Are people looking at the wrong stats when assessing QBs - can we come up with something better?

[K.O. Johnny]

Peyon Manning was 63 percent passer in college.

Ryan Leaf was a 56 percent passer in college.

Tom Brady was a 63 percent passer in college.

Akili Smith was a 55 percent passer in college.

Ben Roethlisberger was a 64 percent passer in college.

It's not an end-al be-all thing since Jamarcus Russell was something like a 67 percent passer (but I have no idea how to judge these spread option QBs).

But I would never draft a college QB who did not hit 60 percent consistently.

So can we all agree that to be a first round QB one of the stats they MUST HAVE (amongst others) is 60% minimum. I can live with that

[JoeSkins]

But I would never draft a college QB who did not hit 60 percent consistently.

You're on point here. We are of course talking statistics alone; other measurables supplement the overall rookie analysis. Typically the old standby has been completion percentage and career starts (not even wins).

[Oldfan]

If I was drafting a QB out of college' date=' I would look at two numbers first and foremost. His college completion percentage and his IQ. The two biggest "intangibles" that kill college QBs are stupidity and laziness. And sometimes those go away after a while.[/quote']In addition to the QB's talent, the completion percentage measures the college team and scheme. Why do you want to measure that?

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 01:15 PM ----------

You're on point here. We are of course talking statistics alone; other measurables supplement the overall rookie analysis. Typically the old standby has been completion percentage and career starts (not even wins).

As I pointed out earlier, that "old standby" you refer to was offered by Prof. Lewin and it's not taken seriously in the field.

[JoeSkins]

As I pointed out earlier, that "old standby" you refer to was offered by Prof. Lewin and it's not taken seriously in the field.

I think you missed the most important part of my post, specifically the part that notes that in this thread we're talking statistics alone, which are by no means the start or finish line.

[Oldfan]

So can we all agree that to be a first round QB one of the stats they MUST HAVE (amongst others) is 60% minimum. I can live with that

You might have a tough time getting Mike Shanahan to agree since he took Jay Cutler who almost surely didn't have a 60% completion percentage at Vanderbilt and showed no interest in Matt Leinart who surely did playing at USC.

[K.O. Johnny]

You might have a tough time getting Mike Shanahan to agree since he took Jay Cutler who almost surely didn't have a 60% completion percentage at Vanderbilt and showed no interest in Matt Leinart who surely did playing at USC.

Well we all know Shanahan's track record on assessing QBs (McNabb anyone?) - and that's what scares me

[gortiz]

What you're looking for doesn't exist. It's the Holy Grail for statisticians interested in Football. ASF's original projections for QBs was a variation of the Lewin Forecast which is still promoted on the Football Outsiders website. Not many statisticians take it seriously.

Here's the problem in a nutshell. Let's say that QB-A and QB-B both have equal talent potential. However, QB-A plays with support that allows him to perform at 90% of his potential while QB-B plays with support that allows him only to play to 50% of his potential. There's no way in hell you could possibly know that these two QBs have equal talent by grading their performances.

The only intelligent way to grade QBs is to do it as a scout might, by grading their tangibles. As to the intangibles, these are difficult to grade because they're intangible. Mostly, people hype or trash a QB on the intangibles because they can't be proven wrong.

yeah, I agree.

montana? considered one of the best ... but he had jerry rice and an offensive genious in bill walsh. how would have, let's say, in all seriousness, jim zorn done with that supporting cast? how about Tommy Kramer (qb for the vikes in the 80's).

this kind of like the age old question, does the OL make the QB or vice versa? i

[MisterBurgundy]

You might have a tough time getting Mike Shanahan to agree since he took Jay Cutler who almost surely didn't have a 60% completion percentage at Vanderbilt and showed no interest in Matt Leinart who surely did playing at USC.

Well, there is a world of difference between playing QB at USC (surrounded by a dearth of talent) in the Pac-10 of that time and playing QB at Vanderbilt in the SEC of that time. By the by, Cutler's last season was 59.1% and Matt Leinart's was 65.7%.

I'd be looking for a QB that was able to read the field and attempt the most statistically probable completion. If everyone is covered then there is a difference of inches between a completion and an interception. Those are the types of throws that are far more frequent in the NFL than college.

[K.O. Johnny]

I'd be looking for a QB that was able to read the field and attempt the most statistically probable completion. If everyone is covered then there is a difference of inches between a completion and an interception. Those are the types of throws that are far more frequent in the NFL than college.

See, this is the kind of thing that can show a QB's intangibles in a statistical form.

I think 3rd down conversion is a KEY stat. It's something a team must attempt honestly even if they're reasonably ahead, and it's variable enough is distance to not skew the success rate towards teams with strong running games. Combine 3rd down conversion% with passes completed% and I think it's a good indicator or reading the defense, the impact the QB has on running the offense and being 'clutch'

"Show me the boy on 3rd down conversions and I'll show you the man"

Yeah, I like that:cool:

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Cutler was a tough one to figure because he was playing for a mid-level MAC school in terms of talent but he was doing it in the SEC. I'm pretty sure Vandy only won one game his last year. How many times has a first round QB played for a 1-win team?

I remember when he came out, and I thought any team drafting him had to be crazy. I just didn't understand how he could be judged except via workout - and that's how you end up with Jeff George.

I really really really liked Matt Leinart. I thought the combination of completion percentage, experience, competition, and time in the spotlight was unbeatable. I didn't realize he was a turd.

So...I can be wrong. I also at one point this year stated that New England stunk.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 02:48 PM ----------

See, this is the kind of thing that can show a QB's intangibles in a statistical form.

I think 3rd down conversion is a KEY stat. It's something a team must attempt honestly even if they're reasonably ahead, and it's variable enough is distance to not skew the success rate towards teams with strong running games. Combine 3rd down conversion% with passes completed% and I think it's a good indicator or reading the defense, the impact the QB has on running the offense and being 'clutch'

Third down percentage is an attempt to measure "clutch" and I don't think "clutch" actually exists. This has been shown across all sports - the players who do well in "clutch" situations actually perform at the same level as they always do. The problem with "clutch" is people's memories. David Ortiz is actually about a .300 hitter in close and late situations. He just got two of the biggest close and late hits in World Series history. So, he is forever "clutch." Everyone remembers those two hits. No one remembers the times he failed.

[K.O. Johnny]

Third down percentage is an attempt to measure "clutch" and I don't think "clutch" actually exists. This has been shown across all sports - the players who do well in "clutch" situations actually perform at the same level as they always do. The problem with "clutch" is people's memories. David Ortiz is actually about a .300 hitter in close and late situations. He just got two of the biggest close and late hits in World Series history. So' date=' he is forever "clutch." Everyone remembers those two hits. No one remembers the times he failed.[/quote']

Okay - ignore 'clutch' if you want -

I just want to remember the successes. I've been waiting long enough for some good memories. All i've got for the last 20 years is turds

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Montana has always been a difficult player to put in perspective because he is pretty much a dividing line. He came into the league during the Bradshaw/Stabler/Staubach years - when it was perfectly okay to complete 52 percent of your passes while having a 1 to 1 interception ratio.

After Montana, you had to complete 60 percent of your passes and have a 2 to 1 interception ratio in order to be elite. The game changed that much in a short period of time.

I'm of the opinion that NFL numbers should have a cut of 1980. Baseball does it with the dead ball era. After 1980, every offensive number changed because of the style of play and the myriad rule changes.

The Hall of Fame is completely stymied by this. Every year five receivers retire who have career numbers that absolutely dwarf the all pros from the 70s. They have no idea what to do with them.

If I told you that you could have a starting QB that completed 57 percent of his passes and threw 1.2 interceptions per game you would laugh at me. Except I would be offering you Sonny Jurgenson.

[gortiz]

i say, a combo of % games started, pass comp %, passing plays over 20 yards, and INT %.

[Oldfan]

Well, there is a world of difference between playing QB at USC (surrounded by a dearth of talent) in the Pac-10 of that time and playing QB at Vanderbilt in the SEC of that time. By the by, Cutler's last season was 59.1% and Matt Leinart's was 65.7%.

Of course there's a world of difference in the amount of support QBs get. So, tell me how you figure that the completion percentage, which measures both the support and the QB is a good measure of the QB.

I'd be looking for a QB that was able to read the field and attempt the most statistically probable completion. If everyone is covered then there is a difference of inches between a completion and an interception. Those are the types of throws that are far more frequent in the NFL than college.

Well, of course that's what we're looking for. Our debate is about the most intelligent way to go about finding that QB.

[ZoEd]

So when looking at stats it's always easy to pick out the cream and the crap, then throw numbers at them to fit your theory. But what players fit the model who went on to be busts?

First one I thought of was Colt Brennan, kid put up sick numbers in College. He averaged about 70% during his career in College but scored a 24 on the Wonderlic. Still can't believe he threw for a 131 TD's, SMH.

I think something that also plays into the equation is how they performed against talented teams as opposed to weaker teams.

Also, here's a site I found with a bunch of players Wonderlic scores from a couple years ago. http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=48030

[ZoEd]

Another one.

http://americanlegends.blogspot.com/2006/03/impact-wonderlic.html

And this one too.

http://www.unc.edu/~mirabile/Wonderlic.htm

I'm at work so I don't have time to look up the other stats that go along with the Wonderlic.

Also, if we do decide to take a QB in this years draft, pray to god it's not like the 2002 draft class. What a bunch of busts!

[K.O. Johnny]

So when looking at stats it's always easy to pick out the cream and the crap, then throw numbers at them to fit your theory. But what players fit the model who went on to be busts?

First one I thought of was Colt Brennan, kid put up sick numbers in College. He averaged about 70% during his career in College but scored a 24 on the Wonderlic. Still can't believe he threw for a 131 TD's, SMH.

http://forum.go-bengals.com/index.php?showtopic=48030

Brennan wasn't really a bust - we picked him up in the bottom half of the sixth round - and considering the need we had for at least a serviceable backup to Campbell:silly: with the numbers Brennan had put up it would have been foolish not to take a look

[Darth Tater]

So all this give up the house for Luck - or anyone else for that matter is nonsense, as the whole thing is a crapshoot then? Both tangibles and intangables

In truth, to say Luck WILL succeed is the statement of a fool or a soothsayer. However, one can say that the expected benefit from his success (expected benefit is the benefit of success modified by the probability of said outcome) is greater than the known cost.

[Oldfan]

In truth, to say Luck WILL succeed is the statement of a fool or a soothsayer. However, one can say that the expected benefit from his success (expected benefit is the benefit of success modified by the probability of said outcome) is greater than the known cost.

True, but here, the debate is about how to assess probability. My position is that all statistics labeled "QB stats" actually measure the QB combined with his support system -- and, as such, are useless numbers. What's your opinion on that?

[ZoEd]

Brennan wasn't really a bust - we picked him up in the bottom half of the sixth round - and considering the need we had for at least a serviceable backup to Campbell:silly: with the numbers Brennan had put up it would have been foolish not to take a look

Yes but if you use the formula you posted in your other thread, starts, completion % and Wonderlic, he should have faired much better in the NFL. Maybe the two points one wonderlic did him in.

Also, I didn't know the wonderlic was scored on correct answers out of answers taken. So a guy could score 26 out of 30 and another guy could have scored 26 out of 40.

[ZoEd]

True, but here, the debate is about how to assess probability. My position is that all statistics labeled "QB stats" actually measure the QB combined with his support system -- and, as such, are useless numbers.

I pretty much agree with you, stats are an indicator but don't tell the whole story. If you look at Brees' Int's this year you think "damn he's having a terrible year". But how many of his Int's have been tipped balls, busted routes, players falling down, etc? His supporting cast has kind of let him down this year, especially with Colston being injured.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I pretty much agree with you, stats are an indicator but don't tell the whole story. If you look at Brees' Int's this year you think "damn he's having a terrible year". But how many of his Int's have been tipped balls, busted routes, players falling down, etc? His supporting cast has kind of let him down this year, especially with Colston being injured.

Brees IS having a terrible year by his lofty standards.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 04:13 PM ----------

Yes but if you use the formula you posted in your other thread, starts, completion % and Wonderlic, he should have faired much better in the NFL. Maybe the two points one wonderlic did him in.

Also, I didn't know the wonderlic was scored on correct answers out of answers taken. So a guy could score 26 out of 30 and another guy could have scored 26 out of 40.

I don't think that formual necessarily applies to every QB. If you are 5'11 and completing 65 percent of your passes at Fordham over 4 years, I don't think a team should spend a #1 pick on you.

[ZoEd]

Brees IS having a terrible year by his lofty standards.

---------- Post added January-5th-2011 at 04:13 PM ----------

I don't think that formual necessarily applies to every QB. If you are 5'11 and completing 65 percent of your passes at Fordham over 4 years' date=' I don't think a team should spend a #1 pick on you.[/quote']

I'm not saying the formula is right or wrong or even remotely accurate. My point is, anyone can throw some numbers out there and then pick players who have had success that support your findings. I'm actually looking for flaws in the numbers by pointing out players who fit the profile numbers wise but went on to stink it up.

I actually think the type of offense they ran and how well they ran compared to the talent level of the the conference they played has more to do with it than anything else. Has any spread offense QB who was a stud in college came into the NFL and had success? Don't QB's who run a pro style offense seem to fare much better than those who don't play in one?

[K.O. Johnny]

I'm not saying the formula is right or wrong or even remotely accurate. My point is, anyone can throw some numbers out there and then pick players who have had success that support your findings. I'm actually looking for flaws in the numbers by pointing out players who fit the profile numbers wise but went on to stink it up.

I actually think the type of offense they ran and how well they ran compared to the talent level of the the conference they played has more to do with it than anything else. Has any spread offense QB who was a stud in college came into the NFL and had success? Don't QB's who run a pro style offense seem to fare much better than those who don't play in one?

Absolutely agree with this. I've driven myself half mad looking for the fly in the ointment in Jarmarcus Russell's numbers and I just couldn't - they were great - it even kicked my 3rd down conversion % into the long grass - so was it the system he was running. Oh and missing all of camp and the first week of the season probably sealed his fate - you've got to get things like that locked down asap

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Absolutely agree with this. I've driven myself half mad looking for the fly in the ointment in Jarmarcus Russell's numbers and I just couldn't - they were great - it even kicked my 3rd down conversion % into the long grass - so was it the system he was running. Oh and missing all of camp and the first week of the season probably sealed his fate - you've got to get things like that locked down asap

You aren't going to find a magic formula. When dealing with Russell, the number that most mattered was his weight. There are some things that you can only find out on deep background - is the guy on drugs, does he have 14 kids, is he a fat ass?

Think of it this way. If you were interviewing someone for a job and they were top of their class at Harvard...had great references....were good looking and well dressed...you would hire them. If a year later, you found out the guy was embezzling to pay for a gambling problem, you wouldn't change the criteria you use to hire. "From now on I only hire ugly people from community college!"

Formulas for people are never going to be 100 percent accurate, because people are *******s. All you can do is set a baseline that works a high percentage of the time.

You are missing the purpose of advanced statistics. They are not used to predict the future. They are used to be a more accurate predictor of the future.

My 60 percent...TD/INT formula isn't foolproof. The number of starts/wonderlic formula isn't foolproof.

But it's better than Gil Brandt saying, "That guy looks like a football player to me....."

The reason all this started in baseball was to get away from 75 year old, nicotine-addled scouts basing their draft order on a stop watch and whether they liked a prospect's swing. Seriously, for 100 years, professional sports teams would make most of their decisions just based on the gut reaction of someone who once failed in the sport.

The Bengals still use this approach. They draft players based on whether John Cooper likes their "want to." He makes that determination after calling the player's mom, I think.