nateodoms'bff Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 Talk about a handpicked group of statistics to make a point in an article. Im sure these are great indicators, but at the end of the day, the only determining factor is on field improvement. A player either gets it, or they dont. There is nothing more to it. If the game doesn't slow down for a QB by the middle of their second season as a starter, then it never will. Ask JP Losman.
ACor58 Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 25-27-60? Even white boys got to shout. Bills got back. I like your posts but I hate the manicorn - creeps me out.
Hossage Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 I like your posts but I hate the manicorn - creeps me out. Thank you, good sir. It gives me the willies too.
NoSaint Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 I don't understand how they got to 26-27-60. They MUST have needed to use 27 instead of 26 (26-26-60) rule to eliminate some schlub right? But based on their charts i don't see it. Does it just sound more interesting to say 26-27-60? I think it's just 3 seasons of 9 starts... If anything you'd think they'd make the 26 change to 25 and include big ben in the club (if the cutoffs are arbitrary). I think level of competition should be included -- ie 25-26-27-60 with the addition being a top 25 season or two. Harvard and SEC schools are in different classes.
NoSaint Posted July 10, 2010 Posted July 10, 2010 I don't understand how they got to 26-27-60. They MUST have needed to use 27 instead of 26 (26-26-60) rule to eliminate some schlub right? But based on their charts i don't see it. Does it just sound more interesting to say 26-27-60? I think it's just 3 seasons of 9 starts... If anything you'd think they'd make the 26 change to 25 and include big ben in the club (if the cutoffs are arbitrary). I think level of competition should be included -- ie 25-26-27-60 with the addition being a top 25 season or two. Harvard and SEC schools are in different classes.
AxelRipper Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 I think level of competition should be included -- ie 25-26-27-60 with the addition being a top 25 season or two. Harvard and SEC schools are in different classes. yeah, because BCS rankings actually mean something. and even with that theres one kinda good California QB who seems to be pretty good. The late round pick who must not be named*
USA6seat Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 The wonderlic part is crap. If we paid closer attention to the wonderlic scores then Jim Kelly would have never been drafted (15) and neither would Dan Marino (15 also). A score of 20 on the wonderlic correlates to roughly 100 on the standard intelligence test (average for the general population). I think you just want to stay away from the Vince Youngs of the draft classes. He reportedly had to take it twice because the first time he took it he got a 4. That, or publicly acknowledge that you're rolling the dice with your first round pick.
NoSaint Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 yeah, because BCS rankings actually mean something. and even with that theres one kinda good California QB who seems to be pretty good. The late round pick who must not be named* Im not saying fitzpatrick is bad, but in predicting success, being able to stay healthy, and put up strong numbers (even if the only number is accuracy) is different against Florida, Alabama and LSU then it is against Cornell, Yale, and Dartmouth. Also, health and accuracy while winning is more valuable of a combo then just health and accuracy alone. This set of numbers is thrown out there as a way to help predict, not a rule -- you can be successful on either side of the benchmarks, or fail on either side. Its just more likely you would be successful if you reach those.
1B4IDie Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 Im not saying fitzpatrick is bad, but in predicting success, being able to stay healthy, and put up strong numbers (even if the only number is accuracy) is different against Florida, Alabama and LSU then it is against Cornell, Yale, and Dartmouth. Also, health and accuracy while winning is more valuable of a combo then just health and accuracy alone. This set of numbers is thrown out there as a way to help predict, not a rule -- you can be successful on either side of the benchmarks, or fail on either side. Its just more likely you would be successful if you reach those. Lopez and "yous guys" are using the "rule" wrong. Its meant to help determine the success rate of High Round draft picks. Meaning if you have to pick a QB in the first 2 round of the draft and you have 2 QBs that are equally matched in your evaluation the use of the 26-27-60 rule will help guide your decision. Its not meant to be applied to every QB ever drafted or undrafted. There are plenty of QBs that went undrafted that Played at some non-BCS school that fit the 26-27-60 rule. Its meant to help GM's decide should I draft Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf coming out of college.
PDaDdy Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 Thats a good rule in theory. The problems seem to be relating the scores to football. A) Dont confuse a high wonderlic score for the ability to read the defense, or vica versa B) Dont let the poor (or great) talent of a players college team distort the win stat C) Dont confuse completion % with accuracy. That seems to be the biggest makes to me. Lots of completed TD passes in college are interceptions in the pros. Balls have to routinely be on the money in a very very small window. Also the player has to be able to read the D on his own - not look over to the sideline for signals. And dont overlook the talent level of a player, and confuse that with the talent around him. CAVEAT C Don't assume all completion percentages are the same. High percentage dump offs don't amount to much compared to hitting a slightly lower percentage of medium to long range passes.
flmike Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 Stats are nice, but my question is "Did the guy play well and mostly beat the best competition in the college game?" Peyton Manning - yes Jim Kelly - yes Dan Marino - yes Joe Namath - yes Joe Montana - yes Some teams take a baseball philosophy and think that they can take a good athlete and make him into a good football player. There just isn't time at the NFL level. If you draft guys who played great against the best competition, hire good coaches, and get a little bit lucky, you will win in the NFL. I will admit that you have to take into account a college team's system. NFL teams rely more on the quarterback than say Florida or Texas in recent years. W-L record is not quite as important in those cases.
NoSaint Posted July 11, 2010 Posted July 11, 2010 Lopez and "yous guys" are using the "rule" wrong.Its meant to help determine the success rate of High Round draft picks. Meaning if you have to pick a QB in the first 2 round of the draft and you have 2 QBs that are equally matched in your evaluation the use of the 26-27-60 rule will help guide your decision. Its not meant to be applied to every QB ever drafted or undrafted. There are plenty of QBs that went undrafted that Played at some non-BCS school that fit the 26-27-60 rule. Its meant to help GM's decide should I draft Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf coming out of college. I definitely agree with that -- hence it not being a "rule" more of a benchmark -- if you are looking at someone that couldnt play his way onto the field in college, was injured often, cant hit large windows, or doesnt take the wonderlic seriously enough to prepare, you immediately have questions about whether you can count on him to be your leader at the next level. Of course there are exceptions on each side ::cough:: Tom Brady ::shudder::, but if you had to pick the three stats that account for the most variability in future successes, I would say those are strong ones. The 4th I was adding was more of a do they win, and win against top flight talent. Could choose bowl victories, wins against top 25 teams, conference championships, just the first that came to mind (and it fit nicely numerically)
BuffOrange Posted July 12, 2010 Posted July 12, 2010 Stats are nice, but my question is "Did the guy play well and mostly beat the best competition in the college game?" Peyton Manning - yes Jim Kelly - yes Dan Marino - yes Joe Namath - yes Joe Montana - yes No Brian Griesie, Tommy Frazier, Charlie Ward, Rick Mirrer? Cherrypick much? What did Manning win?
Recommended Posts