Rule Of 26-27-60 Predicts NFL Quarterback Success's John P. Lopez has a new methodology for analyzing a quarterback's likelihood of succeeding at the pro level!

"...could a simple formula have warned us of Russell's lack of NFL readiness? And Ryan Leaf's and David Carr's and other failed, high-pick quarterbacks?
Call it the Rule of 26-27-60.
Here is the gist of it: If an NFL prospect scores at least a 26 on the Wonderlic test, starts at least 27 games in his college career and completes at least 60 percent of his passes, there's a good chance he will succeed at the NFL level. ripped off Gil Brandt!

View Full Article


30 comments, Last at 17 Jul 2010, 8:30pm

#1 by Null_Void (not verified) // Jul 08, 2010 - 3:39pm

Ah, but he added to Gil Brandt's method, thanks to using Wonderlic scores. Which puts this way past Lewin's Forecast, right?


Points: 0

#3 by caj8585 // Jul 08, 2010 - 3:46pm

Of course, this new method fails to account for 1st/2nd round quarterbacks vs late round/free agents, so it'll take another copycat before they've completely stolen Lewin's work.

Points: 0

#2 by Matt Bowyer // Jul 08, 2010 - 3:43pm

That is the first thing I thought when I saw that article. Shameful.

Points: 0

#4 by are-tee // Jul 08, 2010 - 3:53pm

Wait - did he include Orton and Fitzpatrick in the first group to prove his theory right, or wrong?

Points: 0

#5 by Eddo // Jul 08, 2010 - 3:55pm

This article was not good. Much like the "Curse of 370", you shouldn't set cutoffs as "this is where a player is good, below this he's bad".

Doesn't the Lewin forecast project success based on numbers, over a spread? That is, a 65% passer with 40 starts projects to roughly XX% DVOA? It's not a binary thing, right?

Points: 0

#6 by AnonymousA (not verified) // Jul 08, 2010 - 4:13pm

Regression is not selecting an arbitrary cutoff. Sportswriters last study of math and statistics was high school geometry. These, and more, surprising revelations tonight on "WILD FAIL".

CAPTCHA: abduction Koufax. Baseball thriller novel?

Points: 0

#7 by ChicagoRaider // Jul 08, 2010 - 5:53pm

Things like this also raise issues about the editors over the writer. After all, if he had tried to publish that article here, it would not have happened that way.

Points: 0

#9 by otros // Jul 08, 2010 - 6:18pm

It's just shameful.

Points: 0

#16 by Snack Flag (not verified) // Jul 09, 2010 - 1:49pm

Yeah, I'm not the biggest proponent of the LCF (I actually don't see much merit in it), but, c'mon, do your own work buddy! You think he would have googled "Pro quarterback Projections" or something like that. Either he knew about this work, which is pretty pathetic on his part to copy it, or he didn't check to see if somebody had already tackled this angle, which is retarded.

Points: 0

#18 by Andrew Potter // Jul 09, 2010 - 2:22pm

Or he woke up one morning with an idea, ran some quick recent figures, grinned ear to ear when they seemed to fit and wrote the article with nary a second thought.

Points: 0

#11 by random9s (not verified) // Jul 09, 2010 - 12:03am

40/22/65. Shit man, if only Alex Smith would have started another 5 games at Utah...things would be different...

Points: 0

#30 by nibiyabi // Jul 17, 2010 - 8:30pm

The idea is that if he would have started more games, there would have been more film showing evidence of his suckitude and he would have fallen to the third round or later.

Points: 0

#12 by Kibbles // Jul 09, 2010 - 5:18am

Lopez forgot to mention Brady Quinn, Rex Grossman, Matt Leinart, Charlie Frye, Brian Brohm, and Kellen Clemens among the QBs who met the 26-27-60 benchmark. He also forgot to mention Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Carson Palmer, Jay Cutler, and Ben Roethlisberger among the QBs that failed to reach at least one of the three milestones. I'm sure this was just a simple oversight on his part and not some nefarious attempt to make the samples look better or worse than they really were in an effort to make it seem as if his "rule" actually possessed any predictive power.

Points: 0

#14 by AndyE // Jul 09, 2010 - 12:53pm

Actually, he specifically mentions Brady, Roethlisberger, Cutler, *and* Flacco as people who didn't make the cut. I'm sure failing to read that was just a simple oversight on your part and not some nefarious attempt to make the criticism look better ....

Points: 0

#29 by JetfanMike (not verified) // Jul 15, 2010 - 11:02am


Points: 0

#13 by Dean // Jul 09, 2010 - 8:32am

Quick, somebody tell Dan Marino he's not supposed to be a successful NFL QB!

Points: 0

#15 by tomdrees // Jul 09, 2010 - 1:27pm

Quick, what did Chase Daniels score on the Wonderlic?

Points: 0

#19 by Bjorn Nittmo (not verified) // Jul 09, 2010 - 4:20pm

He lost me with "If NFL general managers always could measure heart, determination and other intangibles, then Tom Brady would not have been drafted in the sixth round." Oh please.

Points: 0

#22 by Dan // Jul 09, 2010 - 6:12pm

Wide receiver evaluation is more advanced. General managers can tell at a glance whether a WR is a gritty possession receiver and good route-runner who lacks elite athleticism but has deceptive speed.

Points: 0

#24 by Phil Osopher // Jul 10, 2010 - 1:07am

No No No!!!!

The Rules and regulations of the game????

"Which are?"

Which are 89!!! Bottom line. Rule is 89

“You have to learn the rules of the game. And then you have to play better than anyone else.”
-Albert Einstein

>em>"Judge a man by his questions rather than by his answers"

Points: 0

#25 by Xeynon (not verified) // Jul 10, 2010 - 6:43am

So quarterbacks who are smart, accurate, and good enough to start for 2+ seasons in college are better prospects than quarterbacks who aren't one or more of those things? Yawn.

Next they'll be coming up with statistical regressions that prove that cornerbacks who have fast 40 times and are tough to throw on in college are better pro prospects than those who aren't/don't, or that receiving prospects demonstrate good hands in college are better pro prospects than those who don't (though Al Davis might benefit from access to such a model). Some things are basic scouting common sense, and shouldn't require newfangled mathematical models to know.

Points: 0

Save 10%
& Support NO
Support Football Outsiders' independent media and . Use promo code WRITERS to save 10% on any FO+ membership and give half the cost of your membership to tip NO.