College QB stats, what does it mean for Panthers?

[FuzzyPanther]

J. Clausen: 289/425 for 3,722 (68%) and 8.8 ypa 28tds/4ints 161.43 passer rtg Rushing 59 for -95 yds 3 tds

A. Luck: 245/349 for 3,051 (70.2%) and 8.7 ypa 28tds/7ints 166.10 passer rtg Rushing 51 for 438 yds 3 tds

S. Bradford: 328/483 for 4,720 (67.9%) and 9.8 ypa 50tds/8ints 180.84 passer rtg Rushing 42 for 47 yds 5 tds

C. Newton: 165/246 for 2,589 (67.1%) and 10.5 ypa 28tds/6ints 188.16 passer rtg Rushing 242 for 1409 yds 20 tds

Ok, so I decided to pull some stats on QB's and see if there's anything I can come up with by looking at known QB's who have already left and began their rookie season in the NFL, and comparing with some QB's who are projected to come out this season. Now, for the purposes of pulling comparable stats, these are not all from the same year, but I tried to pull the very last season that the QB completed or nearly completed in college. I ended up with more questions than answers, so I was hoping some of the more knowledgeable offensive/QB minds can point me in the right direction.

Well, the first two are Clausen and Luck, and those are the two I really want to hit on, because we've all had a good look at Clausen's performance at the NFL level, and it's been widely speculated that the Carolina Panthers will select Luck if he is available to draft. Here's what I find interesting by looking at many of the stats between Luck and Clausen: they are pretty darn close! Clausen threw for about 700 more yards in his final college season, but he lost 95 yards rushing (presumably being sacked). Luck makes up about 500 of those yards rushing. Both QB's had 31 td's, 28 passing and 3 rushing, making scoring between them identical. Just looking at the stats, Luck looks like a more mobile Clausen, and not much more. If college production is this close, what indicators are there that Luck will greatly out-produce Clausen at the next level?

Now, when I look at Bradford, whom many feel has had a successful rookie season, the number that really pops is td's. He's got 50 passing and another 5 on the ground. He's also got an extra 1,000 total yards (30%+ increase) over Luck or Clausen. Is the total td's and yardage an important indicator of NFL performance? If so, Newton has about 4,000 total yards and 48 td's. Also, Newton had the exact same number of passing td's as Clausen and Luck, but tacked on an additional 20 by running the ball, and ran for almost 1,000 yds more than any of the other QB's we looked at. What does this tell us?

To further confuse things, here's Peyton Manning's final year in college:

P. Manning 287/477 for 3,819 (60.2%) and 8.0 ypa 36tds/11ints 147.7 passer rtg Rushing 49 for -30 yds 3 tds

In many ways, Manning looks like the worst of the bunch (particularly the int's).

I know it's not all about stats, but since I don't have access to film, nor the time to examine it, or probably the slightest knowledge of what I should be looking for, this was the closest I could come up with for discussion.

What say you?

(stats were pulled from ESPN)

[Cyberjag]

With proper coaching, there's really no way that Clausen shouldn't succeed at this level. But there's more than college stats at play, there's the combine and the wonderlic.

Case in point--compare The Golden Calf of Bristol's stats to all of the above. He buries them, and he did it against SEC competition.

[Stroupe-a-loop]

I really can't tell you anything at all from raw college stats. However, I think Parcells had some formula that included completion percentage and total starts made in college as being two of the most important stats to look at for a prospect, if that helps at all.

[panthers55]

Stats don't tell you very basic things such as the quarterback's height and weight, arm strength, ability to read defenses and a number of skills necessary for a college quarterback to make the transition to the pro game. So to compare numbers out of conteaxt makes little sense unless you are predicting who would play best in college.

Look at Clausen and Luck. Clausen is 6' 3" and Luck is 6'4" but Jimmy's ball comes out low and sidearm- easily blocked - while Lucks' comes out much higher. Clausen is very slow releasing the ball while Luck supposedly has a very quick release. Clausen has difficulty stepping up in the pocket or hanging in there long enough for receivers to come clear. Luck is praised for good pocket awareness and being athletic enough to buy time in the pocket. And the list goes on and on.

All issues that impact a quarterback's likely success in the pros but things not reflected in a simple comparison of stats.

[Zod]

anyone wanna know my stats?

[The Saltman]

a/s/l/?

[Carl Spackler]

They mean somewhere between everything and nothing. Because AE had great college stats. And he's a practice squad WR.

[The Saltman]

there is a difference between good stats in FBS and good stats in FCS

[Urrymonster]

Look at Clausen and Luck. Clausen is 6' 3" and Luck is 6'4" but Jimmy's ball comes out low and sidearm- easily blocked - while Lucks' comes out much higher. Clausen is very slow releasing the ball while Luck supposedly has a very quick release. Clausen has difficulty stepping up in the pocket or hanging in there long enough for receivers to come clear. Luck is praised for good pocket awareness and being athletic enough to buy time in the pocket. And the list goes on and on.

All issues that impact a quarterback's likely success in the pros but things not reflected in a simple comparison of stats.

Clausen was tauted as having a quick release in his analysis. Only when he goes to put real zip on it does he need to wind up.

He also was considered to have decent pocket awareness, but not from the backside. He had a sieve as an OLine at ND so he was constantly forced to be moving around. Luck has had ridiculous protection at times this season. Yes he is more mobile, that is obvious, but to think that he can replicate that mobility behind any line is just impossible to be certain on.

[Carl Spackler]

there is a difference between good stats in FBS and good stats in FCS

Nope. None at all. Startmanti.

[Cyberjag]

I really can't tell you anything at all from raw college stats. However, I think Parcells had some formula that included completion percentage and total starts made in college as being two of the most important stats to look at for a prospect, if that helps at all.

Again, both Clausen and The Golden Calf of Bristol excelled at those two measures. They're indicators, but not conclusive.

Stats don't tell you very basic things such as the quarterback's height and weight, arm strength, ability to read defenses and a number of skills necessary for a college quarterback to make the transition to the pro game. So to compare numbers out of conteaxt makes little sense unless you are predicting who would play best in college.

Look at Clausen and Luck. Clausen is 6' 3" and Luck is 6'4" but Jimmy's ball comes out low and sidearm- easily blocked - while Lucks' comes out much higher. Clausen is very slow releasing the ball while Luck supposedly has a very quick release. Clausen has difficulty stepping up in the pocket or hanging in there long enough for receivers to come clear. Luck is praised for good pocket awareness and being athletic enough to buy time in the pocket. And the list goes on and on.

All issues that impact a quarterback's likely success in the pros but things not reflected in a simple comparison of stats.

An ineffective release can be changed through good coaching and practice. I think the real difference that separates QBs is part intelligence, part commitment. If Luck is just plain smarter, and they're equally committed, then he's going to be more successful. That's why the wonderlic is important. To a lesser extent, leadership and attitude come into play. I say lesser, because if you're winning people will overlook arrogance.

[panthers55]

Again, both Clausen and The Golden Calf of Bristol excelled at those two measures. They're indicators, but not conclusive.

An ineffective release can be changed through good coaching and practice. I think the real difference that separates QBs is part intelligence, part commitment. If Luck is just plain smarter, and they're equally committed, then he's going to be more successful. That's why the wonderlic is important. To a lesser extent, leadership and attitude come into play. I say lesser, because if you're winning people will overlook arrogance.

Releases can be relearned as can poor mechanics. But the root cause for Clausen's struggles are a poor awareness of the defenses, poor understanding of our offense and how to adapt to compensate by calling audibles, and poor accuracy. Those things are somewhat mental as well as physical.

Luck is likely smarter but it also comes down to how quickly he processes information and can sift through the possibilities. Something Clausen hasn't show much of lately.

I wish instead of a wonderlic they would test for speed of mental process and analytical thinking ability which seems much more in demand with a quarterback than at some other positions.

[theDIRTYcode]

2 important things I've learned trying to evaluate college QBs(and I'm not a GM by any means). Playing experience, and who did MORE with LESS. Meaning a QB that puts up great numbers with no other NFL players around him is far more likely to succeed than a QB playing with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounders.

[panthers55]

2 important things I've learned trying to evaluate college QBs(and I'm not a GM by any means). Playing experience, and who did MORE with LESS. Meaning a QB that puts up great numbers with no other NFL players around him is far more likely to succeed than a QB playing with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd rounders.

So in your scenario a guy like Newton will be more successful than Luck who has better players around him and a much better ground game. Right?

So would a guy like Clausen be discounted since he has Golden Tate to throw to.

And would a guy like Edwards then be the best of all since he won three national titles with guys who weren't even drafted??

I think you must be oversimplifying this a little, LOL.