About CFB Matrix

Coach Effect

Drafting NFL QBs: If you can’t lead a CFB Team, you can’t lead in the NFL

By  | 


If you can’t lead a CFB Team, can you lead in the NFL?

Dave Bartoo – The College Football Matrix
April12, 2013

I know the NFL loves winners.  Look at the draft.  78% of all guys taken from 2011-2013 were from college football teams with winning records.  But, as the CFBMatrix Coach Effect metric shows, it takes more than being a winner to not be a bust as a QB drafted into the NFL.

Here at the CFBMatrix, I have used the term ‘Coach Effect’ to describe a team’s seasonal performance above (positive Coach Effect) or below (negative Coach Effect) in relations to it’s talent and schedule*  However, having watched enough NFL games and hearing the Jaworski’s and Gruden’s beat it into my head that it is a QB driven league, the thought was simple: “If a QB can’t lead their college team with 18-22 year olds to wins, how in the hell are they supposed to lead a pro team.”

Click to READ & LISTEN: Dave Bartoo on The DA Show at CBS Sports Radio Talking Drafting QBs

If great QBs create wins, maybe my Coach Effect, especially when the coach has a history of under performing the talent and schedule, is dependent on good or bad quarterbacking.  Let’s look at the 2012 draft.

2012 QBs drafted

Take a look at the far right column.  Lots of positive Coach Effect numbers for these QBs teams in 2011 before they were drafted.

While most of these guys are still ‘pending’ to be a Boom or Bust, we can agree, the best QBs from this class were all + Coach Effect guys.

The next question should be, “What about past years?  Is it similar?  Is there a trend or pattern to +/- Coach Effect? (FCS vs non-AQ QBs in next article)

We all know that the odds are against these guys the second they are drafted and many bust in the their first couple of years.  However, if I am a GM, I want to minimize risk in the draft when ever possible. (click this link to my Boom, Bust, Pending Spreadsheet).

Since 2004, including the guys above from 2012, there have been 58 total QBs drafted from with a +/- Coach Effect number that were labeled Boom or Bust (I don’t track FCS).  Here is a quick breakdown of the results.

  • QBs drafted with a + Coach Effect for their team the year before drafted:
  • Total Positive + Coach Effect: 13 of 33 or a ‘bust’ rate of 60%
    – AQ QBs 9 of 23 ‘Boom” for a ‘Bust’ Rate of 60.5%
    – Non – AQ QBs 4 of 10 ‘Boom’ for a Bust rate of 40%
  • Negative Coach Effect: 5 of 25 or a Bust rate of 80%
    – AQ QBs 4 of 19 successful for a 79% Bust rate
    – Non-AQ QBs 1 of 6 for a Bust rate of 83%

My take on the 2013 QB class with the trends since 2004 and the metrics of the 2013 QBs:  
2013 NFL Draftees QBTake a QB out of college from a team that underperformed it’s talent and your odds are 1 in 5 that they stick in the league. QBs that out performed the expected schedule and talent of their team have been twice as likely to be successful in the NFL.

Lowest Bust Risks:
Ryan Nassib
Mike Glennon
Matt Scott
Sean Renfree
Jordan Rodgers

Guys to avoid:
Geno Smith – 78% bust rate
Matt Barkley – 92% bust rate
EJ Manuel – 92% bust rate
Tyler Bray
Tyler Wilson
Landry Jones
Zac Dysert (plus non-AQ failure rate if drafted after Rd 3 is over 90%)
Ryan Griffin (see Dysert)

FWIW: 66%  This is the average ‘bust’ rate of QB drafted into the NFL since 2004 as defined by the spreadsheet (disagree with the spreadsheet comment below, tweet me @CFBMatrix or email dave@cfbmatrix.com).

Questions , concerns, comments?  I am the man behind the curtain.  Tweet me @CFBMatrix, call 971.244.3041, email dave @cfbmatrix.com  – Dave Bartoo

*78% of all AQ football games win/loss outcomes predicted correctly 6 months before the last 5 seasons using only CFBMatrix adjusted talent ranking and team home/away strength.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *