History assures us that elite quarterback status is never a guarantee
If Andrew Luck weren’t such a smart guy, he probably would have declared for the 2011 NFL draft. A Pac-12 star and the highest rated college quarterback, Luck shocked the football world when he decided to forgo the draft and finish his degree at Stanford. Thanks to his decision, though, we have been blessed with one of the catchiest lines in football for quite some time: “Suck for Luck.” Yes, while the NFL’s good teams compete for the playoffs, and eventually the Super Bowl, the dregs of the league are busy trying to suck worse than everyone else for a shot at drafting Andrew Luck next spring.
This campaign has caught quite a lot of fervor, though; I personally think it has more to do with the catchiness of the phrase than anything else. The real reason, however, is that virtually every member of the greater football world (media, teams, etc.) believes Andrew Luck is a lock to be the next elite quarterback. These people have come up with no shortage of explanations as to why this is guaranteed to happen. They’ve got statistics and they’ve got video of the sophisticated offense he’s been running at Stanford. They’ve seen his arm, his play calling ability, and his will to win. I don’t question the validity of this stuff. I’m not even going so far as to say it won’t happen, or that I don’t believe it will happen. What I don’t understand is why. Why on earth would anyone believe that elite QB status could be guaranteed? If Andrew Luck turns out to be a flop, am I really the only person in America who gets to say I told you so?
Before we set out on showing how wide the gap between Division 1 college football and the NFL can be (and has been), let’s take a brief look at his basic numbers:
Comp. | Att. | Comp. % | TD/INT | TD per INT |
646 | 973 | 66.39 | 70/19 | 3.89 |
Luck has a career record of 29-6 at Stanford as a starter. A product of Stratford High School in Houston, he became the starting QB for the Cardinal in his redshirt freshman year. His past two seasons, his completion percentage has been over 70% (2010 set a Pac-12 record). Additionally, Luck set six different Stanford records in 2010 and finished as the runner-up in the Heisman Trophy voting. He boasts a keen mind and strong arm, part of a 6 foot 4 inch, 235-pound frame. Those factors plus his college record make him an outstanding prospect for any NFL team. His concentration at Stanford is in architectural design and engineering. Can’t you already hear NFL broadcasters’ overuse of phrases like “Luck is the architect of this offense” and “Luck just engineered a perfect touchdown drive”? Because I can.
Certainties, guarantees, these things rarely exist in the world of sports. That’s what makes them so appealing. Because the NFL and NBA lack legitimate minor leagues to develop players, their drafts involve a higher level of risk than other leagues like the NHL and MLB. In hockey for the most part, only some first round picks are expected to be ready to compete in the pros the same year they are drafted. It’s even more of a rarity in baseball. The NBA’s D-league is basically a joke and the NFL has no sort of organized developmental league, so it is the case for both of these sports that NCAA Division 1 is basically the “minors.” The gap in overall talent between an NFL team and the best Div. 1 teams is still very large, so even highly touted college players can turn out to be complete busts. It’s a risky endeavor and there have been no greater examples of boom and bust than with the position of quarterback.
First, let’s start with Heisman Trophy winners. I know what you’re thinking, because Luck is supposed to be the next Peyton Manning, and so you’re saying, “Peyton never won the Heisman!” This is true, but since Manning was drafted, nine college quarterbacks have won the annual trophy awarded to the best college football player. If the Heisman is a measure of true talent, then there’s no better place to start. Here’s a list of those winners and some of their numbers: (note: completion %, TD/INT, TD per INT are career college numbers, and NFL record is as a starter)
Winner | Year | Comp. % | TD/INT | TD per INT | NFL rec. | Win % | Draft |
Chris Weinke | 2000 | 58.72 | 83/33 | 2.52 | 2-18 | .100 | 106th, 2001 |
Eric Crouch | 2001 | 51.48 | 29/25 | 1.16 | 95th, 2002* | ||
Carson Palmer | 2002 | 59.11 | 72/49 | 1.47 | 47-52 | .475 | 1st, 2003 |
Jason White | 2003 | 63.33 | 81/24 | 3.38 | |||
Matt Leinart | 2004 | 64.82 | 99/23 | 4.31 | 7-10 | .412 | 10th, 2006 |
Troy Smith | 2006 | 62.69 | 54/13 | 4.15 | 4-4 | .500 | 174th, 2007 |
Tim Tebow | 2007 | 67.11 | 88/15 | 5.87 | 4-3 | .571 | 25th, 2010 |
Sam Bradford | 2008 | 67.64 | 88/16 | 5.50 | 8-15 | .348 | 1st, 2010 |
Cam Newton | 2010 | 65.41 | 30/7 | 4.29 | 2-7 | .222 | 1st, 2011 |
Notable runners: Crouch – 648 carries, 3434 yards, 59 TD, 5.3 yards per carry
Smith – 293 carries, 1168 yards, 14 TD, 4.0 ypc
Tebow – 692 carries, 2947 yards, 57 TD, 4.3 ypc
Newton – 285 carries, 1586 yards, 24 TD, 5.6 ypc
*Not drafted at QB
As you can see, winning the Heisman Trophy as a college quarterback has little to no correlation to success at the NFL level. Eric Crouch led an option attack at Nebraska and was actually drafted as a wide receiver, but he never ended up playing in the NFL, much less playing quarterback in the NFL. Jason White was never drafted. To be fair to Tebow, Bradford, and Newton, their careers are very young, so we don’t know just what this graphic could like 5 or 10 years from now. Of course, Palmer is still playing as well. Smith did stints with Baltimore and San Francisco before moving to the UFL this year. Leinart has mostly been a backup, though he will be called on to start games for the Houston Texans with this week’s announcement that Matt Schaub is done for the season. Nonetheless, Heisman winners in the last decade or so win about 40% of the NFL games they start, and if you take away Palmer, that figure drops to 32%.
OK, so winning the Heisman doesn’t guarantee success at the next level, but what about other quarterbacks that didn’t win it, but were very highly touted coming out of college? Let’s add their names to the mix:
Comp. % | TD/INT | TD per INT | NFL rec. | Win % | Draft | |
Tim Couch | 66.96 | 76/37 | 2.05 | 22-37 | .373 | 1st, 1999 |
Michael Vick | 56.14 | 21/11 | 1.91 | 49-37-1 | .563 | 1st, 2001 |
Philip Rivers | 63.53 | 95/34 | 2.79 | 59-30 | .663 | 4th, 2004 |
Alex Smith | 66.27 | 47/8 | 5.89 | 26-31 | .456 | 1st, 2005 |
JaMarcus Russell | 61.86 | 52/21 | 2.48 | 7-18 | .280 | 1st, 2007 |
Matthew Stafford | 57.20 | 51/33 | 1.55 | 9-13 | .409 | 1st, 2009 |
Notable runners: Vick – 212 carries, 1202 yards, 16 TD, 5.7 yards per carry
Tim Couch no longer plays in the NFL and his record probably speaks to why. Despite an excellent completion percentage in college, he was never able to be very effective in the pros, and perhaps his high number of interceptions should have worried the Cleveland Browns. He ended up with more interceptions (67) than touchdowns (64) in his brief career. Of course, that isn’t the only explanation. Michael Vick threw at a worse rate, with fewer TDs per INT, yet has had a pretty good NFL career. Of course, as I noted at the bottom Vick is also an exceptional runner. If you added rushing touchdowns, his overall TD per INT rate would go up by nearly one and a half. (If you do that for Tebow, it goes up to 9.67!)
On the other hand, Tim Tebow, Alex Smith, and Sam Bradford boast the best ratings in that category and people have been seriously questioning their prospects at being effective QBs in the NFL. Smith and the 49ers are winning now, but that isn’t stopping people from questioning his abilities. Tebow hasn’t had enough games to show what he can do on the professional level, but even before he was named starter after five games, people seriously doubted him. And they still do. The same goes for Cam Newton and Sam Bradford, and while their records aren’t necessarily a reflection of their talents, people still have a right to wonder. For Newton, the numbers you see above, besides the rushing stats, were basically put up in the year he was at Auburn.
In two distinct ways, Matthew Stafford’s college numbers are a whole lot worse than JaMarcus Russell’s. Yet both were first overall picks. Russell no longer plays in the NFL, but Stafford (for the first time in his career) is both starting and healthy. He has the Detroit Lions off to a 6-3 start. Much has been made about Andrew Luck’s college completion percentage (66.39%) as an indication of his ability to succeed at the next level. Consider the fact that Tim Couch and Alex Smith had nearly the same percentage, and in fact, Tim Tebow’s and Sam Bradford’s were better. Do you see any guarantees here? (FYI, answers, in order, are: no, not yet but approaching no, and two not yet too early’s)
Andrew Luck’s college statistics are pretty close to Sam Bradford’s, who put up his numbers in just three college seasons. The jury is still out on Bradford. He had a surprisingly good rookie year, but his slow start to 2011 has tampered expectations. No one believes Luck can waltz into the NFL and start putting up ridiculous numbers, and more importantly, winning a ton of games. If there’s a drastic difference between Luck and Bradford, you can’t find it in their numbers or body size.
Overall, the closest resemblance to Luck’s numbers from the list above is clearly Philip Rivers, who has had a good NFL career thus far. He doesn’t have a Super Bowl win or appearance, though he has played in an AFC Championship. I don’t think Rivers qualifies for elite status. In fact, it is rather difficult to define an elite quarterback. At best, it’s a blend of excellent passing statistics and playoff success, but by no means does being quarterback of Super Bowl winning team grant you elite status. I’m not sure I understand the logic there, but as someone with a heavy baseball background, I kind of get it. (The 2006 Cardinals won the World Series, but Jeff Weaver was by no means then, before, or after, an “ace” or “elite pitcher”. He was pretty damn good in the Fall of 2006, though.)
But for the sake of classification, I’ve lumped together those remaining quarterbacks drafted in the past dozen or so years who are either “elite” or Super Bowl champions, or both. Let’s take a look at their numbers:
Comp. % | TD/INT | TD per INT | NFL rec. | Win % | Draft | |
Peyton Manning | 62.85 | 90/33 | 2.73 | 141-67 | .678 | 1st, 1998 |
Tom Brady | 62.31 | 35/19 | 1.84 | 117-35 | .769 | 199th, 2000 |
Drew Brees | 61.19 | 88/45 | 1.96 | 86-61 | .585 | 32nd, 2001 |
Eli Manning | 60.81 | 84/36 | 2.33 | 66-46 | .589 | 1st, 2004 |
Ben Roethlisberger | 65.49 | 84/34 | 2.47 | 76-32 | .704 | 11th, 2004 |
Aaron Rodgers | 66.76 | 43/13 | 3.31 | 36-20 | .643 | 24th, 2005 |
Of these six QBs, four were drafted in the first round and were expected to be effective at the NFL level. They turned out to be very good gambles for their franchises. Of course, the San Diego Chargers drafted Eli Manning, but having stated he would not play for them, he effectively was drafted by the New York Giants. By the time Eli was drafted, his older brother Peyton had already established himself as an elite quarterback and has put up numbers that rank him as one of the best QBs of all time. Interestingly, the Chargers also drafted Drew Brees back in 2001 on what they thought was a much bigger gamble. They (effectively) drafted Rivers in 2004 as Brees was heading into a contract year. Think that ticked him off? He settled in quite nicely in New Orleans, eventually leading them to a Super Bowl victory in 2009.
The thing that sticks out from this list, obviously, is Tom Brady’s draft position. Over the years, this point has been brought up again and again, but for a good reason. Brady might just be an aberration and nothing more, but it helps prove how fickle drafting a QB out of college can be. You can illustrate this point by using names like Tim Couch or JaMarcus Russell – high rating, drafted early, complete flops. But you hammer it home using a name like Tom Brady – low rating, drafted late, one of the best QBs of all time. He has a higher win percentage and more Super Bowl victories than any other name on that list. Counting Brady just as an aberration, only two (Peyton, Rodgers) of the other 20 quarterbacks I’ve mentioned truly deserve elite status.
There’s a good chance Luck won’t suck. He seems to have all the tools and if he’s been running an offense at Stanford with an NFL-level of sophistication, chances are that transition won’t be too difficult. Of course, he’s been taking that offense against college defenses and we know how much better professional defenders are. But Peyton struggled early in his career too, only to go on to accomplish what he has. By my numbers, again discounting Brady as an aberration, Luck has a 10% chance of becoming an elite quarterback on the Brady/Manning/Rodgers level. That’s a far cry from a guarantee. Like 90% far. But as my good friend Asher pointed out, if there’s any position in all of sports to make a gamble on, it’s quarterback in football. Let’s just try to remember that nothing in sports is a guarantee, especially when it comes to drafting amateurs, and especially when those amateurs are college quarterbacks.
Sources: ProFootballReference.com, SportsReference.com
All statistics through 11/17/2011
