Jump to content

Football Outsiders QBASE: The most effective predictive tool for QB's?


Jetsfan80

Recommended Posts

33 minutes ago, Jetsfan80 said:

That doesn't play out in the actual results/picks.  If it did, Mahomes would have been taken over Trubisky, Lamar Jackson would have been the 2nd QB off the board in 2018, and no one would have invested high picks in the likes of Ryan Leaf, Sanchez, Josh Freeman, J.P. Losman, Jake Locker, or Rex Grossman.  Listening to this model would have steered teams away from those guys.  

If your argument is consensus is basically = to QBASE, that's dead wrong.

Is consensus the results of the draft or predraft rankings?  It seems like you're using results but what you're not doing in these examples are looking at the individual draft.

For example:

Stafford was clearly the better prospect and as such, was taken ahead of Sanchez/Freeman.  Same for; Manning/Leaf. Newton/Locker.   3 QB's were taken ahead of JP Losman and they're probably all going to the HOF.   3 QB's were taken ahead of Rex Grossman (Palmer/Leftwhich/Boller).  

In regards to Trubisky/Watson/Mahomes - while they got it "right" per say, they didnt.  Based on their ratings they didnt think Watson/Mahomes were 1st round worthy but the league rightfully disagreed. 

In regards to Jackson; Mayfield went #1 overall.  The league still took Jackson in the 1st against their projections of him as a prospect.  League still rightfully took Allen.  

So again, I dont see anything special here but maybe I dont understand what you're comparing this to.

  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, MARTIN said:

Its funny how there are so many analytics and metrics to determine if a qb is good or not... bc it doesn't feel like it matters at all. 

It's the hardest position in pro sports to evaluate and predict.  And yet no position in pro sports is more important.  So of course people are always going to try to get an "edge".  QBASE just does better than most with its model, so its a useful tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jetsfan80 said:

Again.  Find me a scout or front office that nails their evaluations of QB prospects 50+ % of the time, and can sniff out an eventual bust 75+ % of the time.

QBASE would have steered us away from Mark Sanchez (-184), Bryce Petty (-292) and Christian Hackenberg (-414), and absolutely pushed the Jets to draft Russell Wilson (1561) in 2012.  It also would have told us Pat Mahomes (656) would be the best QB in the 2017 class, and worth taking at 6th overall.  It also would have also told the Jets to draft Lamar Jackson (656) over Sam Darnold (412) in 2018.

But yeah, numbers are stupid and stuff.  I, and others, will be using QBASE on this board plenty of times going forward.  You're just going to have to deal with it.

I sh*t on QBASE

  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Jetsfan80 said:

You're right, math is gay.  You FEEL the Jets and Darnold are good, and have no idea why people would think otherwise.

DYAR is not strict math there is a ton of judgement involved as well as the defensive rankings they use too. It is a circular stat not a straight statistic/

  • Sympathy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
On 9/19/2020 at 10:17 AM, MARTIN said:

Its funny how there are so many analytics and metrics to determine if a qb is good or not... bc it doesn't feel like it matters at all. 

This.

But we'll be firing up QBASE again around here soon enough.  Can't wait to see where Lawrence, Fields and Wilson shake out.

Thus far, QBASE seems to have been pretty good on Burrow and Herbert being better than Tua, but again, it's early.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jetsfan4life90 said:

@Jetsfan80, let's see what QBASE has to say about Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, Lance, etc !

Their main criteria is experience as far as I know. Nearly all of their top prospects had 4 years experience. Covid has probably hurt them all to some extent but Lance especially.

Lawrence is going to be an excellent prospect for them IMO. 3 full years with great production and success. 

The others I think will be mediocre at best with Lance essentially being considered a sure fire bust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Jetsfan4life90 said:

@Jetsfan80, let's see what QBASE has to say about Lawrence, Fields, Wilson, Lance, etc !

I'm certainly interested to see what their data says.  Lawrence will get a very good score, if only because of having so many starts under his belt and putting up good numbers.  Fields' score will be a bit less predictable.

  • Upvote 1
  • Post of the Week 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Here is Zach Wilson's write up and scores. To be optimistic, there is a 70% chance that he will at least be an adequate starter in the league.

2. Zach Wilson, BYU (5)

Mean Projection in Years 3-5 0.60 TDYAR/A
Bust (< 0.0 TDYAR/A) 29.0%
Adequate Starter (0.0 to 0.75 TDYAR/A) 26.6%
Upper Tier (0.75 to 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 showing off his arm strength and putting up solid rushing numbers. Moreover, if he is taken second overall as many expect, his projection will be neck-and-neck with Lawrence's at 0.72. Having said that, in addition to one-year wonder and schedule concerns, which we have accounted for, there are also durability concerns with Wilson that are harder to quantify but are still worth taking into consideration.

 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Grandy said:

Wow these Qbase grades are much higher than normal.

Gives a ringing endorsement of Wilson though. On the Fields end its a bit lower, but compared to how their model usually works it's pretty good.

I dunno, there have been talks of everyone underestimating the strength of this class for quite some time. The numbers show it's not just a matter of hype, but who knows. It sure does seem like the wacky schedule from the pandemic combined with all of the attention put on Lawrence blinded everyone to it. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, RutgersJetFan said:

I've always interpreted their Bust category to be the most important/accurate probability. Given the margin of error that is a pretty huge difference between Lawrence/Wilson and the rest of the pack. 

Worth noting that those numbers are not horrible for Fields, Wilson's are just that good, and it does help illustrate how much stronger of a prospect Wilson is. He's quite a bit closer to Lawrence than he is Fields. 

EEDFCC1B-D7DF-4927-AC0F-4C2B16E2914D.jpeg.417316f39626c164e7b772f704b39c92.jpeg
For reference. 

  • Upvote 2
  • Sympathy 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

Moreover, if he is taken second overall as many expect, his projection will be neck-and-neck with Lawrence's at 0.72.

So Let me get this straight. 

Lawrence is projected at .73. Wilson at .72. Nearly Identical. 

Qbase is prediction Lawrence and Wilson as the 9th and 10th best QB's to come out since 2004 ?

Kinda shocked Wilson is so close to Lawrence. Also I am shocked Mariota is stuck on the bench somewhere so young. Would love to have him here with Wilson or Fields this year. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, CanadienJetsFan said:

I can be accurate half the time too. Want sign up for a monthly subscription?

Not on QB's you can't.  No one can without good data.  No GM, scout, analyst, fan, prognosticator, QB coach or former QB can get it right on QB's at a 50 % rate without good data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jetstream23 said:

Yeah, kind of a toss up as to whether Josh Rosen or Patrick Mahomes will be better.

Awkward Season 4 GIF by The Office

 

Almost no one here thought Rosen would bust.  Many here thought Mahomes would bust.  

QBASE having Mahomes with a higher score than Rosen is the applicable point to be made here.  

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...