For what it's worth, Josh Allen stole the show at the Senior Bowl

[Pachyderm_Wave]

That’s a long rambling explaination tot hardly does anything to discredit the fact that one qb in 31 qualifying qbs did anything in the pros after having a less than 58 completionnpercentage their final year of college.

No what it does is show exactly what I mentioned previously...evaluating quarterbacks and evaluating quarterback statistics are two entirely different things.

Theses statistical models used nowdays have made no difference in making it better to accurately predict which QB's will succeed and which ones won't. They're nothing more than after-the-fact stats used to show some correlation. You can make statistical models show anything you want them to show....after the fact.

Fact is, the NFL is terrible at evaluating quarterbacks. It's been that way for a long time and they haven't gotten any better at it. Both sides of this debate do each other a favor and prove that, even if there's no agreement anywhere else. There's no way I would've drafted some of those quarterbacks in the 1st round. But the NFL did.

Furthermore, there's an even bigger difference between evaluating quarterbacks, and projecting quarterbacks to the next level. One is evaluating what they've already done in college. Which means nothing once they get to the NFL.

The other is projecting how their skills translate to the next level, and what they're likely to do in the future...under an entirely different set of circumstances. A different world. Losses pile up fast in NFL for everybody. You have to figure out how each quarterback is likely to respond to that.

Stats don't translate, no matter whether they're good or bad. Only skillsets translate. That's all you have to work with.

I've been doing this a long time, and I have no idea how to evaluate quarterbacks using statistical comparisons or models. I can't do it. Quarterbacks in certain situations are always going to appear superior than quarterbacks in other situations. All that is out the window once they get to the pros.

There's too much focus on some of the areas of concern for some of these QB prospects, and not enough emphasis placed on their positives. Conversely, there's too much focus on some of the positives some of these QB prospects have, and not enough emphasis placed on their areas of concern....most notably Baker Mayfield on this particular board.

There's one reason why everyone here seems to never discuss Mayfield's areas of concern, but are obsessed with areas of concern for other QB prospects. That reason is because of the stats. That's all they see when you get right down to it. Most people don't know any other way of analyzing quarterbacks. It's just how they understand the game. There's a lot more to it though.

I don't know the criteria used by this particular statistical model to come up with their results, but knowing the criteria would explain a lot in terms of how they come up with their results.

For one, it's an arbitrary starting point (1997). Why? Because before then, very few QB's ever completed 60% of their passes in college. The NFL Hall of Fame is full of quarterbacks who completed 53%-58% of their passes in college prior to that arbitrary year. The game changed. Offensive systems evolved.

Provide the names of all the successful QB's in the NFL who completed 70% of their passes in college. I'll wait...

I do find it interesting that Phillip Rivers earned their highest point total using this particular model.

I've known Phillip Rivers since he was 16 years old. I watched him play in high school here for Athens...they're in our (Hartselle) region. I've known his dad, Steve, for 25 years. Used to coach against him when he was the head coach here for Athens and Decatur. I've played golf with both of them, along with Phillip's little brother Stephen on several occasions here at Burningtree Country Club in Decatur. I know the family and what type of people they all are.

Phillip Rivers is a professional in everything that he does, something he learned from his dad. He gets it.

Now, I don't know Baker Mayfield personally. I've never met him. But I know enough about the type of kid he is, and his dad. I know why Gary Patterson and Kliff Kingsbury wouldn't offer him a scholarship. I've seen how he carries himself on and off the field. I've seen how he lacks impulse control and doesn't always make the smartest decisions.

He doesn't look like a pro. He doesn't carry himself like a pro. Not at this point he doesn't. Rivers always did. Even when he was 16 years old.

The bottom line is, I'll bet that when it's all said and done, Josh Allen is a better NFL quarterback than Baker Mayfield. If time proves the statistical model to be correct over my own model, then it might be time for me to hang it up. Maybe the game has passed me by.

I may stick this thread to the top of this forum for easy reference. We may need it in a few years as a learning tool.

 

[ToddPhin]

That’s a long rambling explaination tot hardly does anything to discredit the fact that one qb in 31 qualifying qbs did anything in the pros after having a less than 58 completionnpercentage their final year of college.

How many of those 31 "qualifying QBs" were in just their 2nd year in their system (or 2nd year in D1 period ball for that matter)?
How many of them came from an antiquated prostyle system AND had a similarly disastrous offense around them?.... or are we in the habit of simply throwing around unqualified blanket statements minus any and all context?

What was Carson Wentz's completion percentage during his 2nd year? That's right, he didn't become a starter until year 4 at the FCS level.

How many other NFL QBs weren't even starters until their 3rd or 4th in college??
..... yet you're trying to compare the stats of a 2nd year QB [in a terrible offense no less] to the 4th & 5th years of other QB? C'mon now.

What was Matt Ryan's completion% in his 2nd year at BC? -49.3%. Wait whut, but but he's an NFL MVP!
What was Matt Stafford's completion% in his 2nd year as a starter? -55.7%.
After 4 full years of D1 ball, Brady & Brees were just 60% passers as SENIORS, so how are they now the most accurate guys in the league?

It's pretty silly to suggest that Josh Allen, with an improved cast around him and more experience with those guys, wouldn't have drastically improved his "completion percentage" if afforded a 3rd or 4th year at Wyoming just as everyone else is at their respective schools.

 

[ToddPhin]

Dan Marino's completion% during his 2nd year starting (also his 2nd year at Pitt) was 51.8%.
But but he's the NFL's best pure passer of all time.

 

[ToddPhin]

I've been doing this a long time, and I have no idea how to evaluate quarterbacks using statistical comparisons or models. I can't do it. Quarterbacks in certain situations are always going to appear superior than quarterbacks in other situations. All that is out the window once they get to the pros.

The bottom line is, I'll bet that when it's all said and done, Josh Allen is a better NFL quarterback than Baker Mayfield. If time proves the statistical model to be correct over my own model, then it might be time for me to hang it up. Maybe the game has passed me by.

I may stick this thread to the top of this forum for easy reference. We may need it in a few years as a learning tool.

I'm with you Slimm. If I'm watching Josh Allen, in a bad situation and in a less QB-friendly offense, sticking the NFL caliber throws better than the guys with notably higher "completion percentages" from easier offenses, then I'm gonna trust my eyes over some superficial context-lacking stat..... all day long.

 

[ToddPhin]

You know Slimm, I think this dichotomy is an issue that we're going to encounter more and more often in general. I participated in a couple mock drafts over at CollegeFootballMetrics (the foundation of their scouting is statistically driven)......... and I took Josh Allen at 3 as the 2nd QB off the board (one of the site's guys took Mayfield at 1)........ and I've been in a heated debate with them ever since, after me declaring Allen the best NFL prospect of the bunch when making my selection....... whereas the other 4 guys all despise him b/c he doesn't fit their statistical-driven model.

It's fun though b/c they know my eyes are good, and anything I say that contradicts their model always makes them second guess themselves about that particular player, lol.

 

[Wildbill3]

No what it does is show exactly what I mentioned previously...evaluating quarterbacks and evaluating quarterback statistics are two entirely different things.

Theses statistical models used nowdays have made no difference in making it better to accurately predict which QB's will succeed and which ones won't. They're nothing more than after-the-fact stats used to show some correlation. You can make statistical models show anything you want them to show....after the fact.

Fact is, the NFL is terrible at evaluating quarterbacks. It's been that way for a long time and they haven't gotten any better at it. Both sides of this debate do each other a favor and prove that, even if there's no agreement anywhere else. There's no way I would've drafted some of those quarterbacks in the 1st round. But the NFL did.

Furthermore, there's an even bigger difference between evaluating quarterbacks, and projecting quarterbacks to the next level. One is evaluating what they've already done in college. Which means nothing once they get to the NFL.

The other is projecting how their skills translate to the next level, and what they're likely to do in the future...under an entirely different set of circumstances. A different world. Losses pile up fast in NFL for everybody. You have to figure out how each quarterback is likely to respond to that.

Stats don't translate, no matter whether they're good or bad. Only skillsets translate. That's all you have to work with.

I've been doing this a long time, and I have no idea how to evaluate quarterbacks using statistical comparisons or models. I can't do it. Quarterbacks in certain situations are always going to appear superior than quarterbacks in other situations. All that is out the window once they get to the pros.

There's too much focus on some of the areas of concern for some of these QB prospects, and not enough emphasis placed on their positives. Conversely, there's too much focus on some of the positives some of these QB prospects have, and not enough emphasis placed on their areas of concern....most notably Baker Mayfield on this particular board.

There's one reason why everyone here seems to never discuss Mayfield's areas of concern, but are obsessed with areas of concern for other QB prospects. That reason is because of the stats. That's all they see when you get right down to it. Most people don't know any other way of analyzing quarterbacks. It's just how they understand the game. There's a lot more to it though.

I don't know the criteria used by this particular statistical model to come up with their results, but knowing the criteria would explain a lot in terms of how they come up with their results.

For one, it's an arbitrary starting point (1997). Why? Because before then, very few QB's ever completed 60% of their passes in college. The NFL Hall of Fame is full of quarterbacks who completed 53%-58% of their passes in college prior to that arbitrary year. The game changed. Offensive systems evolved.

Provide the names of all the successful QB's in the NFL who completed 70% of their passes in college. I'll wait...

I do find it interesting that Phillip Rivers earned their highest point total using this particular model.

I've known Phillip Rivers since he was 16 years old. I watched him play in high school here for Athens...they're in our (Hartselle) region. I've known his dad, Steve, for 25 years. Used to coach against him when he was the head coach here for Athens and Decatur. I've played golf with both of them, along with Phillip's little brother Stephen on several occasions here at Burningtree Country Club in Decatur. I know the family and what type of people they all are.

Phillip Rivers is a professional in everything that he does, something he learned from his dad. He gets it.

Now, I don't know Baker Mayfield personally. I've never met him. But I know enough about the type of kid he is, and his dad. I know why Gary Patterson and Kliff Kingsbury wouldn't offer him a scholarship. I've seen how he carries himself on and off the field. I've seen how he lacks impulse control and doesn't always make the smartest decisions.

He doesn't look like a pro. He doesn't carry himself like a pro. Not at this point he doesn't. Rivers always did. Even when he was 16 years old.

The bottom line is, I'll bet that when it's all said and done, Josh Allen is a better NFL quarterback than Baker Mayfield. If time proves the statistical model to be correct over my own model, then it might be time for me to hang it up. Maybe the game has passed me by.

I may stick this thread to the top of this forum for easy reference. We may need it in a few years as a learning tool.

I don't think I'm trying to imply that my beginning and end of a qb evaluation. But a low completion percentage since 1997 does not lead to greatness. Prior to? Yeah which qb prior to 1997 is still playing? Thank you for the great insight on rivers :)j

 

[ToddPhin]

I don't think I'm trying to imply that my beginning and end of a qb evaluation. But a low completion percentage since 1997 does not lead to greatness. Prior to? Yeah which qb prior to 1997 is still playing? Thank you for the great onsite on rivers :)

That's b/c the "SINCE 1997" part is there due to the advent of the QB-friendly spread offenses that obliterate the passing efficiency of previous systems. HOWEVER, Josh Allen isn't FROM one of these QB-friendly spread offenses. He played in an outdated prostyle offense, you know- more like the ones used BEFORE 1997 that were known for completion percentages below 60%..... and he was only afforded 2 years in it.

So, yes, Slimm's point is absolutely correct and applicable here. Josh Allen's completion%, in an outdated pro style offense, isn't any more scrutinizing-worthy than those guys before '97 in comparable offenses.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

I don't think I'm trying to imply that my beginning and end of a qb evaluation. But a low completion percentage since 1997 does not lead to greatness. Prior to? Yeah which qb prior to 1997 is still playing? Thank you for the great onsite on rivers :)

There's players on the statistical model's list there that aren't playing anymore. So what's the difference?

The answer is in ToddPhin's post right above this one.

When you're running an offense from under center (snap), taking accurate drops (depth/footwork), turning your back to the defense (post snap read/react)...you're functioning in a pre-1997 offense. Executing fundamentals that you'll need to master at the next level.

Most of these quarterbacks have never so much as even had to turn their back on a defense, get their head around, relocate the safeties, identify any rolled coverages, and make an accurate throw. All within about a second and a half.

They're taking shotgun snaps and executing RPO's based off EMOL. Big difference.

 

[Wildbill3]

There's players on the statistical model's list there that aren't playing anymore. So what's the difference?

The answer is in ToddPhin's post right above this one.

When you're running an offense from under center (snap), taking accurate drops (depth/footwork), turning your back to the defense (post snap read/react)...you're functioning in a pre-1997 offense. Executing fundamentals that you'll need to master at the next level.

Most of these quarterbacks have never so much as even had to turn their back on a defense, get their head around, relocate the safeties, identify any rolled coverages, and make an accurate throw. All within about a second and a half.

They're taking shotgun snaps and executing RPO's based off EMOL. Big difference.

I still don't see the shining example of an inaccurate college QB to play in the last 21 years that was more successful than David Garrad. are you and Todd betting the house that Josh Allen is going to be the outlier? Look, I realize that typing out an idea using a damn IPAD leaves a lot to be desired, but I do believe that accuracy in college matters, and there is enough evidence to say... if you're less than "X" accuracy in college (final year) you aren't going to have a great career, and on the flip side if your accuracy is over "X" then you have a shot based on other factors and talent.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

I still don't see the shining example of an inaccurate college QB to play in the last 21 years that was more successful than David Garrad. are you and Todd betting the house that Josh Allen is going to be the outlier? Look, I realize that typing out an idea using a damn IPAD leaves a lot to be desired, but I do believe that accuracy in college matters, and there is enough evidence to say... if you're less than "X" accuracy in college (final year) you aren't going to have a great career, and on the flip side if your accuracy is over "X" then you have a shot based on other factors and talent.

The fallacy here is you're equating completion percentage to accuracy. I promise you that's not the case.

Whoever these QB's are since 1997 that you're lumping into a pool as failures is not because of their completion percentage. They didn't pan out because they weren't good quarterbacks. Not because of their completion percentage. That's what I mean by making statistics say whatever you want them to say.

Accuracy is being able to throw the football where you intend for it to go. Josh Allen can do that better than Lamar Jackson for example, who is an inaccurate passer of the football...despite his completion percentage.

Let me ask you a few questions. First, do you watch college football?

Secondly, do you think Baker Mayfield is going to complete 70% of his passes in the NFL?

Do you think Josh Allen is going to complete no better than 56% of his passes in the NFL?

Lastly, did you watch the Senior Bowl?

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

In other words, if you're able to show me specifically what Josh Allen is doing or not doing that makes him an inaccurate passer of the football without mentioning completion percentage, I'll accept it as evidence.

Followed by a strong case showing me why these flaws don't translate to the next level.

 

[NorFlaFin]

Nice article on Jake Locker.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/18/jake-locker-nfl-2011-draft-tennessee-titans-why-he-quit

One thing, given all the background the NFL does on potential players. The ETOH abuse in college was out front.
Sad and disconcerting the NFL missed it.

Makes me really want to see the psych report if it surfaces.

 

[Wildbill3]

The fallacy here is you're equating completion percentage to accuracy. I promise you that's not the case.

Whoever these QB's are since 1997 that you're lumping into a pool as failures is not because of their completion percentage. They didn't pan out because they weren't good quarterbacks. Not because of their completion percentage. That's what I mean by making statistics say whatever you want them to say.

Accuracy is being able to throw the football where you intend for it to go. Josh Allen can do that better than Lamar Jackson for example, who is an inaccurate passer of the football...despite his completion percentage.

Let me ask you a few questions. First, do you watch college football?

Nope strictly a pro game fan.

Secondly, do you think Baker Mayfield is going to complete 70% of his passes in the NFL?

No, even drew brees is only a 66 for his career.

Do you think Josh Allen is going to complete no better than 56% of his passes in the NFL?

Interesting question. I think it's hard to complete less than 60 in the pros as a starter, if you do you'd have to be mark sanchez.

Lastly, did you watch the Senior Bowl?

No, I heard that was a great game. Anyway, I do apprieciate a good schooling and you sharing your wealth of knowledge. It'll be interesting to see which of these QBs is going to pan out to be the best of the 2018 class.

 

[where's th'fish]

I don't know the criteria used by this particular statistical model to come up with their results, but knowing the criteria would explain a lot in terms of how they come up with their results.

For one, it's an arbitrary starting point (1997). Why? Because before then, very few QB's ever completed 60% of their passes in college. The NFL Hall of Fame is full of quarterbacks who completed 53%-58% of their passes in college prior to that arbitrary year. The game changed. Offensive systems evolved.


He doesn't look like a pro. He doesn't carry himself like a pro. Not at this point he doesn't. Rivers always did. Even when he was 16 years old.

If time proves the statistical model to be correct over my own model, then it might be time for me to hang it up. Maybe the game has passed me by.

To answer a couple of your questions, the cutoff is 97 because of data availability, I think.

As to how it works, the exact details are not public, but this is what it says in the article:

The lessons of history can at least help us figure out how much of a risk each quarterback prospect will be. That's the point of Football Outsiders' Quarterback-Adjusted-Stats-and-Experience (QBASE) projection system. It looks at college performance, experience, and expected draft position (to incorporate scouting information that college stats will miss. 50,000 simulations produce a range of potential outcomes for each prospect, with players drafted later generally having a larger range of possibilities.

QBASE favors quarterbacks expected to go high in the draft who also have a relatively long resume of college success according to the stats. Those stats include completion percentage, yards per attempt, and team passing efficiency. These numbers are adjusted both for the quality of the defenses that a prospect had to face as well as the quality of his offensive teammates. QBASE is meant to only be used on players chosen in the top 100 picks; after that, the judgment of scouts becomes even more important, and statistics become even less predictive.

What you mention about character is important, the model tries to incorporate it by including expected draft position (major red flags will drive a prospect's stock down). But if you do know something almost no one or no one else does, you might actually beat the model -as hard as it seems, since it's accuracy seems to be higher than 90% at the lower and higher end.

Still, the model has great limitations. It is very powerful only with the prospects it really likes or the ones it really hates. Maybe one day AI will do a better job than humans at scouting, but that day is still far off.

 

[Pachyderm_Wave]

Nice article on Jake Locker.
https://www.si.com/nfl/2018/04/18/jake-locker-nfl-2011-draft-tennessee-titans-why-he-quit

One thing, given all the background the NFL does on potential players. The ETOH abuse in college was out front.
Sad and disconcerting the NFL missed it.

Makes me really want to see the psych report if it surfaces.

This is a very interesting read. I think the ETOH abuse was missed because that wasn’t really his problem. It was just a symptom of his problem.

I understand that he didn’t run from football. Rather, he ran to something else. I get it.

He said he loved football. He just hated being in the NFL. I totally get it. I love football and hate the NFL too. There’s many that feel that way.