Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

A new (but untried and unproven) way to look at QB prospects.


Hitman21ST

Recommended Posts

Disclaimer: this in no way is meant to be an ASF-quality judgment of how to grade out quarterback prospects, nor am I even sure that it could be a feasible way to judge how a quarterback will do. It's just one person's way of looking at them.

Common logic would say that to grade a quarterback, you look at how he has performed and look at the system he did it in: spread, pro, west-coast, run heavy, etc. However, you can look at almost any kind of college offense and find quarterbacks who have succeeded, and quarterbacks who have failed in the pros.

I was thinking the other day, and instead of looking at the offensive system the quarterback played in, we should take a look at the defenses the quarterback played against and how he did against them. These days, it's not uncommon to find powerhouse college programs go up against cupcakes outside of the conference games, to boost their record and chances at a BCS Bowl. The more points you put up, the better your teams looks.

That being said, the quarterbacks who put up huge numbers against those cupcakes, but more pedestrian numbers against conference teams would probably raise a red flag in my mind, seeing as how the quality of the defenses he played increased dramatically.

If someone could put in the time, you take it one level further and dissect how he does against the different coverages, if he can put the ball in the right place against man coverages, find the holes in the zones, etc. By no means do I have the time to do all that, but it would make for an interesting read in my opinion.

Just shooting from the hip, two names that come to mind are Brady Quinn and Jimmy Clausen from Notre Dame. When they were in college, they generally didn't perform well against the better teams, but were able to put together nice games against the lesser teams they played. Transferring that to the NFL, where the talent level is astronomically better, they (so far) haven't performed quite as well as expected or projected to.

Now, I know there are going to be some holes in this view, but it's something to be considered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's something that I was thinking ASF, D&S, or one of the "closer look" thread starters could delve into, if they wanted.

i'm willing to bet they know alot of this info off the top of their heads.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/477212-ten-college-quarterbacks-youd-want-leading-your-team-with-the-game-on-the-line

this article isnt exactly what youre looking for, but its close. it separates QB's with the most impressive skillset from those who are just clutch. its from september last year, and there are some interesting names on the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is the case, every QB in the SEC should come out playing like a beast......

I like your logic.

That's why you looks at the games outside the conference. Inside the SEC (or any conference for that matter), everyone plays the same teams. You look at the other games...the bowl game, who the school schedules (meaning the teams that schedule a Kinnessaw State or a Liberty generally have it easier than those that schedule a team from another BCS conference).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These soo many factors to consider when evaluating QBs but rating their play against varying levels of competition is an import factor.

*Side note Newton would automatically score high in your metric b/c he won all his games and has been a champion on 2 different levels.

I think the people that discount his JuCo championship are nuts; winning anything or being undeafeted it ain't easy no matter what/where you're doing it.

Locker has also been good in the biggest games and was generally on the side of the less talented team.

But imo there will never be any list or inventory or compilation of stats that can predict a QBs success.

There are far to many unknowables like intangibles.

Also the success of a QB is very much dependent upon variables outside their control chief among them are coaching/scheme.

If you look at the success rate of coaches that are considered 'QB gurus' their success rate regardless of the round the QB is selected is much higher then the rest of the league.

That imo isn't by mistake, coaching matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's why you looks at the games outside the conference. Inside the SEC (or any conference for that matter), everyone plays the same teams. You look at the other games...the bowl game, who the school schedules (meaning the teams that schedule a Kinnessaw State or a Liberty generally have it easier than those that schedule a team from another BCS conference).
Yeah I get that, I was just stating that the SEC has some tough defenses. I know the offense plays the same defenses, but it is also vice-versa.

Two quarterbacks I would love to see researched with this formula are Kellen Moore and Andy Dalton. Two QB's who are in weaker conferences but put up big numbers and was able to compete with "powerhouse" teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I get that, I was just stating that the SEC has some tough defenses. I know the offense plays the same defenses, but it is also vice-versa.

Two quarterbacks I would love to see researched with this formula are Kellen Moore and Andy Dalton. Two QB's who are in weaker conferences but put up big numbers and was able to compete with "powerhouse" teams.

Kellen Moore vs "Powerhouse" teams: 175-265 (66%), 1964 yds, 14 TD, 3 INT in 8 games (245.5 ypg)

VA Tech, Utah, Fresno State (x2), Oregon (x2), TCU (x2)

Kellen Moore vs "Lesser" teams: 656-954 (68.7%), 8903 yds, 85 TD, 16 INT in 32 games (278.2 ypg)

Andy Dalton vs "Powerhouse" teams: 193-322 (59.9%), 2175 yds, 8 TD, 8 INT in 10 games (217.5 ypg)

Wisconsin, Oregon State, Boise State (x2), Virginia, Clemson, Oklahoma, Stanford (x2), Texas

Andy Dalton vs "Lesser" teams: 600-965 (62.1%), 7890 yds, 63 TD, 21 INT in 39 games (202.3 ypg)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kellen Moore vs "Powerhouse" teams: 175-265 (66%), 1964 yds, 14 TD, 3 INT in 8 games (245.5 ypg)

Kellen Moore vs "Lesser" teams: 656-954 (68.7%), 8903 yds, 85 TD, 16 INT in 32 games (278.2 ypg)

Andy Dalton:

To be updated after I'm done.

That was fast.

Using the NFL Rating formula

Moore:

Powerhouse: 100.88

Lesser: 120.98

Not too shabby

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kellen Moore vs "Powerhouse" teams: 175-265 (66%), 1964 yds, 14 TD, 3 INT in 8 games (245.5 ypg)

VA Tech, Utah, Fresno State (x2), Oregon (x2), TCU (x2)

Kellen Moore vs "Lesser" teams: 656-954 (68.7%), 8903 yds, 85 TD, 16 INT in 32 games (278.2 ypg)

Andy Dalton vs "Powerhouse" teams: 193-322 (59.9%), 2175 yds, 8 TD, 8 INT in 10 games (217.5 ypg)

Wisconsin, Oregon State, Boise State (x2), Virginia, Clemson, Oklahoma, Stanford (x2), Texas

Andy Dalton vs "Lesser" teams: 600-965 (62.1%), 7890 yds, 63 TD, 21 INT in 39 games (202.3 ypg)

If those mean anything, it looks like Kellen Moore will have a slightly better pro career than Andy Dalton...if I had to project, my guess would be Moore could make a solid backup, with Dalton a 3rd stringer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If those mean anything, it looks like Kellen Moore will have a slightly better pro career than Andy Dalton...if I had to project, my guess would be Moore could make a solid backup, with Dalton a 3rd stringer.

Dalton Rating using NFL Formula

Powerhouse: 78.10

Lesser: 101.60

I always liked Kellen Moore. I know he played against weaker opponent spread offense, yada yada yada, the dude looks like he could be a serviceable NFL QB. I don't care what team he is playing, he throws a good football pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dalton Rating using NFL Formula

Powerhouse: 78.10

Lesser: 101.60

I always liked Kellen Moore. I know he played against weaker opponent spread offense, yada yada yada, the dude looks like he could be a serviceable NFL QB. I don't care what team he is playing, he throws a good football pass.

I would go into Ponder, Stanzi, Gabbert, Mallet, and Newton, but that would take FAR too long for this time of day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from a recent ESPN article-

"Newton saved his best performances for the biggest games. The junior was exceptional against opponents ranked at the time of the game. In those six games (against South Carolina twice, Arkansas, LSU, Alabama and Oregon), he was responsible for 23 touchdowns and rushed for 126.2 yards per game on 5.6 yards per carry. "

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/tag/_/name/cam-newton

Link to comment
Share on other sites

from a recent ESPN article-

"Newton saved his best performances for the biggest games. The junior was exceptional against opponents ranked at the time of the game. In those six games (against South Carolina twice, Arkansas, LSU, Alabama and Oregon), he was responsible for 23 touchdowns and rushed for 126.2 yards per game on 5.6 yards per carry. "

http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/tag/_/name/cam-newton

I'm not counting rushing stats...solely basing this on passing performances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can you discount rushing?

Because it's my system, that's how ;)

Seriously, though, because you hardly ever see a called QB run in the NFL in the middle of the field. Granted, once in a blue moon you'll have a Vick or a Cunningham, but 99% of the quarterbacks out there don't have that skill set.

Also, a QB run has less to do with reading the coverage than it does to reacting to a blitz or finding a rushing lane, and I wanted to focus on the passing aspect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seriously, though, because you hardly ever see a called QB run in the NFL in the middle of the field. Granted, once in a blue moon you'll have a Vick or a Cunningham, but 99% of the quarterbacks out there don't have that skill set.

Also, a QB run has less to do with reading the coverage than it does to reacting to a blitz or finding a rushing lane, and I wanted to focus on the passing aspect.

But isn't that kind of spurious reasoning?

Just b/c they aren't many called runs in the NFL or that there aren't many QBs that run doesn't mean that its not a meaningful measure.

QBs in the NFL run. (Vick,Rodgers, Cutler, Rothlisberger, Sanchez see a trend there?)

And in that running comes 3rd down conversions.

IIRC 40% of Vick's rushes were for 1st down Aaron Rodgers was 35%

Clearly these conversions have an postive impact upon the ability to sustain drives and therefore score points and therefore win games.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your "system" would be better proven and validated if you looked at QBs from years ago and see how they fared in college and the NFL. Then it might hold some ground.

To be fair, I think he actually said that its not like he's got some formula that he's preaching here....its just an idea that more obsessive posters could work off of, that might be worth a look.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't that kind of spurious reasoning?

Just b/c they aren't many called runs in the NFL or that there aren't many QBs that run doesn't mean that its not a meaningful measure.

QBs in the NFL run. (Vick,Rodgers, Cutler, Rothlisberger, Sanchez see a trend there?)

And in that running comes 3rd down conversions.

IIRC 40% of Vick's rushes were for 1st down Aaron Rodgers was 35%

Clearly these conversions have an postive impact upon the ability to sustain drives and therefore score points and therefore win games.

I'm not arguing any of that, I'm just putting it out there that it's harder to take into account the QB runs, whether they're designed runs, scrambles, etc...FWIW, my guess would be that most of Roethlisberger's, Rodgers', Sanchez's, and Cutler's "runs" were actually scrambles when they weren't able to get a pass off due to either a blitz or great coverage. That's more of a fortuitous turn of events for them than a designator of their ability to run. Does it play a part in them sustaining drives and scoring? No doubt in my mind. Does it contribute to their ability as a passer? Maybe the threat of them running, but that's too hard to judge IMO.

If you want to adjust that and take into account the runs, by all means do so. I'm just trying to focus on the passing aspect of their games and how they perform against the "powerhouse" teams vs. the "cupcake" teams, and if it's at all an indicator of future performance.

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...