony Romo sits to pee got from the Cowboys.

[SnyderMustGo]

So JC will be LESS sucessful than Leinart, Tim Couch and Alex Smith?

That's good to know!

[Touchdown Redskins]

I saw this, too. It's interesting, but I wonder why they wouldn't simply correlate NFL results with college QB rating? The QB rating takes into account more information than their proprietary formula.

In any case, it's interesting to note that in the first category, the QBs turned out to either be great QBs or major busts. Jason Campbell might be the only one that is middle of the road.

[HBnotBlades]

I don't see it as worthless at all... in fact it seems pretty damn good.

Exactly, you're never going to have a perfect formula, but this one does show a strong correlation with NFL success. Remember these are all 1st round guys, so all are thought to have the potential to be elite.

In that first group, there are 6 players who went on to have pro bowl seasons and another 4 who are currently starting QB's and have the potential to develop.

The second group has one pro bowl player and two more that will likely develop into one (Ryan and Cutler).

The third group is absolutely bust city, with Michael Vick being the shining star of the group. He did have 3 pro bowls before his career went to the dogs (terrible terrible joke i know, but i couldn't help myself).

It's a simple formula that actually works pretty well, and then you can take each player by a case by case basis. For example, Leinart was surround with as much talent as I've ever seen in a college offense, and his score certainly refelcts that. In reality you'd lower his stock from what the formula shows. And, as mentioned in the article, you'd do the same thing with the guys from gimmicky offenses.

[IbleedBnG83]

So JC will be LESS sucessful than Leinart, Tim Couch and Alex Smith?

That's good to know!

So will both Mannings, and McNabb...

[Going Commando]

I saw this, too. It's interesting, but I wonder why they wouldn't simply correlate NFL results with college QB rating? The QB rating takes into account more information than their proprietary formula.

In any case, it's interesting to note that in the first category, the QBs turned out to either be great QBs or major busts. Jason Campbell might be the only one that is middle of the road.

Good point about the QB rating. But I'm not sure if they wanted to factor in sacks, and I think sacks are factored into college QB ratings. Plus those ratings can get kind of crazy in college with a ton of swing between the numbers. What they should have done was just apply the pro-rating formula instead. Personally, I think there is too much variation in circumstance to take this formula seriously. And QBs that started their freshman seasons tend to be at a tremendous disadvantage because they have so much bigger of a body of work to kill them.

Perhaps a QB like Carr or Leftwich would also be middle of the road QBs if they had fallen into an organization with as much veteran talent and as Washington had while Gibbs was at the helm. Its all about the situation you end up in, which is why I think whoever goes to the lions is fairly doomed. There offense could be pretty good in a season or two with a real QB and an upgraded offensive line, but their defense is just god awful. It's historically bad. Ernie Sims is pretty much the only legit starter on that defense.

[Going Commando]

It's a simple formula that actually works pretty well, and then you can take each player by a case by case basis. For example, Leinart was surround with as much talent as I've ever seen in a college offense, and his score certainly refelcts that. In reality you'd lower his stock from what the formula shows. And, as mentioned in the article, you'd do the same thing with the guys from gimmicky offenses.

That's true. This formula is interesting but it can't be the only piece of the puzzle. You have to evaluate an enormous multitude of things. One piece I'd like to mention is whether the QB played in a pro-style offense or if they took every single snap from the shotgun with 4 or 5 wide. Who cares if you can get a 200 QB rating doing that but you can't take a snap from behind center? Because you certainly won't be running that offense in the pros. Stafford played in a pro-style offense, and I'm certain that hurt his td to interception ratio. On the other hand, Vince Young almost never took a snap from behind center, and his rating is markedly better (although its still not that great).

[ExoDus84]

what a worthless article. Obvioiusly, they have no idea what the hell they are talking about, and are way off in terms of their scores correlating to actual success.

Top of the list, yet having accomplished little to zero: leinart, couch, campbell, smith, rodgers.

Below them, we have we have established, talented QB's who have accomplished quite a bit: peyton, mcnabb, roethlisberger.

Then, at the "destined to fail" category, you have QB's like Ryan, cutler, palmer who either have accomplished more, or have shown FAR more talent and upside than the first 5 people on the top of the first list (exception, rivers).

What a joke.