Player Profile: Derek Carr

Categories: NCAA FBS, NFL Draft, Statistics
Comments: No Comments
Published on: January 22, 2014

Player:  Derek Carr

School:  Fresno State

Year:  Senior

Career CAA:  35.1

Predicted 4-year NFL Passer Rating:  75.3

Predicted 4-year ANY/A:  4.9

The Senior Bowl is just now wrapping up, and by all accounts Derek Carr was the quarterback that everyone came away impressed with.  Certainly there were some detractors, but it seems like overall, everyone had much more positive things to say about Carr than they said about any of the other quarterbacks in the mix.

But then there are always whispers and rumors out there.  One person compared Carr to Christian Ponder.  They meant it to be a frowny face sort of thing.  I would say that’s a better comparison than most people think, but then again I don’t get to be an arbiter of Ponder opinions.

So, what do we think about Derek Carr?  In a word, meh.  At least for the first four years he’ll be okay but not going to set the world on fire.  This is actually going to be a theme as we advance through the player profiles.  So much hype is surrounding the current class of quarterbacks and almost to a man the model shrugs at them and says “Yeah I guess.”  So that’s what I think will happen to Derek Carr.  I guess it could happen.  I wouldn’t expect him to set the world on fire though.

Take Home Point

Cool story, bro

Do you draft him?

Much like Manziel, probably not where he’s going to go.

Player Profile: Andrew McDonald

Categories: NCAA FBS, NFL Draft
Comments: No Comments
Published on: December 4, 2013

I’m starting a new feature on the website today.  Every Wednesday until the NFL draft, I’ll post a profile of a particular draft eligible player.  Many of them will be quarterbacks, but as I work through the next six months, I’ll also work in some receivers.  Receivers require a different method of evaluation that I’m still working hard to improve, so they will come later.

The first player profile may seem like it comes out of left field a bit because I haven’t heard this player’s name anywhere else.  No one is watching this player.  In fact, the students at this player’s university don’t even watch this player.  Administration had to set up an incentive program to get students to attend a free football game. So it’s not surprising that scouts haven’t attended the games.  They wouldn’t get much use out of the parking permit anyway.  So who is this mystery quarterback?

Player:  Andrew McDonald

School:  New Mexico State

Year:  Senior

Career CAA:  37.2

Predicted 4-year NFL Passer Rating:  75.9

Andrew McDonald won’t get a lot of attention for a variety of reasons.  First, he’s only started for one year.  This is a reasonable reason to be worried about him for two reasons.  First, and probably pretty obviously, as a player gains experience with pass plays, they get better.  More experienced quarterbacks typically do better in the transition from college to the NFL.  Unfortunately, McDonald simply hasn’t had the time to become a truly seasoned passer.  So, we’re expecting him to be raw coming out of college.  We should also be worried about his starting experience because we can’t know if this year’s success is a flash in the pan or part of a more sustained pattern.  We can’t be sure if the important habits have become ingrained and that his success this year will carry over from year to year.  Experience will be a legitimate problem for him if he is to become an NFL quarterback.

He also won’t get a lot of attention because his team isn’t a winner.  New Mexico State finished the season with a final record of 2-10, and they only won two games because their last game was a futility bowl against two teams that were both 1-10 before the game started.  Their only other win was against FCS level Abilene Christian.  Many people pump up players that are “winners” (see Tebow, Moore, McCarron, etc.), and discount players that played on losing teams.  I’m not particularly interested in wins and losses when I evaluate a quarterback.  Records in football are dependent on so many factors that it isn’t fair to assign a win and loss entirely to a quarterback.  McDonald will fight this headwind, but it’s not one I’m worried about.  Ryan Griffin of Tulane had a similar problem last year, and he is currently on the Saints active roster.

We’ve talked about the negatives.  But I wouldn’t be talking about him when no one else is if I didn’t think he had talent.  My metric for evaluating quarterbacks is career Completions Away from Average (CAA) which is a number that indicates how many more or fewer completions this quarterback has compared to what we would expect a perfectly average FBS quarterback would have on this particular team.  Andrew McDonald is actually leading all of FBS in CAA for 2013 with 37.2.  This means that my model predicts that a perfectly average quarterback dropped onto the New Mexico State team would have 195.8 completions instead of the 233 Andrew McDonald actually has.  Given my handy dandy regression equation for predicting 4-year passer rating I can predict that Andrew McDonald would have a passer rating of approximately 75.9 after four years in the NFL.  While this might not be a lofty number, I think it is high enough to warrant a look at a little noticed player from New Mexico State.

First Round Thoughts

Only five players that I have a number attached to were drafted in the first round.  This will be short…until we talk Vikings.

Pick #8:  Tavon Austin

The first wide receiver off the board is also my top rated wide receiver, for whatever that’s worth.  Not much to say here other than I think the Rams made the right choice.

Pick #16:  E.J. Manuel

The first quarterback taken in the draft goes to the Bills.  I like the pick in that I think he will do well in the NFL.  Our handy-dandy math equation tells us to expect Manuel to have a 74.79 NFL Passer Rating by the time his rookie contract is over.  I think Bills did well here.  They avoided the Geno Smith hype and got an interesting playmaker.  It will be interesting to see if they transition to a read-option offense or if they use E.J. as a more traditional quarterback.  I think they could do either.

Pick #21:  Tyler Eifert

I am not a fan of Tyler Eifert, at least as far as pass catching ability goes.  I think I might be alone in that opinion, but I’ll follow the numbers.

Pick #27:  DeAndre Hopkins

I have my wide receivers sorted by Completions Away from Average (CAA).  If you look at that list, you see Hopkins somewhere near the middle of the pack.  But I think that number doesn’t capture his true value.  One of the reasons I really hesitated about posting my wide receiver rankings is that the model really loves slot receivers.  This makes sense for two reasons.  First, slot receivers tend to be matched up against the 3rd or 4th best defensive back in the secondary.  They are working against the less talented, relatively speaking, members of the secondary.  Second, slot receivers typically run shorter routes than the guys on the outside do., so the throws are, relatively speaking, easier.  Combine those two together, shorter routes against the lesser talented defensive backs and you get a combination that loves completions.  So if you look down the list, a lot of slot receivers are at the top.

On the flip side, outside, deep receivers are punished by the model.  The passes are longer and more difficult to complete and are against higher quality defenders.  Given that, it is quite good for a receiver like Hopkins to get to #27.

Pick #29:  Cordarrelle Patterson

Here we go.  Now we’re going to get wordy and mildly upset.  I want to open by saying that I’m not upset with the outcome of this pick.  Cordarrelle Patterson may turn out to be an excellent wide receiver.  Or he may not.  Either way, that’s not what I’m upset about.  This isn’t about Cordarrelle Patterson being the “right pick” or not.  This biggest issue Vikings fans like myself should have about this pick is the process that brought it about.

I’ve read this argument in many other places (see Wages of Wins, Sloan Conference, etc. etc. etc) but it bears repeating here.  Sports are very outcome focused.  We talk endlessly about a particular player being the right fit or a can’t miss prospect, but that is the wrong way to think about the draft.  We should not be concerned about outcomes.  We should be concerned about the processes that are generating our outcomes.  Processes are what gets you sustained success.  Outcomes get first downs and touchdowns.  Processes build dynasties.  I don’t like the process that the Vikings used to make the 29th pick because it doesn’t reflect the reality of the draft.

What realities to I mean?  As economist Cade Massey says, the draft is dominated by randomness.  Predicting NFL performance from college data is remarkably difficult.  Even my own model only predicts 11% of the variance in NFL Passer Rating.  That’s very far away from lights out, sure thing picking.

Error Bars for my Quarterback Predictions

And even if you get it right, there is a chance your guy could get injured and all your perfect forecasting could be for not.  Massey goes on to recommend that in an environment dominated by tremendous uncertainty, your best option is to use as many selections as possible.  This is where the Vikings fell down horribly.

The teams that use the draft properly are teams that have accepted the random nature of the draft and act accordingly.  What you absolutely do not do is sacrifice three picks to move back into the first round.  There is absolutely no guarantee that this pick will work out well.  There is no guarantee that any pick will work out well.  It is a massive roll of the dice to give up all those picks and absolutely the wrong process to use in the draft.  The Patriots, our trade partner, are a team that gets the process right.  They accept that the draft is largely random, move back in the draft, add additional picks and wait for some of them to work out well.

That’s my breakdown of the first round.  Here’s hoping the Vikings hit on the selections they have remaining.  I think they gave up far too much to make a third first round pick.

Career Wide Receiver Production: 7th Round Darlings

Categories: NFL Draft, Statistics
Comments: No Comments
Published on: March 10, 2013

People say that the quarterback position is the most difficult to project into the NFL.  I respectfully disagree.  Certainly, the quarterback position is difficult to project from the college to professional game, and we’re not very good at it.  The empirical evidence shows decision makers are essentially making a random guess when it comes to projecting quarterbacks.  The only reason first round picks seem to have better numbers is because decision makers expect them to be good and provide them more opportunities – a self-fulfilling prophecy.

But there are worse things in this world than randomly guessing.  You will be right sometimes if you’re randomly guessing.  More than that, if you keep guessing randomly over and over and over again – say once a year every April since 1936 – the number of times you’re right and the number of times you’re wrong should be essentially equal.  Random decisions are not the worst possible outcome.  It is entirely possible that you could be on the other side of random.  It’s possible to make decisions that are worse than what a random process could achieve.  Sometimes we could make better decisions if we started throwing darts while blindfolded.

As an example, consider how most lay people buy stocks.  Most people don’t want to lose their money in the stock market.  They want high performing stocks that are going up.  So they don’t buy a stock until it starts going up.  And the average person doesn’t want to be burned by market fluctuations, so they continue to watch the stock as it goes up more.  Once the stock gets sufficiently high, they buy the stock.  But this is precisely the worst time to buy the stock.  The stock has nowhere to go but down from this point and the investor is more likely to lose money.  The person would be much better off picking stocks at random because the information they are using is leading to worse decisions.

How does this relate to football?  Football decision makers drafting wide receivers and lay people picking stocks have a lot in common.  To be clear, I have no idea what information football decision makers are using when predicting wide receiver success in the NFL.  Others have studied this (that one is a pdf, be aware if you click on it) and found inconsistent results.  However, just because I don’t know the process doesn’t mean I can’t evaluate the outcomes the process generates.  So let’s do that.  Let’s evaluate wide receiver draft picks and compare that with what we would expect given a random process.

The Evidence

I started with another study of the Hall of Fame.  It seemed to work well for the quarterbacks, so why not go back to the well again?  Where were the consensus great wide receivers drafted?  Here is a histogram of all wide receivers in the Hall of Fame that played since 1945.  Dante Lavelli is not on this graph as the U.S. Army drafted him before the NFL got a chance.  Remember, a random process coupled with a self-fulfilling prophecy will create a J-shaped distribution.

If we delete Raymond Berry as an extreme outlier, the histogram looks like this.

Here we have our first strange finding in the wide receiver data.  For picks 1-80, the data show the expected pattern.  A nice J-shaped pattern as we get further on in the draft.  But what is going on with picks 81-120?  There is a strange increase in Hall of Fame receivers drafted at a point corresponding, in modern times, to the late 3rd through the 4th rounds.  This is our first evidence that wide receiver evaluation is not just random, but biased in the wrong direction.  However, it is far from conclusive.

This pattern is strange enough to demand a more complete analysis of wide receiver production.  Perhaps the bump in the late 3rd through 4th rounds represents the perceived value of the wide receiver position.  We can be reasonably sure that everyone wants a quarterback and is willing to draft their favorite quarterback with the highest pick possible.  However, the same might not be true for wide receivers.  It’s possible that wide receivers are not as highly valued compared to quarterbacks and are not taken with the highest draft pick possible.

To attempt to rule out that explanation, I took Berri and Simmons’s methodology that they used for quarterbacks and applied it to wide receivers.  Let’s examine career production for all wide receivers drafted between 1995 and 2009.  We will look at Career Receptions, Career Yards, and Career Touchdowns.  I chose to start at 2009 because the average career length of an NFL wide receiver is just a shade over 3 seasons.  Any receiver drafted in 2009 is already at the average career length for an NFL wide receiver.  I chose to stop at 1995 because it includes 15 years of data, which is a nice round number, and it was midnight when I finished entering the 1995 data and I wanted to go to sleep.  All data was downloaded from pro-football-reference.com.

The first graph shows the Average Career Receptions for a wide receiver drafted during each round of the draft during the 15 year time period we are looking at.  Unless otherwise specified, I deleted all players that were never credited with catching an NFL pass.  I have run these numbers keeping all players, and the pattern is exactly the same.  Remember that this analysis does not control for playing time, so we are expecting a J-shaped distribution.

Here is a similar graph showing Career Yards

And the same graph showing Career Touchdowns

In all three cases, the data from Rounds 1-5 show the expected pattern.  There are still players drafted in the later rounds that are making an impact, but the impacts tend to be less than those drafted earlier.

However, that wasn’t the really weird part.  The really weird part was what happened in the final two rounds.  I might not have thought much of it if I hadn’t run the Hall of Fame data first.  Let’s zoom in on career production only for players drafted in rounds 5, 6, and 7.

Here is Career Receptions

Here is Career Yards

Here is Career Touchdowns

Wide receivers drafted in the 6th round have, on average, less productive careers compared to wide receivers drafted in the 5th and 7th rounds.  This is true if we measure production based on receptions, yards, or touchdowns.  One-way ANOVAs using only players drafted in the 5th-7th round confirms this, all F’s > 15.90.  My home set up is not great for running ANOVAs, which is why I did this slimmed down version.  Next week I will put all players into an ANOVA and run some splashy post-hoc tests.  Until then, we’re stuck with this slimmed down analysis.

This is a crazy finding.  Compared to receivers drafted in the 6th round, receivers drafted in the 7th are working against the self-fulfilling prophecies of decision makers, coaches, and their quarterbacks.  They should, by all accounts, have worse careers.  And yet, they have the more productive careers than players drafted in the 6th round and are just as productive as receivers drafted in the 5th.  My first explanation for this finding was that receivers from non-FBS schools are more likely to be drafted in the 7th round.  That was not the case in this data.  80.95% of 5th round draftees, 72.5% of 6th round draftees, and 81.81% of 7th round draftees come from FBS schools (Remember we deleted receivers that either did not make a team or did not catch an NFL pass).  At the very least, this isn’t a question of source school .

What should we conclude from this?  I think we have some very clear evidence that talent evaluators should stay away from wide receivers.  The pattern at the top of the draft is consistent with a random process.  I can’t conclude it is random right now because I don’t have good numbers on wide receiver playing time.  However, the pattern is consistent with randomness coupled with self-fulfilling prophecies.  Given what we know about the randomness of selecting quarterbacks, there is no reason to assume that wide receivers would be any different.

The pattern at the lower end of the draft is even more compelling.  In this case, talent evaluators and draft decision makers are consistently wrong about players evaluated as 7th round talents.  Those players are, on average, just as good as players evaluated as 5th round talents and better than players evaluated as 6th round talents.

This leads me to believe that we simply do not know what makes a productive wide receiver.  Furthermore, something about how we evaluate wide receivers is leading us to make worse decisions.  If we could control for the self-fulfilling process effect, we might see lower rated receivers doing BETTER than higher rated wide receivers.  (see This Post for explanation of the correction)

Which ultimately leads me back to my two favorite predictions for this wide receiver draft class, Cody Wilson from Central Michigan and Brent Leonard from Louisiana-Monroe.  Both of these receivers had extremely productive college careers at schools that don’t get a lot of media attention.  Both of them are not rated highly by the draft community for physical reasons – Cody Wilson because he is short for an NFL receiver and Brent Leonard because he is “not fast.”  But I ask you, who cares?  Fast receivers do not do any better than slow ones.  And prioritizing fast receivers might be leading us to draft worse receivers in the high rounds.

Remember, when I started this I said I don’t know what process evaluators are using to grade wide receivers.  However, after looking at the data, I am confident that they should stop whatever it is they are doing.  The decisions being made late in the draft are worse than randomly guessing.  At the end of the day, decision makers would be better off throwing darts at the names of draft eligible wide receivers blindfolded.

Quarterback Myths: Elite Quarterbacks Come From the First Round

Continuing my series on quarterback myths, we come to the notion that “elite” quarterbacks are only drafted in the first round.  It doesn’t take long to run into this myth on the internet.  Everyone from the Bleacher Report to the folks at Harvard will tell you that high quality, franchise quarterbacks are drafted in the first round.  It also doesn’t take long to run into the ridiculous counter-argument of pointing at Tom Brady and going, “nuh-uh.”  I think this myth needs a strong advocate against it.  In this post, I’m going to try and provide a strong argument for why we should believe that quality quarterbacks can be found in any round of the draft.

Let’s first examine the “best-of-the-best.”  What was the draft position of all the quarterbacks that are currently in the Hall of Fame?  Below you see a histogram of the Hall of Fame quarterbacks that played from 1945 to present sorted by draft position.  I have also included Peyton Manning and Tom Brady in this graph as they should be locks for the Hall once they finish playing.  Warren Moon is not included in the graph because he was undrafted.

 

The first thing to notice is the shape of this graph.  It is a J-shaped distribution with most of the Hall of Fame quarterbacks being drafted early.  At first glance, this might seem to support the argument that quality quarterbacks are more likely to come from the first round.  However, the shape of the distribution should actually lead us to a different conclusion.  In J-shaped distributions, the presence of rare but impactful data points at the right side of the distribution (Tom Brady and Bart Starr) implies the presence and continued occurrence of others (see Nate Silver’s book for this same argument presented with earthquake data).  I am going to argue that the left side of the graph above is not the whole story.  I am certain that there are other quarterbacks that could have been in the Hall of Fame, but were never given the opportunity.

In psychology, we have the notion of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  A self-fulfilling prophecy is any expectation or belief that may alter behavior in a manner that causes those expectations to be fulfilled.  As an example, when teachers are told that certain students are expected to do better academically, those students do better academically.  This is true even when the students are picked completely at random.  This is true even when the students had no idea their teacher was told to expect them to do better.  The teachers alter their behavior around the students they expect to do better.  As a result, those students become more interested in school and begin to show more academic promise.

Looking back at the Hall of Fame quarterbacks, the most recent entrants made their name in the 80’s and 90’s, Marino, Elway, Young, Aikman, and Moon.  I’ve seen it argued that the game is different now.  Since 2000, very few high quality quarterbacks have come from anywhere but the first round, Drew Brees and Matt Schaub being the only obvious exceptions.  So are quarterbacks drafted in the first round actually more talented?

To answer this question, I turn to an article by David Berri and Rob Simmons (2011) published in the Journal of Productivity Analysis (yes a journal exists that is that specific).  They examined all 331 quarterbacks that were drafted between 1970 and 2007 and that played in at least one game in a season.  Once again, at first glance it seems the conventional wisdom is correct.  Quarterbacks drafted at the top of the draft have more passing yards, more touchdowns, participate in more plays, and accumulate more wins.  But Berri and Simmons also ask us to look deeper.  When the statistics are broken down on a per play basis, all of the differences between high and low draft picks wash away.  Quarterbacks at the top have similar completion percentages as quarterbacks at the bottom.  The same is true for passing yards per pass attempt, touchdowns per pass attempt, interceptions per pass attempt, and passer rating.

Quarterbacks drafted at the top of the draft do just as well as quarterbacks drafted at the bottom once you control for playing time.  When we think we see a relationship between draft order and being a franchise quarterback, it is only an illusion.  Instead, what we are seeing is the results of a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Someone expected that high draft pick to do well.  Therefore, that high draft pick, at the very least, gets the opportunity to show what skills he has or doesn’t have.  The massive salaries first round quarterbacks have commanded in the last 15 years only magnifies the effect of the self-fulfilling prophecy.  A rookie quarterback making $15 million a year is not going to sit on the bench for very long, if at all.  The GM is not going to stand by while this massive investment goes unused.  The high paid rookie will get the chance to go out on the field and show everyone if he has what it takes or not.  And if he doesn’t have it, the coach and GM will still stick with him far longer than they should because of sunk costs.

But what about the sixth round pick sitting on the bench as a backup making the league minimum?  He’s less likely to even see the field.  Would we have ever heard about Tom Brady without Drew Bledsoe almost bleeding out on the field?  How many other Tom Bradys have sat on benches waiting for their moment that never happened?  I will wager more than a few.

So now let’s look to the future.  In 2012, we saw a few quarterbacks drafted beyond the first round that started games and made significant contributions.  I expect this trend to continue.  Not because the talent level has increased, but because, with the new rookie salary scale, the financial pressures to self-fulfill the prophecy and stick with a high priced first rounder that isn’t working out will be much less.

All in all, I believe there are quality quarterbacks to be found in later rounds of the draft.  The only question is whether or not they ever get a chance to see the field and actually prove it.

Quarterback Talent

I’ve talked before about how I think the draft class of 2012 will be regarded as one of the great classes.  The class has a strange combination of high talent and playing time that is likely to pay off in spades.

The 2013 draft class does not look to be panning out the same way.  There is not the same kind of talent at the top of FBS college football this year compared to 2012.  Not only that, but all the experts are looking in the wrong direction for talent.  We’re likely to see a lot of quarterback busts by players that play for schools in the BCS automatic qualifier conferences.  The really talented quarterbacks are in the smaller conferences this year.  I’ll talk about predicted busts another time, but let’s see who in the senior class is bubbling to the surface through 11 weeks.  Note that these ratings apply only to data from this season.

#1)  Colby Cameron – Louisiana Tech – Louisiana Tech has been a great surprise this year, in no small part due to their quarterback.  He’s put up gaudy numbers and led the Bulldogs (yes I did have to look the mascot up) to a 9-1 record.

#2)  Ryan Aplin – Arkansas State – Ryan has the most solid career data of anyone on this list.  He’s approaching 10,000 yards for his career and completes passes at high rates.  The primary reason people aren’t looking at him is that his team is not known as a high powered passing offense.

#3)  Kawaun Jakes – Western Kentucky – This was an interesting name to pop up.  The Western Kentucky system does not seem like the type of system to create an NFL caliber quarterback.  The only thing that worries me about this pick is that most of his passes are to running backs and tight ends.  These passes tend to be shorter passes to receivers that aren’t moving.  Regardless, the fact that Kawaun has the numbers he has in that offense with those receivers makes him worth a look.

#4)  Collin Klein – Kansas State – The senior quarterback at Kansas State has shown a tremendous ability at the quarterback position this year.  His running ability will likely attract some buyers as well.  The fact that he plays on the currently ranked #1 team in the country won’t hurt his draft prospects either.

Like I said, the quarterback prospects for this class aren’t fabulous, but there is talent there for those willing to look for it.  Of all the potential draftees out there, there is likely only one franchise quarterback among them.  If your team is really in the market for a franchise quarterback, hope and pray that Washington’s Keith Price declares for the draft.  He doesn’t play on a flashy team with a great win-loss record, but that guy is a beast.

Quarterback Busts

Categories: NCAA FCS, NFL Draft
Comments: No Comments
Published on: November 4, 2012

Will we ever see a quarterback bust the like of JaMarcus Russell ever again?

I recall Todd McShay was asked this question during last draft season. Todd answered that he didn’t think we would due to the large amount of data that is now available on all NCAA quarterbacks. He said there is so much tape on each and every college quarterback that it is difficult to imagine problems wouldn’t be spotted before the draft.

I don’t want to beat up on Todd for something he said more than six months ago, but I want to address the sentiment in that answer. The biggest problem with evaluating quarterbacks is not a lack of tape. There is a tremendous amount of data available on college quarterbacks. Not only that, the NFL spends large sums of money to put on the combine, where we gather even more data on players we may have not taken a close look at up to that point.

The problem with evaluating quarterbacks is the human brain. It is simply impossible to look at someone else’s tape and separate good quarterback play from good receiver play from luck.

Let me illustrate what I mean with an example. Imagine that a wide receiver is supposed to run an in-route on a particular pass play. However, this wide receiver is slightly confused and thinks they are supposed to run an out-route. On a standard play, if the quarterback simply throws to the spot that the receiver is supposed to be, this confusion is likely to result in an incompletion at best or an interception at worst. Now let’s imagine that a linebacker has blown up the play by blitzing through the line and the quarterback has to scramble toward the side of our confused wide receiver. Suddenly, the wide receiver’s mistake is the perfect solution. A pass can be completed and everyone’s happy. In the film room, the coach that called the play knows what was supposed to happen. The coach knows that they were lucky the receiver got confused on the play. An outsider watching that play doesn’t know that. To the outsider, it looks like a brilliant play call.

So, is it possible that we will ever see a quarterback bust like JaMarcus Russel again? Of course it’s possible. Not only is it possible, but it is likely. Why? Because, as Dan Pink says in a very good TED talk, the solution is not more of the wrong thing. We don’t need to watch more tape because we’ve proven we cannot effectively use other people’s tape to make accurate predictions. Instead, we need numbers that truly predict performance.

Why do I bring this up now? Well, because I’ve run my first projections using 2012 NCAA FBS data. This model is still in its “toddler” phase, so I’m not ready to start throwing out names just yet. I have days upon days of work to do before I’m solid on the numbers. That being said, I don’t anticipate the numbers changing outlandishly.

Prepare yourself. Some tremendous quarterback busts are coming.

page 1 of 1
Welcome , today is Sunday, November 19, 2017