*An on-going series of
putting college QBs in our mathematical
analysis. We don’t have all the needed data
on some QBs until more of the 2011 NFL Combine results
leak out. See this link for details
on the College QB mathematical formula/rating system:
Predicting
the Unpredictable…Projecting a College QB to the
NFL with a Mathematical Formula
The road
to Ricky Stanzi becoming a possible 2011 1st
Round NFL pick just took a huge step
forward....
I have it from a very reliable source that
Ricky Stanzi has scored a 30 on his Wonderlic
test at the NFL Combine, which is above the
critical levels on the Wonderlic test for a
College QB. Stanzi scored above the level that
most NFL GM's and NFL "War Rooms" consider a key
piece of positive background/scouting
information for a prospective NFL QB.
Our statistical analysis/algorithm of the
2011 College QBs rated Ricky Stanzi as
the #1 overall QB for this year's NFL
Draft (it was a surprise to us too). That
lofty/shocking rating for Stanzi was on a data
assumption that he would score above our systems
critical level of 25 or higher on the Wonderlic.
We can confirm with very high confidence that he
has surpassed that hurdle with flying colors.
*See the original Stanzi research report here
--
NFL Draft Picks 2011 - Ricky Stanzi the Best QB
in the 2011 NFL Draft? - Fantasy Football 2011
People have found it shocking to say that
Ricky Stanzi could be the #1 QB in the 2011 NFL
Draft, which I understand. Honestly, I barely
knew who Ricky Stanzi was before the computer
spit this rating out a few weeks back. After triple checking the
data, I wondered "why aren't more people talking
about Stanzi?" He has the size, the statistics,
the arm. Outside of the quantifiable/measureable
data, in my extra research Stanzi had the
character, leadership, winning percentage,
pro-style offense background, and lack of major
injury issues as well (can't really quantify all
those). All the things people jump up and down
and say that they look for in a QB and it is
sitting right in front of our eyes and many are
missing it because Todd McShay (just
pulled a name, no offense...insert Kiper or
Mayock if you want to) hasn't turned on to it
yet. That's not a rap on McShay (or others),
it's a rap on us as collective fans.
Our mathematical system has rated Stanzi #1;
and perhaps you think that analysis is crazy.
However, my main thrust of this debate is -- at
minimum Stanzi should at least enter the 2011
QB draft debate/discussions with the "Big-4"
(Gabbert, Newton, Locker, Mallett). The "Big-4"
QBs have obvious flaws, we're not talking four
rock solid Andrew Luck-types to talk
about (had Luck come out, our system would have
him #1 of all QBs we have ever studied). There
are serious questions marks on the "Big-4" that
would make me nervous before I would crank out a
7 figure check on any of them...yet the
mainstream sports media is stuck on the "Big-4"
QBs with barely a whisper of Stanzi or Andy
Dalton, or Pat Devlin for that matter. It's
likely to change, it almost always does as we
move closer to the actual Draft day.
Most all of the 2011 College QBs we looked at
had at least one item "out of bounds" compared
to the more future elite NFL QBs in our system,
that's not to say one bad mark is doom. The odd
thing (for me) was in
our assessments only one 2011 QB did
not have a problem data point; and that was
Ricky Stanzi.
Stanzi joined a rather exclusive QB list that
includes only 14 other QBs of all the ones we
have studied (based on advanced passing metrics,
strength of competition played, key physical
"measureables" and NFL Combine data).
These 14 College QB's were ones that had no statistical or physical "red-flag" measurements
in any category of our research that we felt were key
in projecting them to the NFL based on all of
our data history. When you see our
list of the 14 QB's names, it will help put Stanzi's
high rating for us in context. Here is a clip from our
original research report:
The 14 NFL QBs with no
red-flags of 60+ studied in the last decade (and
a few outside of the last decade) *in
alphabetical order:
-
Bradford, Sam
-
Brady, Tom
-
Elway, John (sketchy,
we have yet to be able fully break him down
due to some missing data...but of what we
have, he has none)
-
Flacco, Joe
-
Kolb, Kevin
-
Leftwich, Byron
-
Luck, Andrew
-
Manning, Peyton
-
Palmer, Carson
-
Pike, Tony (may not
belong here, we have a sketchy Wonderlic
data point we have assumed neutral until we
know...but if bad, he would fall off list)
-
Pennington, Chad
-
Rodgers, Aaron
-
Roethlisberger, Ben
-
Sanchez, Mark
14 QBs with no red-flags.
Take away Andrew Luck because he is not
even draft eligible. Take away John Elway
and Tony Pike, because of some possible
data question marks on our end and we have 11
QB's who have played in the NFL -- with 9 of the
11 (82%) as good, great and good/potentially
great on this list. The 2 misses in our system
so far are (1) Byron Leftwich is
not elite, maybe not even good. (2) Kevin
Kolb is incomplete (however, I think he will
ultimately be star of this magnitude...those of
you that have been with the site awhile know my
Kolb love affair). If Kolb hits, then our NO
red-flag indicator for future success would be
up to a 91% accuracy of predicting NFL
good/greatness.
=========
We designed the system to predict QB greatness
or "bust" certainty, we found something that was
pushing us past a 70% success rate when looking
back on history. If our system has some
validity, Ricky Stanzi might shock the world
in a few years (as long as he is not drafted by
Oakland). Stanzi might also shock you come Draft
day with how high he is taken, comparative to
his status today. Stanzi's score of 30 on the
Wonderlic is a main piece of the puzzle for
NFL executives to begin to rate him even higher.
Quick Wonderlic Recent History
In our mathematical analysis of the
historical data -- 25 and above is the key mark
on a Wonderlic for a College QB, for other
theorists a 26 or higher is the key. Scoring high
on the Wonderlic does not statistically
correlate or equate to certain future QB
success....it's just that the opposite is very
true, a low Wonderlic has much correlation to
QBs who are likely to "bust" over the past decade
of test scores. The last 10 Super Bowl winning
teams have all been quarterbacked by a QB with a
Wonderlic of 25 or greater (2002-03 Brad
Johnson, TB = score unknown). In the last 10
Super Bowls, the 20 teams involved...only 1 was
led by a QB (Donovan McNabb) that scored below a
25 on his Wonderlic (Kurt Warner, Jake
Delhomme unknown scores)
The best performing NFL QB to have taken the
Wonderlic in the past decade and
scored below a 25
(reportedly) would be Michael Vick, who has been
mostly a horrible passing QB until his now 8th
NFL season in 2010 (missed 2 seasons, you know
why). Before 2010, Michael Vick:
- had never achieved greater than a 56.4%
Completion Percentage as an NFL QB
- had never had a 3,000+ yard passing
season
- had a career passer rating under 80.0
- a career total of 72 TDs and 52 INTs
After Vick on the low Wonderlic scorers QB
group in the last decade of testing (reported)
results -- the best actual NFL performing QBs
would likely be (in my subjective order)
Jason Campbell, Vince Young and then
David Carr. Not good...
Great/good NFL QBs in years gone by (more
than a decade ago) have scored very low on the
Wonderlic -- Dan Marino, Jim Kelly, Brett
Favre, Donovan McNabb as some
examples. My theory is (debatable) that back
10-20+ years ago the whole draft process was not
as scrutinized; now it is a highly televised
event. Everything, including the Wonderlic test
results has gone from something "kinda"
important 10-20+ years ago and something that
could be blown off by many elite college
QBs...current day, the Wonderlic test
results can mean millions of dollars lost with a
bad score. Prospective QBs now go to specialists
to help improve Wonderlic scoring and take
practice tests multiple times. Some may think
the Wonderlic scoring is irrelevant, but College
QBs with NFL dreams and NFL GMs do not, I can
assure you.
How Stanzi Stacks Up in
Other Notorious QB-Predictor Models...?
Besides confirming our original analysis on
Stanzi, there is another high profile College QB
theory that the Stanzi Wonderlic score of 30 now
confirms:
The "26-27-60" College
QB theory?
Stanzi =
Passed
-
26 or greater scored on
the Wonderlic =
PASS
(Stanzi at 30)
-
27 games started in
college =
PASS
(Stanzi started 35 games according to
Hawkeyesports.com)
-
60% or greater
completion percentage
PASS = (Stanzi finished his career
at 59.8%, I would be comfortable giving him
a passing grade there)
Bill Parcells would like Ricky Stanzi as
well...
The
Bill Parcells College QB Litmus Test?
Stanzi =
Passed
-
Be a minimum 3 year
starter =
PASS (after sharing time for the
first 4 games, Stanzi wrestled the full
starting job away from Jake Christensen the
rest of his Sophomore season)
-
Has at least 23 wins in
his career =
PASS (a 26-9 overall
career record for a 74.2% winning
percentage, according to Hawkeyesports.com)
-
Plays his senior season
=
PASS (played/started from his
Sophomore to Senior Season, including
winning all 3 of his Bowl Game appearances)
-
College Graduate
=
PASS (Completed Degree in December
2010)
What
2011 QB's can pass both "26-27-60 Test" and the
Parcells litmus test?
We don't know all the QB
Wonderlic scores yet. We can only confirm that
Greg McElroy, Blaine Gabbert, and
Ricky Stanzi have passed the key levels so
far. The information we all have access to on
the real stats/data and the public background
info so far, I
believe there are only 5 QBs that can still pass
BOTH the aforementioned tests (someone
correct me if I'm missing anyone):
-
Ricky Stanzi, Iowa (PASSED)
-
Andy Dalton, TCU
(Wonderlic unknown still)
-
Greg McElroy, Alabama (PASSED)
-
TJ Yates, UNC
(Wonderlic unknown still, don't sleep on
this name either...)
-
Christian Ponder, FSU
(Wonderlic unknown still)
The only QB's of the 5
listed above that are over 6'3 in height/are
more prototypical physically for an NFL QB are =
Stanzi and Yates.
Those QBs not making one
or the other of the 26-27-60 or Parcells theory:
-
Newton, Mallett
did not play as seniors, among other misses
-
Locker, Kaepernick
can't pass the 60% Comp Pct rule, among
other misses
-
Devlin, Tolzien,
Potts were not 3 years starters, among
other misses
Nostradamus:
Here is the way I see this
playing out from here:
None of the major sports
media outlets have been discussing Stanzi with
the upper 2011 College QB draft group as of yet.
Over a week ago, we published our original
research article with the thesis that Stanzi is
the best rated QB in the 2011 NFL Draft -- and
it was received exactly as we had hoped, a
discussion of Stanzi as a potential upper tier
2011 Draft QB had started. Not a blind
acceptance of our thesis, just an "eye-opening"
leading to consideration. It has already started
in the past couple days, the first whispers of
"watch out for Stanzi", or "Stanzi may be one to
watch" have begun to pop up in certain circles
and media outlets. A first toe dipped in the
pool is a beginning. I think the "cannonball"
jump into the pool is coming. NFL teams are
smart; they have research departments and crunch
numbers too.
(My opinion) The
historically smarter teams (NE, PHI, SD, etc)
don't want any "Stanzi hype" to "gain legs".
It's good business to hold a poker face in the
NFL Draft game. Stanzi could be the heir
apparent to Tom Brady in a few years for
the "smart" Patriots organization.
Stanzi selected by the Eagles could make a
Kevin Kolb quickly tradable the same day.
The "smarter" teams are, well...smart -- they
don't want to use a 1st Round pick on what they
want if they can get it in the 2nd or 3rd Round.
The "smarter teams" love it when anyone drinks
the kool-aid on things like "didn't throw well
at the Combine" nonsense. How much tape do you
need of a QB who played successfully for 3
seasons in the Big-10 to determine if he can
"throw"? Several throws in gym shorts and an
off-hand comment is now gospel over reams of
game film? Many of the 2011 QBs got caught up in
this over-analysis. It's silly when you have
that much game film on a player, to over analyze
the NFL Combine...but that's just what many do,
year in and year out. The "smart" teams love
this to happen; and likely help push it along --
it is self-serving and good business/poker.
At minimum, I propose that
Stanzi should be recognized with the top 2011 QB
prospects (in part because he is statistically
and resume wise good enough to be mentioned with
them, and in part because the media darling QB's
are so flawed). Stanzi has the career record of
winning and passing metrics achieved in a major
conference that rivals and exceeds most of the
current "big name" QB prospects. If I'm right
about all this, Stanzi is going to slowly creep
up the mock draft boards over the next few
weeks. Stanzi may even wind up as a "shock" mock
draft late 1st Round pick by the time the NFL
Draft hits. Think that's crazy? Maybe you were
buying Jimmy Clausen as the #1 mock draft
pick according to many about this time last
year, because he was at the top for many
analysts early on -- and yet Clausen became a
shock 2nd Round pick (lucky to even go there).
How about Brady Quinn before that, he was
a top-5 March/April mock pick at one time as
well. How fast did the Joe Flacco train
get rolling the last few days/weeks leading into
the Draft; coming from 2nd-3rd-4th Round Mock pick
to an actual #18 selection overall?
It's coming -- the rise of
Stanzi and Dalton in the media, and the
subsequent decline of Newton, Locker, Gabbert
and Mallett. Will Stanzi and Dalton jump ahead
of the "Big-4"? I wouldn't put anything past the
Raiders or Bengals, so I'd be afraid to lay
money on it. I will bet that this may be the
best, wildest ride of college QB draft debates
and presents the most surprising actual selections that we have
seen in a long, long time. Enjoy the ride!
See other 2011 QB research
reports at our website:
Select a position
from the tabs below
to see stats and scouting information for that respective
position.
By
