In that aforementioned piece that looked at how collegiate numbers translate to the NFL, three statistics shined through as being relevant when looking at quarterbacks: the number of games they played (based on games in which the passer had at least 10 attempts), adjusted yards per attempt (AY/A, which includes both touchdowns and interceptions to get a measure of efficiency), and passer efficiency rating. These three will be the main focuses in looking at this crop of newcomers.
To determine which quarterbacks would be classified as "successful," we used numberFire's Net Expected Points (NEP), the metric we use to track how many expected points a player adds to his team's total throughout the course of the season. Specifically, we looked at where a player ranked in Total NEP (which accounts for points added as a rusher, as well) in each season he had at least 200 drop backs. By seeing how often a player finishes as a top-15 or top-10 passer in this metric, we can see if he's a guy we'd want leading our franchise each and every year.
Let's give a quick example here. The table below splits all quarterbacks taken in the first round from 1995 through 2014 into two groups: those who had at least one season in the top 10 in Total NEP and those who never finished that high. "Pick" refers to where that player was selected in the draft, and both AY/A and passer efficiency rating are from the player's final season in college.
| Any Top-10 Finishes | Pick | Games | Pass. Eff. Rat. | AY/A |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Top-10 | 6.21 | 37.37 | 156.6 | 9.1 |
| Non-Top 10 | 12.26 | 31.58 | 152.9 | 8.7 |
The players who had at least one top-10 finish to their credit averaged 37.37 games in college before going pro; those who were never in the top 10 averaged just 31.58. That would seem to be important.
In setting a baseline for a franchise quarterback, we looked at players who had finished in the top 10 in Total NEP in at least one third of their seasons. After including 2016's metrics (and omitting players from the last two draft classes due to a lack of an adequate sample), only 13 of 50 first-round quarterbacks met this criteria. Here's how their stats compared to the other 37.
| One Third of Seasons in Top 10 | Pick | Games | Pass Eff Rat | AY/A |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | 6.31 | 39.00 | 162.4 | 9.4 |
| No | 11.24 | 31.95 | 151.5 | 8.6 |
As you can see, there's a big split in each of our three desired stats between those who qualified and those who did not. This helps us form a blueprint of what we want in a quarterback as he enters the NFL draft.
If a quarterback doesn't have at least around 36 games under his belt (roughly three years as a starter), it's justified to be skeptical. Players beneath that range have busted much more often than their more experienced counterparts, and you can bet that'll be a big topic of discussion with this year's class.
As for the passer efficiency rating and AY/A, the ideal ranges are around 160 and 9.2, respectively. This year's crop can be competitive in these arenas, but there is no Marcus Mariota-level efficiency savant in the field.
It's worth noting that draft capital had a much larger effect on predicting which players would pan out, meaning scouts are pretty good at what they do. If they deem a player with great collegiate stats to be a third-round pick, then we should be wary of getting too excited about him. However, if we're focusing just on the stats, here's how these top five rank heading into the draft process.