QBASE: Pickett, Corral Lead Lukewarm Quarterback Class

Ole Miss Rebels QB Matt Corral
Ole Miss Rebels QB Matt Corral
Photo: USA Today Sports Images

NFL Draft - Guest column by Alex Olbrecht and Jeremy Rosen with Aaron Schatz


According to Football Outsiders' QBASE 2.0 model, there is no statistically significant difference between the top five quarterbacks in this year's NFL draft. Moreover, the model predicts that this year's class is more likely to disappear into obscurity than walk into the Hall of Fame. After all, for every class of 1983, there are years that don't yield any starters (see 2007 and 2013).

Likewise, Scouts Inc. doesn't project any of this year's quarterbacks highly, which is perhaps why there has been so much action this offseason via trades. The Washington Commanders have traded for Carson Wentz, the Denver Broncos for Russell Wilson, the Cleveland Browns for Deshaun Watson, and the Indianapolis Colts for Matt Ryan. Jimmy Garoppolo and Baker Mayfield may be traded too. Yet some teams could still enter the draft desperate for a quarterback. Given the extensive discussion in Brian Billick's book The Q-Factor, we know that drafting a quarterback out of need can lead to red flags being ignored and, say, EJ Manuel becoming a franchise's first-round pick. This year's model should serve as a warning for any general manager thinking of drafting a first-round quarterback out of desperation.

In summary, QBASE 2.0 combines Andrew Healy's original QBASE model (2015) with Jeremy Rosen and Alex Olbrecht's functional mobility model (2018) by factoring in a quarterback's rushing ability while also using his adjusted college passing statistics and adjusted years started. The adjustments consider the quality of both the quarterback's teammates and opponents, and while they reward quarterbacks who have steadily improved over time, they penalize one-year wonders.

As always, Football Outsiders' 2022 NFL draft coverage is presented by Underdog Fantasy!

Underdog Fantasy

Projections for the 2022 Class

Prospects are listed by order of their overall Scouts Inc. ranking in this draft class.

Malik Willis, Liberty

Scouts Inc. Rank: 21

Mean Projection -0.26 TDYAR/A
Bust (< 0 TDYAR/A) 59.9%
Adequate Starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A) 23.0%
Upper Tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A) 12.2%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A) 4.9%

Willis originally played for Auburn but lost the starting job as an incoming junior to true freshman Bo Nix. However, after transferring to Liberty, he displayed excellent athleticism and vaulted himself up draft boards. Yet despite displaying the arm strength and mobility required to play at the next level, he has been inconsistent at anticipating receivers coming open and at following progressions, which can result in him breaking the pocket and scrambling too quickly.

Many view him as having the highest upside of this year's class because of his arm talent. But his QBASE 2.0 projection shows the inherent risk that he will not be able to function in the NFL as a pass-first quarterback (though if he plays early on, the offense can be adjusted to highlight his mobility and big-play ability). In the end, he's in line with the other quarterbacks we evaluate: most likely unimpressive but with the potential to exceed expectations. That said, part of his relatively low projection is due to his Scouts Inc. ranking; if the rumors of him going second overall to the Detroit Lions come true, his projection would jump to 0.28 TDYAR/A.

Kenny Pickett, Pittsburgh

Scouts Inc. Rank: 22

Mean Projection 0.00 TDYAR/A
Bust (< 0 TDYAR/A) 49.7%
Adequate Starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A) 26.2%
Upper Tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A) 16.0%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A) 8.1%

Pickett showed significant improvement last season, displaying better pocket movement and above-average arm strength. In addition, while he lacks Willis' athleticism, he has pro-style experience and makes good decisions in general (though many of his throws came off quick reads). Ultimately, he is more of your typical pocket passer, albeit with some rushing ability, and this better balance is reflected in his lower "bust" rate than Willis. Notwithstanding, the model projects him to be a rather risky pick for a team looking for a franchise quarterback.

Matt Corral, Ole Miss

Scouts Inc. Rank: 34

Mean Projection -0.03 TDYAR/A
Bust (< 0 TDYAR/A) 51.0%
Adequate Starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A) 25.7%
Upper Tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A) 15.6%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A) 7.7%

Scouts view Corral as a relatively athletic but slender quarterback who has exhibited the ability to make good throws while anticipating his receivers coming open. In addition, he threw for over 8,200 yards in college, won the Conerly Trophy in 2021, and was a two-time Manning Award finalist and two-time Davey Award semifinalist. However, Ole Miss' run-pass option offense didn't often require him to make more than quick, relatively simple reads.

As a result, the big question mark is how he will adjust to the significantly more complex NFL game. Our projections are aligned with this hesitancy, but they also give him 23% chance of developing into an upper tier or better starter. His career trajectory is likely to be determined by the type of situation he is drafted into: will he fall into the arms of a spread-friendly team?

Desmond Ridder, Cincinnati

Scouts Inc. Rank: 36

Mean Projection -0.22 TDYAR/A
Bust (< 0 TDYAR/A) 58.9%
Adequate Starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A) 23.1%
Upper Tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A) 12.7%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A) 5.4%

Ridder was a four-year starter at Cincinnati with dual-threat ability, two factors which are both positively correlated with NFL success. However, his completion percentage and rushing yards per attempt declined last year, which hurts his projection. In addition, scouts have concerns about his accuracy and ball placement. Seen by some scouts as a weaker version of Marcus Mariota or Alex Smith, Ridder enters this draft with a middling projection.

Sam Howell, North Carolina

Scouts Inc. Rank: 50

Mean Projection -0.27 TDYAR/A
Bust (< 0 TDYAR/A) 59.9%
Adequate Starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A) 23.2%
Upper Tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A) 12.0%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A) 5.0%

A three-year starter at North Carolina, Howell helped his QBASE 2.0 projection by improving his rushing game significantly last year (his rushing yards per attempt increased from 1.6 to 4.5). However, he also hurt his projection by regressing as a passer (his completion rate decreased from 68.1% to 62.5%). This is why our model still projects him as a relatively risky pick in comparison to the rest of our sample. An interesting question is whether NFL teams will be nervous about North Carolina quarterbacks after what happened with Mitch Trubisky.

Carson Strong, Nevada

Scouts Inc. Rank: 93

Mean Projection -1.67 TDYAR/A
Bust (< 0 TDYAR/A) 93.9%
Adequate Starter (0-0.75 TDYAR/A) 4.8%
Upper Tier (0.75-1.5 TDYAR/A) 1.1%
Elite (> 1.5 TDYAR/A) 0.2%

Since the functional mobility model first debuted in 2018, NFL teams have increasingly used a college quarterback's rushing ability as a key factor in their evaluations. To be clear, pure rushing ability doesn't dictate success by itself, since each quarterback must also have the requisite accuracy, arm strength, and intangibles to succeed in the NFL.

However, Strong is a clear demonstration of how QBASE 2.0 will grade a quarterback who put up -4.1 rushing yards per attempt in his last college season. This lack of mobility means that he has a very high chance of being a bust. Is it possible that he could be successful as a classic pocket passer in the right situation? Sure, but it's not likely.


Will a quarterback be drafted highly this year? Most likely yes, given that need and desperation have historically clouded teams' judgement. And hitting on a quarterback is so important that teams are understandably willing to take bigger risks than with other positions. But the warning signs this year are strong, with our model projecting that none of these quarterbacks will perform significantly above replacement value. In turn, these low projections mean that our model is less predictive than usual about the order in which these quarterbacks will be drafted, especially considering a team could fall in love with one of them as the New York Giants did with Daniel Jones. Ultimately, the story of this year's QBASE 2.0 is that buyers should beware.

That being said, each of the first five quarterbacks listed above has a 15% to 25% chance of becoming a high-quality starter. Which means that collectively, there is a very good chance one of these quarterbacks outperforms our projections. Specifically, there's a 28% chance that at least one of them becomes an elite starter and a 68% chance that at least one becomes an upper-tier starter. We just aren't willing to go bet on any of them to be the one.


Our methodology this year is consistent with that from last year. This year, our sample begins in 2005, and our data have been updated in line with last year's NFL season. A big challenge in 2020 was the effect of the pandemic on opponent abilities (for example, Zach Wilson) and time lost (in the case of Trey Lance, a whole season). And there are still concerns this year due to players missing games due to COVID precautions. We hope these issues dissipate over time.

Our main dependent variable is total DYAR per attempt (TDYAR/A), which we defined last year. When compared to the more traditional variable DYAR/A, our variable gives a small boost to mobile quarterbacks. Interpreting each quarterback's projection is straightforward. A value of 0 is replacement level, whereas any value over 1.5 is indicative of a Hall of Fame career. We run 50,000 simulations to provide a distribution that each quarterback falls within a particular range. Since 2005, few quarterbacks have put up elite numbers in the NFL: Patrick Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers, Matt Ryan, Justin Herbert, Deshaun Watson, and, with rounding, Russell Wilson. Anything is possible, but no one in this year's class is projected to come close.

This article originally appeared on ESPN+.

Jeremy Rosen is a doctoral student of economics at Georgetown University. Alexandre Olbrecht is a professor of economics at Ramapo College of New Jersey and the Executive Director of the Eastern Economic Association. The views in this column are expressly our own and do not represent the views of Georgetown University, Ramapo College, the State of New Jersey, or the Eastern Economic Association.


57 comments, Last at 17 Apr 2022, 5:32pm

#1 by mehllageman56 // Apr 13, 2022 - 11:06am

Had to go back to last year's article to remember what TDYAR/A was, and get perspective on the numbers.  The only 1st round QB to have lower projections than any of these guys was Mac Jones, and he was still at a mediocre -.14, not even close to Carson Strong territory.

Points: 0

#2 by mehllageman56 // Apr 13, 2022 - 11:11am

One other absurd thing: I was scanning the historical table from last year, looking for highly ranked busts.  Other than Mariota at the top (1.40), the first real one I saw, just ahead of Jamarcus Russell, was Daniel Jones.  Did not expect Qbase as high as it did (0.39).

Points: 0

#3 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 11:56am

It would be interesting to see values both with and without the draft slot. (I think the Scouts. Inc slots they are using here are probably more predictive than the actual slot on many cases, which probably contributes to Daniel Jones and some of the bust ratings).

Points: 0

#4 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 11:57am

Or you can get Josh Allen, Justin Herbert, Mac Jones, etc.

Idk why we only look at one side after so many different QBs hit. If you NEED one that's the most important part of getting things right! A QB hitting is a LOT different than literally any other position hitting. 

Wait til next? I'm mean just delay the inevitable. Who knows what happens in a year anyway. Rattler was supposed to be QB1 this year. Maybe you were looking forward to DJ U next year. And none of that guarantees anything anyway so 🤷 take a shot. 

Points: 0

#6 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 12:48pm

Well, getting a QB wrong can hurt you for years (see also...NYJ)...so you can make an argument both ways. You usually get 1 above starter and a couple ok guys.   2 above average happens reasonably often. You get the rare bad years where nobody pans out(2013). 

You can make an argument for just taking a player with a better chance of panning out in first round and then use the second on whoever falls to you. 

Points: 0

#7 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 1:16pm

IDK about that. See also AZ. And they did it with a guy with way more hype and way more picks used (trade up). If your guy next year isn't good quicker, that's gonna make it hurt longer. Right or wrong. No one would blink if you selected one this year and end up in the same situation next year, so no one would likely care. But even if it did hurt for longer, that'd go for anyone you picked in any year. You'd just be delaying the inevitable hoping next year is better (and right now you better have a top 2 pick otherwise...meh, guess you could always Trubisky yourself).

And 2nd round QBs aren't great, lately.  

I just think we should stop looking at '13 and start looking on the flipside of when they hit (with the names I mentioned being some of them). Like are we REALLY going to flip out and give ATL an F for picking Willis when their QBs are flippin Mariota and Felipe Franks?

Points: 0

#11 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 3:44pm

But I guess they can hitch their wagon to Y5 of Darnold and hope he randomly breaks out. Or you know maybe don't spend multiple picks on Y4 of Darnold and pick one in a stacked class a year ago 🙊

But in reality they'll end up more or less where they are now, next year. 

Points: 0

#13 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:19pm

Honestly, picking up Darnold's option seem like a move to "try again next year".  And there is probably a 1% chance he works out. Esp bc alot of the teams that take a QB this year won't next year. 

Points: 0

#17 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:33pm

But honestly it shouldn't have been with the way they go now. 

I still wonder if they asked Robby Anderson what he thought of him. I can't imagine he would've gave a glowing endorsment behind closed doors. 

But as long as they don't trade up I can't blame them for not trusting Darnold when they dont have any day 2 picks this year to support him. They may just need to pick QB and hope he's ROTY to survive to next year.

Points: 0

#20 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:48pm

Honestly, the worst thing about taking Willis at 6 this year (or gawd forbid, trading up), is, it basically prevents you from taking a QB next year in the top 10 as then you get the dreaded "controversy".

Points: 0

#22 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 5:03pm

Rosen WAS traded up for AND seen as a better prospect in general and no one can talk down to AZ now.

And even if it did, they'd be doing the same thing next year, or whenever they do pull the trigger, and there's no guarantee that guy is it either way so why delay the inevitable if he could have the biggest impact possible? We been wrong about QBs a plenty. Realistically my big board for them, specifically at six, is 1. Ikem 2. QB.

Points: 0

#26 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 5:39pm

Trading would be an option, but they got a 2nd and fifth for Rosen. Murray working out makes the overall sequence a win, but I wouldn't say they did great with that pick.

Points: 0

#28 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 5:57pm

But that's the point with Murray. He wasnt a guarantee. Neither will Young/Stroud be. But there was much bigger uproar over Rosen being traded after a year but there would be less with this class which everyone already hates. So why delay a year when they aren't guarantees either? DJ U has already dropped tremendously.

Points: 0

#32 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 6:52pm

At 6 you can probably get one of the best players on the board at their position, so a very high chance of a starter and probably 50% chance of an elite player. And you won't be able to evaluate Willis after a year anyway. 

Points: 0

#34 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 7:15pm

The Cardinals were able to. Cant evaluate Willis but you can someone else? Imagine if the Chargers said that in '20. Ironically also at 6. 

Points: 0

#41 by KnotMe // Apr 14, 2022 - 10:07am

The Chargers didn't pick a QB in the first in 2021 so...not sure how that matters. 

Points: 0

#42 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 14, 2022 - 11:05am

They easily couldve said "we'll wait til next year when the class is better (and it was)"

Why would they pick another one the next year?  It doesn't take that much to evaluate as they showed too. 

I just don't understand why people are still afraid of QBs in the 1st when teams have none. Waiting a...maybe better prospect? As if they're guaranteed. And that picking one means you HAVE to "keep them too long." Mahomes didn't look like anything special his rookie year yet KC was still able to evaluate. 

Points: 0

#43 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 14, 2022 - 11:59am

Because when you miss, you not only waste a few years finding out, you also miss out on a Tee Higgins, or Jonathan Taylor, or Antoine Winfield. A guy who could help an old team chasing a ring.

Points: 0

#44 by KnotMe // Apr 14, 2022 - 12:11pm

And that is why teams don't usually take QB in R1 in consecutive years.  You can only play one, you need the rest of the team, and it's pretty rare that a year takes you from "he's our guy" to "we give up".  It happens, but it is really rare. 

Points: 0

#50 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 14, 2022 - 11:17pm

Skip this year since they're guaranteed to bust despite teams needing them. Draft a guaranteed stud instead. Wind up high enough next year and...oops he's a bust while someone from '22 is Ballin (usually at least one per class). Now you're stuck with the more hyped guy "for a few years." Wow that's 4+ years of nothing all because you waited an extra year. Next time you want someone, that guaranteed stud at another position wants to be paid. Hopefully you hit on the next QB. Oops looks like that class is bad too. Oof and the next too.

Points: 0

#56 by Scott P. // Apr 17, 2022 - 1:41pm

There's no guarantee any pick works out. The question is -- is it better to go for a 20% chance this year or a 40% next year and get an elite prospect in the process? Most teams would say the second is better. Team-building is a multi-year process. There are no quick fixes.


oops he's a bust while someone from '22 is Ballin (usually at least one per class).

The fact that somebody from '22 is possibly going to be good is useless info, unless you can identify that someone ahead of time. If I give you five boxes to reach into and 1 has $100,000 and the other four angry cobras, you'd be a fool to reach into any of them.

Points: 0

#57 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 17, 2022 - 5:26pm

and guessing what the percent it is next year with a full year of games to go is a dangerous game (Rattler). No one said it'd be a quick fix, especially this year. 

Not "useless" unless you ignore it and give up entirely (the notion here of "reaching" my main problem of course is ignoring the reaches that worked). Again, no guarantees but you can't wait forever. So "identify that someone ahead of time" and take a shot! Like [insert all the names I already mentioned]!  What's more known though is positional impact (and savings) compared to actual hit rates on specific players.

The example is funny because it seems to follow your 20% estimate, so would 2/5 be good enough...to wait for...when you get another chance every year anyway? Is it better to try (keyword here) find $1 in 1 box instead of 3 others with cobras right now?

In other words was Buffalo picking a QB REALLY bad process when they came off a year of Ryan Fitzpatrick (still hasn't led a team to the 'offs btw) or are we just using hindsight bias? I can't remember all the specific details but I kinda doubt it.

Points: 0

#45 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 14, 2022 - 12:21pm

That goes for ANY pick. Missing on Kelvin Benjamin isn't good. Missing on Taco Charlton isn't helpful. Missing on anyone doesn't go well! But if they hit, guess what? A hit at QB is more impactful than any other position!

Are the Jags wasting "a few years" with Lawrence? The Jets Wilson? 49ers Lance? Should they have waited for this year? Or next year?

Points: 0

#46 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 14, 2022 - 12:24pm

Next year will surely be better. You're guaranteed Tee Higgins, an all pro RB, or a SB starter. 

Points: 0

#53 by colonialbob // Apr 15, 2022 - 10:44am

But there's a huge difference between Willis and Rosen - Rosen was seen as a pro-ready prospect, while Willis is seen as a development project. So when Rosen was awful (not like regular rookie bad, but truly outrageously horrendous), it's much easier to move on than from somebody like Willis, where a front office could easily point to Josh Allen and say "look it takes a few years" whether or not that comparison actually makes any sense. That's actually why I think Willis in particular is a bad example for the "you can always draft one next year", because whoever drafts him likely needs to give him at least a couple of years to see if he actually pans out, even assuming they feel he can start this year. Pickett, by contrast, would be a much better example of that imo.

Points: 0

#54 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 15, 2022 - 12:44pm

Enough people liked Rosen and REALLY blamed the situation. Everyone hates this class so if they don't pop off right away they'll say "See? We told ya. Now get a real QB...idiots." 

Or do whatever you want with that QB. Don't hone in on a specific one because I'm not. I'm saying if you NEED a QB, how is it bad if you select one? I think it should be quite humbling with the QBs that have hit lately to think they one of these guys can't hit. Like I said a lot of assumptions take place to come to the conclusion, when in reality we don't know everything. People only look at when they're right (EJ Manuel) and the not the times they were wrong (all the guys I listed already). I wouldn't blame, generally, any of the teams if they selected one of the top 5 QBs (Pickett, Willis, Corral, Howell or Ridder) if they NEED one. Sure Stroud/Young look good now but things can happen between now and then and even THEN they aren't guarantees so why delay the inevitable? Their argument is you stick with the guy for 3 years, no matter who or what, anyway so that doesn't change the argument, that again, just delays the process a year for a guy you HOPE is better but have no guarantee of...just like this class! 

Not saying they have to pick a QB but if they did, most would side eye them when they probably shouldn't. If that QB hits, the opportunity cost won't matter because other positions just can't impact as much even if they hit themselves (and that's something we are more sure about than who will hit or not pre-draft). 

And if anyone still wants to fight, I'll ask the question again since people didn't answer: Did the Jags, Jets and 49ers make a mistake last year? 

Points: 0

#18 by mrh // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:35pm

I don't know.  The Chiefs were really bad in a year (2012) with a bad QB class (2013 draft).  They got a good OT (Fisher) who clearly would almost never be a #1 pick - but say what you want about Fisher, he has the 5th highest weighted AV on pfr from that draft.  And the Chiefs got Kelce in the 3rd round, who is #2 in wAV.  Bakhtiari is #1 so obviously they could have done better even at tackle, but it wasn't a bad draft in what turned out to be a fairly weak class overall.

Instead of reaching for Manuel, they went for the much maligned Alex Smith.  Smith was 50-26 and took the team to 4 playoffs in 5 years, along with being a key mentor to Mahomes.  Sometimes getting a decent vet QB is the right move.

The Chiefs have been really good since 2013.  While they had bad luck in having the #1 pick in a bad QB draft, they also had good luck in doing a coaching search when Andy Reid was available.  Reid, Dorsey (apparently an obnoxious person but he was a good GM while he lasted), and now Veach have run a pretty good franchise:  good franchises find good QBs more than good QBs make good franchises.

Points: 0

#9 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 13, 2022 - 2:12pm

Two consistently very good starters and a smattering of journeymen isn't really that bad for any position in the 2nd round or later.

You see a similar trend for center, and I think the constant is that both positions can have one on the field at a time. There's likely a strong sunk-cost effect at play.

2006 is an interesting cut-off. I'm suspicious of it, as there were a bunch of pretty good post-1st round QBs from 2002-2005.

Points: 0

#10 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 3:41pm

They were basically trying to capture the trend of moving away from pure pocket guys to more mobile passers. I.e., capture changes in the way the position is viewed. 

Of course, looking at players taken after  2006 taken in the first 100 picks is less than 200 players.  It's...not a great sample size.

Points: 0

#12 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 3:50pm

Maybe aim a little higher because you're not putting any of those in the top tier. 

05 was a different era. If youre sitting there in the 2nd, especially at 55+, you have to really ask yourself why that person is still there. The hit rate isn't great.

Points: 0

#14 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:20pm

Carr was MVP-3 in 2016. He's basically a 1000 DYAR guy. That is top-tier. 

You don't know what median looks like.

Points: 0

#16 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:26pm

As I always say, Carr is right there with Mahomes, Brady, Rodgers, etc. Above mobile Kirk too. Maybe Carr is mobile Kirk 🤔 I've always banged the drum for Wentz MVP3 as well! And it was more recently! 

Points: 0

#19 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:44pm

Wentz just plays the wrong position. If he were a WR, he'd fit right into the room.

Keep in mind, the Raiders have gone full clownshoes on Carr at least twice, and he's still dragged two entirely different rosters to the playoffs.

Points: 0

#21 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:53pm

Out of 8 years as a starter? Hmmm. Impressive. On the Stafford tier who's also right there with Mahomes, Rodgers, Brady, Wentz, Carr, Allen and Kirk. 

Points: 0

#23 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 13, 2022 - 5:04pm

In reply to by ImNewAroundThe…

That's not how clownshoes work.

The Chicago Cardinals put them on in 1920 and they've never overcome it.

Points: 0

#24 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 13, 2022 - 5:10pm

I'm sure their 85 defense cares. 

Forgot to put Lamar in the top tier too! Carr is truly one of kind like them! Pick your QBs in the 2nd everybody!!

Points: 0

#35 by mehllageman56 // Apr 13, 2022 - 11:02pm

The 1985 Cardinals defense ranked 24th out of 28 teams in DVOA (13.7%), so the clownshoes were still on back then in St. Louis.  The 1985 Bears defense was great, but different and much better run organization.

Points: 0

#15 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 4:22pm

QB have one of the worst hit rate of any position I think. 

Points: 0

#39 by Pat // Apr 14, 2022 - 9:28am

No, it's just because of the issue of defining 'success' when there's only a single slot available on a team. A tackle who busts at LT and moves to guard still starts. A QB who busts has to pray he's Taysom Hill or something.

Basically if you set the threshold for "success" super high (like All Pro), quarterbacks look horrible because, well, there's only one per team and you just set the threshold to "1" or something so everyone's gonna miss that threshold (think about the reverse question, not 'how many 1st round picks are All Pros' but 'how many All Pros are first-round picks') . Move down (to Pro Bowl) and quarterback success rates start bubbling up to the top of the position. Move down even further to "5+ year starter" and quarterbacks are pretty high, higher than RB/WR/DL.

RB/WR/DL are really the first-round gambles. Those guys are usually grabbed for pure athleticism and that busts a whole lot.

Points: 0

#40 by Aaron Brooks G… // Apr 14, 2022 - 9:51am

A QB who busts has to pray he's Taysom Hill or something.

Tom Tupa!

I think he's the only modern player to fail as a QB and make all-pro at another position.

Points: 0

#47 by Tutenkharnage // Apr 14, 2022 - 5:46pm

Manuel was widely regarded as a third-round pick in 2013; a few people had Allen very low, but most people had him rated as a first-round pick. The situations aren’t the same. 

Points: 0

#49 by ImNewAroundThe… // Apr 14, 2022 - 11:09pm

With revisionist history. He was consensus QB5 

Points: 0

#51 by GwillyGecko // Apr 15, 2022 - 2:07am

To add to that, Buffalo in 2018 was trying to trade up with Denver to draft Allen 5th overall, whereas Buffalo in 2013 started with pick 8 and traded down to 16 before reaching for EJ Manuel. And like you said pretty much everyone had Allen going in the first round, the only mocks that had EJ going in the first round where with people trying to guess which QB Buffalo would reach on between Manuel/Geno/Ryan Nassib/Barkley.

Points: 0

#5 by Franchise_Punter // Apr 13, 2022 - 12:34pm

Any way to create a rough preliminary projection for Stroud/Young right now, assuming similar seasons in 2022?

Seems like both guys would get pretty hammered for the "teammate" factor right now with Wilson/Olave/Williams all potentially going in the 1st, but the production is pretty nuts.

Points: 0

#31 by GwillyGecko // Apr 13, 2022 - 6:51pm

In reply to by Franchise_Punter

If you want to see Young without elite teammates, see the championship loss to Georgia

Points: 0

#36 by mehllageman56 // Apr 13, 2022 - 11:05pm

He was actually worse against Cincinnati while still throwing to Jameson Williams (Metchie was already out).

Points: 0

#37 by GwillyGecko // Apr 14, 2022 - 2:17am

He was ok against Cincinnati. But absolutely terrible in the championship game.

Points: 0

#38 by Dan // Apr 14, 2022 - 5:45am

I thought he did ok against Georgia in the championship game. Made some tough throws which his receivers didn't catch, like the 2nd&11 and 3rd&11 throws with about 3:30 left in the 3rd quarter.

Points: 0

#48 by mehllageman56 // Apr 14, 2022 - 10:03pm

Bryce Young had a higher QBR in the championship game (82.3 vs 72.4), but had a TD/Int ratio of 3-1 against Cincy, and 1-2 vs Georgia.  He also threw for 369 yards against Georgia vs 181 yards against Cincinnati, with the same average per pass in both games (6.5, not great but not that bad).  The big difference between those games was Brian Robinson rushing for 200 yards versus Cincy, and getting stuffed against Georgia.  Neither game is great tape for Young, but neither is that bad either.

Points: 0

#25 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 5:34pm

"After all, for every class of 1983, there are years that don't yield any starters (see 2017 and 2013)"

Didn't 2017 have Dak Prescott?

Points: 0

#29 by IlluminatusUIUC // Apr 13, 2022 - 6:13pm

They must have intended 2007 (JaMarcus Russell, Brady Quinn, Kevin Kolb, Trent Edwards, etc) 

Points: 0

#33 by KnotMe // Apr 13, 2022 - 6:55pm

That would make sense. 2013 was the EJ Manuel draft. (Nobody took a QB in the top 15....and they were right). Best QB in that draft was either Geno Smith or Mike Glennon depending on how you view it....yup. 

Points: 0

#30 by Dan // Apr 13, 2022 - 6:21pm

Looks like Carson Strong (-1.67) edges out Christian Hackenberg (-1.64) & Garrett Grayson (-1.59) for worst QB prospect of the QBASE2.0 era (2004-2022) in the top 100 picks.

Points: 0

#55 by JMM // Apr 15, 2022 - 2:34pm

...is coaches are expected to improve the performance of QB's and other draftees. Most coaches believe they can turn sow ears into silk purses. It's what they do, at least in their minds.

So telling a coach to pass on the key need of a team because this crop isn't good enough is telling the coach he isn't as good as he thinks. That is counter to their self image.

Points: 0

Save 10%
& Support Aaron
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 Aaron.