I think if you were to only use production for your analysis and ignore actual game play, you'd like to be more precise. Ignoring SOS is likely to seriously affect your results
Your definition of wacky is outliers, what you are doing is removing the outliers, and claim that most successful QBs are in the non-wacky category. Thing is, 95% of QBs are in your non-wacky category so it would only make sense that you find more good QBs in in there.
Another thing to consider is which QBs did you analyse? Only drafted QBs or every college QBs?
I think your way of evaluating success seems a bit arbitrary. Have you tried using your metric on the QBs once they get to the NFL, that way you'd be able to see how it translates to the NFL and it woud add consistency to your analysis.
Yes, for now I ignore everything else because that is what we are talking about here, you asked what wacky numbers means. Later when we filter the players we can focus on all else, we can add filters, like he has to be 6-3, or must have a winning record in college, or his strength of schedule should be such and such, etc.
No, most quarterbacks are in the wacky category because remember, it is a filter 28.5 - 102, and most prospects are outside of the bell, under 28.5 and some are over 102. Most prospects are bad. However, most of the drafted prospects are within the bell. Therefore we know that this filter is not the end all be all. We need to filter further. Just that fact, that most prospects are within the bell but yet we know that most drafted players are not great tells us that we need to filter further. But, we know that the greats come from the bell, from the filter.
I analyzed what I could find. For guys like Peyton Manning and Ben R for example I could not find college stat for sacks, therefore I cannot analyze them. Also, today in 2020, it's hard to find all eligible prospects in 2010, so I used only drafted quarterbacks from wiki page for NFL draft for 2010. And for the past few drafts, when I had the full list of prospects like the one Slimm compiles and posts here every year, I analyzed all prospects. But this is not important because it's just excel work and after a few iterations, for let's say 2016 and 2017 prospects, you get roughly the same results, the same filter.
Yes, 28.5 and 102 are somewhat arbitrary because we looked at a batch of quarterbacks over the years and decided that the filter is somwhere between Wentz at 28.5 and Flacco at 101.5, but it could've been Garoppolo at 116.5. It's close enough.
We'll see. These two guys, Tua and Burrow could beat the odds, and then we will go on facts and adjust the filter. Right now, based on the history, they have wacky numbers and chances are they will not live up to the expectations of their college production. In other words, their college production is unreliable.
