An Even More Accurate System Of Grading College QB

**Marrdro** · 03-08-2011, 12:39 PM

Thus far, Mr. Fischer has run four of this year's top quarterback prospects through these metrics, and here's what he's come up with thus far:

Blaine Gabbert - Score of .559, which would put him right between Brady Quinn and John David Booty on the chart.

Jake Locker - Score of .262, approximately the same score as Tim Tebow and Dan LeFevour

Ryan Mallett - Score of .738, which would put him right in between Ryan Leaf and Matt Ryan (could there be a bigger contrast there?)

And then there's the guy that, if these metrics are to be believed, might be the best quarterback in the draft class of 2011. Not Cam Newton. . .not Colin Kaepernick. . .not Christian Ponder. . .remember, I said you should probably be sitting down for this. . .

How's about Ricky Stanzi?

Yes, Ricky freaking Stanzi.

By Mr. Fischer's metrics, Stanzi clocks in at a 1.012. That gives him a higher score than Mark Sanchez, Aaron Rodgers, Philip Rivers, Drew Brees, Matt Schaub, and Joe Flacco. Stanzi had a pretty good senior year at Iowa. . .64.1% completion rate, 3,004 yards, and an outstanding TD-to-INT ratio of 25/6. So far, everything I've heard about Stanzi tabs him as a third or fourth round prospect.

If Mr. Fischer's metrics are as accurate as they appear to be, the Vikings would be well-served to grab him a whole lot sooner than that.

An Even More Accurate System Of Grading College Quarterbacks?

**i_bleed_purple** · 03-08-2011, 05:51 PM

Considering the post contradicts the accuracy it claims, I'd be inclined to not believe any of it.

Right between Ryan Leaf and Matt Ryan? Wow that's accurate stuff there.

**Marrdro** · 03-08-2011, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1091006

Considering the post contradicts the accuracy it claims, I'd be inclined to not believe any of it.

Right between Ryan Leaf and Matt Ryan? Wow that's accurate stuff there.

Did you read the article or are you making assumptions again.

**Mr Anderson** · 03-08-2011, 06:18 PM

This is really interesting. So much for working this afternoon. I'll be reading this guy's stuff for a while.

Thanks, Marty.

**Purple Floyd** · 03-08-2011, 07:42 PM

So maybe I was right that we should have taken Pike last year.:woohoo:

**i_bleed_purple** · 03-08-2011, 08:03 PM

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1091010

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1091006

Considering the post contradicts the accuracy it claims, I'd be inclined to not believe any of it.

Right between Ryan Leaf and Matt Ryan? Wow that's accurate stuff there.

Did you read the article or are you making assumptions again.

Yes I did. Fact remains, that it's still an entirely subjective way of grading players. It's a good reference, but not a way to make decisions. For example, I would not rule out a guy who scored lower than .850, but then again, I wouldn't go out of my way to get a guy with a higher score who I didn't feel would make a good fit.

**midgensa** · 03-08-2011, 08:39 PM

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1091027

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1091010

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1091006

Considering the post contradicts the accuracy it claims, I'd be inclined to not believe any of it.

Right between Ryan Leaf and Matt Ryan? Wow that's accurate stuff there.

Did you read the article or are you making assumptions again.

Yes I did. Fact remains, that it's still an entirely subjective way of grading players. It's a good reference, but not a way to make decisions. For example, I would not rule out a guy who scored lower than .850, but then again, I wouldn't go out of my way to get a guy with a higher score who I didn't feel would make a good fit.

You're dead on ... it is just another rating system.

It clearly is not any more accurate than others considering it has a fairly similar amount of hit and misses at the top of the charts and lucky hits at the bottom of the charts.

**Marrdro** · 03-09-2011, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by "Mr Anderson" #1091013

This is really interesting. So much for working this afternoon. I'll be reading this guy's stuff for a while.

Thanks, Marty.

No worries my friend. I know alot of people think I over do stuff on here but can you imagine what this guy is like?

Yowzzzzaaaahhhhh.

**Marrdro** · 03-09-2011, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by "Purple Floyd" #1091019

So maybe I was right that we should have taken Pike last year.:woohoo:

I think, atleast for me, the biggest knock on Pike was the plate in his arm and that he had to keep having it re-tightened a couple of times.

**Marrdro** · 03-09-2011, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1091027

Originally Posted by "Marrdro" #1091010

Originally Posted by "i_bleed_purple" #1091006

Considering the post contradicts the accuracy it claims, I'd be inclined to not believe any of it.

Right between Ryan Leaf and Matt Ryan? Wow that's accurate stuff there.

Did you read the article or are you making assumptions again.

Yes I did. Fact remains, that it's still an entirely subjective way of grading players. It's a good reference, but not a way to make decisions. For example, I would not rule out a guy who scored lower than .850, but then again, I wouldn't go out of my way to get a guy with a higher score who I didn't feel would make a good fit.

Sure its subjective, everything is subjective, but what is great about it is how accurate he has been with his subjective process.

In short, his misses vs pro staff misses are significantly different.