*An on-going series of
putting college QBs in our mathematical
analysis. See this link for details
on our College QB rating system -- Predicting
the Unpredictable…Projecting a College QB to the
NFL with a Mathematical Formula
This past week, our work on
the 2011 College QBs Draft class was debated on
the Carolina Panthers fan website -- "Cat
Scratch Reader". Looking at all the fan
comments sent in, I was struck by the struggle
of many Panthers fans on their current QB
dilemma. There was/is heavy debate on -- "...is
Clausen the future?" or "...is Pike
really any good" or "should the Panthers find a
QB in the 2011 Draft"?
I thought there would be more folks giving up on
both Tony Pike and Jimmy Clausen, especially on Tony Pike.
However, I do see there is still some amount of
fan support and/or hope shown for one or the other
Panthers current QBs.
QB is virtually everything
in the NFL. An elite QB can change the destiny
of a franchise for years to come; the lack of an
elite QB can doom a franchise into a seemingly
never-ending purgatory of perpetual "rebuilding
plans" and constant QB debates. The Green
Packers fans, don't really care about this
year's incoming QB class. Nor do the Atlanta
Falcons fans care, nor the San Diego
Chargers, etc. In Buffalo, Minnesota,
Arizona, and Carolina (to name a
few), the possible trade-worthy QBs (Kolb,
Flynn, etc) and especially the incoming 2011
College QB class is almost a 24/7 non-stop
debate. The value of having "your" QB in place
and not having to worry about it is "nirvana".
Since there was such
considerable debate on the CSR site about
whether or not the Panthers should use the #1
pick on a QB or continue with Clausen and/or
Pike; I thought I would add to the debate by
expanding our system analysis on the two
Panthers QBs. *Thanks to the fans of the "Cat
Scratch Reader" and to Rick Bates for featuring
and debating on our college QB hypothesis work. Hope you guys
enjoy debating this one!
From a pure passing metrics
perspective, both Jimmy Clausen and Tony Pike
have no major red-flags in our system. When we
look at their performance against just key
games/winning record opponents, both QBs look
fine -- all metrics pretty well within tolerance
and having the characteristics of other future
good NFL QBs. When we send that data through a
second test, one that weighs the passing metrics
a little differently for the strength of
opponent in their key games -- both still come
out OK. Clausen fading a little bit on his
Passing TD prowess, scoring just outside the
range of historically future great QB's did.
Tony Pike slides negligibly when his competition
increased. At this point of our analysis (just
passing performance), both QBs would appear to
be future "good" NFL QBs and a little outside
our system's scoring baseline for the future
elite NFL QBs (Brady, Manning,
Rivers etc)...but still good.
The 1st drop for Jimmy
Clausen in our system comes with his Wonderlic
score, he had a 23. If you passionately think a focus on Wonderlic is
crazy and/or you completely dismiss the
Wonderlic discussion as
something to never be considered, then I
probably can't convince you otherwise...but I'll
try.
I think the
Wonderlic is definitely a major piece of the
puzzle when analyzing today's modern QB. More
recently the Wonderlic is taken (and reported
upon) much more seriously than it was
10-20+ years ago. The
reason why I believe in this sudden rise of Wonderlic
importance is two-fold:
-
NFL Offenses, over
the past 5-10 years, have changed radically
with the advanced "West Coast" passing
systems and all it's variations such as "the
Spread". This has led to a more rapid fire, quick
decision type of NFL passing game. The need for
an accurate, quick decision QB is paramount.
Especially given the complexities of
defenses in that time frame as well. Also,
consider the amount of high paid,
specialists that coordinate both sides of
the ball versus years ago. The game today lends itself to
the quick/good decision making QB (thanks in
large part to Bill Walsh). Arm strength/"Big
Arm" is your "Grandfather's'" way of NFL QB
scouting. Bill Walsh, and so many others,
have proven time and time again that
accuracy and decision making in an advanced
passing system is much more valuable than a
"Big Arm". The Wonderlic test is just one
facet of measuring quick thinking, logic,
mental accuracy, and pattern recognition.
-
The NFL Draft process
and NFL Combine have taken on a life of
their own. Whereas (and this is just
speculation) 10-20+ years ago, if you had stuck a
Wonderlic test in front of Dan Marino or
Jim
Kelly (both very low Wonderlic scorers), these
elite college QBs
might have laughed it off and not taken it
seriously. Why would they care about this
silly test? TODAY -- every move that a prospective
NFL QB makes is covered and over-analyzed by
every media outlet. QB prospects will pay
huge sums of money to go to a QB Pre-Draft
Prep Boot Camp and/or work one-on-one with a
specialist...including practicing, over
and over, sample Wonderlic tests. I
would bet College QBs from the 1980's and
many in the 1990's had never even seen or
heard of a Wonderlic test in their life
until they went to the NFL Combine. Today's
highly rated QB has probably been taking
practice Wonderlic tests ad nauseam as part
of their
final year of preparation for the NFL.
In this day and age, as a
prospective NFL QB, if you score "low" on the
Wonderlic with all the prep involved -- (I
theorize) you really aren't a "fast thinker".
That doesn't mean you are "dumb", it just means
not a "fast thinker". If you have ever taken a Wonderlic
test --
it's not that it is a "hard" test per
say. If you had an hour to take the test and had
plenty of time to double-check your work --
everyone would score much higher, but the
Wonderlic is a timed test and nearly impossible
for test-takers to even look at every question, much
less get them all correct. There are a lot of
shapes, number and word patterns to decipher. In
order to quickly find the differences or to
notice a
pattern, etc -- you have to have a sharp/quick/clear
mind to do well. Compound the situation with the
pressure of possibly millions of dollars now
riding on that score. Again, with the
Wonderlic test...no real time to go back and check your
answers. A simple mental mistake or "going too
fast" hurts you on the Wonderlic test...and
mental mistakes and rushing decisions that cause
forced errors hurts performance as a
QB as well.
We could debate the
relevance, the bias, etc of the Wonderlic test
itself...and it wouldn't matter. I am a
statistician. I am a "pattern-ist". Ultimately,
I am a "gambler" at heart. If I find that the
results of anything have a 70-80%+
characteristic of predicting a certain future
outcome, then I am interested in vetting it out
to learn more about it and see how it might
correlate.
Our mathematical system of
analyzing QBs recognized a pattern in future NFL
QB performance with certain levels of Wonderlic scoring.
However, it is just a "one-way street" to factor
in. A "high/good" Wonderlic score does
not mean a
whole lot per say, it just avoids a "red-flag"
(a red-flag for us, as well as every NFL GM).
The higher the Wonderlic score, not really "the better the
QB". Yet, a "low" Wonderlic score almost spells certain
doom for your NFL QB future. That's not a cute theory
right now, it is a statistical fact. Not an
absolute 100% fact, but a very highly probable
80-90%+ fact. Let me give a few examples.
Playing in the Super Bowl and Wonderlic
Scores....
Most people will not give
the stamp of "approval" or assign greatness to a
NFL QB unless he has won a Super Bowl. Most of
us would admit that it takes an elite QB to win
a Super Bowl these days. If for a second you
subscribe to the theory that elite QBs win Super
Bowls, then as a fan of the Carolina Panthers
(or any other team) you better hope you have an
elite QB. In our mathematical system, you have a
very low probability of being be a
future elite QB if you have not hit a 25 or
higher on the Wonderlic
having taken the test in
the past 10 years (maybe longer). A score of 24
or less carries a very (recent decade)
historically low chance of becoming a future NFL
elite QB. I am not saying NO
chance (as nothing much is ever absolute), just
a very low chance.
Look at the following sets
of information and think in terms of it as a gambler
would.
If you had to bet on or set an over/under line
of results based just on Wonderlic, where would
you put your money or set the bar at?
The past decade of Super
Bowl matchups and their Wonderlic scores:
-
2010-11 = Rodgers (35),
Roethlisberger (25)
-
2009-10 = Brees (28),
P.Manning (28)
-
2008-09 =
Roethlisberger (25), Warner (?)
-
2007-08 = E.Manning
(39), Brady (33)
-
2006-07 = P.Manning
(28), Grossman (29)
-
2005-06 =
Roethlisberger (25), Hasselbeck (29)
-
2004-05 = Brady (33),
McNabb (14)
-
2003-04 = Brady (33),
Delhomme (?)
-
2002-03 = Brad Johnson
(?), Gannon (27)
-
2001-02 = Brady (33),
Warner (?)
13 QBs have participated in
the past 10 Super Bowls, 1 with a Wonderlic
score of 24 or lower. Three QBs we don't know the
reliable score of.
Of the last 10 winning
Super Bowl teams, 9 were QB'd by a player with a
Wonderlic score 25+...the other unaccounted for
QB from a winning team has an unknown score QB (Brad
Johnson, TB). Throw out the
unknown Wonderlic scoring QBs and just look at what we
simply know, and you could say the following statistically:
If I could have bet an
over/under on whether the Super Bowl winning (or
losing) team would be quarterbacked by a player
with a 25 Wonderlic score or higher for the past
decade, I would be
fairly rich right now. Think about the upcoming
2011-12 NFL favorites (for what we would assume
now). I bet I would win the wager of whether a 25+
Wonderlic QB would be on both sides of the Super
Bowl matchup again
in 2011-12 (hopefully there is a Super Bowl!).
Trent Dilfer (22
Wonderlic score) breaks the trend in 2000, but
we would all agree the Ravens team bucked the
trend in a lot of ways. Trent Dilfer did win a
Super Bowl, but obviously not considered an elite
NFL QB. Dilfer and the
Ravens that year, were somewhat of a Super Bowl
winning aberration. Also, that
was outside of the last decade (by 1 year). If
you say "no aberration allowed for Dilfer", OK
then 9 of the last 10 known Wonderlic QBs that
won a Super Bowl were 25+ scorers...a 90%
probability. I like 100% better, but I will take
90% as a gambler.
If we go back to the last
15 Super Bowls (and we don't know Kurt Warner
or Brad Johnson scores), we know what 13 of the
15 QBs scored on the Wonderlic test. Of those 13
Super Bowl winning teams in the past 15
years we have 11 of 13 (Favre and Dilfer break trend) of
the winning team's QB with a 25+ Wonderlic score. An 85%
probability of a Super Bowl winning QB having a
25+ Wonderlic score over the past 15 Super Bowls, I still like those odds.
Divisional Winners, Playoff Winners in the last
2 Seasons
Maybe just looking at Super Bowl
participants evokes a "well, the elite
teams have an elite surrounding cast"
response. OK, let's quickly look at the past 2
seasons on
"general" NFL success...and QB's with a 25+ Wonderlic.
-
2010 =
92%
of the 13 teams with a winning record in the
NFL were led by a QB with a 25+ Wonderlic
score QB (Vick exception, Cassel unknown, so
11 of 12 "known" teams hit it)
-
2010 =
100%
of the NFL teams that won at least one playoff
game were led by a QB with a 25+ Wonderlic
score QB. No QB with a Wonderlic score under
25 won a playoff game.
-
2009 =
86%
of the 15 NFL teams with a winning record were
led by a QB with a 25+ Wonderlic score
(McNabb, Favre exceptions...Warner unknown),
so 12 of 14 teams hit it)
-
2009 =
83%
of NFL teams who won a playoff game were led by
a QB with a 25+ Wonderlic score (Favre
breaks rule).
-
2009+2010 =
88% of NFL teams with a winning record in
the past 2 seasons had a 25+ Wonderlic QB
-
2009+2010 =
92% of teams that won at least one
playoff game were led by a 25+ Wonderlic QB
QBs drafted in the last
decade:
-
2009+2010 =
96%
of the NFL teams have had a winning record
in the past 2 seasons were led by a QB with
a 25+ Wonderlic score on a test taken in the
past 10 years (2010 Vick the only exception)
-
2009+2010 =
0%
of the NFL teams have won at least one
playoff game in the past 2 seasons IF
they had a QB drafted/took the Wonderlic
test in the last 10 years and that QB scored
a 24 or less on the test.
All this 80%+, 90%+
trending for QBs with a 25+ Wonderlic score
cannot make anyone feel great about Jimmy
Clausen (or any QB) with a Wonderlic score of 23. A
Wonderlic doubter (has a right to) will say, "but
Dan Marino (no Super Bowl wins)...but Brett
Favre (did win)...but Donovan McNabb (no Super
Bowl wins)". Awesome logic! You stick up
for the side of the "coin flip" that hits your
way 5-20%
of the time, and I will take the 80-95% option...let's bet on that
80/20 or 90/10 coin flip scenario and we'll see who is
broke first. Sometimes you will win a flip,
but eventually you will be busted...quickly. I'm
not saying it can't happen, I am saying it's not
statistically likely to happen based on the last
decade. Not likely at all.
The only QBs that are
bucking the 25+ Wonderlic trend this
decade...all took the test 10+ years ago. All
the "but what about____!" QBs who scored
very low are QBs who have taken the test 15-25+
years ago. The Wonderlic pattern/rule breakers
are possibly from the era I referred to earlier,
the "who cares" era where no one cared that much
about these type of "silly" details. Now we are
glued to our TV sets watching QBs throw
footballs at giant mechanical, on the move,
over-sized archery targets. I can't back up my
theory on "the who cares" Wonderlic/Combine QB
mentality back 15-25+ years ago, it's just my
own theory.
The 24
and Under, Wonderlic Club
Perhaps you look at the
last 2 lists of team/QB results data above and say, "why
a score of 24
and under...and not 26 or 25...or lower to 23 or 22 or 21"?
When we're putting a
mathematical system together, it's like running
a casino. I'm not expecting, or foolish enough
to think, that I will win every time. I just want the
odds in my favor. Way in my favor if possible.
The more the odds push in my favor, the better
the bottom line for me over time. We had to draw a line
somewhere, and actually the computer had to design
one, and actually real life results drew one.
Let's now look at the point in which all the
Wonderlic data turned against future
success for a QB in the NFL.
"Why not 25-26?"
-- In the grouping of 25-26 Wonderlic scoring
are 13 QBs of the overall group we have rated.
It includes Roethlisberger (25), Chad
Pennington (25), Carson Palmer
(26), Jay Cutler (26), Kyle Orton
(26). There are plenty of recent QB flops in
this range along with the recent elite and near elites. Looking at the
group, it would be
silly to say 25 or 26 is a hard "breaking
point" of where QB success tails off.
Looking at a
Wonderlic score of 24 or less, and now the
statistical tide turns...
The 24 and under QB list
(of the ones we have put through our test):
-
24 Wonderlic = JaMarcus
Russell, David Carr, Kevin O'Connell, Brody
Croyle, Colt Brennan, John Skelton
-
23 Wonderlic =
Jimmy Clausen,
Jason Campbell, Graham Harrell
-
22 Wonderlic = Tim
Couch, Tim Tebow, Chad Henne, Jevan Snead,
Erik Ainge
-
21 Wonderlic = none
-
20 = Michael Vick
-
19 or lower = Vince
Young, Donovan McNabb, John David Booty,
David Greene, Troy Smith, David Garrard,
Derek Anderson, Tavaris Jackson
*These are only from a
sample of QBs we have
put through our analysis (about 70 in total so
far). Not all data is
available on all QBs, especially the farther we
go back in history (pre-2000). I have tried to
look at the most relevant so far, and we are
adding more of them as we can.
If you look at the 24 and
under Wonderlic list, you have to say that the data
is breaking in another direction with a score of 24 (and lower). Does
just one point really
make a difference? It seems to make a
huge difference between a score 24 versus a
score of 25 on a Wonderlic. Jason Campbell is your prized NFL pupil of the
24 and under club in the past 6 years. Best 24
or lower Wonderlic score NFL QB taking the test
in the past 3 years is Chad Henne. I guess to
sum it up, "guilt by association" with Wonderlic
scoring under 24.
Michael Vick is
(maybe) the role
model of the entire group 24 and under, going back 10 years.
If Michael Vick is your role model for QB
success, then good luck and hope you are OK with
waiting 9-10 years for one good passing season
to arrive...also I hope your low scoring Wonderlic
QB is the most freakish runner to ever play the
position. Michael Vick 2001-2009, was mostly (or
has been) a bust as an NFL passer. He has had some nice highlight
reel runs though, if you're into that type of
stuff over
actual team wins and sustainability. How many
playoffs games did he win this year, this year
being his best year?
Jimmy
Clausen at a 23 Wonderlic has the historical
odds stacked against him. Yes, I know Dan Marino
(0 Super Bowls won) had a 15 Wonderlic score...for the
100 millionth time I know it. I once hit a half-court
shot in a basketball game in school, but the
coach didn't encourage me to keep taking
half-court shots all game after that. Coach wanted me to take high
probability shots under normal circumstances. Clausen's 23 on the Wonderlic
puts him in the "half-court shot" category. As
an NFL GM, or in my other favorite hobby --
analyzing the stock market...I don't want to
chase "half-court shots". I especially don't
want to pay a lot for it if I am going to take
one. To me, a second round pick on Clausen was a
bad play of the poker hand
given all the historical data.
*Tony Pike has no
reliable Wonderlic score on record, so we have
it in as a neutral/OK score (25). If Pike is really
24 or lower, he would be right above Clausen in
our overall ratings...which would place both of them
in the mediocre at best group, with "bust"
tendencies.
One
last small red-flag on Clausen
Clausen is also slightly
dinged in our system with having small hand
measurement. Hand measurements are controversial
and unknown on many QB the further you go back
in time. Again, it is not an absolute -- but
small handed (9.0' or lower) QBs have not been as
successful historically speaking. Tony Pike has a larger
than average hand measurement. Big hands don't
equal success, but small ones can be trouble. I
know you can find a QB who bucks the
trend, I know -- but there are many, many more
QB failures or just mediocre for every 1
exception. Again, do you want to take the 20% odds, I'll take
the 80%. The hand-size thing is just a slight
system ding
because of the probabilities/history of the past.
As well, standing just under 6'3 is not a great attribute either.
Clausen is 6'2.6" and Tony Pike is a more
"model" QB at 6'5.8". Below 6'2 is the real
data cutoff line (Drew Brees a major exception
to the rule) where the trend swings hard against
future QB success (which makes Greg McElroy at
6'1.8" a potential problem).
All things being equal, you would rather have a
6'5 QB with large hands to the hold/protect the
ball, than a 6'2 and half QB with "tiny" hands.
Not an absolute, but a definite trend in your
favor with a bigger QB -- all else being equal.
The
NFL QB Jimmy Clausen most compares to statistically
coming out in the 2010 draft...
Let me get "pro-Clausen" fans
excited for a minute, then pull the football out
a la Lucy/Charlie Brown....
When I take the QBs we have
in our system and start filtering them down to
likely matches with Jimmy Clausen, as I go
through all the various Passing Performance
Metrics (there are 10+ categories with various
weights) -- still left standing among 8
potential matches are names like Peyton
Manning and Carson Palmer, along with
a collection of mediocre/low/no performers. As I
mentioned earlier, our Passing Metrics show pretty well
for Clausen and Pike.
Then, I filter to the QBs who are closer to Clausen's physical
size and the list drops to 3 other likely
matches (noted below). The closest matches are a cluster of good
Completion Percentage QBs with very high ratings
(almost off the charts) for Pass Attempts per
INT, who are under 6'3.
Sadly, (here comes Lucy
pulling the football away...)
for Clausen fans the most likely match is John David
Booty. Similar smaller size for both, "safe"
passers with their accuracy...and just
to pile on -- both under 24 on the Wonderlic.
Graham Harrell scored under 24 as well.
-
"Adj" means just key
games/better competition -- weighted for
strength of opponent (proprietary
calculations)
-
"per 35 att" numbers
are the key games, weighted for strength of
opponent and then translated into an average
as if every QB had an equal 35 Pass Attempts
per game all the time, and thus what would
each QB produce if they had 35 passes per
game based on the key games their final
college season.
|
QB |
Yr |
College |
H |
W |
adj Comp Pct |
Adj Yds per Comp |
adj Pass per TD |
adj Pass Per INT |
|
Yds per game 35 Att |
TDs per game 35 Att |
INTs per game 35 Att |
|
Clausen, Jimmy |
2009 |
Notre Dame |
74.6 |
222 |
63.5% |
11.0 |
19.7 |
126.3 |
|
244.7 |
1.8 |
0.3 |
|
Harrell, Graham |
2008 |
Texas Tech |
73.1 |
223 |
64.5% |
12.5 |
15.9 |
83.4 |
|
282.4 |
2.2 |
0.4 |
|
Booty, John David |
2007 |
USC |
74.4 |
218 |
62.5% |
10.8 |
14.1 |
101.7 |
|
236.6 |
2.5 |
0.3 |
|
Beck, John |
2006 |
BYU |
74.1 |
215 |
63.8% |
12.9 |
16.1 |
72.6 |
|
287.3 |
2.2 |
0.5 |
Jimmy Clausen Overall Score =
0.492 *see historical rating chart on link to original
study = QB
= College QB Vers 1.0_2-17-2011.htm
The
NFL QB Tony Pike most compares to statistically...
Tony Pike, like Clausen, has had
decent/good Passing Metrics in our system. No
red-flag numbers, but gets close to trouble on a
couple. When filtering Pike for a match in our
system, there
are a lot of similarities with the Clausen matches until we
hit the physical size "switch" in the computer and then it swings
for Pike toward Carson Palmer and David Carr.
David Carr is the
more likely performance metrics and physical match
coming out of college in our system. Both had under 60% Completion Percentage
metrics against
tougher opponents and weighted in our system.
Both also played in a weaker non-power
conference (vs. Palmer in the Pac-10, not that
the Pac-10 was great then, but athletically
better than the other two we would subjectively
judge it). The coin flip on which way it would
fully judge a match for me on Pike in our system
is the Wonderlic (sick of that word yet?).
Palmer scored a "safe" 26. Future NFL bust David
Carr scored a magical bust-level of 24. Again,
we don't have a reliable score on Tony Pike --
so we have a safe 25 Wonderlic score rated in
there, but that's a huge assumption....an
organizational game-changing assumption.
|
QB |
Yr |
College |
H |
W |
adj Comp Pct |
Adj Yds per Comp |
adj Pass per TD |
adj Pass Per INT |
|
Yds per game 35 Att |
TDs per game 35 Att |
INTs per game 35 Att |
|
Pike, Tony |
2009 |
Cincinnati |
77.8 |
223 |
58.9% |
10.6 |
14.4 |
41.0 |
|
218.0 |
2.4 |
0.9 |
|
Palmer, Carson |
2002 |
USC |
77.0 |
232 |
60.3% |
12.6 |
18.5 |
58.0 |
|
265.2 |
1.9 |
0.6 |
|
Carr, David |
2001 |
Fresno State |
75.3 |
223 |
57.9% |
12.2 |
17.3 |
99.1 |
|
246.9 |
2.0 |
0.4 |
Tony Pike Overall Score =
0.879 with a
25
Wonderlic (possible good/great pattern)
Tony Pike Overall Score = 0.731 with a
23
Wonderlic (possible mediocre, bust potential
pattern)
If you believed our system
100% and/or if I was a betting man, if faced
with this data and the choice of Jimmy Clausen
or Tony Pike, knowing I had a key missing piece
of data on Pike
-- I would never select Jimmy Clausen in the
first 4-5 Rounds of the Draft (and probably never would
select him at all),
just because there are a few key data points/trends
for Clausen to have buck the historical odds on
to become successful. Can Clausen break through
and really make it in the NFL?...sure, anything
is possible. It's just the
statistical odds, historically, are so against
it happening...or happening for more than a
flash.
However, with Pike you do have the unknown
due to the Wonderlic. Pike doesn't have the
verified "Scarlet W" like Clausen does, so we
are left to debate -- is Pike closer to Carson Palmer or
David Carr? As rare as good/great QBs come
along, if I saw one with a lot of the good/great
statistical tendencies and a pure guess at the
Wonderlic -- and I could get that QB with a 6th
Round Pick would I grab a Tony Pike and take a
cheaper look at which QB he really projects to
be. A gamble
absolutely worth a 6th Round pick.
If Pike really is a 25+
Wonderlic QB, the data points toward a possible
star in the Panthers midst. If I were the Panthers GM
today -- would I take Ricky Stanzi in the 2nd or 3rd
Round while I watched Pike develop (or not)? Yes
I would. Nothing wrong with an organization having too many good QBs if it all works out
that way. The more important issue is to just
get 1 great QB (unless you have the 2000
Baltimore Ravens Defense). It may take 2-3
worthy QBs on the roster to find just one. Some
organizations haven't had an elite QB for a
decade or more, so why not take more chances at
it as long as they are not all expensive/salary
cap-sucking QBs? Tony Pike is not certain to be
great (but he is "cheap"). Ricky Stanzi seems more
likely that he could
be a potential star...definitely worth a 2nd-3rd Round pick to
find out (if you were to trust our system
wholeheartedly!). *See the original Stanzi
research report here --
NFL Draft Picks 2011 - Ricky Stanzi the Best QB
in the 2011 NFL Draft? - Fantasy Football 2011
Now if Andrew Luck (highest
scoring QB we have scored all-time in our
system based on his 2010) was available....sorry to open that
wound.
Select a position
from the tabs below
to see stats and scouting information for that respective
position.
By
