"26-27-60 Rule" of QB's

[Orton's Arm]

Someone tell the how the 26-27-60 rule works for the following and I'll judge it's success:

 

JP Losman

Trent Edwards

Todd Collins

Drew Bledsow

Alex Van Pelt

Doug Flutie

Rob Johnson

Billie Jo Hobert

Kelly Holcomb

Travis Brown

Brian Brohm

Levi Brown

You're only supposed to use the model on first round quarterbacks. This is because NFL talent evaluators will generally perceive a lot of flaws the model might not capture. The idea behind the model is that if a QB has the talent to make it into the first round in the first place, and if he meets the model's three criteria, he's much more likely to be a success than a first round QB who didn't meet the model's criteria.

 

There's a reason for this. Consider the minimum games started stat, for example. If an NFL team looked at 30 games of game tape and decided a QB belongs in the first round, that's very different from them looking at 30 games of tape and deciding he should be drafted in the fifth round! The model is designed to work hand-in-hand with NFL talent evaluations.

 

That being said, only two of the quarterbacks listed above were originally drafted in the first round: Drew Bledsoe and J.P. Losman. The model correctly predicted Losman would be a bust, because he failed to meet its 60% passing completion criterion. I also think he failed to acquire the required number of starts, but I haven't confirmed that.

 

Drew Bledsoe had 28 college starts. However, he failed to complete 60% of his college passes, so the model would have predicted that Drew Bledsoe would be a bust. That prediction would have looked very foolish during his first several years in New England or his first eight games in Buffalo. But it would have looked extremely prescient in light of the way he languished during his later New England years and in the 2.5 years in Buffalo he wasn't on that eight game fire streak.

Edited February 9, 2011 by Edwards' Arm

[nick in* england]

You're only supposed to use the model on first round quarterbacks. This is because NFL talent evaluators will generally perceive a lot of flaws the model might not capture. The idea behind the model is that if a QB has the talent to make it into the first round in the first place, and if he meets the model's three criteria, he's much more likely to be a success than a first round QB who didn't meet the model's criteria.

 

There's a reason for this. Consider the minimum games started stat, for example. If an NFL team looked at 30 games of game tape and decided a QB belongs in the first round, that's very different from them looking at 30 games of tape and deciding he should be drafted in the fifth round! The model is designed to work hand-in-hand with NFL talent evaluations.

 

That being said, only two of the quarterbacks listed above were originally drafted in the first round: Drew Bledsoe and J.P. Losman. The model correctly predicted Losman would be a bust, because he failed to meet its 60% passing completion criterion. I also think he failed to acquire the required number of starts, but I haven't confirmed that.

 

Drew Bledsoe had 28 college starts. However, he failed to complete 60% of his college passes, so the model would have predicted that Drew Bledsoe would be a bust. That prediction would have looked very foolish during his first several years in New England or his first eight games in Buffalo. But it would have looked extremely prescient in light of the way he languished during his later New England years and in the 2.5 years in Buffalo he wasn't on that eight game fire streak.

Except the SI article doesn't stipulate first rounders only...

 

I'd still like to see the numbers for the other guys.

[2003Contenders]

 

Drew Bledsoe had 28 college starts. However, he failed to complete 60% of his college passes, so the model would have predicted that Drew Bledsoe would be a bust. That prediction would have looked very foolish during his first several years in New England or his first eight games in Buffalo. But it would have looked extremely prescient in light of the way he languished during his later New England years and in the 2.5 years in Buffalo he wasn't on that eight game fire streak.

 

 

Which makes the model even that much more silly given that Parcells is supposedly the one who came up with it -- and yet the most successful QB that he ever drafted didn't fit the bill. But, of course, Chad Henne met all the prerequisites.

[dave mcbride]

You're only supposed to use the model on first round quarterbacks. This is because NFL talent evaluators will generally perceive a lot of flaws the model might not capture. The idea behind the model is that if a QB has the talent to make it into the first round in the first place, and if he meets the model's three criteria, he's much more likely to be a success than a first round QB who didn't meet the model's criteria.

 

There's a reason for this. Consider the minimum games started stat, for example. If an NFL team looked at 30 games of game tape and decided a QB belongs in the first round, that's very different from them looking at 30 games of tape and deciding he should be drafted in the fifth round! The model is designed to work hand-in-hand with NFL talent evaluations.

 

That being said, only two of the quarterbacks listed above were originally drafted in the first round: Drew Bledsoe and J.P. Losman. The model correctly predicted Losman would be a bust, because he failed to meet its 60% passing completion criterion. I also think he failed to acquire the required number of starts, but I haven't confirmed that.

 

Drew Bledsoe had 28 college starts. However, he failed to complete 60% of his college passes, so the model would have predicted that Drew Bledsoe would be a bust. That prediction would have looked very foolish during his first several years in New England or his first eight games in Buffalo. But it would have looked extremely prescient in light of the way he languished during his later New England years and in the 2.5 years in Buffalo he wasn't on that eight game fire streak.

 

I'm not seeing the logic in not applying this to non-first rounders. Moreover, it seems like cooking the books to ensure that a thesis remains viable in the face of powerful countervailing evidence. (Ahem. Todd Collins. Ahem. Rob Johnson. Ahem. Brian Brohm.) Moreover, I actually think you're wrong about it applying to first rounders only (aside from the fact that I think this qualification renders it fairly useless.)

Edited February 9, 2011 by dave mcbride

[nick in* england]

I'm not seeing the logic in not applying this to non-first rounders. Moreover, it seems like cooking the books to ensure that a thesis remains viable in the face of powerful countervailing evidence. (Ahem. Todd Collins. Ahem. Rob Johnson. Ahem. Brian Brohm.) Moreover, I actually think you're wrong about it applying to first rounders only (aside from the fact that I think this qualification renders it fairly useless.)

Exactly my point - so the numbers on the other guys are still relevant.