PromoTheRobot Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) SI article This article was published last July but it's very interesting. The writer claims there is a combination of stats...Wonderlic score, games started in college and completion percentage...that reliably predicts a college QB's chance of success in the NFL. Even more interesting is that Fitz makes the cut. Since 1998, these are some of the NFL quarterbacks who aced all three parts of the Rule of 26-27-60: Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Tony Romo, Matt Schaub, Kyle Orton, Kevin Kolb, Matt Ryan, Ryan Fitzpatrick and Matt Stafford. While Wonderlic tests have yet to be given for this year's crop of QB's, here are the starts and comp % numbers for this years prospects: Blaine Gabbert - 18 starts...58.3% FAIL/FAIL Cam Newton - 14 starts...65.4% FAIL/PASS Jake Locker - 28 starts...53.4% PASS/FAIL Ryan Mallett - 24 starts...52.6% FAIL/FAIL Christian Ponder - 23 starts...61.2% FAIL/PASS Colin Kaepernick - 37 games....55.6% PASS/FAIL Andy Dalton - 37 starts...60.2% PASS/PASS Rick Stanzi - 26 starts...57.1% FAIL(barely)/FAIL Greg McElroy - 22 games...62.0% FAIL/PASS So far only Andy Dalton meets the cutoff. And as the story points out there are exceptions. (Ben Rothlesberger a notable one) But we are always looking for a formula or predictor of success. Could this be the one? Thoughts? PTR Edited February 7, 2011 by PromoTheRobot
BillsRUs Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Interesting read....I guess I would look at the wonderlic from a qualitative standpoint.....and not place as much emphasis on it as I would games started and completion %.
Maddog69 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 If you include his National Championship season last year in Junior college, Newton would have more than 26 college stsrts.
Beebe's Kid Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 This was being discussed in another forum, and I get a kick out of the responses. People that want to draft Newton or Gabbert get very, very angry at this. They act like you made this up. You know, like how Al Gore made up Global Warming, and claimed to create the Interweb. The results of this test are pretty hard to argue. Is is 100%? No. Does it appear to hit more than it misses. Definitely. Will people always think they can "outsmart" it? Yes. Do I want the Bills to keep trying to go against the grain, especially after reviewing past results? No.
Bangarang Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Josh Freeman of the Buccs fails the completion % portion of this formula. Pretty sure just about everyone here would love him as our QB. But like you said, there are always exceptions.
dave mcbride Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Brian Brohm was a rousing success according to this measure. He may not make an NFL team next year (and I strongly suspect that he won't make the Bills).
Zona Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I think is the best indicator of success at the next level. It shows that a guy is capable of being "The Man" at a University level, and accurate, and smart enough to read defenses at the next level. I would add also that the level of competition is relevant as well. Peyton Manning was "The Man" at a school in the SEC, not the SWC. Or the Mac. One year wonders have been the rage before (akili Smith, Ryan Leaf, Rick Mirer) and now we have another (newton). Stick to the formula. Take Dalton in the second if you must, but stay away from all others, IMO...
ddaryl Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) I believe your data is wrong Blaine Gabbert, I believe has started 26 games, Also Blaine has an over 60% completion, your data is definitley WRONG not sure about the rest of your data but my guess is more research is necesary If you include his National Championship season last year in Junior college, Newton would have more than 26 college stsrts. I would never include Newtons games at Blinn in this formula. Blaine Gabbert, played in 29 games. I beleive he started 26, has a little over 60% completion rate, and holds a preyty high college GPA http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerQB.asp?id=1205753 Blaine Gabbert Year Lge Team Age # GP Comp Att % Yds TD INT TD% INT% Y/G Y/A RAT 2008 NCAA Missouri Tigers 19 0 3 5 13 38.5 43 0 0 0.0 0.0 14.3 3.3 66.2 2009 NCAA Missouri Tigers 20 0 13 262 445 58.9 3593 24 9 5.4 2.0 276.4 8.1 140.5 2010 NCAA Missouri Tigers 21 13 301 475 63.4 3186 16 9 3.4 1.9 245.1 6.7 127.0 NCAA Totals 29 568 933 60.9 6822 40 18 4.3 1.9 235.2 7.3 132.6 I'll say it again your data is WRONG ! Edited February 7, 2011 by ddaryl
PromoTheRobot Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 I believe your data is wrong Blaine Gabbert, and Ryan Mallett I do believed have started 26 games Also Blaine has an over 60% completion, your data is definitley WRONG not sure about the rest of your data but my guess is more research is necesary I would never include Newtons games at Blinn in this formula. Blaine Gabbert, played in 29 games. I beleive he started 26, has a little over 60% completion rate, and holds a preyty high college GPA http://www.totalfootballstats.com/PlayerQB.asp?id=1205753 I'll say it again your data is WRONG ! I based my info on CBS Sports NFL Draft. Not exactly a fly-by-night operation, but apparently wrong on Mallett. My apologies. PTR
ddaryl Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I based my info on CBS Sports NFL Draft. Not exactly a fly-by-night operation, but apparently wrong on Mallett. My apologies. PTR That data is incorrect. Not sure how or where you got that info from CBS, but if you look at the career game logs at ESPN and put the math together you get some very different numbers. Maybe I'm wrong, but something isn't adding up for one of us. I get much different totals for most everyone using ESPN as a reference. I just found the totalfootball.com link just recently
Ramius Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 SI article This article was published last July but it's very interesting. The writer claims there is a combination of stats...Wonderlic score, games started in college and completion percentage...that reliably predicts a college QB's chance of success in the NFL. Even more interesting is that Fitz makes the cut. While Wonderlic tests have yet to be given for this year's crop of QB's, here are the starts and comp % numbers for this years prospects: Blaine Gabbert - 18 starts...58.3% FAIL/FAIL Cam Newton - 14 starts...65.4% FAIL/PASS Jake Locker - 28 starts...53.4% PASS/FAIL Ryan Mallett - 24 starts...52.6% FAIL/FAIL Christian Ponder - 23 starts...61.2% FAIL/PASS Colin Kaepernick - 37 games....55.6% PASS/FAIL Andy Dalton - 37 starts...60.2% PASS/PASS Rick Stanzi - 26 starts...57.1% FAIL(barely)/FAIL Greg McElroy - 22 games...62.0% FAIL/PASS So far only Andy Dalton meets the cutoff. And as the story points out there are exceptions. (Ben Rothlesberger a notable one) But we are always looking for a formula or predictor of success. Could this be the one? Thoughts? PTR Your numbers are way off. Ponder has started 32 games over 3 years here at FSU.
NoSaint Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 While I like it- I'd like to add 25- as in a top 25 season. It helps make sure that you were playing the big boys or atleast handling your business where you should. I'd be curious the accuracy of predicting success if that was added. To those pulling out names on either side -- if this predicts at a 75% success rate, and the next best index is at like 60% I'd call it a wild success. It's silly to think 3 stats could account for a career... Injuries, coaching, talent surrounding, and a little bit of luck are all important. I think it's amazing how well these 3 stats actually do. That can't be argued.
ddaryl Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Christian Ponder Year ▾ Lge Team Age # GP Comp Att % Yds TD INT TD% INT% Y/G Y/A RAT 2010 NCAA Florida State Seminoles 22 12 184 299 61.5 2044 20 8 6.7 2.7 170.3 6.8 135.7 2009 NCAA Florida State Seminoles 21 0 9 227 330 68.8 2717 14 7 4.2 2.1 301.9 8.2 147.7 2008 NCAA Florida State Seminoles 20 0 13 177 318 55.7 2006 14 13 4.4 4.1 154.3 6.3 115.0 2007 NCAA Florida State Seminoles 19 0 1 8 18 44.4 105 1 2 5.6 11.1 105.0 5.8 89.6 NCAA Totals 35 596 965 61.8 6872 49 30 5.1 3.1 196.3 7.1 132.1 Ryan Mallett Year Lge Team Age # GP Comp Att % Yds TD INT TD% INT% Y/G Y/A RAT 2007 NCAA Michigan Wolverines 19 0 11 61 141 43.3 892 7 5 5.0 3.5 81.1 6.3 105.7 2009 NCAA Arkansas Razorbacks 21 0 13 225 403 55.8 3624 30 7 7.4 1.7 278.8 9.0 152.5 2010 NCAA Arkansas Razorbacks 22 13 266 411 64.7 3869 32 12 7.8 2.9 297.6 9.4 163.6 NCAA Totals 37 552 955 57.8 8385 69 24 7.2 2.5 226.6 8.8 150.4 Jake Locker Year Lge Team Age # GP Comp Att % Yds TD INT TD% INT% Y/G Y/A RAT 2007 NCAA Washington Huskies 19 10 12 155 328 47.3 2062 14 15 4.3 4.6 171.8 6.3 105.0 2008 NCAA Washington Huskies 20 10 4 50 93 53.8 512 1 0 1.1 0.0 128.0 5.5 103.6 2009 NCAA Washington Huskies 21 0 12 230 395 58.2 2800 21 11 5.3 2.8 233.3 7.1 129.7 2010 NCAA Washington Huskies 22 12 184 332 55.4 2265 17 9 5.1 2.7 188.8 6.8 124.2 NCAA Totals 40 619 1148 53.9 7639 53 35 4.6 3.0 191.0 6.7 119.0 Colin Kaepernick Year Lge Team Age # GP Comp Att % Yds TD INT TD% INT% Y/G Y/A RAT 2007 NCAA Nevada Wolf Pack 20 0 11 133 247 53.8 2175 19 3 7.7 1.2 197.7 8.8 150.8 2008 NCAA Nevada Wolf Pack 21 0 13 208 383 54.3 2849 22 7 5.7 1.8 219.2 7.4 132.1 2009 NCAA Nevada Wolf Pack 22 0 13 166 282 58.9 2052 20 6 7.1 2.1 157.8 7.3 139.1 2010 NCAA Nevada Wolf Pack 23 14 233 359 64.9 3022 21 8 5.8 2.2 215.9 8.4 150.5 NCAA Totals 51 740 1271 58.2 10098 82 24 6.5 1.9 198.0 7.9 142.5 Definitely some different data if totalfootballstats.com is to be trusted
zonabb Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I've posted on this many times in other threads over the years because I believe smart people make smart, rational choices based on some formula and without reading the article but this thread, it seems to mimic Parcell's requirements.... which generally are based on games started, graduation, and wins. Bottomline is, you have to take risk assessment into the concept of the draft and determine how much risk you're willing to take. When it comes to QBs, the reason there seems to be such a high risk is because teams gamble more on the position and draft them higher than data and research would support based on the value of the position and not the position they're picked. As with any model, which this is, it's used as a predictive tool and although some guys have some of the stats to meet the model and smoe don't, generally, it works well in that is has more predictive power than looking at the atheletic measurables alone. To the person who said wonderlic is qualitative, you're wrong. Wonderlic is a measurement of some sort of intelligence, which is a quantitative measure. Opinions are qualitative data. IQ is quantitative. Wonderlic being a proxy measurement for IQ, it's therefore quantitative. I replied to a thread a couple weeks ago that stated if you look up the reported Wonderlics of Super Bowl winning QBs they all exceed I think its a 22 with the exception of Bradshaw and that was before last night. Rodgers exceeded it too. So my point is that although a high Wonderlic is not a guarantee you have a Super Bowl winning QB, one less than 22 is a guarantee YOU DON'T. So my point is, if I'm drafting a QB, I want a guy with the 27 starts, the wins, the degree and the Wonderlic over 22 because it's a better indicator (because of the large sample size, ie, the number of years in college competing at a high level and then graduating) than you have with someone like Newton. So when it comes down to what will be 2+ months of discussin Newton, he doesn't fit the Parcells model (you don't count the Blinn games because it was a juco) right off the bat because he lacks the starts, the wins and the degrees. The Wonderlic will be telling. Throw in character issues and what I think is a problem with his overbearing father in terms of the potential lack of decision-making ability given what is an adult and you have the recipe for disaster. So at #3, are all those questions worth the gamble? If I'm the Bills, I say no way and pass on the guy.
Captain Hindsight Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Brian Brohm was a rousing success according to this measure. He may not make an NFL team next year (and I strongly suspect that he won't make the Bills). Obviously there are exceptions. I think its just like saying He did it in practice, hell do it in the game. Its not always true but its a good indicator that a player will be successful
Chandler#81 Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 I goofed. Just 'mousing' over the thread, I guess I pushed too hard and locked it out.
PromoTheRobot Posted February 7, 2011 Author Posted February 7, 2011 Obviously there is something wrong with the CBS stat site so let's try this again with the site ddaryl provided me... Blaine Gabbert - 29 starts...60.9% PASS/PASS Cam Newton - 20 starts...65.4% FAIL/PASS Jake Locker - 40 starts...53.9% PASS/FAIL Ryan Mallett - 37 starts...57.8% PASS/FAIL Christian Ponder - 35 starts...61.8% PASS/PASS Colin Kaepernick - 51 games....58.2% PASS/FAIL Andy Dalton - 50 starts...61.7% PASS/PASS Rick Stanzi - 38 starts...59.8% PASS/FAIL Greg McElroy - 35 games...66.3% PASS/PASS Again, thanks to ddaryl for catching the errors. This revised list shows many more options that meet 2 of 3 parts of the 26-27-60 rule: Gabbert, Ponder, Dalton and McElroy. Anyone know when the Wonderlic tests are given? PTR
Beerball Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 Anyone know when the Wonderlic tests are given? PTR At the combine IIRC.
Johnny Hammersticks Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 (edited) While he may be just one of those "exception to the rule" players, I think I saw somewhere that Dan Marino got a 15 or 16 on the Wonderlic. That's on par with Leodis McKelvin's score! Apparently, you don't need to be a super genius to be a successful NFL quarterback. Edited February 7, 2011 by Johnny Hammersticks
Recommended Posts