FTM analysis of Cam

[Happy Panther]

I also find it telling that his formula contains some secret factors that he won't divulge for commercial reasons. There are ways for him to protect his work without secrecy, but this approach allows him to inject his bias at will.

That is what retro-testing is for.

He shows the 59 QBs he has rated so far and the ones above .85 are almost all good or great great and the ones below are almost all bad. It's not perfect but the correlation is obviously very positive...

http://www.fantasyfootballmetrics.com/Player_News/Content/QB_College-QB-Vers1.0_2-17-2011.htm

[nagai]

He is pretty harsh on all the QBs, however you need to read further.

In his methodology he clearly states that QBs with a score above .85 are likely solid NFL QBs. The formula says that Cam should be a great QB. And he admits that. His numbers are great, if not spectacular.

Then he does an opinion piece, less formulaic, saying that Cam may a QB that proves the formula wrong. And gives a bunch of good reasons. Vince young is hardly a terrible QB, but this guy obviously hates him

But he makes good points. Vince is the best QB in the past 5 years to be drafted with a wonderlic less than 24. If Cam newton does less than 24 on the wonderlic, why is he better than Vince? His stats are nearly identical.

If you want to summarize the article: Dumb running QBs with great passing ability aren't elite

Yeah I saw that, but why would he say that Cam may end up proving the formula wrong, rather than just be quietly optimistic with Cam? His gut and his heart is getting in the way, and this is something he doesn't like. He made this formula to make the process more concrete and logical. As I said, I like the formula itself, I just don't see why he has to make such an effort to against his formula.

[Happy Panther]

Yeah I saw that, but why would he say that Cam may end up proving the formula wrong, rather than just be quietly optimistic with Cam? His gut and his heart is getting in the way, and this is something he doesn't like. He made this formula to make the process more concrete and logical. As I said, I like the formula itself, I just don't see why he has to make such an effort to against his formula.

There are two parts to a good analysis. the raw data/formula and the interpretation.

If you don't like his interpretation that is fine. However he provides a pretty solid argument.