As the NFL draft has evolved from a behind-closed-doors meeting at the Philadelphia Ritz-Carlton Hotel in 1936 to the made-for-TV, three-day extravaganza it is today, teams have consistently attempted to select the best player for their needs, accounting for both his talent and his positional value. Over time, the consensus of which position is most important has shifted heavily toward quarterbacks because modern statistical analysis has shown that quarterbacks have by far the largest impact on team wins and losses.
Before 2006, evaluating quarterback prospects was mainly limited to game film, combine performance and miscellaneous events such as pre-draft interviews. But by finding that college completion percentage and games started were predictors of NFL success, David Lewin changed that paradigm with the LCF (Lewin Career Forecast). In 2011, Aaron Schatz released the LCF v2.0, and in 2015, Andrew Healy took quarterback projections to the next level with QBASE (Quarterback-Adjusted Stats and Experience). QBASE established a new way to evaluate a quarterback's college statistics by adjusting them for the quality of his teammates and opponents. For instance, elite pass-catchers can artificially inflate his numbers, but facing SEC defenses can deflate them.
Jeremy Rosen and Alexandre Olbrecht built a separate model in 2018 that was the first to quantify the value of functionally mobile quarterbacks. Since then, Football Outsiders has run both models separately, but now in 2021, we are unveiling QBASE v2.0, which merges QBASE with the functional mobility model, combining the best ingredients of both.
Like QBASE, QBASE v2.0 generates projections for the 2021 class and runs 50,000 simulations to calculate a range of possible outcomes. Generally, "Bust" is a backup or out of the league, "Adequate Starter" is a starter but not a franchise quarterback, "Upper Tier" is a franchise quarterback and "Elite" is Hall of Fame-worthy. Also like QBASE, QBASE v2.0 shows that no projection is a certainty: Every quarterback has a chance to become elite, and even Trevor Lawrence has a 25.4% chance of becoming a bust.
The projections are of NFL total defense-adjusted yards above replacement per attempt (TDYAR/A); TDYAR/A is a rate statistic that measures both passing and rushing performance. Interpreting TDYAR/A is straightforward: 0 is replacement level, and anything over 1.5 is elite. Finally, to project each quarterback's draft position, which is part of the model, we use Scouts Inc.'s 2021 Player Rankings. For more on the methodology at work, click here to jump to the end of the article.
Skip ahead to a QB:
Lawrence | Wilson | Lance
Fields | Jones | Trask
Mond | Newman
Mean projection: 0.73 TDYAR/A
Bust ( 0 TDYAR/A): 25.4%
Adequate starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A): 25.5%
Upper tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A): 24.9%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A): 24.2%
Lawrence is widely seen as a generational prospect, on par with such quarterbacks as John Elway, Peyton Manning and Andrew Luck. QBASE v2.0 says that while there's no guarantee Lawrence will live up to the hype, if anyone deserves it, he's the one. While he had quality receivers at Clemson, such as Amari Rodgers and Cornell Powell, he put up elite numbers three years in a row, and he possesses accuracy, mobility, and the ability to make high-level throws. The Jacksonville Jaguars picked the right year to go 1-15.
Mean projection: 0.60 TDYAR/A
Bust ( 0 TDYAR/A): 29.0%
Adequate starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A): 26.6%
Upper tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A): 24.3%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A): 20.2%
Because of Wilson's status as a one-year wonder, there are doubts about how reflective 2020 was of his true ability. And it doesn't help that 2020 comes with questions about BYU's weak, cobbled-together schedule as a result of the pandemic. However, even with the one-year-wonder penalty (which isn't too harsh because Philip Rivers, Ben Roethlisberger and Russell Wilson were also one-year wonders), Wilson earns a high projection. Aside from carrying BYU to an 11-1 record, he completed 73.5% of his passes while regularly completing high-level throws and putting up solid rushing numbers. Moreover, if he is taken second overall, as many expect, his projection improves from 0.60 to neck and neck with Lawrence's at 0.72. Having said that, in addition to his one-year wonder and schedule concerns, which we have accounted for, he also has durability concerns that are harder to quantify but are still worth taking into consideration.
Mean projection: 0.18 TDYAR/A
Bust ( 0 TDYAR/A): 43.4%
Adequate starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A): 26.3%
Upper tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A): 18.6%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A): 11.7%
Lance put together one of the most statistically impressive seasons ever in 2019, rushing for a Lamar Jackson-esque 6.5 yards per attempt and throwing zero interceptions. Even though he played for an FCS school, had he duplicated that performance in 2020, he might well have been in the running for No. 1 pick. However, due to the pandemic, his season was canceled, making him a one-year starter a year removed from competitive football, aside from one game in fall 2020 against Central Arkansas. As a result, even though his potential remains sky high, QBASE v2.0 can't put him in the top tier. Still, if the San Francisco 49ers traded up to No. 3 to draft him, then his projection will jump all the way up to 0.44.
Mean projection: 0.26 TDYAR/A
Bust ( 0 TDYAR/A): 40.8%
Adequate starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A): 26.8%
Upper tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A): 19.8%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A): 12.5%
Fields' grade might be closer to Lance's than to Wilson's, but that's more a testament to the strength of this class than anything wrong with Fields. In 2020, he had a 70.2% completion percentage and ran for more yards per attempt than anyone on the list except Lance. Despite that, his numbers weren't as impressive overall as Wilson's and, compared with Wilson and Lawrence, he had a lot of help from talented receivers in Chris Olave and Garrett Wilson and linemen in Wyatt Davis and Josh Myers. However, if Fields is the 49ers' pick at No. 3, then his projection will be 0.53, higher than Lance's but still not as high as Lawrence or Wilson's.
Mean projection: -0.14 TDYAR/A
Bust ( 0 TDYAR/A): 54.8%
Adequate starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A): 24.1%
Upper tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A): 13.9%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A): 7.1%
Unlike the four prospects above him, Jones is not mobile: He rushed for just 0.4 yards per attempt in 2020. However, his completion percentage was an eye-popping 77.4%, edging out Joe Burrow for the highest of any quarterback we have ever analyzed. Then again, Jones had a lot of help. In this year's draft alone, Scouts Inc. projects two of his receivers, DeVonta Smith and Jaylen Waddle, as top-11 picks. And next year, tackle Evan Neal could go that high as well. Couple that with Jones being a one- to two-year starter who also gets a partial one-year-wonder penalty for the difference between his 2019 and 2020 seasons and QBASE v2.0 sees him as a cut below the top four, albeit still with a decent chance of NFL success. That said, if he goes third to the 49ers, his projection will be 0.38, high but still lower than that of Lance or Fields if they went there.
Mean projection: -0.98 TDYAR/A
Bust ( 0 TDYAR/A): 80.9%
Adequate starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A): 13.0%
Upper tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A): 4.8%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A): 1.4%
Like Jones, Trask is a pocket passer who played on a loaded offense, led by elite tight end Kyle Pitts. And while his 68.9% completion rate was almost as high as Lawrence's, it wasn't Jonesian enough to make up for his other weaknesses. Throw in a lower projected draft position and a partial one-year wonder penalty and Trask earns a low grade. However, there is some consolation to Trask's status. NFL teams are more aware of the value of mobile quarterbacks, meaning a top-100 scouting grade for a pocket passer might have more weight than one for a quarterback who runs well. Therefore, if teams are now undervaluing pocket passers instead of the other way around, they might be undervaluing Trask too.
Mean projection: -0.66 TDYAR/A
Bust ( 0 TDYAR/A): 72.8%
Adequate starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A): 17.4%
Upper tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A): 7.3%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A): 2.5%
While many scouts view Trask more favorably than Mond, and Trask has the higher completion percentage of the two, QBASE v2.0 gives Mond the higher grade (as would original QBASE). First of all, he's more mobile than Trask; second, his team wasn't as stacked; and third, he was a four-year starter. Especially these days, there are plenty of successful NFL quarterbacks who weren't four-year starters, but sometimes having that extra experience can be helpful, as in the case of Justin Herbert last year.
Mean projection: -1.44 TDYAR/A
Bust ( 0 TDYAR/A): 90.1%
Adequate starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A): 7.2%
Upper tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A): 2.1%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A): 0.5%
Finally, Newman is an unusual case. He gets the seventh-lowest projection since 2004, and given he's a borderline one- to two-year starter with a 60.9% completion rate, this result isn't surprising. But under normal circumstances, one- to two-year starters with low completion percentages don't usually go in the top 100 picks, so they wouldn't be part of QBASE v2.0. However, due to the pandemic, Newman, who had just transferred from Wake Forest to Georgia, decided to skip 2020 and declare for the draft. If he had played instead, he would likely have either raised his completion percentage and earned a much higher grade or not raised it and not been in this model. As such, his projection might not fully reflect his ability.
1:15
Todd McShay breaks down the potential fit of quarterback Mac Jones with the 49ers.
Methodology
The main goal of QBASE v2.0 is to modernize QBASE to address the changing nature of the quarterback position, the most critical change being the rise of mobile quarterbacks, such as Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen and Kyler Murray. While there have been great mobile quarterbacks in the past, such as Steve Young and Randall Cunningham, the functional mobility model shows their expected success is much higher today. The underlying structure of QBASE remains intact: using adjusted college performance, adjusted college experience and projected draft position to predict the NFL performance of quarterback prospects drafted in the top 100 picks. However, we modify each of the three predictors as follows:
1. Adjusted college performance
QBASE generates adjusted college performance as a composite of three college statistics: completion percentage, adjusted passing yards per attempt and team passing efficiency from ESPN's (formerly Football Outsiders') SP+ ratings, all of which are compiled from the quarterback's last college season. Like QBASE, QBASE v2.0 combines three college statistics, but in contrast, we laser in on three of the most important traits for modern NFL quarterbacks: accuracy, mobility and high-level throws. Therefore, our statistics, again from the quarterback's last college season, are completion percentage (for accuracy), rushing yards per attempt (for mobility) and passing touchdowns per completion (for high-level throws).
For the last statistic, we define a high-level throw as one that's either deep or fit into a tight window. And touchdowns are a good proxy for high-level throws because outside the red zone, they're often deep balls, whereas inside the red zone, they're usually fit into tight windows. We tried passing yards per completion as an alternative measure, but touchdowns per completion fits the data better for any start date from 1997 to 2011. Moreover, while arm strength is very helpful for high-level throws, it isn't strictly necessary to successfully complete them. In theory, avoiding interceptions should be predictive too, but empirically, it isn't. We also omit SP+ ratings this year, as teams played few out-of-conference games in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. As such, 2020's SP+ ratings cannot properly control for strength of schedule.
But like QBASE, QBASE v2.0 adjusts its three statistics to account for each quarterback's teammates and opponents, which is necessary to make completion percentage and passing touchdowns per completion sufficiently predictive of NFL performance. (Unadjusted passing statistics' lack of predictive power is what led Rosen and Olbrecht to create the functional mobility model.) While QBASE adjusts the minimum performance across its three statistics, QBASE v2.0 adjusts a weighted average of its statistics, as quarterbacks such as Allen have used their elite mobility to make up for their weaker accuracy. Touchdowns per completion has a lower weight than completion percentage and rushing yards per attempt because arm strength is the least important of the traits. Also, touchdowns per completion is a relatively noisy measure of arm strength, as it cannot distinguish how deep the touchdowns were thrown.
To account for the quarterback's teammates, we tabulate the draft value of his pass-catchers and offensive linemen in the year he was drafted and the year after. (Including the draft value of his team's running backs and/or fullbacks doesn't work empirically.) On the other hand, to account for his opponents, we construct a binary variable indicating whether he played in a Power 5 conference; Group of 5, FCS and independent (except Notre Dame) quarterbacks are assigned a value of 0. Again, due to the pandemic, this year we cannot use QBASE's opponents variable, which was the average pass defense faced in a quarterback's last season, as measured by SP+ ratings. Ultimately, our adjusted college performance variable is the difference between each quarterback's weighted average of the three college statistics and the weighted average his teammates and opponents would predict for him.
2. Adjusted college experience
Over the years, QBASE has had multiple versions of its adjusted college experience variable. Generally, it takes the number of years started, with a minimum of 150 attempts, and adjusts that number in some way, from a log transform to omitting seasons with a completion percentage of under 55%. QBASE v2.0's adjustment is specially designed to account for a phenomenon affecting the past two draft classes: the one-year wonder (see the meteoric rises of Joe Burrow and Zach Wilson). Because adjusted college performance accounts for the quarterback's last season only, QBASE v2.0 without this adjustment would see both Wilson and Trevor Lawrence as approximately three-year starters with elite numbers in their last season. And if anything, Wilson's 2020 numbers were more impressive than Lawrence's. However, unlike Wilson, Lawrence put up elite numbers his entire college career, which makes him a less risky selection.
Therefore, we define a one-year wonder as any multiyear starter whose passer rating (rushing statistics are less affected by the one-year wonder phenomenon) in his last year is at least one standard deviation greater than that in any of his previous years started. Even though passer rating is probably a worse performance measure than its close cousin adjusted yards per attempt, we use it because it is more correlated with draft position than adjusted yards per attempt is, likely because NFL teams pay more attention to passer rating. The penalty for one-year wonders is simple: They lose a year started. However, we do smooth the thresholds for years started and for the one-year wonder penalty so that, for instance, we don't have a quarterback with 150 attempts who gets a year and one with 149 attempts who doesn't. As a result, Wilson is downgraded to a 1.82-year starter, whereas Lawrence remains a three-year starter. This adjustment makes empirical as well as theoretical sense, as it improves the model's fit to the data.
3. Projected draft position
Projected draft position is the simplest of the three predictors. In the training set, QBASE v2.0 uses the quarterback's actual draft position, transformed to increase slightly the discrepancy between picks closer to the top of the draft and decrease slightly that between picks closer to the bottom of the top 100 picks. For the 2021 class, we follow in QBASE's footsteps by using Scouts Inc. to project draft position.
This article at Football Outsiders features a list of the projections of all top-100 quarterbacks since 2004 using the new QBASE v2.0.
"how" - Google News
April 03, 2021 at 02:00PM
https://ift.tt/3un8dkq
2021 NFL draft QB projections: How good will Lawrence, Fields, Wilson be? - ESPN
"how" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2MfXd3I
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "2021 NFL draft QB projections: How good will Lawrence, Fields, Wilson be? - ESPN"
Post a Comment