2018 Contextualized Quarterbacking2 PDF

Benjamin Solak of NDT Scouting
presents
Contextualized Quarterbacking
a charting endeavor designed to provide steadfast responses

to quarterbacking narratives through hard data, thereby
improving the landscape of quarterback evaluations
Table of Contents
Introduction …………………………………………………………… 3
Methodology …………………………………………………………… 4
Josh Allen ……………………………………………………………… 14

Kurt Benkert ………………………………………………………… 17
Sam Darnold ………………………………………………………… 20
Luke Falk ……………………………………………………………… 23
Lamar Jackson ……………………………………………………… 26
Kyle Lauletta ………………………………………………………… 29
Chase Litton…………………………………………………………… 32
Baker Mayfield ……………………………………………………… 35
Josh Rosen……………………………………………………………… 38
Mason Rudolph ……………………………………………………… 41
Brandon Silvers……………………………………………………… 44
Mike White …………………………………………………………… 47
Logan Woodside……………………………………………………… 50
Comparative Measures …………………………………………… 53

Acknowledgements ………………………………………………… 72
2
Introduction
D
uring my time covering the NFL Draft, I’ve had many opportuni-
ties to grow. In a profession that necessitates showing one’s
work, we seem to oscillate about our peers in a cycle of learning
and teaching. At its finest, is a heartwarming, constructive process.
But media scouting can easily become combative. When working for a
team, a scout’s objective—find good players—serves a larger mission:
win a championship. Without the team, a scout in the media “misses the
forest,” as it were, and begins bickering about the trees. Being right is
now the only goal, the ultimate goal—and, invariably accompanying the
desire to be right, is the temptation to prove the other guy wrong.
In this way, I believe, we too easily throw stones from glass houses, un-
dercutting others in a zero-sum pursuit for self-assuredness. It’s an easy
trap, into which we all fall: we disagree on prospects, so we debate,
which all too often devolves into jabs and even insults. Quarterbacks, as
the most important and complex of evaluations, represent the most
common battleground.
I wanted to improve the conversation around quarterbacks specifically,

with a method entrenched in unfettered truths. As such, the CQ became:
a project wherein every throw is categorized and charted, levered into
understanding how a quarterback performs under various circumstanc-
es. I do not believe the CQ will solve quarterback evaluations; I do be-
lieve it will add objective context to those evaluations, and in doing so,
allow us to investigate these players in more nuanced ways.
It is a sincere pleasure to present Contextualized Quarterbacking. Thank

you for reading. I hope you find it valuable.
- Benjamin N. Solak
3
Methodology
Here, I will explain how I determined the contexts I used, how throws
were graded, and how the information provided can be best utilized.
Every 2017 throw of a quarterback available to me was graded. Some

throws, regrettably, were immediately discarded: perhaps the wide re-
ceiver fell out of his break; the quarterback was hit on the release; there
was a miscommunication between route runner and thrower. There are
certainly characteristics and traits to be gleaned on such plays, but that
endeavor belongs to a more heuristic approach.
The only throws in which we are interested are “chart-worthy” throws:

throws wherein the camera catches both the release and arrival of the
football, the throw was intended for a receiver, and the receiver ended
up where he belonged. I also insisted on an overhand release motion:
Shovel passes have no place here.
All-22 film, when available, was used to best understand ball location
and coverage shells; when not available, regular broadcast film was used.
A crucial note
The CQ does not evaluate quarterback decision-making. When a
boneheaded 20-year-old decides to heave a prayer into triple cover-
age, the CQ does not differentiate that throw from a wide-open TE on
a Ghost screen—at least, not until the ball arrives among the bram-
bles of defensive backs. The CQ evaluates how well a quarterback
throws the football under different conditions. It is not a scouting
report. Every quarterback included here would have better numbers
if they made better decisions. That’s why scouting—understanding
ceilings, intelligence, coachability, et cetera—is so important.
4
Methodology
First Read
One of our five primary contexts, determining whether a QB delivered
the football to his “First Read” or “Beyond” holds value for multiple rea-
sons. Firstly, it helps bust narratives around certain styles of offense.
Mike White of Western Kentucky, Luke Falk of Washington State, and
Brandon Silvers of Troy all run Air-Raid inspired offenses. Yet, while 21%
of Falk’s attempts were “Beyond” his first read, and 19% of White’s, only
10% of Silvers made it “Beyond.”
This is a good example of the CQ providing a context by challenging a

notion and forcing a question: were Troy’s receivers that much better
than WKU’s and Wazzu’s at separating? The film says no; rather, Silvers
doggedly glued himself to his first read at a disturbing frequency—and
this conclusion made from a cursory glance is reflected in our data.
I charted “First Reads” quite stringently. If you were prescribed a three-

man spacing concept and executed it in rhythm, it’s very unlikely you
got credit for moving “Beyond.” I wanted to see a quarterback make a
decision—a conscious reading of leverage/spacing., an evaluation of his
first read’s leverage before moving on. Robotically shifting from target
to target with the sole intention of moving defenders to eventually hit
the checkdown doesn’t cut the mustard for me.
Moving beyond the first read doesn’t necessarily mean a quarterback is

poised: premature pocket-breakers (lookin’ at you, Kurt Benkert) often
moved beyond their first read without a semblance of calm or control.
5
Methodology
What a high incidence of “Beyond” does show us, however, is a quarter-

back’s ability to retain his head post-snap. He has at least enough were-
withal to freelance with wide receivers as he scrambles, and at most, the
playbook understanding, poise, and self-control to shred a defense with
whatever they give him.
Pocket
Far more straightforward than a “First Read” evaluation: if you’re inside
of the original tackle box, you’re likely still “In the Pocket.” When a mov-
ing pocket was established—think sprint-out motion with a puller, com-
mon in Virginia’s offense—the consideration of “In the Pocket” was wid-
ened accordingly.
The pocket extended back infinitely. On the pandemic “fake a bubble

screen, throw the tunnel screen the other way” play, the QB often had to
back up 5+ yards from the snap to sucker the defense in. Still in the
pocket, for charting purposes.
Pocket data gives us a few insights: how often a QB was exposed to the
field without protection often speaks to his running ability; how often a
QB freelanced; and what happened when he did.
Platform
“Platform” considerations are quite muddled, and were reasonably ap-
plied on a case-by-case basis without strong indicators. As you watch
more reps of a quarterback, you become more familiar with his “Clean
Platform,” which correspondingly makes it easier to find his “Adjusted
Platform,” the most elusive of the three. (“Move Platform” is the third.)
6
Methodology
The “Move Platform” is likely the easiest to understand and identify: the
quarterback threw on the move. When moving to the non-dominant
hand side, it can become a touch more complex, as the QB swivels his
hips and gives the illusion of an “Adjusted Platform.” Still “Move,” in
most cases—though I must reiterate, Platforms are tricky, and must be
evaluated case-by-case.
A “Clean Platform” involves, at the very least, hips and shoulders aimed
to the target. A visible weight transfer is preferred to distinguish it from
a common “Adjusted Platform” throw, in which the QB is pointed to-
ward his target, but falling backwards, away from pressure. However,
some passers—Josh Allen gets the glare this time—tend to forgo their
weight transfer; their establishment of a throwing hallway; everything.
Have they forced themselves into an “Adjusted Platform” without really
“Adjusting” for anything? I’m afraid that’s often the case.
“Platform” context gives us a huge insight into accuracy and placement,

and the degree to which they are tied to mechanics. Check out Kyle Lau-
letta if you don’t believe me.
Pressure
Pressure is likely the touchiest of the considerations, as pressure can re-
sult in so many outcomes: an easy climb of the pocket and “Clean Plat-
form” throw; a frantic heave on the “Move;” a promising throw from the
pocket turned “Adjusted Platform” from interior push. What happens
when the QB escapes? Gets sacked? Throws the football away?
In other words: do not use the “Pressure” stats to evaluate a QB’s deci-
sion-making under pressure. Of course, don’t use any CQ data to
7
Methodology
evaluate decision-making, but especially not for pressure. Use accuracy

and placement under pressure to contextualize poise and accuracy from
varying arm angles; use frequency of pressure in pocket to contextualize
offensive line play; use INTable numbers under pressure to contextual-
ize risk-taking propensities.
Charting pressure takes a steady hand, as no quarter can be given to

quarterbacks who create their own pressure by retreating too deep into
the pocket or rolling out unnecessarily.
When color flashes, every quarterback has a reflex: flee or hang tough.
Often, that decision itself determines whether or not a defender’s valiant
effort becomes a “Pressure.” This again speaks to the CQ’s “Pressure”
numbers’ relationship with poise.
Tight Window
The “Tight Window” is the most circumstantial of all contexts, and falls
victim most austerely to the restrictions of camera angles.
Colloquially, a “Tight Window” throw either “narrowed the region of po-

tential ball location that would be called ‘Well Placed’,” or “forced the
potential ball location of “Well Placed” to be relocated entirely from the
region it would otherwise be.” Plainly, the defense and field boundaries
changed the ideal ball placement on any given throw, when compared to
that same throw in an open field. You begin to know it when you see it.
Sometimes it’s easy: a honey hole shot against good Cover 2; a stick
route against flat zones on the goal line. Sometimes it’s hard—delivering
a comeback intentionally low and away, forcing the WR to dive; thread-
ing a needle on a seam route. 8
Methodology
It’s important to visualize “Tight Windows” vertically as well as horizon-

tally. Dropping a dig route over the sinking LBs but in front of the clos-
ing safeties takes a steady hand; driving a ball to the back of the end
zone, above the DB but before the sideline, also speaks to this idea.
“Tight Window” metrics help us understand how much a QB trusts his

arm/what happens when he does as well as help us contextualize the
presumption that their WRs failed to separate. A quick note to that re-
gard, however: A WR can wear a DB like a cloak—if he can still present
his chest to the QB on an in-breaking route, that is not a “Tight Window”
throw. Be careful when assuming “Tight Window” equals no separation.
Remember, the ball doesn’t arrive at the window; it goes through it.
“Tight Window” throws also help us contextualize, in my opinion, the

degree to which a QB can be a gamer. Big time plays in big time ways,
people.
9
Methodology
Those are our five contexts: First Read/Beyond; Inside/Outside of Pock-

et; Clean/Adjusted/Move Platform; Pressured/Unpressured; Clear/Tight
Window.
All throws in these contexts were graded on how they arrived at their
target. This grade was divided into two categories: “Accuracy” and
“Placement.” “Accuracy” is a binary system, and is relative to whether or
not the ball was catchable. “Placement” is tertiary (whole point, half
point, no point) and has more complex considerations.
This division was made in an effort to distinguish accuracy from ball

placement, as colloquial terms we use to describe a quarterback’s ability
to locate the football. These measures, agnostic of the result of the play,
work with the contexts to provide a fully-fleshed picture of a quarter-
back’s accuracy in a way that I think no other resource can provide.
Catchable
A ball on which a WR can get at least one hand, with at least one foot in
bounds, is catchable.
A steadfast rule here helps, as we do not want to allow the acrobatic,

catch-radius artists of Oklahoma State to synthetically boost Mason Ru-
dolph’s catchable numbers when compared to Kyle Lauletta and his FCS
teammates.
Balls that never arrive to the receiver can be determined catchable: think
underthrows, or balls that are undercut and picked off. Catchable is
graded against air—as if no defenders were present. This system does
disproportionately reward underthrows—but placement fixes that.
10
Methodology
Placement
“Placement” works in union with “Catchable” to balance out under-
throws and account for defenders.
“Placement” considers three main factors—along with unique considera-

tions of individual plays, where applicable. Without hierarchy, they are:
the maximization of YAC; the protection of the throw from defenders;
the protection of the WR from hits.
If we step into our mind, we can easily see how this translates: a well-
placed back-shoulder fade is away and high, but not too high as to ex-
pose the receiver to being shoved out of bounds; a well-placed sit route
leads the receiver away from the closing safety he cannot see; a well-
placed slant in the end zone sticks right between the numbers.
“Placement” is inherently less concerned with receivers and more con-

cerned with defenders—as such, it responds to the underthrow issue of
“Catchable.” A deep ball two yards underthrown may be “Catchable,” but
is likely “Poorly Placed,” as it exposes the ball to the defender to make a
play. A deep ball two yards overthrown may not be “Catchable,” but it is
“Decently Placed” (half a point) or even “Well Placed” (full point) relative
to the coverage.
While it is not written into the script, “Placement” does reflect on a quar-
terback’s velocity. A perfectly-located ball that arrives too late and dies
in the air likely will not end up getting a “Well Placed” grade, as it allows
the DB to arrive and make a play. Likewise, an absolute heater of a ball
better be in an easy place to make a catch—otherwise, nobody’s hanging
on to that thing.
11
Methodology
Notes:
A few ancillary notes on charting, before we get into the data:
 If a penalty did not affect the process of a play, I still charted that
play. For example: offensive holding affects absolutely nothing in the
QB’s process, and as such, those plays are still charted. It would have
like been “Pressured” and not “Unpressured” without the hold, but for
the QB’s purposes, it’s another rep without pressure. Let’s learn from
that rep.
 Depth of target measurements were taken from the line of scrimmage,

not the QB’s location at the moment of release.
 The horizontal region of the field (left, middle, and right) did have
some give to it, relative to QB location. The hashes are wide in college:
should a QB take a snap on the right hash and deliver a quick hitter
just outside the right hash, I felt comfortable charting that throw as
“Middle.” I hope you can forgive me
 Receiver direction also plays a role here. When it’s tough to de-
termine, the region into which a player is heading was more like-
ly to get the call than the region from which a player was leaving.
 I chart INTables and Drops both quite strictly. I don’t care if the CB
didn’t turn around on a 9 route—the ball should never have been in a
place he could have played on it in the first place. And WRs have a job
to do, too! If you smack at least 1.25 hands on that ball, I don’t care
what acrobatics you did to get there—throw some Stickum on and reel
that puppy in.
12
Quarterback Data Sheets
13
Josh Allen
Redshirt Junior, WYO, born 5/21/1996
Chartable
Attempts
TD
15
INTable
18
YAC
503
Comp Comp % INT INTa % YAC %
Games Charted (10): @ Iowa, v. Oregon, v. Hawaii, v. Texas State, @ Utah State, @ 130 59.1% 5 8.2% 31.8%
Boise State, v. New Mexico, v. Colorado State, @ Air Force, n. Central Michigan Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
220 1,580 3 .809 .527
The Skinny Situational Data

Josh Allen’s sheet here only re-affirms what I already believed: you’re 3rd Down 3rd (5+) Red Zone
drafting a player solely on a potential, no matter where you take Allen. Comp 39 33 14
Allen makes some jaw-dropping throws, and certainly has some genera- Att 65 55 25
tional talent. But the risks he takes when asked to process/decide beyond Yards 388 324 156
Comp % 60.0% 60.0% 56.0%
his first read or under pressure are absurd, and he cannot be trusted on
Accuracy 0.862 0.836 0.840
an NFL field with his sporadic ball placement. On top of his poor decision-
Placement 0.531 0.545 0.600
making as a passer, Allen scrambled on nearly 1 out of every 10 drop-
Conversion 25 19 8
backs and took a sack on 1 out of every 13. He simply is not yet an NFL
Conversion % 38.5% 34.5% 32.0%
quarterback—just a dude with insane contact balance, nice speed, and a
Adj. Conv. % 38.9% 35.9% 27.8%
cannon attached to his right shoulder. Allen very well can become an NFL INTable 6 5 2
quarterback, but a team investing in Allen faces the two steepest chal- INTable % 9.2% 9.1% 8.0%
lenges a young QB can face: improving decision-making (especially under
pressure) and improving accuracy.
Charting by Region
7/14, 256 yds 5/12, 156 yds 1/16, 23 yds 13/42, 435 yds
20+
Accuracy: .714 Accuracy: .667 Accuracy: .375 Accuracy: .571

Placement: .429 Placement: .417 Placement: .313 Placement: .381
10-19
7/19, 122 yds 10/17, 169 yds 20/30, 323 yds 37/66, 614 yds
15/24, 130 yds 10/17, 69 yds 29/40, 213 yds 54/81, 412 yds
0-9

11/12, 48 yds 5/5, 37 yds 10/14, 34 yds 26/31, 119 yds

<0
Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .786 Accuracy: .903

40/69, 556 yds 30/51, 431 yds 60/100, 593 yds BEYOND LoS
14
Exceptional Data
Josh Allen
Dropbacks
Scrambles 28
285
9.8%
Sacks 22 7.7%
Games Charted (10): @ Iowa, v. Oregon, v. Hawaii, v. Texas State, @ Utah State, @ Batted 5 1.8%
Boise State, v. New Mexico, v. Colorado State, @ Air Force, n. Central Michigan
Throwaway 10 3.5%
Drops 10
Drop rate 4.5%
Adjusted comp% 63.6%
Target Heat Map Yardage Heat Map

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
6.4% 5.5% 7.3% 16.2% 9.9% 1.5%
8.6% 7.7% 13.6% 7.7% 10.7% 20.4%

0-9
0-9
10.9% 7.7% 18.2% 8.2% 4.4% 13.5%

<0
<0
5.5% 2.3% 6.4% 3.0% 2.3% 2.2%
Accuracy Heat Map Placement Heat Map

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.714 0.667 0.375 0.429 0.417 0.313
0.684 0.824 0.867 0.342 0.559 0.617

0-9
0-9
0.917 0.882 0.900 0.563 0.559 0.638

<0
<0
1.000 1.000 0.786 0.625 0.700 0.429
15
Notable Measures
Josh Allen
Top Quartile
INTable %
Target Share 10-19
Bottom Quartile
Drop Rate
Adj. comp %
YAC
% attempt “Tight Window” Acc/place “Tight Window”

Adj. conv. % (3rd) Place “Out of Pocket”
Games Charted (10): @ Iowa, v. Oregon, v. Hawaii, v. Texas State, @ Utah State, @ Acc/place “Behind LoS” Place “Adjusted Platform”
Boise State, v. New Mexico, v. Colorado State, @ Air Force, n. Central Michigan Acc/place “Beyond LoS” Acc/place “Move Platform”
Acc/place “0-9” Acc/place “Beyond 1st R.”
Acc/place “20+” Acc/place “Under Press.”
Contextual Data: Raw

First In Out No Tight
Beyond Clean Adjusted Move Pressured Clear
Read Pocket Pocket Pressure Window
Comp 112 18 Comp 103 27 Comp 85 9 36 Comp 109 21 Comp 120 10
Att 175 45 Att 170 50 Att 143 20 57 Att 167 53 Att 184 36
Comp% 64% 40% Comp% 61% 54% Comp% 59% 45% 63% Comp% 65% 40% Comp% 65% 28%
Att% 80% 20% Att% 77% 23% Att% 65% 9% 26% Att% 76% 24% Att% 84% 16%
Acc. 0.840 0.689 Acc. 0.824 0.760 Acc. 0.825 0.750 0.789 Acc. 0.850 0.679 Acc. 0.832 0.694
Plc. 0.560 0.400 Plc. 0.553 0.440 Plc. 0.559 0.250 0.544 Plc. 0.578 0.368 Plc. 0.541 0.458
INTable 9 9 INTable 12 6 INTable 10 2 6 INTable 7 11 INTable 14 4
INTa % 5.1% 20.0% INTa % 7.1% 12.0% INTa % 7.0% 10.0% 10.5% INTa % 4.2% 20.8% INTa % 7.6% 11.1%
Contextual Data: Change

Comp Comp Comp Comp Comp
-37.5% -10.9% -24.3% 6.3% -39.3% -57.4%
%c %c %c %c %c
Acc. Acc. Acc. Acc. Acc.
-18.0% -7.7% -9.1% -4.3% -20.1% -16.5%
%c %c %c %c %c
Plc. Plc. Plc. Plc. Plc.
-28.6% -20.4% -55.3% -2.8% -36.3% -15.2%
%c %c %c %c %c
INTable INTable INTable INTable INTable
288.9% 70.0% 43.0% 50.5% 395.1% 46.0%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Well here we are. More numbers that don’t like Josh Allen. Let’s firmly entrenched ourselves in our previous assertations; let us
mire in that which is familiar, comfortable, and safe. This is the rub, the rigmarole, the rigid march of analytics and film.
I just don’t buy that. These numbers reflect film, not obscure it. They can help us determine the path to success for these young
QBs, no matter how narrow that path may be. Let’s draw that path.
Ideally, Allen’s given time to sit and learn the ins and outs of an NFL playbook, as his greatest weakness is his post-snap processing,
which casts cascading detriments onto his decision-making and accuracy. Wyoming tape does not show much development in this
regard, so a QB coaching staff simply must make a concerted effort on improving Allen’s recognition, patience, and decision-
making against a shifting defense. This is markedly harder to do when he’s also, you know, starting. So sitting is huge. A situation
like Patrick Mahomes’ last year is a good model, so the New York Giants with Eli Manning stand as the best avenue for Josh.
HC Pat Shurmur is known for adapting his scheme to fit his players, so more good news for Josh. He’ll be rolled out a ton, given 2–
and 3–man concepts on half-fields with one-man keys, and he’ll regularly have deep options (though it’s arguable that that’s actu-
ally bad for him). If Allen’s to go in the Top-5, the Giants are his best bet.
16
Kurt Benkert
Redshirt Senior, UVA, born 8/17/1995
Chartable
Attempts
TD
19
INTable
24
YAC
1341
Games Charted (11): v. Indiana, v. Connecticut, @ Boise State, v. Duke, @ UNC, v. 249 61.6% 9 5.9% 49.3%
Boston College, v. Georgia Tech, @ Louisville, @ Miami (FL), v. Virginia Tech, Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
n. Navy
404 2,720 2.11 .869 .617

3rd Down 3rd (5+) Red Zone
Kurt Benkert’s film illustrates a streaky QB that can really operate when
Comp 61 36 15
he’s in a groove, but fails to recover after small mistakes. A right-handed
Att 104 66 31
QB, Benkert favored the right side target-wise, but actually proved more
Yards 656 408 134
accurate downfield (10+) to his left-hand side, a phenomena likely
Comp % 58.7% 54.5% 48.4%
attributed to his penchant for exiting the pocket and throwing an accu- Accuracy 0.913 0.894 0.806
rate ball on the move. Benkert tends to create pressure when there is Placement 0.596 0.598 0.661
none, and must improve his ability to manage a clean/slightly collapsing Conversion 39 18 5
pocket with subtle movements and downfield eyes. Despite having a high Conversion % 37.5% 27.3% 16.1%
-velocity arm, Benkert struggled in general with deep ball accuracy and Adj. Conv. % 40.5% 30.3% 21.2%
with tight-window throws, likely due to high-variance mechanics. Benkert INTable 5 4 2
currently projects as an Early Day 3/Late Day 2 investment who has start- INTable % 4.8% 6.1% 6.5%
er traits if his inconsistencies can be ironed out, and his strengths fo-
cused.
Charting by Region
8/36, 324 yds 1/6, 51 yds 9/24, 336 yds 18/66, 711 yds
20+

10-19
9/20, 165 yds 12/23, 215 yds 6/16, 98 yds 27/59, 478 yds
41/52, 303 yds 49/76, 426 yds 51/81, 516 yds 141/209, 1,245 yds
0-9

24/27, 120 yds 5/5, 35 yds 34/38, 135 yds 63/70, 290 yds
<0
Accuracy: .96 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .986

82/153, 912 yds 67/110, 727 yds 100/159, 1,085 yds BEYOND LoS
17
Exceptional Data
Kurt Benkert
Dropbacks
Scrambles 19
474
4.0%
Sacks 24 5.1%
Games Charted (11): v. Indiana, v. Connecticut, @ Boise State, v. Duke, @ UNC, v. Batted 9 1.9%
Boston College, v. Georgia Tech, @ Louisville, @ Miami (FL), v. Virginia Tech,
n. Navy Throwaway 18 3.8%
Drops 28
Drop rate 6.9%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
8.9% 1.5% 5.9% 11.9% 1.9% 12.4%
5.0% 5.7% 4.0% 6.1% 7.9% 3.6%

0-9
0-9
12.9% 18.8% 20.0% 11.1% 15.7% 19.0%

<0
<0
6.7% 1.2% 9.4% 4.4% 1.3% 5.0%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.722 0.500 0.458 0.528 0.083 0.375
0.700 0.783 0.750 0.475 0.435 0.469

0-9
0-9
0.923 0.974 0.938 0.587 0.717 0.685

<0
<0
0.963 1.000 1.000 0.852 0.800 0.697
18
Comparative Measures
Kurt Benkert
Top Quartile
Target Share “0-9”
Bottom Quartile
Place “0-9”
% attempt “Tight Window” Acc/place “10-19”
YAC Target Share “10-19”
Acc “Adjusted P.”
Games Charted (11): v. Indiana, v. Connecticut, @ Boise State, v. Duke, @ UNC, v. Acc “Under Pressure”
Adj. comp %
Boston College, v. Georgia Tech, @ Louisville, @ Miami (FL), v. Virginia Tech, Adj. conv. % (3 & 5+)
n. Navy Adj. conv. % (RZ)


-16.8% 2.6% -40.8% 6.9% -33.9% -52.0%
%c %c %c %c %c
-11.7% -4.5% -26.6% -3.3% -20.4% -17.9%
%c %c %c %c %c
-12.3% -6.8% -31.1% -6.1% -18.9% -24.0%
%c %c %c %c %c
17.4% 107.1% 75.7% 75.0% 170.6% 387.1%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Kurt Benkert is the developmental project: the big-armed, mobile Day 3 QB who has as many good “Sweet Christmas did he just do
that?” moments as he does bad “Good gravy, did he really just do that?” moments. Chase Litton is another guy in this mold. So is
Josh Allen, but let’s stick to Benkert.
Mechanically, you see the inconsistencies with Benkert, which leads you to believe you can improve his accuracy (which isn’t terri-
ble, just not reliable). Mentally, you see the panic and often obstinance when his first read is covered, but you also see great pro-
cessing on the fly, and wonder if you can somehow extrapolate that cognition into schemed progressions. Physically, you see some
drop-dead gorgeous balls to the boundary and down the field, as well as the strength and speed to become a threat outside of the
pocket.
The best scheme for Benkert maximizes his velocity, mobility, and deep ball, while only allowing for as many progressions as he
feels comfortable. West Coast with spread for familiarity with Robert Anae’s system in Virginia fits the bill. If he fills out his trajec-
tory, Benkert is only competing for a starting job in Year 3, so teams like Los Angeles (Chargers), New Orleans, and—wait for it—
Cleveland make sense.
19
Sam Darnold
Redshirt Sophomore, USC, born 6/5/1997
Chartable
Attempts
TD
28
INTable
12
YAC
2,003
Games Charted (14): v. Western Michigan, v. Stanford, v. Texas, @ Cal, @ 305 66.2% 12 4.99% 47.0%
Washington State, v. Oregon State, v. Utah, @ Notre Dame, @ Arizona State, v. Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
Arizona, @ Colorado, v. UCLA, n. Stanford, n. Ohio State
461 4,265 2.33 .874 .681

Sam Darnold is young, talented, and a gamble. In Tee Martin’s quick-
Comp 73 55 28
hitting shot game scheme, Darnold’s lightning quick release (don’t buy
Att 120 93 48
the narrative otherwise) and ability to release from wonky platforms
Yards 840 741 336
helped him massively. Darnold also throws a very solid deep ball, accen-
Comp % 60.8% 59.1% 58.3%
tuated by his ability to extend and create space downfield. But the lack of Accuracy 0.792 0.753 0.875
intermediate targets and accuracy are harrowing, as is the high incidence Placement 0.596 0.548 0.688
of interceptable passes and general shakiness under all contexts. When Conversion 50 38 15
Darnold is on, there are Aaron Rodgers-esque flashes. But there are clear Conversion % 41.7% 40.9% 31.3%
questions regarding risk management/decision-making, frequency of full Adj. Conv. % 40.3% 37.2% 25.8%
field processing, and consistently beneficial mechanics. In short: there are INTable 5 5 3
the typical questions that surround a young quarterback. Rosen, Jackson, INTable % 4.2% 5.4% 6.3%
and Mayfield are all surer bets than Darnold, but his ceiling is right up
there with the rest of the class.
Charting by Region
12/35, 410 yds 9/19, 314 yds 15/46, 459 yds 36/100, 1,183 yds
20+

10-19
13/24, 205 yds 26/44, 460 yds 16/36, 335 yds 55/104, 1,000 yds
41/49, 459 yds 50/62, 505 yds 56/71, 555 yds 147/182, 1,519 yds
0-9

27/30, 216 yds 6/8, 48 yds 34/37, 330 yds 67/75, 594 yds
<0
Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .75 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .973

93/138, 1,290 yds 91/133, 1,327 yds 121/190, 1,679 yds BEYOND LoS
20
Exceptional Data
Sam Darnold
Dropbacks
Scrambles 26
539
4.8%
Sacks 28 5.2%
Games Charted (14): v. Western Michigan, v. Stanford, v. Texas, @ Cal, @ Batted 6 1.1%
Washington State, v. Oregon State, v. Utah, @ Notre Dame, @ Arizona State, v.
Arizona, @ Colorado, v. UCLA, n. Stanford, n. Ohio State Throwaway 18 3.3%
Drops 25
Drop rate 5.4%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
7.6% 4.1% 10.0% 9.6% 7.4% 10.8%
5.2% 9.5% 7.8% 4.8% 10.8% 7.9%

0-9
0-9
10.6% 13.4% 15.4% 10.8% 11.8% 13.0%

<0
<0
6.5% 1.7% 8.0% 5.1% 1.1% 7.7%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.686 0.737 0.761 0.529 0.553 0.565
0.833 0.841 0.694 0.500 0.545 0.472

0-9
0-9
0.959 0.984 0.944 0.786 0.806 0.732

<0
<0
1.000 0.750 1.000 0.933 0.750 0.851
21
Sam Darnold
Top Quartile
Acc/place “0-9”
Targe Share “20+”
Bottom Quartile
Place “Adjusted P.”
% attempt “Beyond 1st R.”
Drop Rate
Games Charted (14): v. Western Michigan, v. Stanford, v. Texas, @ Cal, @

Washington State, v. Oregon State, v. Utah, @ Notre Dame, @ Arizona State, v.
Arizona, @ Colorado, v. UCLA, n. Stanford, n. Ohio State


-3.9% -8.8% -16.7% -8.4% -17.2% -63.8%
%c %c %c %c %c
-11.3% -12.4% -17.4% -11.9% -16.3% -15.5%
%c %c %c %c %c
-20.4% -8.0% -39.5% -4.5% -22.9% -27.2%
%c %c %c %c %c
-1.6% -36.4% 91.5% -21.0% 14.5% 694.7%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
When drafting Sam Darnold, you shouldn’t be too fearful of scheme: he can make every throw, he’s demonstrating strides when
reading defensive leverage, and he has the requisite traits (quick release, deep ball, mobility) to fulfill unique schematic demands.
I’m most excited by spread concepts, but then again, I’m always excited by spread concepts in the NFL.
That with which you need to concern yourself, however, is time. Sam Darnold lacks the polish and consistent game tape of a #1
overall pick, but if you choose to take him early because of his ceiling, you better be willing to do everything it takes to get him
there—and that means letting him develop, to the tune of his own drum.
Sitting him isn’t a must here—it only is if Darnold needs it. Darnold, known for his gamerism even as a 19-year-old, may benefit
most from a trial by fire. Start him early, let him have multi-pick games, let him fail on game-winning drives, let him learn through
experience. He may prove fearful, stepping onto the field without full playbook comprehension and familiarity with the team—
then sit him. Either way, you should know you aren’t winning with Darnold in 2019.
But if you do it right, by 2020, you should be competitive in every game. And in 2021 and beyond...
22
Luke Falk
Redshirt Senior, WSU, born 12/28/1994
Chartable
Attempts
TD
23
INTable
11
YAC
1728
Games Charted (11): v. Montana State, v. Boise State, v. Oregon State, v. USC, @ 303 66.0% 11 6.1% 57.7%
Oregon, @ California, v. Colorado, @ Arizona, v. Stanford, @ Utah, @ Washington Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
459 2,995 2.09 .876 .618

Luke Falk leaves Washington State a prolific passer, but I fear for his pro
Comp 68 37 39
transition. Falk can deliver a pretty ball, and has the touch to drop throws
Att 122 78 62
in the bucket both in the middle of the field and on the sideline. Howev-
Yards 872 637 309
er, he lacks the arm strength to vary velocity, and as such, simply cannot
Comp % 55.7% 47.4% 62.9%
“make all of the throws.” Falk’s pocket presence is inconsistent, and Accuracy 0.836 0.782 0.871
when paired with his average athleticism, tethers his game to the pocket Placement 0.545 0.506 0.653
and entirely handicaps him when pressured. Born and bred in the Air Conversion 52 28 15
Raid, Falk regularly sits on his primary read for extended periods of time, Conversion % 42.6% 35.9% 24.2%
relying on the spacing of his offense to eventually open a throwing win- Adj. Conv. % 47.0% 36.2% 23.9%
dow. Beyond the occasional impressive touch pass into traffic, Falk simply INTable 12 9 5
does not regularly demonstrate NFL skills, nor does he have raw NFL INTable % 9.8% 11.5% 8.1%
traits that are yet unearthed. Falk needs a wide-open offense to see any
success, and projects at best as a backup in the NFL.
Charting by Region
6/24, 177 yds 9/19, 285 yds 13/29, 451 yds 23/70, 701 yds
20+

10-19
9/22, 143 yds 14/37, 249 yds 10/29, 138 yds 33/88, 530 yds
18/28, 140 yds 71/93, 689 yds 33/43, 233 yds 122/164, 1062 yds
0-9

40/44, 232 yds 15/18, 113 yds 70/75, 357 yds 125/137, 702 yds
<0

23
Exceptional Data
Luke Falk
Dropbacks
Scrambles 25
531
4.7%
Sacks 35 6.6%
Games Charted (11): v. Montana State, v. Boise State, v. Oregon State, v. USC, @ Batted 4 0.8%
Oregon, @ California, v. Colorado, @ Arizona, v. Stanford, @ Utah, @ Washington
Throwaway 8 1.5%
Drops 31
Drop rate 6.8%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
5.2% 4.1% 5.9% 5.9% 9.5% 8.0%
4.8% 8.1% 6.3% 4.8% 8.3% 4.6%

0-9
0-9
6.1% 20.3% 9.4% 4.7% 23.0% 7.8%

<0
<0
9.6% 3.9% 16.3% 7.7% 3.8% 11.9%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.583 0.895 0.704 0.271 0.526 0.407
0.909 0.676 0.655 0.614 0.432 0.586

0-9
0-9
0.857 0.968 0.884 0.482 0.726 0.616

<0
<0
1.000 1.000 0.987 0.739 0.778 0.747
24
Notable Measures
Luke Falk
Top Quartile
YAC %
% attempt “Behind LoS”
Bottom Quartile
Place “Beyond LoS,” “0-9,”
and “20+”
Acc “10-19”
Games Charted (11): v. Montana State, v. Boise State, v. Oregon State, v. USC, @ Target Share “20+”
Acc “Out of Pocket”
Oregon, @ California, v. Colorado, @ Arizona, v. Stanford, @ Utah, @ Washington Acc “Move P.”
Place “Under Press.”
Adj. conv. % (RZ)


-7.9% -20.7% -17.5% -1.0% -31.0% -66.1%
%c %c %c %c %c
-2.9% -22.7% -8.7% -12.0% -13.7% -22.7%
%c %c %c %c %c
Plc. -2.1% Plc. -17.7% Plc. -21.9% -10.7% Plc. -28.0% Plc. -23.9%
%c %c %c %c %c
-15.2% -48.7% -12.1% -62.3% 46.3% 391.9%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
I do not think Luke Falk is a starting-level QB in the NFL. I sure would like to—he strikes me as a solid guy—but the questions re-
garding physical ability, poise, and post-snap comprehension are too vast to ignore.
I wish every QB could throw a fade route like Luke Falk, who sure can drop it in a bucket—but we cannot take that one route and
call him accurate, or claim he has touch. Falk leans heavily on his first read, desperately hoping it opens and often force-feeding
the route, which leads to high interceptable numbers under that context. When there’s no space, Falk is quick to scurry to his
checkdown, which inflates his “Beyond” first read numbers to illustrate synthetic “progressions.” He doesn’t make decisions—he
panics and reverts.
When we add all the other contexts into the mix, we see that Falk simply struggles to adapt to anything and everything. QBs who
are good when everything is peachy keen are bad in the NFL, because NFL defenders are good at their jobs—that’s the short of it,
I’m afraid. Falk has nice intangibles and consistency to be a known backup quantity, but I can’t envision him developing into any-
thing more.
25
Lamar Jackson
Junior, Louisville, born 1/07/1997
Chartable
Attempts
TD
28
INTable
16
YAC
1,646
Games Charted (13): @ Purdue, @ UNC, v. Clemson, v. Kent State, v. Murray State, 255 409 10 3.9% 44.1%
@ NC State, v. Boston College, @ Florida State, @ Wake Forest, v. Virginia, v. Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
Syracuse, @ Kentucky, n. Mississippi State
409 3,733 2.8 .853 .698

Jackson is pure lightning in a QB bottle. Lamar, like many naturally gifted
Comp 60 44 23
passers before him, tends to stray too far away from his mechanics,
Att 104 73 50
which leads to some ugly misses. But when categorizing a huge miss and
Yards 906 641 238
a regular miss the same (uncatchable; poorly placed), we discover a key Comp % 57.7% 60.3% 46.0%
truth underneath our subconscious corrections and biases: Lamar is an Accuracy 0.808 0.849 0.760
accurate quarterback. His catchable numbers aren’t amazing, no—but his Placement 0.639 0.651 0.630
placement numbers are. When he throws, he is acutely aware of where Conversion 48 34 14
the ball belongs relative to coverage. A sub-4% INTable number speaks to Conversion % 46.2% 46.6% 28.0%
this, as does the data into tight windows and beyond his first read. Lamar Adj. Conv. % 50% 52.2% 36.1%
has more playmaking ability than any quarterback in this class by leaps INTable 5 3 3
and bounds, due in large part to his legs—but don’t miss it: this is an INTable % 4.8% 4.1% 6.0%
adept college thrower who can run multiple styles of offense, hit every
throw, and is worthy of the #1 overall selection in any class.
Charting by Region
4/19, 125 yds 11/33, 552 yds 7/20, 195 yds 22/72, 872 yds
20+

10-19
10/19, 161 yds 34/54, 556 yds 19/34, 332 yds 63/107, 1049 yds
33/40, 412 yds 44/66, 607 yds 48/66, 481 yds 125/172, 1500
0-9

25/29, 142 yds 4/6, 36 yds 16/23, 124 yds 45/58, 302 yds
<0
Accuracy: .931 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .913 Accuracy: .931

26
Exceptional Data
Lamar Jackson
Dropbacks
Scrambles
514
54 10.5%
Sacks 26 5.1%
Games Charted (13): @ Purdue, @ UNC, v. Clemson, v. Kent State, v. Murray State, Batted 9 1.8%
@ NC State, v. Boston College, @ Florida State, @ Wake Forest, v. Virginia, v.
Syracuse, @ Kentucky, n. Mississippi State Throwaway 16 3.1%
Drops 44
Drop rate 10.8%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
4.6% 8.1% 4.9% 3.3% 14.8% 5.2%
4.6% 13.2% 8.3% 4.3% 14.9% 8.9%

0-9
0-9
9.8% 16.1% 16.1% 11.0% 16.3% 12.9%

<0
<0
7.1% 1.5% 5.6% 3.8% 1.0% 3.3%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.632 0.606 0.700 0.605 0.636 0.550
0.947 0.926 0.765 0.737 0.685 0.676

0-9
0-9
0.925 0.909 0.894 0.788 0.795 0.689

<0
<0
0.931 1.000 0.913 0.638 0.833 0.652
27
Notable Measures
Lamar Jackson
Top Quartile
Place “Beyond LoS,” “10-
19,” “20+,” “Beyond 1st.
Bottom Quartile
Acc/place “Behind LoS”
% attempt “Tight Window”
Read,” and “Tight Window” % INTable
Acc/place “Out of Pocket”
Games Charted (13): @ Purdue, @ UNC, v. Clemson, v. Kent State, v. Murray State, and “Move P.”
% attempt “Beyond 1st R.”
@ NC State, v. Boston College, @ Florida State, @ Wake Forest, v. Virginia, v. Drop Rate
Syracuse, @ Kentucky, n. Mississippi State Adj. conv. % (3rd, 3rd (5+),
and RZ)


1.2% -0.6% -36.7% -9.8% -30.1% -64.3%
%c %c %c %c %c
-11.7% 8.6% -18.8% -0.2% -16.0% -22.8%
%c %c %c %c %c
Plc. -15.2% Plc. 15.3% Plc. -36.3% 2.3% Plc. -21.2% Plc. -15.4%
%c %c %c %c %c
-48.6% -52.1% -56.8% 1.1% 70.7% 606.1%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
There’s a good deal of malarkey that circulates about Lamar in Bobby Petrino’s offense. Here’s what I know from the data:
Lamar attempted the highest amount of between-the-hashes throws of any QB in this class, which inherently allow for more vari-
ance in coverage/more complex reads. Lamar had one of the lowest Target Share “Behind LoS,” so his offense wasn’t chock ful o’
layups—though he did mark high in Target Share “0-9,” which speaks to the frequency of meshes, slants, and quick outs in Louis-
ville. Lamar also had one of the highest marks in Attempt Share “Beyond First Read,” which speaks both to his willingness to hang
in the pocket and progress through his targets, and his ability to compute on the fly from outside of the pocket. Markedly, Lamar
had a low number Attempt Share “Tight Window,” which does allude to a spread-out offense with a wider margin of accuracy er-
ror. But in Tight Windows, Lamar was an adept thrower, which helps mitigate those concerns.
I don’t know how better to convince an NFL mind that this is a pro-ready thrower, than with these numbers. Lamar would thrive in
any system, as he operates well from the pocket and excels outside of it as well, but rhythm throws with 3– or 5–step drops seem
to help his footwork laziness. Anything with spread or West Coast ideas makes a ton of sense, in regards to maximizing Jackson’s
legs. The Jets, Giants, and Chargers get me pumped.
28
Kyle Lauletta
Redshirt Senior, Richmond, born 3/17/1995
Chartable
Attempts
TD
3
INTable
4
YAC
295
Games Charted (3): @ Villanova, @ JMU, v. William & Mary 59 67.8% 4 4.6% 39.6%
Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
87 745 .75 .896 .764

The ball goes where Kyle Lauletta wants it to go. His release is lightning-
Comp 15 12 4
quick, and while his mental processing isn’t as snappy, the combination
Att 26 20 8
of the two allow him to read and react to tight windows/defensive lever-
Yards 168 153 34
age very nicely. Mechanically pure, Lauletta generates all of his velocity
Comp % 57.7% 60.0% 50.0%
from his lower half and through his core, which helps him remain accu- Accuracy 0.923 0.950 0.875
rate on high-velocity throws. However, he does not have an impressive Placement 0.750 0.775 0.938
arm , and labors to reach even 40-45 yards down the field. Without a Conversion 7 5 2
clean base, his velocity notably falls off, though he still remains competi- Conversion % 26.9% 25.0% 25.0%
tively accurate when on the run. Despite being listed at 6’3, a high inci- Adj. Conv. % 26.7% 26.1% 33.3%
dence of Lauletta’s throws were batted at the line of scrimmage, which INTable 2 2 0
puts in question his height and release point. Lauletta struggles notably INTable % 7.7% 10.0% 0.0%
beyond his first read, in part due to a poor OL and lackluster WRs. Lau-
letta warrants a Draft selection and long-term look at backup in the NFL.
Charting by Region
3/6, 76 yds 2/6, 45 yds 0/3, 0 yds 5/15, 121 yds
20+

10-19
4/6, 78 yds 9/13, 140 yds 5/8, 146 yds 18/27, 364 yds
14/17, 79 yds 4/5, 43 yds 11/15, 95 yds 29/37, 217 yds

0-9

Placement: .912 Placement: 1 Placement: .733 Placement: .851
3/4, 31 yds 0/0, 0 yds 4/4, 12 yds 7/8, 43 yds

<0
Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: N/A Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1

Placement: 1 Placement: N/A Placement: .875 Placement: .938
24/33, 264 yds 15/24, 228 20/30, 253 yds BEYOND LoS
29
Exceptional Data
Kyle Lauletta
Dropbacks
Scrambles
109
6 5.5%
Sacks 8 7.3%
Games Charted (3): @ Villanova, @ JMU, v. William & Mary Batted 5 4.6%
Throwaway 3 2.8%
Drops 7
Drop rate 8.0%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
6.9% 6.9% 3.4% 10.2% 6.0% 0.0%
6.9% 14.9% 9.2% 10.5% 18.8% 19.6%

0-9
0-9
19.5% 5.7% 17.2% 10.6% 5.8% 12.8%

<0
<0
4.6% 0.0% 4.6% 4.2% 0.0% 1.6%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.833 0.500 0.667 0.583 0.250 0.667
0.833 1.000 0.875 0.583 0.808 0.813

0-9
0-9
1.000 1.000 0.867 0.912 1.000 0.733

<0
<0
1.000 N/A 1.000 1.000 N/A 0.875
30
Notable Measures
Kyle Lauletta
Top Quartile
Acc/place “Beyond LoS,”
“Behind LoS” and “10-19”
Bottom Quartile
% attempt “Beyond 1st. R”
Adj. conv. % (3rd)
Acc “20+” Adj. conv. % (3 & 5+)
Target Share “10-19” Acc/place “Adjusted
Games Charted (3): @ Villanova, @ JMU, v. William & Mary Place “Beyond 1st R.,” “Out Platform”
of Pocket,” and “Move P.” Acc “Beyond 1st R.”
Acc/place “Tight Window”
Adj. comp %


-6.1% 19.6% -36.8% 12.4% -32.3% -35.4%
%c %c %c %c %c
-23.3% -4.9% -55.6% -11.3% -11.4% -9.9%
%c %c %c %c %c
-13.1% 5.5% -55.6% -2.4% -10.2% 0.1%
%c %c %c %c %c
73.8% -1.5% -100.0% -6.3% 195.5% 311.8%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Lauletta can no longer be called the sleeper of the QB class—he’s far too known of a quantity, and teams are beginning to under-
stand the vast potential with him. Perhaps this is good, as my evaluation will be less corrective on the perceived lack of hype.
Lauletta’s arm won’t blow you away, no—but it does not preclude him from NFL success. It is an average NFL arm, and the limita-
tions thereof are mitigated by Lauletta’s snappy mental processing and silky smooth release. When the ball hits the air, however,
we see one of the most accurate passers in this class: under almost every context, Lauletta is a top quartile passer in terms of ball
placement. Tight windows, on the move, outside of the pocket—Lauletta’s ball placement is virtually untouched! This is not just an
accurate passer: this is a precise passer with the flexibility to operate under adverse conditions.
Understanding scheme fit for Lauletta is accordingly attuned to these strengths/limitations—likely the strongest QB in this class
between the ears, I have little worry regarding Lauletta learning a system. However, the Erhardt-Perkins inspirations in Buffalo and
New England would benefit from Lauletta’s processing speed and placement, as would some West Coast mentalities that focus on
the short game (Arizona, Denver). Lauletta is a plug-and-play starter, but a year to sit and adjust to NFL speed wouldn’t hurt—
situations like New Orleans and Los Angeles (Chargers) make sense in that regard.
31
Chase Litton
Junior, Marshall, born 10/5/1995
Chartable
Attempts
TD
14
INTable
7
YAC
586
Games Charted (5): @ NC State, @ Cincinnati, v. Old Dominion, @ Florida Atlantic, 95 59.0% 7 7.45% 44.4%
n. Colorado State Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
161 1,318 2 .851 .609

Chase Litton is worthy of your interest, should you have a spot to develop
Comp 33 22 13
a QB behind your incumbent and aging starter. Litton can really sling it,
Att 58 41 23
but still demonstrates the ability to throw with touch down the field—
Yards 509 374 147
something that many cannon-armed passers lack. He regularly makes
Comp % 56.9% 53.7% 56.5%
bucket throws when attacking the sideline, a handy trait that benefits Accuracy 0.845 0.780 0.870
him both from a clean pocket and on the move. Litton is at his best out- Placement 0.612 0.585 0.696
side of the pocket and on the move, but on designed plays: not freelanc- Conversion 26 15 6
ing, as he’s woefully risky with the football and has poor situational Conversion % 44.8% 36.6% 26.1%
awareness. Despite never being the most accurate or consistent thrower, Adj. Conv. % 44.8% 34.7% 24.0%
Litton does well in the face of pressure and can whip it from poor INTable 5 3 3
platforms and angles. The high quality flashes of arm talent, poise, and INTable % 8.6% 7.3% 13.0%
placement are there: hard work in a playbook with multiple progressions
and a focus on ball security will elevate Litton from project to potential
NFL player.
Charting by Region
7/15, 266 yds 5/7, 156 yds 1/6, 23 yds 13/28, 445 yds
20+

10-19
9/16, 203 yds 6/13, 166 yds 3/11, 45 yds 18/40, 414 yds
21/32, 147 yds 11/17, 111 yds 15/22, 122 yds 47/71, 380 yds
0-9

7/10, 43 yds 3/3, 4 yds 7/9, 32 yds 17/22, 79 yds

<0

32
Exceptional Data
Chase Litton
Dropbacks
Scrambles
183
4 2.2%
Sacks 5 2.7%
Games Charted (5): @ NC State, @ Cincinnati, v. Old Dominion, @ Florida Atlantic, Batted 1 0.5%
n. Colorado State
Throwaway 12 6.6%
Drops 12
Drop rate 7.5%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
9.3% 4.3% 3.7% 20.2% 11.8% 1.7%
9.9% 8.1% 6.8% 15.4% 12.6% 3.4%

0-9
0-9
19.9% 10.6% 13.7% 11.2% 8.4% 9.3%

<0
<0
6.2% 1.9% 5.6% 3.3% 0.3% 2.4%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.867 1.000 0.500 0.500 0.643 0.417
0.813 0.846 0.636 0.563 0.423 0.500

0-9
0-9
0.813 0.882 0.955 0.594 0.794 0.727

<0
<0
1.000 1.000 0.889 0.700 1.000 0.556
33
Notable Measures
Chase Litton
Top Quartile
Acc “Out of Pocket”
Bottom Quartile
Place “Behind LoS”
Acc “0-9”
Acc “Move Platform” Target Share “Behind LoS”
% INTable Acc/place “Beyond 1st R.”
Games Charted (5): @ NC State, @ Cincinnati, v. Old Dominion, @ Florida Atlantic, % attempt “Beyond 1st R.”
Adj. comp %
n. Colorado State Adj. conv. % (RZ)


-47.0% 0.8% -37.9% 8.6% -14.2% -36.9%
%c %c %c %c %c
-18.0% 8.2% -3.8% 6.1% -7.8% -16.5%
%c %c %c %c %c
-24.2% 9.9% -22.9% 13.5% -9.9% -14.8%
%c %c %c %c %c
33.3% -63.4% 61.1% -55.6% 51.3% 211.9%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Chase Litton isn’t a starter tomorrow, in a class chock full of rookie QBs as close to starter-ready as we’ll ever see. That will push
him down the ladder, and he likely won’t be selected any earlier than the fifth round. However, Litton’s tape holds as much prom-
ise as Josh Allen’s, and his numbers are more encouraging as well. If you subscribe to the idea that you can take big, strong, mobile
QBs and improve their accuracy, then Litton is the man for you.
An offense with moving platforms and a plethora of deep throws makes a ton of sense—problem is, that isn’t the most common
offense in the world. If we focus on rollouts with levels concepts and half-field reads, we could easily work Litton into a spread sys-
tem with Air Raid concepts (think New York Jets under John Morton, but with more movement of the pocket); if we focus on
seams and streaks, perhaps you like Litton for an Air Coryell-inspired offense (think Bruce Arians’ Cardinals, but again, with a fluid
pocket). Running play action with Litton is essential, as it will open up the offense for more boots/rollouts, and will help Litton
move the safeties—eye manipulation isn’t yet his greatest strength.
The value of the late-round developmental QB is a topic of disagreement. But if you buy the idea that you can make something out
of a fifth-round guy, then Litton is worth the cast of the die.
34
Baker Mayfield
Redshirt Senior, OKLA, born 4/14/1995
Chartable
Attempts
TD
38
INTable
15
YAC
1976
Games Charted (14): v. UTEP, @ Ohio State, v. Tulane, @ Baylor, v. Iowa State, @ 243 73.9% 5 4.5% 47.5%
Texas, @ Kansas State, v. Texas Tech, @ Oklahoma State, v. TCU, @ Kansas, v. West Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
Virginia, n. TCU (CCG), n. UGA
329 4,158 7.6 .939 .679

Baker Mayfield’s film illustrates an exceptionally accurate quarterback—
Comp 42 29 34
from the pocket, on the run, pressured, in variable arm angles, moving
Att 69 45 45
through his reads, everything—who is only limited by his gamer mentality
Yards 574 397 341
and occasionally, his height. Baker uses the entirety of his pliable frame
Comp % 60.9% 64.4% 75.6%
to generate velocity. Mechanically, it allows him to reach 60+ yards down Accuracy .942 .956 1
the field, but can occasionally lead to a slingshot motion that drives the Placement .587 .556 .789
ball high to its target. Baker’s typically high placement is more prevalent Conversion 31 20 21
when he cannot set a base, and especially when bodies obstruct his Conversion % 44.9% 44.4% 46.7%
throwing hallway, in which he is forced into a high release point due to Adj. Conv. % 48.3% 45.8% 44.6%
his smaller frame. It is not yet an issue, but it is certainly worthy of note. INTable 8 5 1
Beyond that, Baker’s best trait—beyond his accuracy—is his marriage of INTable % 11.6% 11.1% 2.2%
creativity and arm talent. He can make wild, unscripted plays, and pro-
jects as a first-round quarterback in a spread/WCO.
Charting by Region
7/14, 313 yds 15/26, 655 yds 13/29, 451 yds 35/69, 1419 yds
20+

10-19
14/19, 249 yds 32/47, 618 yds 22/30, 347 yds 68/96, 1214 yds
20/22, 315 yds 37/46, 546 yds 24/29, 184 yds 81/97, 1045 yds
0-9
Accuracy: .955 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .989

18/20, 141 yds 14/16, 120 yds 27/31, 219 yds 59/65, 480 yds
<0
Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1

35
Exceptional Data
Baker Mayfield
Dropbacks
Scrambles
397
31 7.8%
Sacks 21 5.3%
Games Charted (14): v. UTEP, @ Ohio State, v. Tulane, @ Baylor, v. Iowa State, @ Batted 5 1.3%
Texas, @ Kansas State, v. Texas Tech, @ Oklahoma State, v. TCU, @ Kansas, v. West
Virginia, n. TCU (CCG), n. UGA Throwaway 11 2.8%
Drops 24
Drop rate 7.3%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
4.3% 7.9% 8.8% 7.5% 15.8% 10.8%
5.8% 14.3% 9.1% 6.0% 14.9% 8.3%

0-9
0-9
6.7% 14.0% 8.8% 7.6% 13.1% 4.4%

<0
<0
6.1% 4.9% 9.4% 3.4% 2.9% 5.3%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.714 0.846 0.862 0.607 0.385 0.690
0.895 0.915 0.967 0.658 0.521 0.633

0-9
0-9
0.955 1.000 1.000 0.682 0.739 0.793

<0
<0
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.825 0.844 0.871
36
Notable Measures
Baker Mayfield
Top Quartile Bottom Quartile
Acc/place under all 5 con- Target Share “0-9”
texts
Acc “Beyond LoS” and to
all four depths of field
Games Charted (14): v. UTEP, @ Ohio State, v. Tulane, @ Baylor, v. Iowa State, @ Place “20+”
Target Share “20+”
Texas, @ Kansas State, v. Texas Tech, @ Oklahoma State, v. TCU, @ Kansas, v. West % attempt “Beyond 1st R.
Virginia, n. TCU (CCG), n. UGA % attempt “Tight Window”
Adj. conv. % (3rd) (3&5+)
(RZ)
Contextual Data: Raw Adj. comp %


-19.7% -4.8% -10.4% 2.4% -15.9% -50.0%
%c %c %c %c %c
-5.1% -4.7% 1.3% -1.1% -3.9% -7.5%
%c %c %c %c %c
-12.2% 2.6% -11.3% 8.3% -14.6% -0.5%
%c %c %c %c %c
81.7% 7.7% -5.2% -65.6% -51.3% 235.8%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Baker Mayfield is a starting NFL quarterback. Questions about his moral fiber and height are intangible, and must be addressed by
individual teams. Questions about the freedom of Oklahoma’s system, and Baker’s ability to throw with anticipation, we can more
readily address:
Baker attempted as many “Tight Window” throws as anyone in this class, and delivered accurately, well-placed balls at a higher clip
than any other quarterback. He can anticipate defenders’ spacing and range, and deliver the football accordingly. He certainly did
benefit from Oklahoma’s spread system—he led qualifying QBs in % of YAC gained, as well—but we can comfortably say Baker’s
system does not preclude him from hitting the tough throws. He may have to ingrain timing and drops (scheme-dependent, of
course) into his system, but there is no reason to believe he will struggle to do this at all. Throw in the minimal-to-average drop-off
in accuracy and placement when under pressure, beyond the first read, and changing platforms, and Mayfield can do it all.
Baker projects best into a spread-style offense, of course—but a West Coast offense fits him snugly as well. The Giants’ new sys-
tem under Pat Shurmur makes sense, as does their brethren, the Jets and the Rick Dennison/Jeremy Bates duo. Teams running
strict timing offenses should likely steer clear of Mayfield—but he doesn’t strike me as much of a Bill Belichick guy, anyway.
37
Josh Rosen
Junior, UCLA, born 2/10/1997
Chartable
Attempts
TD
26
INTable
13
YAC
1,641
Games Charted (10): v. Texas A&M, v. Hawaii, @ Memphis, v. Stanford, v. 263 66.4% 6 3.28% 45.7%
Colorado, v. Oregon, @ Washington, v. Arizona State, @ USC, v. California Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
396 3,592 4.33 .884 .730

Josh Rosen is, in my eyes, the best QB prospect to come out since Mari-
Comp 55 41 31
ota. Maybe Luck—it’s been a hot second since I watched Mariota.
Att 94 72 57
Rosen’s game perfectly encapsulates the placement/accurate distinction:
Yards 745 591 260
while his accuracy numbers run right around average for the top QBs in
Comp % 58.5% 56.9% 54.4%
this class, his placement numbers (beyond the line of scrimmage) stay Accuracy 0.851 0.889 0.895
elite to all regions of the field. Rosen is a bit of a purist: he struggles be- Placement 0.713 0.736 0.754
yond his first read, from the move platform, and outside of the pocket. Conversion 40 29 15
But Rosen was limited by the Jim Mora offense, in which he attempted Conversion % 42.6% 40.3% 26.3%
less than 40% beyond 9 yards down the field despite excellent anticipa- Adj. Conv. % 42.4% 40% 28.1%
tion, field vision, and ball placement. Still young (only 4 months older INTable 4 3 1
than Sam Darnold) and growing, Rosen has yet to hit his ceiling, and an INTable % 4.3% 4.2% 1.8%
improved offensive line and more advantageous target share to his skill
set will unlock how dangerous a sniper he can be.
Charting by Region
5/21, 123 yds 11/20, 509 yds 2/10, 78 yds 18/51, 710 yds
20+

10-19
26/36, 442 yds 28/47, 598 yds 15/20, 267 yds 69/103, 1307 yds
32/49, 272 yds 43/63, 508 yds 33/45, 263 yds 108/157, 1043 yds
0-9

34/40, 265 yds 8/11, 85 yds 27/34, 175 yds 69/85, 525 yds
<0

38
Exceptional Data
Josh Rosen
Dropbacks
Scrambles
450
11 2.4%
Sacks 18 4.0%
Games Charted (10): v. Texas A&M, v. Hawaii, @ Memphis, v. Stanford, v. Batted 12 2.7%
Colorado, v. Oregon, @ Washington, v. Arizona State, @ USC, v. California
Throwaway 13 2.9%
Drops 33
Drop rate 8.3%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
5.3% 5.1% 2.5% 3.4% 14.2% 2.2%
9.1% 11.9% 5.1% 12.3% 16.6% 7.4%

0-9
0-9
12.4% 15.9% 11.4% 7.6% 14.1% 7.3%

<0
<0
10.1% 2.8% 8.6% 7.4% 2.4% 4.9%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.571 0.900 0.400 0.714 0.525 0.500
0.889 0.894 0.900 0.722 0.723 0.675

0-9
0-9
0.918 0.921 0.911 0.724 0.817 0.767

<0
<0
0.950 0.818 0.971 0.800 0.682 0.706
39
Notable Measures
Josh Rosen
Top Quartile
Place “Beyond LoS” “10-
19” “20+”
Bottom Quartile
Place “Behind LoS”
Target Share “Behind LoS” Acc/place “Out of Pocket”
% attempt “Beyond 1st R.” Acc/place “Move P.”
Games Charted (10): v. Texas A&M, v. Hawaii, @ Memphis, v. Stanford, v. Drop Rate Acc “Tight Window”
% INTable
Colorado, v. Oregon, @ Washington, v. Arizona State, @ USC, v. California


-18.8% -40.1% -22.6% -38.9% -22.5% -41.7%
%c %c %c %c %c
-12.7% -32.0% -14.9% -30.1% -17.3% -24.3%
%c %c %c %c %c
-19.9% -35.5% -23.9% -37.5% -24.8% -15.0%
%c %c %c %c %c
512.7% 812.6% 250.0% 666.7% 154.8% 483.3%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Josh Rosen can play in any scheme. He is the best passer in the class. I don’t know what you want me to say. Him good.
Let’s say you run a West Coast spacing attack with an emphasis on deep shots, like Hue Jackson has in Cleveland: Rosen has the
quick release and pinpoint accuracy to run the machine, and his deep ball is as deadly as anyone’s. What if you’re more spready,
like Pat Shurmur has been in his time before the Giants? Rosen has excellent pre- and post-snap recognition, as well as excellent
ball velocity, to diagnose and strike horizontal weakness. West Coast, like Jackson, with some Air Raid sprinkled in? Jeremy Bates
and the New York Jets would be mighty pleased.
Any coordinator worth his salt will recognize that they can run their system through Rosen, but should also sculpt their designs to
keep him in the pocket/protected. Rosen does not need development, but I believe he will continue to develop in his crispness
moving from his first read, and his willingness to push it deep. I think a steady but unthreatening veteran presence would benefit
Rosen, both in terms of how to hold himself as an NFL QB, and in taking full control over an offensive system that will hopefully
and finally maximize his wonderful strengths.
40
Mason Rudolph Senior, OKST, born 7/17/1995
Chartable
Attempts
TD
37
INTable
33
YAC
1,855
Games Charted (13): v. Tulsa, @ South Alabama, @ Pitt, v. TCU, @ Texas Tech, v. 307 64.8% 8 6.9% 37.8%
Baylor, @ Texas, @ West Virginia, v. Oklahoma, @ Iowa State, v. Kansas State, v. Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
Kansas, n. Virginia Tech
474 4,907 4.625 .871 .602

Mason Rudolph presents an interesting evaluation and a tough riddle. He 3rd Down 3rd (5+) Red Zone
throws a very catchable football, but his ball placement is overestimated, Comp 65 47 31
likely due to the wide-open nature of his offense. Well-built, Rudolph has Att 110 83 67
a strong arm that can reach 60+ yards down the field, and his greatest Yards 894 704 308
strength is his downfield accuracy and placement—but again, one won- Comp % 59.1% 56.6% 46.3%
Accuracy 0.855 0.807 0.806
ders the extent to which scheme/WRs assisted with those numbers. Sur-
Placement 0.586 0.530 0.627
prising, perhaps, are Rudolph’s numbers beyond his first read, outside of
Conversion 55 37 14
the pocket, and even throwing into tight windows—there are signs of
Conversion % 50.0% 44.6% 20.9%
promise in all three, which indicate that Rudolph could indeed grow be-
Adj. Conv. % 50.4% 46.8% 25%
yond his scheme. Rudolph’s struggles with ball placement, zip, and off- INTable 6 6 8
platform limit him as a creative passer, but he certainly has fringe starting INTable % 5.5% 7.2% 11.9%
potential in a vertical-based offense with a strong offensive line.
Charting by Region
13/30, 562 yds 15/27, 590 yds 16/39, 662 yds 44/96, 1,814 yds
20+

10-19
39/64, 596 yds 43/72, 968 yds 20/39, 252 yds 102/175, 1,816 yds
21/28, 214 yds 28/39, 296 yds 37/48, 347 yds 86/115, 857 yds
0-9

36/42, 202 yds 15/18, 99 yds 24/28, 119 yds 75/88, 420 yds
<0

109/164, 1,574 yds 101/156, 1,953 yds 97/154, 1,380 yds BEYOND LoS
41
Exceptional Data
Mason Rudolph
Senior, OKST, born 7/17/1995
Dropbacks
Scrambles 14
525
2.7%
Sacks 22 4.2%
Games Charted (13): v. Tulsa, @ South Alabama, @ Pitt, v. TCU, @ Texas Tech, v. Batted 5 1.0%
Baylor, @ Texas, @ West Virginia, v. Oklahoma, @ Iowa State, v. Kansas State, v.
Kansas, n. Virginia Tech Throwaway 9 1.7%
Drops 25
Drop rate 5.3%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
6.3% 5.7% 8.2% 11.5% 12.0% 13.5%
13.5% 15.2% 8.2% 12.1% 19.7% 5.1%

0-9
0-9
5.9% 8.2% 10.1% 4.4% 6.0% 7.1%

<0
<0
8.9% 3.8% 5.9% 4.1% 2.0% 2.4%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.800 0.704 0.744 0.500 0.519 0.526
0.844 0.889 0.872 0.563 0.549 0.410

0-9
0-9
0.821 0.897 0.938 0.643 0.744 0.667

<0
<0
1.000 0.889 1.000 0.774 0.750 0.696
42
Notable Measures
Mason Rudolph Senior, OKST, born 7/17/1995
Top Quartile
Acc “Beyond 1st R.”
Bottom Quartile
Acc “0-9”
Acc “Adjusted Platform” Place “Move Platform”
% attempt “Tight Window” Drop Rate
Games Charted (13): v. Tulsa, @ South Alabama, @ Pitt, v. TCU, @ Texas Tech, v. Adj. conv. % (3rd) % YAC
Adj. conv. % (3 & 5+)
Baylor, @ Texas, @ West Virginia, v. Oklahoma, @ Iowa State, v. Kansas State, v. INTable %
Kansas, n. Virginia Tech


-6.5% -14.2% -10.0% -21.0% -15.5% -54.6%
%c %c %c %c %c
0.0% 1.1% -7.1% -8.4% -9.2% -13.3%
%c %c %c %c %c
-10.9% -3.9% -3.4% -18.0% -14.6% 0.3%
%c %c %c %c %c
-34.1% -43.9% 84.4% -100% 122.4% 402.2%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Rudolph is one of the most scheme-reliant projections at the QB position in this year’s Draft. In order to succeed as an NFL quarter-
back, Mason Rudolph must be given the opportunity to throw the ball deep, as his greatest strength is his accuracy 30/40+ yards
down the field (and his placement isn’t too bad either). Rudolph does better beyond his first read than most would have you be-
lieve, but that’s less about his progression speed in the pocket, and more a reflection of his escapability and trust in his receivers to
work on the fly. The tight window numbers also speak to this idea: Rudolph just has a really good understanding of the game. He
doesn’t panic; he knows his limitations; he maximizes his teammates.
Rudolph has the mental fortitude and intangible aspects to immediately start in the NFL.
But pressure really screws with Rudolph’s finely-tuned machinery, and his ball placement to the short and intermediate is not what
it should be to consistently make the layups and move an offense. Teams interested in Rudolph as a starter should be willing to
incorporate spread concepts, with tons of option routes and pre-snap checks to open up the deep game. A willing investment in
the offensive line is also a must. Baltimore, Jacksonville, and Pittsburgh all could make sense. Any team, regardless of scheme,
should see top-tier backup potential in Rudolph as well.
43
Brandon Silvers
Redshirt Senior, TROY, born 5/09/1994
Chartable
Attempts
TD
17
INTable
14
YAC
1,762
Games Charted (12): @ Boise State, v. Alabama State, @ New Mexico State, v. 254 64.0% 5 3.5% 57.7%
Akron, @ LSU, v. South Alabama, @ Georgia State, v. Georgia Southern, v. Idaho, v. Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
Texas State, @ Arkansas State, n. North Texas
397 3,050 3.4 .872 .601

Brandon Silvers, I’m afraid, does little to excite. He can really whip it, but 3rd Down 3rd (5+) Red Zone
a lot of his velocity results from a massive windup that was masked by Comp 61 49 25
wide-open throwing windows in an Air-Raid inspired offense under Troy Att 112 89 44
HC Neal Brown. He doesn’t model fantastic anticipation, which only fur- Yards 748 605 276
thers the issue of his slow release. If those heaters can still arrive in the Comp % 54.5% 55.1% 56.8%
Accuracy 0.839 0.831 0.795
narrow NFL windows, Silvers has some potential as a gun-slinging backup.
Placement 0.558 0.539 0.545
But at present, Silvers struggles mightily against pressure, has very spo-
Conversion 40 29 12
radic downfield accuracy, and often panics when asked to move beyond
Conversion % 35.7% 32.6% 27.3%
his first read. The majority of his production came in the form of YAC, and
Adj. Conv. % 39.2% 34.4% 30.0%
the majority of his interceptable balls came on force-feeds to his primary INTable 6 5 3
read. His sidearm mechanics—and correspondingly wonky placement— INTable % 5.4% 5.6% 6.8%
could work with massive strides in anticipation, processing, and poise,
but it’s tough to imagine those gains coming to fruition.
Charting by Region
8/29, 291 yds 4/12, 166 yds 5/12, 170 yds 17/53, 627 yds
20+

10-19
11/24, 157 yds 15/38, 293 yds 12/29, 192 yds 38/91, 642 yds
27/37, 249 yds 31/48, 323 yds 36/46, 346 yds 94/131, 918 yds
0-9

45/50, 382 yds 22/26, 228 yds 38/46, 253 yds 105/122, 863 yds
<0
Accuracy: .980 Accuracy: .962 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .984

91/140, 1,079 yds 72/124, 1,010 yds 91/133, 961 yds BEYOND LoS
44
Exceptional Data
Brandon Silvers
Dropbacks
Scrambles 5
430
1.2%
Sacks 13 3.0%
Games Charted (12): @ Boise State, v. Alabama State, @ New Mexico State, v. Batted 4 0.9%
Akron, @ LSU, v. South Alabama, @ Georgia State, v. Georgia Southern, v. Idaho, v.
Texas State, @ Arkansas State, n. North Texas Throwaway 11 2.6%
Drops 31
Drop rate 7.8%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
7.3% 3.0% 3.0% 9.5% 5.4% 5.6%
6.0% 9.6% 7.3% 5.1% 9.6% 6.3%

0-9
0-9
9.3% 12.1% 11.6% 8.2% 10.6% 11.3%

<0
<0
12.6% 6.5% 11.6% 12.5% 7.5% 8.3%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.552 0.750 0.667 0.397 0.333 0.458
0.750 0.816 0.724 0.458 0.447 0.483

0-9
0-9
0.892 0.958 0.913 0.649 0.688 0.717

<0
<0
0.980 0.962 1.000 0.680 0.712 0.717
45
Notable Measures
Brandon Silvers
Top Quartile
Target Share “Behind LoS”
Place “Adjusted Platform”
Bottom Quartile
Acc/place “Beyond LoS”
Acc/place “10-19”
Acc “Tight Window” Target Share “0-9” & “20+”
YAC % Acc “Under Press.”
Games Charted (12): @ Boise State, v. Alabama State, @ New Mexico State, v. % attempt “Beyond 1st R.”
% attempt “Tight Window”
Akron, @ LSU, v. South Alabama, @ Georgia State, v. Georgia Southern, v. Idaho, v. Adj. conv. % (3rd) (3 & 5+)
Texas State, @ Arkansas State, n. North Texas INTable %


-23.7% -10.8% -18.2% 4.9% -50.5% -51.8%
%c %c %c %c %c
-5.9% -12.0% -9.2% -5.5% -27.0% -10.8%
%c %c %c %c %c
-9.3% -2.2% -1.7% -5.6% -42.2% -19.0%
%c %c %c %c %c
-100.0% -100.0% 35.6% -100% 8.2% 695.3%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Brandon Silvers represents an “if only” sort of evaluation. He has one of best arms in this class, despite the sidearm release: great
velocity into tight windows, ability to throw with some touch down the sideline, good range. But everything else about Silvers just
knocks his evaluation down, peg after peg: poor anticipation of defender’s leverage into tight windows; panic under pressure with
ill-advised scrambles and 50/50 prayers; high-variance ball placement, especially when attacking down the field; a lack of multi-
read concepts in Neal Brown’s (super fun but) simple offensive scheme.
Bring Silvers in to compete in your camp, especially if you have any Air Raid concepts in your playbook (NYJ? NOLA?). But don’t
expect much from him, and be excited if he warrants a spot as a QB3. It’s tough to imagine enough development in every weak
area for Silvers to become anything more than a camp body in the NFL.
46
Mike White
Redshirt Senior, WKU, born 3/25/1995
Chartable
Attempts
TD
9
INTable
8
YAC
523
Games Charted (3): v. Florida Atlantic, v. Middle Tennessee, n. Georgia State 101 67.8% 2 5.4% 41.4%
Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
149 1,264 4.5 .839 .597

Mike White checks the common boxes: big frame, strong arm, can move 3rd Down 3rd (5+) Red Zone
around a bit. I don’t think he’s as mobile as he thinks he is, which leads to Comp 26 16 11
a high propensity of silly sacks taken. That’s my biggest pause with Att 39 28 19
White’s game: what’s between the ears. White has shown the ability to Yards 273 199 98
manipulate coverages with his eyes, and often has a good pre-snap plan Comp % 66.7% 57.1% 57.9%
Accuracy 0.872 0.821 0.842
for the coverage shell/route concept. If his initial read doesn’t open, how-
Placement 0.615 0.571 0.658
ever, White lacks the poise and processing speed to consistently get to a
Conversion 17 10 6
secondary read/make a wise decision. 95% of White’s tape is two plays:
Conversion % 43.6% 35.7% 31.6%
first read/checkdown, or frantic, hopeless improvisation that often goes
Adj. Conv. % 42.9% 37.9% 36.8%
awry. White hits enough marks in the “tools” department to warrant a INTable 1 1 1
late selection and further investigation, but his decision-making must im- INTable % 2.6% 3.6% 5.3%
prove drastically, in my opinion, before he can develop into a reliable
passer.
Charting by Region
8/17, 367 yds 2/4, 49 yds 1/7, 26 yds 11/28, 442 yds
20+

10-19
5/11, 69 yds 7/10, 111 yds 3/6, 51 yds 15/27, 231 yds
Accuracy: .727 Accuracy: .9 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .852
14/20, 106 yds 27/33, 253 yds 15/17, 149 yds 56/70, 508 yds
0-9

8/11, 39 yds 2/4, 22 yds 9/9, 22 yds 19/24, 83 yds

<0

47
Exceptional Data
Mike White
Dropbacks
Scrambles 0
170
0.0%
Sacks 13 7.6%
Games Charted (3): v. Florida Atlantic, v. Middle Tennessee, n. Georgia State Batted 5 2.9%
Throwaway 3 1.8%
Drops 9
Drop rate 6.0%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
11.4% 2.7% 4.7% 29.0% 3.9% 2.1%
7.4% 6.7% 4.0% 5.5% 8.8% 4.0%

0-9
0-9
13.4% 22.1% 11.4% 8.4% 20.0% 11.8%

<0
<0
7.4% 2.7% 6.0% 3.1% 1.7% 1.7%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.588 1.000 0.143 0.412 0.125 0.143
0.727 0.900 1.000 0.455 0.550 0.500

0-9
0-9
0.850 0.939 0.941 0.600 0.773 0.765

<0
<0
1.000 0.750 1.000 0.636 0.625 0.778
48
Notable Measures
Mike White
Top Quartile
Adj. conv. % (RZ)
Bottom Quartile
Acc “Beyond LoS”
Place “10-19”
Acc/place “20+”
Games Charted (3): v. Florida Atlantic, v. Middle Tennessee, n. Georgia State Acc “Adjusted P.”
Place “Beyond 1st R.”
Acc/place “Out of Pocket”
Acc/place “Tight Window”


-16.3% -47.2% -23.4% -2.1% -15.7% -47.2%
%c %c %c %c %c
-16.4% -45.5% -30.7% -0.3% -12.6% -32.0%
%c %c %c %c %c
-19.5% -45.3% -3.8% 11.8% -15.1% -42.2%
%c %c %c %c %c
148.3% 44.0% 273.3% 154.5% 81.6% 620.2%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Despite the fact that he may try to play like something else, Mike White is a pocket passer who is heavily reliant on his first read.
Admittedly, White suffered behind a terrible offensive line at Western Kentucky, and when he’s freelancing some good stuff can
happen—but there’s no in between. White’s a fine quarterback when everything is under control, but once he’s forced to adapt,
he panics.
The issue here is processing and even release speed. You can almost identify the various steps in the process for White: locate
read, decide to throw, begin release, release. What should be instantaneous is delayed and segmented. Spread/West Coast sys-
tems will be the most favorable to White, who needs a quick game’s big windows to survive. But it’s difficult at this juncture to im-
agine Mike White as anything more than a practice squad QB when he first begins in the NFL, with the potential to win a roster
spot at some point in his career.
49
Logan Woodside
Redshirt Senior, Toledo, born 1/27/1995
Chartable
Attempts
TD
28
INTable
18
YAC
1,698
Games Charted (14): v. Elon, @ Nevada, v. Tulsa, @ Miami (FL), v. Eastern 271 405 66.9% 4.44% 41.7%
Michigan, @ Central Michigan, v. Akron, @ Ball State, v. Northern Illinois, @ Ohio Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement
@ Bowling Green, v. Western Michigan, n. Akron, n. Appalachian State
405 4,075 3.11 .906 .664

Logan Woodside—or as I like to call him, the Baker Mayfield of the MAC. 3rd Down 3rd (5+) Red Zone
The parallels are warranted: both are unbelievably accurate, but there’s a Comp 63 42 20
big dropoff in the placement numbers. Both have less-than-ideal arm Att 99 69 37
strength, but mitigate those concerns with pure full-body mechanics to Yards 801 603 205
generate velocity. Both enjoyed a super-duper spread-y system that regu- Comp % 63.6% 60.9% 54.1%
Accuracy 0.899 0.913 0.838
larly reduced their process post-snap and regularly opened up their first
Placement 0.677 0.623 0.635
read. And both are pretty scrappy—though the Oklahoman likely takes
Conversion 45 28 10
the cake there—with good conversion numbers in the clutch. Woodside’s
Conversion % 45.5% 40.6% 27.0%
starting experience and system familiarity led to some exciting numbers
Adj. Conv. % 47.1% 44.4% 26.0%
under contexts like “Adjusted Platform” and “Pressure,” but he struggles INTable 5 5 3
to interpret second-level defenders and his ball dies in the air, especially INTable % 5.1% 7.2% 8.1%
when he tries to put some extra mustard on it. It’s likely that Woodside’s
limitations as a passer will forever keep him out of starting contention,
but he has the potential to stick as a backup in the NFL.
Charting by Region
15/28, 546 yds 12/32, 421 yds 10/29, 412 yds 37/89, 1379 yds
20+

10-19
18/26, 255 yds 33/54, 634 yds 20/30, 359 yds 71/110, 1248 yds
29/41, 303 yds 47/56, 473 yds 41/57, 371 yds 117/154, 1147 yds
0-9

22/25, 118 yds 3/4, 34 yds 21/23, 149 yds 46/52, 301 yds
<0
Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1

50
Exceptional Data
Logan Woodside
Dropbacks
Scrambles
469
24 5.1%
Sacks 21 4.5%
Games Charted (14): v. Elon, @ Nevada, v. Tulsa, @ Miami (FL), v. Eastern Batted 10 2.1%
Michigan, @ Central Michigan, v. Akron, @ Ball State, v. Northern Illinois, @ Ohio
@ Bowling Green, v. Western Michigan, n. Akron, n. Appalachian State Throwaway 9 1.9%
Drops 35
Drop rate 8.6%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
6.9% 7.9% 7.2% 13.4% 10.3% 10.1%
6.4% 13.3% 7.4% 6.3% 15.6% 8.8%

0-9
0-9
10.1% 13.8% 14.1% 7.4% 11.6% 9.1%

<0
<0
6.2% 1.0% 5.7% 2.9% 0.8% 3.7%

20+ 10-19
20+ 10-19
0.821 0.750 0.690 0.571 0.500 0.483
0.808 0.963 0.867 0.615 0.676 0.600

0-9
0-9
0.976 1.000 0.930 0.646 0.750 0.675

<0
<0
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.840 1.000 0.891
51
Notable Measures
Logan Woodside
Top Quartile
Acc “Beyond LoS” “Behind
LoS” “0-9” “10-19” “20”
Bottom Quartile
Target Share “Behind LoS”
Place “Tight Window”
Place “Behind LoS
Games Charted (14): v. Elon, @ Nevada, v. Tulsa, @ Miami (FL), v. Eastern Acc “Beyond 1st R.”
Acc/place “Adjusted P.”
Michigan, @ Central Michigan, v. Akron, @ Ball State, v. Northern Illinois, @ Ohio Acc/place “Under Press.”
@ Bowling Green, v. Western Michigan, n. Akron, n. Appalachian State Drop Rate
Adj. comp %


-26.3% -46.7% 2.6% -37.5% -20.0% -55.7%
%c %c %c %c %c
-5.4% -16.1% -2.8% -10.2% -12.9% -17.1%
%c %c %c %c %c
-17.7% -28.7% -6.8% -18.1% -14.3% -32.2%
%c %c %c %c %c
38.8% 32.1% -13.6% 66.7% -1.4% 940.0%
%c %c %c %c %c
Looking Forward
Logan Woodside projects as a backup caliber QB in the NFL. A first-read heavy thrower with limited velocity, Woodside has shown
the ability to keep a spaced-out, first-read heavy offense on track, and even thrives in the role of ball distributer and point guard.
The difficulty with drafting Woodside late to fight for your backup role is the perceived cap on his development: Woodside already
has three seasons worth of starting experience, and I’m not sure his occasional first-read tunnel vision and struggle with sinking
second-level defenders will ever go away. Woodside also puts his entire body into every throw, which helps mitigate his weak arm,
but it’s tough to imagine his ball getting any faster than it currently is.
Teams with timing-oriented offenses will be interested in Woodside, as well as spread teams that give him similar half-field reads
and pre-snap determinations as the excellent scheme the Rockets run. If Woodside makes big strides in terms of post-snap recog-
nition and anticipation, he can give you serviceable spot starting ability in the long-term. Otherwise, he will struggle to elevate
your team outside of your offensive scheme—but hey! Nick Foles won a Super Bowl doing just that.
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Acknowledgments
I am overwhelmed by my debts. This project was a massive undertak-

ing—one, of course, still unfinished, as there are many years’ worth of
QBs who await charting and analysis. Without the patience, help, and
support of many, it would never have seen the light of day.
The staff at NDT Scouting, headlined by Director Kyle Crabbs and Assis-
tant Director Joe Marino, never ceases to push my bar. They honor me
by including me in their ranks and freely offering the lessons of their ex-
perience. With due respect to all of those fine gentlemen, a particular
thank you goes out to Joe Marino, to whom I owe every opportunity I
will ever have, in woeful recompense for the faith he showed in me.
I am blessed to attend a wonderful university, and in return, I neglect it,

and spend all of my time on projects like this. In all sincerity, it is by the
University of Chicago’s grace that I attend such an excellent school, af-
fording me both opportunities to do great things through it, and the
freedom to pursue similarly great things outside of it.
I have no idea how people get full college games onto YouTube, to be
frank, but if you are one of these esteemed folk—you know who you
are—you have my thanks. I don’t know how to DVR diddly squat.
And finally, thank you again for reading. I hope the data here assists you
in making better QB evaluations, and that you return in following years
for more powerful, predictive data. Please feel encouraged to reach out
through e-mail (benjamin.solak@gmail.com) or on Twitter
(@BenjaminSolak) with any helpful criticisms, concerns, or questions.
- Benjamin N. Solak
72

2018 Contextualized Quarterbacking2 PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

2018 Contextualized Quarterbacking2 PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Benjamin Solak of NDT Scouting

a charting endeavor designed to provide steadfast responses

Josh Allen ……………………………………………………………… 14

Comparative Measures …………………………………………… 53

I wanted to improve the conversation around quarterbacks specifically,

It is a sincere pleasure to present Contextualized Quarterbacking. Thank

Every 2017 throw of a quarterback available to me was graded. Some

The only throws in which we are interested are “chart-worthy” throws:

This is a good example of the CQ providing a context by challenging a

I charted “First Reads” quite stringently. If you were prescribed a three-

Moving beyond the first read doesn’t necessarily mean a quarterback is

What a high incidence of “Beyond” does show us, however, is a quarter-

The pocket extended back infinitely. On the pandemic “fake a bubble

“Platform” context gives us a huge insight into accuracy and placement,

evaluate decision-making, but especially not for pressure. Use accuracy

Charting pressure takes a steady hand, as no quarter can be given to

Colloquially, a “Tight Window” throw either “narrowed the region of po-

It’s important to visualize “Tight Windows” vertically as well as horizon-

“Tight Window” metrics help us understand how much a QB trusts his

“Tight Window” throws also help us contextualize, in my opinion, the

Those are our five contexts: First Read/Beyond; Inside/Outside of Pock-

This division was made in an effort to distinguish accuracy from ball

A steadfast rule here helps, as we do not want to allow the acrobatic,

“Placement” considers three main factors—along with unique considera-

“Placement” is inherently less concerned with receivers and more con-

 Depth of target measurements were taken from the line of scrimmage,

The Skinny Situational Data

Accuracy: .714 Accuracy: .667 Accuracy: .375 Accuracy: .571

Accuracy: .917 Accuracy: .882 Accuracy: .9 Accuracy: .901

11/12, 48 yds 5/5, 37 yds 10/14, 34 yds 26/31, 119 yds

Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .786 Accuracy: .903

Drop rate 4.5%

Adjusted comp% 63.6%

Target Heat Map Yardage Heat Map

8.6% 7.7% 13.6% 7.7% 10.7% 20.4%

10.9% 7.7% 18.2% 8.2% 4.4% 13.5%

5.5% 2.3% 6.4% 3.0% 2.3% 2.2%

Accuracy Heat Map Placement Heat Map

0.714 0.667 0.375 0.429 0.417 0.313

0.684 0.824 0.867 0.342 0.559 0.617

0.917 0.882 0.900 0.563 0.559 0.638

1.000 1.000 0.786 0.625 0.700 0.429

% attempt “Tight Window” Acc/place “Tight Window”

Contextual Data: Raw

Contextual Data: Change

The Skinny Situational Data

Accuracy: .722 Accuracy: .5 Accuracy: .458 Accuracy: .606

Accuracy: .923 Accuracy: .974 Accuracy: .938 Accuracy: .947

Accuracy: .96 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: 1 Accuracy: .986

Drop rate 6.9%

Adjusted comp% 68.6%

Target Heat Map Yardage Heat Map

5.0% 5.7% 4.0% 6.1% 7.9% 3.6%

12.9% 18.8% 20.0% 11.1% 15.7% 19.0%

6.7% 1.2% 9.4% 4.4% 1.3% 5.0%

Accuracy Heat Map Placement Heat Map

0.722 0.500 0.458 0.528 0.083 0.375

0.700 0.783 0.750 0.475 0.435 0.469

0.923 0.974 0.938 0.587 0.717 0.685

0.963 1.000 1.000 0.852 0.800 0.697

Contextual Data: Raw

Contextual Data: Change

The Skinny Situational Data