QB drafting "rules"

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Every so often, you see people list off certain criteria for rating QBs. I don't know if this has been run on the current crop of QBs, so I figured I'd do it myself.

The Bill Parcells "rules"
1) He must be a senior (I think he means academic senior)
2) He must be a graduate
3) He must be a 3 year starter
4) He must have 23 wins

There's also the 26/27/60 rule: You need
1) a 26 on the Wonderlic
2) 27 starts
3) 60% career completions

So I'll assume that everyone who is an academic senior will actually complete their degree, and that everyone reaches that required Wonderlic score since those haven't been given yet. These are the names I've seen mentioned.


<tbody>

Parcells

26/27/60



Geno Smith

Pass

Pass



Matt Barkley

Pass

Pass



Tyler Wilson

Fail (2 year starter, not enough wins)

Fail (too few starts)



Ryan Nassib

Pass

Pass (just barely - 60.3% completions)



Tyler Bray

Fail (2 year starter, too few wins)

Fail (Too few starts)



Landry Jones

Pass

Pass



Tajh Boyd

Fail (2 year starter)

Pass



Mike Glennon

Fail (2 year starter, too few wins)

Fail (Too few starts)



Aaron Murray

Pass

Pass



Zac Dysert

Fail (Too few wins)

Pass


</tbody>

Obviously that list will pare down some after the combine.

[Albany,n.y.]

His rules are outdated. They worked about 10 years ago, not today. They became obsolete about the same time underclass rookie QBs started winning in their 1st season in the NFL.

[CleveSteve]

The Bill Parcells "rules"
1) He must be a senior (I think he means academic senior)
I think our GM messed this up when he drafted Weeden. Thanks for the clarification.

[CleveSteve]

60% rule is definitely outdated... too many different offenses to use one number. 60% in a spread, which is about half of college football now, is actually pretty bad.

[EDS]

60% rule is definitely outdated... too many different offenses to use one number. 60% in a spread, which is about half of college football now, is actually pretty bad.

It still works, it is just a floor on the QBs performance. After that you need to look at the rest of the package, including system, physical skills, level of competition, leadership, etc.

[YardRat]

Murray would be at the top of my list, but he's staying in school. I don't want anything to do with either Smith or Barkley. I guess that leaves me with Jones or Nassib.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

His rules are outdated. They worked about 10 years ago, not today. They became obsolete about the same time underclass rookie QBs started winning in their 1st season in the NFL.

It's arguable they never worked at all. Parcells' best QB pick was Bledsoe, who didn't even pass (he didn't graduate). But it's a conversation starter, nontheless.

[Night Train]

Aaron Rodgers is a fail.

This thinking died 25 years ago.

[Fixxxer]

How about EJ Manuel?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

How about EJ Manuel?

Sorry, forgot him. He fails Parcells' (2 year starter b/c he sat behind Ponder) but passes the 26-27-60 rule.

[Fixxxer]

Sorry, forgot him. He fails Parcells' (2 year starter b/c he sat behind Ponder) but passes the 26-27-60 rule.

Thanks, I like this kid a lot.

[Ingtar33]

number of starts is one rule i always favored... it seems like guys who don't have at least 26 college starts bust at an insane rate.

college QBs who can't complete 60% of their passes in college also seem to struggle in the pros. so that's another one i'd hold onto.

[X-Era]

Cam Newton

[Mski]

Cam Newtonand what did he do this year? after teams have a full year+ of tape to study of him

[jamze132]

I don't think it's safe to assume that some of those guys will get a 26 on the wonderlick.

[trapezeus]

Thanks for this post. i was thinking about these items the other day. interesting to see the data. i don't like geno smith or barkley. i would take wilson. i'd take nassib due to the coaching staff's familiarity. and if they like him, they might be vouching that his 60% is a function of a weak supporting cast.

i like the 60% floor as a metric. I think it does speak to a basic level of consistency and accuracy. Look at fitz this year. if he was accurate, he would have had some key TD's on big plays in games that mattered.

i like minimum starts because it means he's probably seen two/three bowl games. I think you need to see the players performance in big games. last year i liked R Wilson because he won. He had been through adversity in changing schools, but kept winning. I thought that's huge. especially for us armchair GM's, because we don't get to hear an interview. essentially winning is the interview for us. you play a tough game and won; that's a good sign that he'll be able to run a 2 minute drill capably in a tough situation. Done with the losman's who just look rattled when the going gets tough and hangs their head.

i don't think the wonderlic is a single evaluaiton. i think a guy who gets like a 4 on it better be a hell of an athlete, and a guy who scores a 50 can make up for a really weak arm (fitz). if a guy runs a pro type offense with multiple reads and scores poorly on the test, i don't think it's a big deal. i think a one read offense and a bad score is an omen for bad things to come.

[ServoBillieves]

Aww... this post is sad.

Then again it is the off-season so I anticipate terrible threads.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Aww... this post is sad.

Then again it is the off-season so I anticipate terrible threads.

:rofl: this guy.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Thanks for this post. i was thinking about these items the other day. interesting to see the data. i don't like geno smith or barkley. i would take wilson. i'd take nassib due to the coaching staff's familiarity. and if they like him, they might be vouching that his 60% is a function of a weak supporting cast.

i like the 60% floor as a metric. I think it does speak to a basic level of consistency and accuracy. Look at fitz this year. if he was accurate, he would have had some key TD's on big plays in games that mattered.

i like minimum starts because it means he's probably seen two/three bowl games. I think you need to see the players performance in big games. last year i liked R Wilson because he won. He had been through adversity in changing schools, but kept winning. I thought that's huge. especially for us armchair GM's, because we don't get to hear an interview. essentially winning is the interview for us. you play a tough game and won; that's a good sign that he'll be able to run a 2 minute drill capably in a tough situation. Done with the losman's who just look rattled when the going gets tough and hangs their head.

i don't think the wonderlic is a single evaluaiton. i think a guy who gets like a 4 on it better be a hell of an athlete, and a guy who scores a 50 can make up for a really weak arm (fitz). if a guy runs a pro type offense with multiple reads and scores poorly on the test, i don't think it's a big deal. i think a one read offense and a bad score is an omen for bad things to come.

IMO the single most important stat is accuracy. Most things can be taught, but if you can't reliably hit passes by the time you are 22 it might be too late for you to build an NFL career. The # of starts is important because obviously experience and leadership matter, but also because it puts that accuracy in a greater context.

Regarding these QBs, the only "failure" I wouldn't mind taking a run at is Wilson. Smith is my #1 choice.

Honestly I'm not seeing Nassib as having as much upside as people say. I don't see him going before our 2nd rounder unless it's to us at #8. But the pre-draft process may change that yet.

[EDS]

and what did he do this year? after teams have a full year+ of tape to study of him

He got off to a slow start but in the end wasn't his second year almost identical statistically to his first season?

[IlluminatusUIUC]

Now that the Wonderlics are leaked I can fill in the chart some more.


Every so often, you see people list off certain criteria for rating QBs. I don't know if this has been run on the current crop of QBs, so I figured I'd do it myself.

The Bill Parcells "rules"
1) He must be a senior (I think he means academic senior)
2) He must be a graduate
3) He must be a 3 year starter
4) He must have 23 wins

There's also the 26/27/60 rule: You need
1) a 26 on the Wonderlic
2) 27 starts
3) 60% career completions

So I'll assume that everyone who is an academic senior will actually complete their degree, and that everyone reaches that required Wonderlic score since those haven't been given yet. These are the names I've seen mentioned.


<tbody>

Parcells
26/27/60


Geno Smith
Pass
Fail - 24 Wonderlic


Matt Barkley
Pass
Pass - 30 wonderlic


Tyler Wilson
Fail (2 year starter, not enough wins)
Fail (too few starts and 20 wonderlic)


Ryan Nassib
Pass
Pass (just barely - 60.3% completions) - 41 wonderlic


Tyler Bray
Fail (2 year starter, too few wins)
Fail (Too few starts and 24 wonderlic)


Landry Jones
Pass
Pass - 28 wonderlic


Tajh Boyd
Fail (2 year starter)
Pass


Mike Glennon
Fail (2 year starter, too few wins)
Fail (Too few starts) - 26 wonderlic


Aaron Murray
Pass
Pass


Zac Dysert
Fail (Too few wins)
Fail - 24 wonderlic

</tbody>

Obviously that list will pare down some after the combine.

Also, some guys I omitted off the first list:

<tbody>

Parcells
26-27-60


E.J. Manuel
Pass
Pass - 28 Wonderlic


Matt Scott
Pass
Fail - 22 Wonderlic

</tbody>


More stuff to argue about.