Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 83

CONTEXTUALIZED QUARTERBACKING

A collection of quarterback passing charts and


contextual data from final-season games of 2019
NFL Draft quarterback prospects

benjamin Solak
thedraftnetwork.com

table of contents
click to navigate

Introduction 2
Format 4
Methodology 9
2018 Contextualized Quarterbacking 17

Drew Lock 18
Tyree Jackson 23
Kyler Murray 28
Daniel Jones 33
Jarrett Stidham 38
Ryan Finley 43
Brett Rypien 48
Will Grier 53
Dwayne Haskins 58

Comparative Data 63

1
thedraftnetwork.com

Introduction
Hello! Welcome to Year 2 of Contextualized Quarterbacking.

Contextualized Quarterbacking was born of the 2018 NFL Draft and its thunderously
contentious quarterbacking class. It’s easy to forget now, after his rookie season, just
how much doubt surrounded Baker Mayfield. Easier to remember are the debates
regarding Lamar Jackson’s future position and the effect of supporting cast on Josh
Allen.

I wanted to know what it really looked like, for a quarterback to be a “first-read


quarterback.” I wanted to know if Jackson was a scramble-first athlete who dropped his
eye sin the pocket, while Allen was a plus athlete who could extend plays with his legs.
I wanted to know if Mayfield really threw into exclusively wide-open passing lanes.

There were narratives that needed answers.

I don’t think Contextualized Quarterbacking provides those answers, hard and fast. No
methodology alone does that job. Tape study builds our foundation for understanding
a prospect; analytical models and data points such as CQ add emphasis and challenge
biased preconceptions; conversations with coaches, trainers, and players color in the
gaps.

Contextualized Quarterbacking is not a ranking of quarterbacks. It is a tool that helps


us better understand quarterback prospects. Specifically:

1. How accurate of a passer the quarterback was


2. Under what contexts was he forced to play at the college level
3. How was his accuracy affected by those contexts

Put another way, we can say:

2
thedraftnetwork.com

Introduction
1. How often things were easy for the quarterback, and how often they were hard
2. What happened when things were easy
3. What happened when things were hard

Again, I must say: the CQ does not rank quarterbacks. It does not evaluate decision-
making, pre- and post-snap processing, and risk management. It can help us draw some
conclusions about these critical aspects of quarterback play, but it only sheds a crack of
light. More work is needed in that regard.

I hope you find the data provided valuable at the most and thought-provoking at the
least. I do not hope you find it worthy of the unthinking vitriol that characterizes the
football community on Twitter, but you can find me @BenjaminSolak if you do feel so
moved. I can also be reached via email at benjamin@thedraftnetwork.com, and all of
my final quarterback evaluations can be found at The Draft Network.

I appreciate you opening up this portfolio and taking a gander. I’m excited to hear what
you think.

Sixers in 6,

Benjamin Solak

3
thedraftnetwork.com

format
There are four pages to each quarterback profile in the CQ, each with tables and charts.
I think they are spectacularly adorned, but you can feel free to disagree.

Each table is detailed on the subsequent pages, explaining what each shows and why it
matters.

Man, it feels like there’s a lot of white space on this page.

4
thedraftnetwork.com Chartable Attempts shows the raw data

page 1
from all the passing attempts for the QB in
question, as well as umbrella Accuracy and
Placement numbers for all attempts

This table separates raw data into 12 re-


gions of the field, by depth and width. The
numbers based purely on width and depth
are also provided
5
thedraftnetwork.com Exceptional Data provides a total number for

page 2
true dropbacks, as well as the frequency of the
non-passing plays included. It also details how
often the QB’s pass-catchers failed him.

Raw Contextual Data shows us Change Contextual Data shows


how well QBs performed under us exactly the difference in
five different Contexts, and how performance between the splits
often they were asked/chose to of the five Contexts
do so

6
thedraftnetwork.com These two heat maps show how Targets and

page 3
Yards are distributed across the twelve regions
of the field, so we can better understand where
and how an offense produced

These two heat maps show how Accuracy and Place-


ment changed with depth and width of the field,
and illsutrate where an NFL offense would benefit
from running their offense through this QB
7
thedraftnetwork.com Clutch Performance details basic produc-

page 4
tion data on critical downs and in the red
zone, as well as adjusted conversion rates
to better capture true efficacy

The Pressure Wheels show where the QBs pressure


came from and how he respond, both to pressure at
large and to each specific onset of pressure
8
thedraftnetwork.com

Methodology
There’s a lot of different measures in the CQ. I want to run through how I got to each
one, and what value I think they confer.

The word Methodology feels very snobby, doesn’t it? I should just use Methods.

GAMES, PLAYERS, AND THROWS CHARTED


Last year on 2018 Contextualized Quarterbacking -- the first year of the project -- I
charted every attempt I could get my hands on for the quarterbacks in the portfolio.
This year, I didn’t do that.

I wanted to limit my scope to games against equal or better competition -- Power 5


opponents for Power 5 QBs, Group of 5/Power 5 opponents for Group of 5 QBs, and
et cetera. It was clear, looking at last year’s data, that every game against inferior
competition ballooned the numbers for the quarterback in question.

So this year, I made sure I got at least 300 dropbacks, and focused on top level
competition available. I think the numbers we get will be worse across the board, but
hopefully better reflect the capacity of the quarterbacks in question.

I also charted less quarterbacks this season -- though that’s less about the “work
smarter” vibe of the passes selected, and more about this class being...bad. If a
quarterback got an undraftable grade from me off of film, I didn’t select them for the
portfolio.

Those throws that were not charted include intentional throwaways, throws on which
the QB was hit, miscommunications with the receiver, or routes on which the receiver
fell down. I also insisted on an overhand throwing motion, to eliminate the detestable
shovel pass, and trashed garbage-time throws against prevent defenses.

9
thedraftnetwork.com

Methodology
ACCURACY AND PLACEMENT
Quarterbacks need to get the ball to their receivers. We forget that sometimes. Arm
strength, mental processing, intangibles, mobility -- they’re all very exciting, aren’t they?
But the first thing a quarterback needs to do is throw a catchable football.

That’s the Accuracy metric. It measures whether or not a ball is catchable. An accuracy
score of .905, for example, would imply a catchable throw 90.5% of the time.

There are issues with the Accuracy metric, though. It rewards underthrows
tremendously, as even an egregious underthrow is catcahble, while the slightest
overthrow is technically uncatchable. The Accuracy metric is also unaware of many
small, but important details that truly illustrate an “accurate” throw.

Accurate throws maximize the opportunity for yards after catch, by hitting a receiver in
stride or leading them away from a closing defender. Accurate throws protect the ball
from being played on by defenders and protect receivers from oncoming contact.

That’s where Placement comes into play -- it’s a more nuanced measure of how
accurate a throw was. Throws could be measured as Well-Placed (1 point), Decently-
Placed (0.5 points), and Poorly-Placed (0 points).

Well-Placed throws aren’t necessarily always Catchable, and Poorly-Placed throws


aren’t necessarily Uncatchable. Putting a back-shoulder fade just a little too far to the
sideline, but still keeping it from the corner in coverage, can be Uncatchable and Well-
Placed. Leaving a deep out shallow and short forces the receiver to go to the ground to
catch the football: Catchable, but Poorly-Placed.

10
thedraftnetwork.com

Methodology
And that’s a critical point to understand about throwing accurate passes: ball velocity
is built into the equation. We talk about arm strength and accuracy as if they’re two
separate ideas, but they’re linked.

Duke QB Daniel Jones is a tremendous example: he’s really an accurate passer to the
middle of the field, but when he’s asked to drive balls into the sideline, they die on him,
and what would have been an accurate pass falls short and inside.

Or take Boise State QB Brett Rypien -- any time he has to put some extra mustard on a
throw, his accuracy drops off a cliff. Missouri QB Drew Lock: puts too much velocity on
short/intermediate throws, and they often spike down low to their targets.

Accuracy and Placement are the most important measures in all of the CQ. They tell
you how good a quarterback is at getting the ball to his pass-catchers, and that’s what
matters.

BEYOND FIRST READ


The Beyond First Read Context is an important one to suss out. It’s very easy to get
wrong.

I used First Read because it’s the vernacular that we’re familiar with, but it’s important
to acknowledge that reads in most offensive systems -- especially college offensive
systems -- aren’t linear or discrete. They very rarely, if ever, go from this route, to that
route, to the other route, to the checkdown.

Another way of saying this: quarterbacks don’t read routes. They read defenses.

11
thedraftnetwork.com

Methodology
Sometimes that means reading one defender, one “key”, and putting him in conflict.
Think about a smash concept, which puts the flat defender in conflict. You “throw him
wrong” by putting the ball wherever he doesn’t go.

via Inside the Pylon

Sometimes that means reading a whole area, like a spacing concept, which will have
three routes in the same basic region of the field, and the quarterback again makes the
defense wrong. You can express these routes in a “1-2-3” process if you like, but the
quarterback is still reading one area of the field, and making one decision.

via smartfootball.com
12
thedraftnetwork.com

Methodology
Again, here we’re often keying off of one defender (the flat defender) and making our
decision based off of his action. You should continue reading the Smart Football post
on “triangle reads” if you want a deeper understanding of how I chart my First Read/
Beyond passes.

The long and short of it is this: I’m austere in my charting of “Beyond First Read.” I want
to see quarterbacks make a second decision, go through a second thought process,
before I give them a credit for truly moving beyond their first read.

As such, scrambling quarterbacks tend to measure favorably here, which can conflate
their numbers -- we believe they’re well-developed pocket passers who can rip through
their progressions in timing with their footwork and blocking.

This is a good example of where data fails, and we should always turn back to the film
for confirmation. But it is also still a signal of the trait we’re interested in: scrambling
quarterbacks often are better processors after their first read, because of the practice
they’ve had for years improvising on the fly. So if we’re looking for QBs who can stay
cool when their first read -- their first decision -- is taken away, we should look for
scrambling QBs. The trait is still signaled in the data.

OUT OF POCKET
Charting whether or not a player was outside of the pocket was not very hard.

The only note here: in the case of full slide protection or otherwise hard play-action, in
which there wasn’t really a pocket to identify, the quarterback was considered “Out of
Pocket”

13
thedraftnetwork.com

Methodology
PLATFORM
If a player had was able to step up into his throw from a stationary base, he was
throwing from a Clean Platform.

I have no interest in rewarding players for their poor mechanics or skittish demeanor
under pressure (looking at you, Drew Lock and Will Grier). If players had the space and
the time to step into throws, but faded away, stepped into the bucket, or ducked their
shoulder, this was still measured as a Clean Platform throw.

Adjusted Platforms were only given when there was something clearly obstructing
the quarterback’s throwing hallway -- he had to adjust his throwing motion to release
the football. These platforms necessitate different arm slots and stronger, natural arm
power -- those are the traits I wanted to highly.

If a player was on the move when he released the football, he was on a Move Platform.

PRESSURE
Pressure is a bit of a bear indeed. How early, exactly, can we determine if a blitzer is
close enough to a quarterback to have pressured him? How far into the quarterback’s
throwing motion must he be, to be unaffected by a sudden flash of color in front of
him?

Generally speaking, I relied on the reaction of the quarterback to chart pressure. It’s
important to note that pocket management is not reflected in these numbers, just
as decision-making is not reflected in accuracy. Quarterbacks who appropriately took
their drop, climbed the pocket, and delivered on time were unpressured, even as the
defensive ends careened by him and beyond the peak of the pocket.
14
thedraftnetwork.com

Methodology
So a quarterback had to clearly react to the pressure -- it had to affect his process
somehow. I charted those responses into five different categories

• Stand and Deliver -- while under pressure, the quarterback threw a chartable
attempt
• Escape -- the quarterback eluded the pressure and threw from an unpressured
platform
• Scramble -- the quarterback eluded the pressure and subsequently tucked and ran
• Sack -- the quarterback was sacked
• Unchartable -- the quarterback threw the ball away; was hit on the throw; the ball
was batted; et cetera.

Quarterback response to pressure is critically important -- anecdotally, I’d say the


number one change between the college and pro game is how often you get pressured
and how quickly it comes. We’re increasingly seeing that quarterbacks without
escapability -- those who can’t extend plays -- have a narrower path to success at the
next level.

Pressure was also charted by its genesis, to better understand how supporting cast and
play style contributed to pressure numbers. As I said above, pocket management is not
illustrated in pressure numbers -- but we can make some assumptions about vestibular
sense, blitz recognition, and internal clock.

• Blocking Responsibility -- a block was blown that lead to a pressure, within a


reasonable (~2 seconds) time frame from snap to pressure
• QB Responsibility -- pressure was caused by an 1) an extra blitzer, 2) a poor drop
landmark by the quarterback, or 3) pocket movement that created a rush angle
• Out of Pocket -- whether by design or out of it, the quarterback left the pocket, and
was subsequently pressured

15
thedraftnetwork.com

Methodology
As some are fond of saying, sacks are a QB stat. That’s why QB Responsibility is an
important stat. It shows us how frequently a QB was responsible for a blitzer, or poorly
managed the pocket, and what happened when that occurred.

TIGHT WINDOW
The final of the contexts, Tight Window throws are fascinating. Generally speaking, a
throw is into/through a tight window if the ideal placement of the ball is changed by
the window.

We want to hit our receivers in the numbers, right? But on back-shoulder fades in the
end zone, we need to put the ball away from the defender first and foremost, and leave
it high so our taller receiver can elevate. On deep comebacks, we want to put the ball
low and away, so our receiver can shield the ball from the defender with their body. On
intermediate crossers, we want to lace our throws over the first level, but not so high as
to force our receivers to jump and expose them to body shots from closing safeties.

Defenders affect throwing windows, and when the ball placement is accordingly
changed, the throw is into -- or through -- a tight window.

It’s important to note that these windows are in the field of play -- all three dimensions.
A receiver can be “wide open” because nobody’s around him, but sinking first level
defenders can still tighten the window by forcing the quarterback to put air on the
football he wouldn’t otherwise.

This is why we say Tight Windows change the placement of the football. Not unlike
Beyond First Read, we want to grade strigently here, to be sure we’re circling reps in
which distinguishable processes occurred.

16
thedraftnetwork.com

2018 cq
The inaugural CQ, in a much less pretty format and without as many measures, can be
found at this link.

tl;dr

Baker Mayfield absolutely smoked it.

17
thedraftnetwork.com

Drew locK
I don’t like Drew Lock’s film very much.

His ball placement and accuracy are good, and he’s a plus athlete and has strong num-
bers Outside The Pocket and on the Move, but doesn’t take it there unless he’s schemed
to. His deep ball, advertised as the strength of his game, is just fine -- his short to inter-
mediate throws remain disappointingly haphazard.

Will Lock benefit much from a year off of starting? I don’t think so, so it honestly makes
sense for the player himself to be drafted early and start in Year 1, despite the fact that
I don’t think he has the talent to hold the job long. Lock reminds me of Blaine Gabbert
and even Blake Bortles at times, and that ugly limbo between starter and backup may
trap Lock early in his young career.

Especially if he goes to Denver.

Check Out: His Contextual Data is pretty good, save for Tight Windows -- and look at his
Adjusted Conversion %, especially in the Red Zone. Drops killed him there.

18
thedraftnetwork.com

Drew Lock Comp


Chartable Attempts
217 TD 24 TD% 7.12%
Missouri Att 337 INT 6 TD:INT 4
Senior Comp% 64.4% INTable 10 YAC 1,303
Born: 11/10/96 Yards 2,779 INTable% 2.97% YAC% 46.9%

Accuracy .905 Placement .638

8/19 4/7 4/17 16/43


20+ 352 yards
Accuracy: .895
167 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
118 yards
Accuracy: .647
637 yards
Accuracy: .814
Placement: .526 Placement: .571 Placement: .471 Placement: .512

8/16 15/26 15/25 38/67


10-19 175 yards
Accuracy: .750
370 yards
Accuracy: .962
289 yards
Accuracy: .920
816 yards
Accuracy: .896
Placement: .563 Placement: .596 Placement: .660 Placement: .612

24/44 38/55 50/68 112/167


0-9 170 yards
Accuracy: .841
384 yards
Accuracy: .927
446 yards
Accuracy: .956
1,000 yards
Accuracy: .916
Placement: .489 Placement: .645 Placement: .706 Placement: .629

22/26 4/5 26/29 52/60


<0 160 yards
Accuracy: .885
60 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
106 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
326 yards
Accuracy: .950
Placement: .769 Placement: .900 Placement: .776 Placement: .783

62/105 61/93 95/139


839 yards 981 yards 959 yards
Accuracy: .848 Accuracy: .946 Accuracy: .921
Placement: .576 Placement: .640 Placement: .683
19
thedraftnetwork.com

Drew Lock Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
10
379
2.6%
Missouri Sacks 9 2.4%
Senior Batted 7 1.8%
Throwaway 10 2.6%
Born: 11/10/96 Drops 26
Drop Rate 7.7%
Adjusted completion % 72.1%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 192 25 183 34 161 27 29 171 46 196 21
Attempt 297 40 287 50 250 45 42 259 78 271 66
Comp% 64.6% 62.5% 63.8% 68.0% 64.4% 60.0% 69.0% 66.0% 59.0% 72.3% 31.8%
Att% 88.1% 11.9% 85.2% 14.8% 74.2% 13.4% 12.5% 76.9% 23.1% 80.4% 19.6%
Yards 2,496 283 2,372 407 2,191 312 276 2,272 507 2,370 409
Yards % 89.8% 10.2% 85.4% 14.6% 78.8% 11.2% 9.9% 81.8% 18.2% 85.3% 14.7%
Accuracy 0.916 0.825 0.902 0.920 0.928 0.800 0.881 0.923 0.846 0.923 0.833
Placement 0.645 0.588 0.634 0.660 0.660 0.522 0.631 0.666 0.545 0.666 0.523
INTable 8 2 10 0 5 4 1 4 6 3 7
INTa % 2.7% 5.0% 3.5% 0.0% 2.0% 8.9% 2.4% 1.5% 7.7% 1.1% 10.6%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion -3.3% 6.6% -6.8% 7.2% -10.7% -56.0%
Accuracy -9.9% 1.9% -13.8% -5.1% -8.3% -9.7%
Placement -8.9% 4.1% -20.9% -4.4% -18.2% -21.5%
INTable 85.6% -100.0% 344.4% 19.0% 398.1% 858.1%

20
thedraftnetwork.com

Drew Lock Missouri


Senior
Born: 11/10/96
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

21
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
Drew Lock Completions
3rd Down
71
3rd & 5+
48
Red Zone
19

Missouri Attempts
Yards
112
818
77
614
42
204
Senior Completion % 63.4% 62.3% 45.2%
Accuracy 0.866 0.844 0.833
Born: 11/10/96 Placement 0.571 0.565 0.548
Conversions 50 31 12
Conversion % 44.6% 40.3% 28.6%
Adjusted Conversion % 52.1% 50.0% 51.1%
INTable 5 5 3
INTable % 4.5% 6.5% 7.1%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

22
thedraftnetwork.com

TYREE Jackson
Tyree Jackson is king of the project players. He’s the biggest, fastest, strongest, and don’t
miss it just because he needs work: his deep ball is naturally good. Better than most in
this class.

The question is: how many players in this class are actual projects? I’d argue Drew Lock
is, and that’s why I have Jackson ranked higher. Same goes for Daniel Jones. All three of
these quarterbacks need development -- whether sitting on the bench, or getting reps
as a low-stress starter on a losing team -- before they can turn in NFL-caliber play.

For Jckson, the goal is teaching him how to chill out. Jackson’s Tight Window numbers
are awful because he jams the ball where it doesn’t belong -- same goes for his throws
Beyond First Read. There’s a lot of panic to his game right now that can be erased with
better coaching, as well as the inching march of maturity we too easily forget about.

Jackson’s worth the gamble, in my book -- I’d take him late on Day 2, plan to start him
in 2020, and raise my building’s doorframes four inches.

Check Out: How rarely Jackson scrambles and how often he throws deep

23
thedraftnetwork.com

tyree Jackson Comp


Chartable Attempts
228 TD 26 TD% 6.55%
Buffalo Att 397 INT 11 TD:INT 2.36
RS Junior Comp% 57.4% INTable 20 YAC 1,162

Born: 11/7/1997 Yards 3,187 INTable% 5.04% YAC% 36.5%

Accuracy .874 Placement .601

9/37 13/27 15/46 37/110


20+ 350 yards
Accuracy: .730
547 yards
Accuracy: .815
488 yards
Accuracy: .674
1,385 yards
Accuracy: .727
Placement: .473 Placement: .593 Placement: .478 Placement: .505

12/23 8/15 10/36 30/74


10-19 188 yards
Accuracy: .826
149 yards
Accuracy: .867
154 yards
Accuracy: .833
491 yards
Accuracy: .838
Placement: .500 Placement: .600 Placement: .500 Placement: .520

38/55 31/42 50/67 119/164


0-9 292 yards
Accuracy: .927
371 yards
Accuracy: .976
375 yards
Accuracy: .970
1,038 yards
Accuracy: .957
Placement: .655 Placement: .714 Placement: .672 Placement: .677

19/20 2/3 21/25 42/48


<0 145 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
6 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
115 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
266 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
Placement: .825 Placement: .667 Placement: .600 Placement: .698

78/135 54/87 96/174


975 yards 1,073 yards 1,132 yards
Accuracy: .867 Accuracy: .908 Accuracy: .868
Placement: .604 Placement: .655 Placement: .575
24
thedraftnetwork.com

tyree Jackson Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
446

Buffalo Sacks
16
15
3.6%
3.4%
RS Junior Batted 8 1.8%
Throwaway 10 2.2%
Born: 11/7/1997 Drops 30
Drop Rate 7.6%
Adjusted completion % 65.0%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 187 41 183 45 180 9 39 187 41 207 21
Attempt 320 77 314 83 310 17 70 314 83 291 106
Comp% 58.4% 53.2% 58.3% 54.2% 58.1% 52.9% 55.7% 59.6% 49.4% 71.1% 19.8%
Att% 80.6% 19.4% 79.1% 20.9% 78.1% 4.3% 17.6% 79.1% 20.9% 73.3% 26.7%
Yards 2.278 909 2,336 851 2,353 148 686 2,436 751 2,789 398
Yards % 71.5% 28.5% 73.3% 26.7% 73.8% 4.6% 21.5% 76.4% 23.6% 87.5% 12.5%
Accuracy 0.906 0.740 0.885 0.831 0.887 0.824 0.829 0.898 0.783 0.924 0.736
Placement 0.622 0.513 0.610 0.566 0.608 0.647 0.557 0.618 0.536 0.644 0.481
INTable 14 6 13 7 14 1 5 13 7 4 16
INTa % 4.4% 7.8% 4.1% 8.4% 4.5% 5.9% 7.1% 4.1% 8.4% 1.4% 15.1%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion -8.9% -7.0% -8.8% -4.0% -17.1% -72.1%
Accuracy -18.3% -6.1% -7.2% -6.6% -12.8% -20.4%
Placement -17.5% -7.2% 6.4% -8.4% -13.2% -25.3%
INTable 78.1% 103.7% 30.3% 58.2% 103.7% 998.1%

25
thedraftnetwork.com

tyree Jackson Buffalo


RS Junior
Born: 11/7/1997
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

26
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
tyree Jackson Completions
Attempts
3rd Down
67
119
3rd & 5+
49
88
Red Zone
24
59
Buffalo Yards 1090 894 175
RS Junior Completion %
Accuracy
56.3%
0.899
55.7%
0.875
40.7%
0.814
Born: 11/7/1997 Placement 0.542 0.551 0.559
Conversions 50 36 14
Conversion % 42.0% 40.9% 23.7%
Adjusted Conversion % 51.1% 49.0% 43.1%
INTable 10 6 6
INTable % 8.4% 6.8% 10.2%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

27
thedraftnetwork.com

KYLER MURRAY
Young man can sling the pill!

Murray is as fun of a QB watch as you’ll find in the NFL Draft. Folks thirst after the Ma-
homes comparisons, and while I see the similarities in some areas (comfortable di-
recting traffic on extended plays; baseball-inspired arm slots on some quicker throws),
what’s most reminiscent of Mahomes is how much fun I had watching Murray’s film.

Not unlike Baker before him, Murray’s evaluation has some gaps in it that you can’t
divorce from the Oklahoma offense. Murray attacked a ton of tight windows, largely as
a product of his ability to extend plays, but still struggles to keep the ball safe on such
throws; he also struggled to navigate the pocket at times, and accordingly created a lot
of his own pressures.

But hear me when I say: you can’t teach that deep ball, and you can’t teach that athlet-
icism, either. Murray grades out in a similar tier as Sam Darnold did for me last season:
bit raw, bit rough, but oh so exciting. Worthy of an early pick for sure.

Check Out: Heat maps, pressure wheels, and the adjusted conversion rates.

28
thedraftnetwork.com

kyler murray Comp


Chartable Attempts
241 TD 35 TD% 10.2%
oklahoma Att 343 INT 6 TD:INT 25.83
RS Junior Comp% 70.3% INTable 12 YAC 1,975

Born: 8/7/1997 Yards 4,100 INTable% 3.50% YAC% 48.2%

Accuracy .904 Placement .605

11/25 11/26 10/23 32/74


20+ 432 yards
Accuracy: .760
473 yards
Accuracy: .846
382 yards
Accuracy: .783
1,287 yards
Accuracy: .797
Placement: .580 Placement: .577 Placement: .543 Placement: .568

23/36 26/34 19/33 68/103


10-19 407 yards
Accuracy: .889
474 yards
Accuracy: .971
393 yards
Accuracy: .848
1,274 yards
Accuracy: .903
Placement: .583 Placement: .647 Placement: .485 Placement: .573

26/32 18/25 29/34 73/91


0-9 276 yards
Accuracy: .938
232 yards
Accuracy: .920
254 yards
Accuracy: .971
762 yards
Accuracy: .945
Placement: .609 Placement: .700 Placement: .706 Placement: .670

38/41 9/10 18/19 65/70


<0 405 yards
Accuracy: .976
134 yards
Accuracy: .900
126 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
665 yards
Accuracy: .971
Placement: .683 Placement: .500 Placement: .658 Placement: .650

98/134 64/95 76/109


1,520 yards 1,313 yards 1,155 yards
Accuracy: .903 Accuracy: .916 Accuracy: .899
Placement: .619 Placement: .626 Placement: .596
29
thedraftnetwork.com

kyler murray Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
411

oklahoma Sacks
33
16
8.0%
3.9%
RS Junior Batted 5 1.2%
Throwaway 14 3.4%
Born: 8/7/1997 Drops 17
Drop Rate 5.0%
Adjusted completion % 75.2%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 200 41 203 38 197 13 31 205 36 217 24
Attempt 279 64 289 54 278 25 40 287 56 271 72
Comp% 71.7% 64.1% 70.2% 70.4% 70.9% 52.0% 77.5% 71.4% 64.3% 80.1% 33.3%
Att% 81.3% 18.7% 84.3% 15.7% 81.0% 7.3% 11.7% 83.7% 16.3% 79.0% 21.0%
Yards 3,386 714 3,512 588 3,344 280 476 3,555 545 3,508 592
Yards % 82.6% 17.4% 85.7% 14.3% 81.6% 6.8% 11.6% 86.7% 13.3% 85.6% 14.4%
Accuracy 0.918 0.844 0.907 0.889 0.906 0.800 0.950 0.913 0.857 0.930 0.806
Placement 0.627 0.508 0.618 0.537 0.628 0.360 0.600 0.627 0.491 0.624 0.535
INTable 9 3 11 1 8 4 0 8 4 3 9
INTa % 3.2% 4.7% 3.8% 1.9% 2.9% 16.0% 0.0% 2.8% 7.1% 1.1% 12.5%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion -10.6% 0.2% -26.6% 9.4% -10.0% -58.4%
Accuracy -8.0% -2.0% -11.7% 4.8% -6.1% -13.4%
Placement -19.0% -13.1% -42.6% -4.4% -21.7% -14.3%
INTable 45.3% -51.3% 456.0% -100.0% 156.3% 1029.2%

30
thedraftnetwork.com

kyler murray oklahoma


RS Junior
Born: 8/7/1997
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

31
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
kyler murray Completions
Attempts
3rd Down
57
83
3rd & 5+
38
59
Red Zone
23
42
oklahoma Yards 993 707 245
RS Junior Completion %
Accuracy
68.7%
0.904
64.4%
0.864
54.8%
0.857
Born: 8/7/1997 Placement 0.602 0.534 0.631
Conversions 48 31 15
Conversion % 57.8% 52.5% 35.7%
Adjusted Conversion % 57.7% 50.7% 36.5%
INTable 4 4 2
INTable % 4.8% 6.8% 4.8%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

32
thedraftnetwork.com

Daniel Jones
Daniel Jones’ draft process is more reminiscent of Josh Allen’s than we’d like to admit.
A likable fella who just want to play a little ball, Jones checks boxes in size and athlet-
icism, and has the benefit of a strong coach-QB tree with Duke HC David Cutcliffe, just
as Allen enjoyed with Craig Bohl. The same supporting cast excuses that were made for
Allen are made for Jones, and rightfully so: his offensive line couldn’t block a Twitter
troll.

That said, Jones lacks the wild arm talent of Allen, and I’m not sure what you hang your
hat on here. Jones is at his best facilitating the quick game and is fearless in the pocket.
It’s inspiring when its not leading to haphazard, turnover-worthy throws. I appreciate
his ability to manipulate arm angles, throw with zip, and extend plays.

If Jones can continue to build on a improving deep ball, he has a nice upside profile, but
should not be seriously considered a Year 1 starter or a Round 1 selection. Ideally, Jones
becomes Nick Foles -- and that’s a problematic ideal.

Check Out: Beyond First Read and Into Tight Window stats -- those numbers are low! --
as well as the heat maps to see how Jones benefitted from the RPO game

33
thedraftnetwork.com

DANIEL JONES Comp


Chartable Attempts
180 TD 16 TD% 5.6%
Duke Att 286 INT 4 TD:INT 4
RS Junior Comp% 62.9% INTable 17 YAC 970

Born: 5/27/1997 Yards 2,095 INTable% 5.6% YAC% 46.3%

Accuracy .899 Placement .589

0/15 4/9 4/16 8/40


20+ 0 yards
Accuracy: .800
196 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
116 yards
Accuracy: .625
312 yards
Accuracy: .775
Placement: .367 Placement: ..500 Placement: .531 Placement: .463

7/12 18/29 10/18 35/59


10-19 139 yards
Accuracy: .833
311 yards
Accuracy: .1.000
153 yards
Accuracy: .722
603 yards
Accuracy: .881
Placement: .458 Placement: .569 Placement: .500 Placement: .525

28/42 35/42 37/54 100/144


0-9 314 yards
Accuracy: .881
353 yards
Accuracy: .979
290 yards
Accuracy: .926
957 yards
Accuracy: .931
Placement: .631 Placement: .719 Placement: .574 Placement: .639

16/16 5/6 16/19 37/41


<0 79 yards
Accuracy: .938
24 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
127 yards
Accuracy: .947
230yards
Accuracy: .951
Placement: .719 Placement: .667 Placement: .605 Placement: .659

51/85 62/92 67/107


532 yards 884 yards 686 yards
Accuracy: .871 Accuracy: .989 Accuracy: .850
Placement: .576 Placement: .647 Placement: .561
34
thedraftnetwork.com

DANIEL JONES Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
347

Duke Sacks
17
26
4.9%
7.5%
RS Junior Batted 11 3.2%
Throwaway 7 2.0%
Born: 5/27/1997 Drops 32
Drop Rate 11.1%
Adjusted completion % 74.1%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 167 13 162 18 153 11 16 150 30 171 9
Attempt 263 23 260 26 240 25 22 221 65 252 34
Comp% 63.5% 56.5% 62.3% 69.2% 63.8% 44.0% 72.7% 68% 46.2% 68% 26%
Att% 92.0% 8.0% 90.9% 9.1% 83.6% 8.7% 7.7% 77% 22.7% 88% 12%
Yards 1,927 168 1,964 131 1,850 123 122 1720 375 1,992 103
Yards % 92.0% 8.0% 93.7% 6.3% 88.3% 5.9% 5.8% 82.1% 17.9% 95.1% 4.9%
Accuracy 0.897 0.913 0.908 0.808 0.921 0.720 0.818 0.937 0.769 0.901 0.882
Placement 0.587 0.609 0.594 0.538 0.602 0.480 0.545 0.609 0.523 0.625 0.324
INTable 15 2 17 0 14 3 0 11 6 5 12
INTa % 5.7% 8.7% 6.5% 0.0% 5.8% 12.0% 0.0% 5.0% 9.2% 2.0% 35.3%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion -11.0% 11.1% -31.0% 14.1% -32.0% -61.0%
Accuracy 1.8% -11.0% -21.8% -11.1% -17.9% -2.0%
Placement 3.6% -9.4% -20.3% -9.4% -14.1% -48.2%
INTable 52.5% -100.0% 105.7% -100.0% 85.5% 1678.8%

35
thedraftnetwork.com

DANIEL JONES Duke


RS Junior
Born: 5/27/1997
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

36
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
DANIEL JONES Completions
Attempts
3rd Down
43
76
3rd & 5+
27
54
Red Zone
14
22
Duke Yards 599 354 95
RS Junior Completion %
Accuracy
56.6%
0.868
50.0%
0.870
63.6%
0.818
Born: 5/27/1997 Placement 0.513 0.454 0.614
Conversions 32 18 7
Conversion % 42.1% 33.3% 31.8%
Adjusted Conversion % 42.4% 34.7% 28.0%
INTable 5 5 1
INTable % 6.6% 9.3% 4.5%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

37
thedraftnetwork.com

Jarrett Stidham
I struggle to get excited about Jarrett Stidham, who was objectively inaccurate in a
scheme built on easy throws. While he has good distance to his arm, Stidham struggles
to place the ball deep with any consistency, so this strength still exists in the hypothet-
ical. Again, when he adds extra mustard on his tight window throws, Stidham loses the
ability to place the football, and accordingly puts the ball at risk.

Stidham brings some good mobility to the position, though he struggles with pocket
feel, and has the arm talent worthy of drafting and developing as a Day 3 option. To
expect anything more out of Stidham than a potential backup is to have admirably lofty
expectations.

Check Out: The Accuracy and Placement numbers, and then stop there. If you want to
keep going, check out what Pressure does to him.

38
thedraftnetwork.com

Jarrett Stidham Comp


Chartable Attempts
184 TD 12 TD% 6.5%
auburn Att 285 INT 5 TD:INT 2.4
RS Junior Comp% 64.6% INTable 12 YAC 1,482

Born: 8/8/1996 Yards 2,246 INTable% 4.2% YAC% 65.9%

Accuracy .853 Placement .556

3/16 2/8 4/15 9/39


20+ 83 yards
Accuracy: .438
136 yards
Accuracy: .500
141 yards
Accuracy: .600
360 yards
Accuracy: .513
Placement: .281 Placement: .438 Placement: .433 Placement: .372

13/19 4/17 8/12 25/48


10-19 278 yards
Accuracy: .789
68 yards
Accuracy: .588
221 yards
Accuracy: .917
567 yards
Accuracy: .750
Placement: .605 Placement: .324 Placement: .500 Placement: .479

25/34 23/34 18/31 66/99


0-9 166 yards
Accuracy: .971
298 yards
Accuracy: .941
197 yards
Accuracy: .839
661 yards
Accuracy: .919
Placement: .603 Placement: .691 Placement: .597 Placement: .631

53/59 3/5 27/34 83/98


<0 443 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
43 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
132 yards
Accuracy: .912
618 yards
Accuracy: .969
Placement: .669 Placement: .500 Placement: .485 Placement: .597

94/128 32/64 57/92


970 yards 545 yards 691 yards
Accuracy: .891 Accuracy: .797 Accuracy: .837
Placement: .594 Placement: .547 Placement: .516
39
thedraftnetwork.com

Jarrett Stidham Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
355

auburn Sacks
23
19
6.5%
5.4%
RS Junior Batted 5 1.4%
Throwaway 23 6.5%
Born: 8/8/1996 Drops 16
Drop Rate 5.6%
Adjusted completion % 70.2%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 165 19 142 42 134 10 40 157 27 167 17
Attempt 246 39 221 64 197 23 65 228 57 234 51
Comp% 67.1% 48.7% 64.3% 65.6% 68.0% 43.5% 61.5% 68.9% 47.4% 71.4% 33.3%
Att% 86.3% 13.7% 77.5% 22.5% 69.1% 8.1% 22.8% 80.0% 20.0% 82.1% 17.9%
Yards 2,041 205 1,929 317 1,754 221 271 1,885 361 1,966 280
Yards % 90.9% 9.1% 85.9% 14.1% 78.1% 9.8% 12.1% 83.9% 16.1% 87.5% 12.5%
Accuracy 0.854 0.846 0.846 0.875 0.883 0.609 0.846 0.886 0.719 0.885 0.706
Placement 0.561 0.526 0.557 0.555 0.581 0.370 0.546 0.601 0.377 0.556 0.559
INTable 9 3 9 3 4 4 4 6 6 8 4
INTa % 3.7% 7.7% 4.1% 4.7% 2.0% 17.4% 6.2% 2.6% 10.5% 3.4% 7.8%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion -27.4% 2.1% -36.1% -9.5% -31.2% -53.3%
Accuracy -0.9% 3.4% -31.1% -4.2% -18.8% -20.2%
Placement -6.3% -0.3% -36.4% -6.0% -37.2% 0.6%
INTable 110.3% 15.1% 756.5% 203.1% 300.0% 129.4%

40
thedraftnetwork.com

Jarrett Stidham auburn


RS Junior
Born: 8/8/1996
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

41
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
Jarrett Stidham Completions
Attempts
3rd Down
47
88
3rd & 5+
31
60
Red Zone
16
35
auburn Yards 691 440 131
RS Junior Completion %
Accuracy
53.4%
0.807
51.7%
0.783
45.7%
0.743
Born: 8/8/1996 Placement 0.409 0.408 0.586
Conversions 32 18 6
Conversion % 36.4% 30.0% 17.1%
Adjusted Conversion % 32.1% 26.9% 20.0%
INTable 6 5 0
INTable % 6.8% 8.3% 0.0%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

42
thedraftnetwork.com

RYAN FINley
I’m fine with Ryan Finley -- the person himself, the idea of him existing, what he sym-
bolizes in the world. It’s all okay by me.

A valiant, but not overbearing champion of the milquetoast, Finley has likable traits
when dealing with pressure, attacking tight throwing windows, and working deep into
his progression. All of his Contextual Data is competitive with top quarterbacks of re-
cent years.

But the numbers don’t reflect what even a cursory filmwatch does: Finley’s arm limits
his game. He pulls out routes back downfield and forces crossers to tread water in the
dangerous middle of the field. Even with solid mechanics, Finley’s lack of ball velocity
hurts his accuracy and limits his offense to a harrowing degree.

He’ll be Kellen Moore in 15 years.

Check Out: All the Contextual Data I mentioned, but also: how the entire offense runs
to the right under Finley

43
thedraftnetwork.com

ryan finley Comp


Chartable Attempts
236 TD 19 TD% 5.4%
NC State Att 352 INT 7 TD:INT 2.7
RS Senior Comp% 67.1% INTable 13 YAC 882

Born: 12/26/1994 Yards 2,747 INTable% 3.7% YAC% 32.1%

Accuracy .923 Placement .587

5/13 5/11 11/31 21/55


20+ 147 yards
Accuracy: .923
224 yards
Accuracy: .727
357 yards
Accuracy: .839
728 yards
Accuracy: .836
Placement: .654 Placement: .500 Placement: .629 Placement: .609

17/30 7/21 28/49 52/100


10-19 310 yards
Accuracy: .900
111 yards
Accuracy: .905
433 yards
Accuracy: .898
854 yards
Accuracy: .900
Placement: .550 Placement: .357 Placement: .480 Placement: .475

33/45 34/39 63/76 130/160


0-9 236 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
314 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
483 yards
Accuracy: .908
1,033 yards
Accuracy: .956
Placement: .600 Placement: .679 Placement: .592 Placement: .616

16/16 0/1 17/20 33/37


<0 90 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
0 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
36 yards
Accuracy: .950
126 yards
Accuracy: .973
Placement: .781 Placement: .500 Placement: .700 Placement: .730

71/104 46/72 119/176


783 yards 649 yards 1,309 yards
Accuracy: .962 Accuracy: .931 Accuracy: .898
Placement: .620 Placement: .556 Placement: .580
44
thedraftnetwork.com

ryan finley Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
380

NC State Sacks
7
10
1.8%
2.6%
RS Senior Batted 1 0.3%
Throwaway 7 2.6%
Born: 12/26/1994 Drops 17
Drop Rate 4.8%
Adjusted completion % 71.9%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 165 19 142 42 134 10 40 203 33 205 31
Attempt 246 39 221 64 197 23 65 288 64 260 92
Comp% 67.1% 48.7% 64.3% 65.6% 68.0% 43.5% 61.5% 70.5% 51.6% 78.8% 33.7%
Att% 86.3% 13.7% 77.5% 22.5% 69.1% 8.1% 22.8% 81.8% 18.2% 73.9% 26.1%
Yards 2,041 205 1,929 317 1,754 221 271 2,311 436 2,204 543
Yards % 90.9% 9.1% 85.9% 14.1% 78.1% 9.8% 12.1% 84.1% 15.9% 80.2% 19.8%
Accuracy 0.854 0.846 0.846 0.875 0.883 0.609 0.846 0.941 0.844 0.938 0.880
Placement 0.561 0.526 0.557 0.555 0.581 0.370 0.546 0.601 0.523 0.588 0.582
INTable 9 3 9 3 4 4 4 7 6 1 12
INTa % 3.7% 7.7% 4.1% 4.7% 2.0% 17.4% 6.2% 2.4% 9.4% 0.4% 13.0%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion -27.4% 2.1% -36.1% -18.6% -26.8% -57.3%
Accuracy -0.9% 3.4% -31.1% -11.7% -10.3% -6.2%
Placement -6.3% -0.3% -36.4% -17.9% -12.9% -1.2%
INTable 110.3% 15.1% 756.5% 162.1% 285.7% 3291.3%

45
thedraftnetwork.com

ryan finley NC State


RS Senior
Born: 12/26/1994
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

46
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
ryan finley Completions
Attempts
3rd Down
58
107
3rd & 5+
38
70
Red Zone
26
48
NC State Yards 715 498 226
RS Senior Completion %
Accuracy
54.2%
0.925
54.3%
0.943
54.2%
0.917
Born: 12/26/1994 Placement 0.500 0.521 0.615
Conversions 42 23 14
Conversion % 39.3% 32.9% 29.2%
Adjusted Conversion % 44.6% 38.7% 40.8%
INTable 9 7 2
INTable % 8.4% 10.0% 4.2%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

47
thedraftnetwork.com

Brett Rypien
I gotta say, I ended up disappointed in Rypien’s final numbers here. While he isn’t the
noodle-armed milksop clutching a one-way ticket to Clipboard Purgatory that many
styled him, his placements numbers do little to inspire faith in the dubious. Rypien was
supposed to trade on elite accuracy to mask his average arm and size -- that doesn’t
seem to be a tenable route any longer.

The simple reality is that Rypien is a rhythm player -- when he’s on his first read, in
cadence with his drops, and clear to hitch and drive into his throw, he’s golden. But he
too often bird-dogs his first read and forces the ball into perplexing, turnover-prone
situations. When asked to generate velocity without a clear runway and platform, his
accuracy is entirely scattershot.

Rypien is likely a backup at the next level, though timing systems (read: New England)
will get the most out of his ability. Cut down on his baffling decisions to Hail Mary in
the middle of the game, and we’ve got something here. Otherwise, it’s a modest out-
look.

Check Out: Where Rypien does (and doesn’t) throw INTs is fascinating to me. So are his
unintelligilbe heat maps.
48
thedraftnetwork.com

Brett RYpien Comp


Chartable Attempts
183 TD 16 TD% 5.8%
Boise State Att 274 INT 3 TD:INT 3.0
SENIOR Comp% 66.8% INTable 11 YAC 762

Born: 7/9/1996 Yards 2,208 INTable% 4.0% YAC% 34.5%

Accuracy .854 Placement .562

7/19 7/17 6/14 20/50


20+ 230 yards
Accuracy: .684
295 yards
Accuracy: .765
155 yards
Accuracy: .643
680 yards
Accuracy: .700
Placement: .447 Placement: .529 Placement: .464 Placement: .480

12/19 14/24 7/20 33/63


10-19 171 yards
Accuracy: .737
248 yards
Accuracy: .792
118 yards
Accuracy: .700
537 yards
Accuracy: .746
Placement: .711 Placement: .500 Placement: .475 Placement: .556

38/48 27/36 27/33 92/117


0-9 264 yards
Accuracy: .875
213 yards
Accuracy: .917
242 yards
Accuracy: .939
719 yards
Accuracy: .906
Placement: .531 Placement: .681 Placement: .545 Placement: .581

17/17 6/7 15/20 38/44


<0 179 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
23 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
68 yards
Accuracy: .950
270 yards
Accuracy: .977
Placement: .706 Placement: .500 Placement: .575 Placement: .614

74/103 54/84 55/87


844 yards 779 yards 583 yards
Accuracy: .835 Accuracy: .857 Accuracy: .839
Placement: .578 Placement: .583 Placement: .523
49
thedraftnetwork.com

Brett RYpien Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
314

Boise State Sacks


15
18
4.8%
5.7%
Senior Batted 14 1.3%
Throwaway 3 1.0%
Born: 7/9/1996 Drops 11
Drop Rate 4.0%
Adjusted completion % 70.8%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 174 9 165 18 164 2 17 154 29 162 21
Attempt 254 20 242 32 236 10 28 214 60 212 62
Comp% 68.5% 45.0% 68.2% 56.3% 69.5% 20.0% 60.7% 72.0% 48.3% 76.4% 33.9%
Att% 92.7% 7.3% 88.3% 11.7% 86.1% 3.6% 10.2% 78.1% 21.9% 77.4% 22.6%
Yards 2,118 90 2,033 175 2,049 12 147 1,690 518 1,766 442
Yards % 95.9% 4.1% 92.1% 7.9% 92.8% 0.5% 6.7% 76.5% 23.5% 80.0% 20.0%
Accuracy 0.862 0.750 0.860 0.813 0.869 0.500 0.857 0.888 0.733 0.901 0.694
Placement 0.573 0.425 0.558 0.594 0.572 0.350 0.554 0.575 0.517 0.585 0.484
INTable 11 0 11 0 11 0 0 10 1 1 10
INTa % 4.3% 0.0% 4.5% 0.0% 4.7% 0.0% 0.0% 4.7% 1.7% 0.5% 16.1%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion -34.3% -17.5% -71.2% -12.6% -32.8% -55.7%
Accuracy -13.0% -5.5% -42.4% -1.3% -17.4% -23.0%
Placement -25.8% 6.4% -38.8% -3.2% -10.1% -17.3%
INTable -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -100.0% -64.3% 3319.4%

50
thedraftnetwork.com

Brett RYpien Boise State


Senior
Born: 7/9/1996
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

51
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
Brett RYpien Completions
Attempts
3rd Down
48
85
3rd & 5+
34
69
Red Zone
11
19
Boise State Yards 646 545 127
Senior Completion %
Accuracy
56.5%
0.835
49.3%
0.826
57.9%
0.789
Born: 7/9/1996 Placement 0.529 0.522 0.579
Conversions 39 26 7
Conversion % 45.9% 37.7% 36.8%
Adjusted Conversion % 47.4% 42.1% 40.0%
INTable 4 4 1
INTable % 4.7% 5.8% 5.3%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

52
thedraftnetwork.com

will grier
Grier’s my mid-round guy in this year’s class, which I suppose means something.

It’s a good class for mid-round QBs, but don’t be fooled: that’s only because all of the
QBs are bad. Typically, there’s not such thing as a mid-round QB -- you’re either good
enough to be a Round 1 guy, or you’re a spectulative add whenever a team feels like it.
In this class, because of the derth of talent, we expect more action on Day 2.

Grier’s footwork is a travesty and he would improve upon already strong accuracy and
placement numbers by normalizing his throwing process and limiting his fades away
from penetration. Grier’s a mixed bag when it comes to responding to pressure, but he’s
an excellent creator on the hoof, has a great knack for the deep ball (especially from
odd platforms), and is decisive with the football. You could do far worse than ol’ Thrill
Grier as a backup/spot starter.

Check Out: Context of Pressure, both in terms of placement/accuracy/INTable, but also


his high-variance responses to different pressures. Also, peep the red zone.

53
thedraftnetwork.com

will grier Comp


Chartable Attempts
224 TD 32 TD% 9.8%
west virginia 3Att 327 INT 6 TD:INT 5.3
rs SENIOR Comp% 68.5% INTable 14 YAC 1,601

Born: 4/3/1995 Yards 3,302 INTable% 4.3% YAC% 48.5%

Accuracy .911 Placement .633

11/29 5/17 10/24 26/70


20+ 477 yards
Accuracy: .690
198 yards
Accuracy: .824
391 yards
Accuracy: .750
1,066 yards
Accuracy: .743
Placement: .500 Placement: .441 Placement: .542 Placement: .500

14/22 18/36 12/20 44/78


10-19 261 yards
Accuracy: .818
301 yards
Accuracy: .972
218 yards
Accuracy: .850
780 yards
Accuracy: .897
Placement: .523 Placement: .583 Placement: .625 Placement: .577

36/39 39/47 12/20 113/134


0-9 385 yards
Accuracy: .974
399 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
384 yards
Accuracy: .979
1,168 yards
Accuracy: .985
Placement: .731 Placement: .798 Placement: .688 Placement: .739

19/20 2/3 20/22 41/45


<0 134 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
24 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
144 yards
Accuracy: .955
298 yards
Accuracy: .978
Placement: .625 Placement: .667 Placement: .614 Placement: .622

80/110 64/103 80/114


1,257 yards 922 yards 1,133 yards
Accuracy: .873 Accuracy: .961 Accuracy: .904
Placement: .609 Placement: .660 Placement: .632
54
thedraftnetwork.com

will grier Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
371

west virginia Sacks


13
19
3.5%
5.1%
rs SENIOR Batted 1 0.3%
Throwaway 11 3.0%
Born: 4/3/1995 Drops 22
Drop Rate 6.7%
Adjusted completion % 75.2%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 199 25 212 12 201 11 12 208 16 211 13
Attempt 285 42 302 25 283 23 21 289 38 280 47
Comp% 69.8% 59.5% 70.2% 48.0% 71.0% 47.8% 57.1% 72.0% 42.1% 75.4% 27.7%
Att% 87.2% 12.8% 92.4% 7.6% 86.5% 7.0% 6.4% 88.4% 11.6% 85.6% 14.4%
Yards 3,092 210 3,195 107 2,946 249 107 2,980 322 3,038 264
Yards % 93.6% 6.4% 96.8% 3.2% 89.2% 7.5% 3.2% 90.2% 9.8% 92.0% 8.0%
Accuracy 0.909 0.929 0.911 0.920 0.922 0.783 0.905 0.920 0.842 0.929 0.809
Placement 0.640 0.583 0.641 0.540 0.648 0.478 0.595 0.656 0.461 0.657 0.489
INTable 13 1 13 1 10 3 1 12 2 6 8
INTa % 4.6% 2.4% 4.3% 4.0% 3.5% 13.0% 4.8% 4.2% 5.3% 2.1% 17.0%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion -14.8% -31.6% -32.7% -19.5% -41.5% -63.3%
Accuracy 2.2% 1.0% -15.1% -1.9% -8.5% -12.9%
Placement -8.9% -15.7% -26.2% -8.2% -29.8% -25.5%
INTable -47.8% -7.1% 269.1% 34.8% 26.8% 694.3%

55
thedraftnetwork.com

will grier west virginia


rs SENIOR
Born: 4/3/1995
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

56
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
will grier Completions
Attempts
3rd Down
58
107
3rd & 5+
38
70
Red Zone
26
48
west virginia Yards 715 498 226
rs SENIOR Completion %
Accuracy
54.2%
0.925
54.3%
0.943
54.2%
0.917
Born: 4/3/1995 Placement 0.500 0.521 0.615
Conversions 42 23 14
Conversion % 39.3% 32.9% 29.2%
Adjusted Conversion % 44.6% 38.7% 40.8%
INTable 9 7 2
INTable % 8.4% 10.0% 4.2%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

57
thedraftnetwork.com

Dwayne Haskins
Boy can Dwayne Haskins throw mesh.

I’m not sure why there was ever -- and still is -- hype around Haskins. As a one-year
starter, it is impressive to see how comfortable he is working through progressions, and
he has some strong pocket navigation ability. But Haskins is a statue when pressure
arrives and it will obliterate his accuracy.

Haskins’ arm talent, advertised as strong, is only good -- its the zip to the intermedi-
ate levels that impresses, while the deep ball is regularly underthrow. Any throw that
requires touch, Haskins typically shorts and leaves hanging for defenders to play on.
Generally a safe quarterback, those are his only “eek!” throws.

Haskins might be a starter in a couple of years, but he for sure needs that time -- and
I’m not sure the team he ends up with will see top-shelf returns on their investment.

Check Out: Pressure wheels show the lack of mobility, as does the Contextual Data.

58
thedraftnetwork.com

dwayne haskins Comp


Chartable Attempts
210 TD 16 TD% 4.7%
ohio state 3Att 336 INT 1 TD:INT 16.0.
rs sophomore Comp% 62.5% INTable 5 YAC 1,414

Born: 5/3/1997 Yards 2,691 INTable% 1.5% YAC% 52.5%

Accuracy .875 Placement .613

8/20 2/6 8/24 18/50


20+ 238 yards
Accuracy: ..800
93 yards
Accuracy: .667
229 yards
Accuracy: .750
560 yards
Accuracy: .760
Placement: .450 Placement: .333 Placement: .583 Placement: .500

8/31 21/30 14/33 43/94


10-19 107 yards
Accuracy: .800
333 yards
Accuracy: .867
233 yards
Accuracy: .765
673 yards
Accuracy: .809
Placement: .367 Placement: .733 Placement: .441 Placement: .511

19/32 35/45 31/40 85/116


0-9 157 yards
Accuracy: .875
493 yards
Accuracy: .955
277 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
927 yards
Accuracy: .948
Placement: .625 Placement: .705 Placement: .775 Placement: .707

16/24 8/8 40/43 64/75


<0 73 yards
Accuracy: .769
234 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
245 yards
Accuracy: 1.000
552 yards
Accuracy: .921
Placement: .538 Placement: .625 Placement: .762 Placement: .671

51/107 66/89 93/140


575 yards 1,153 yards 984 yards
Accuracy: .815 Accuracy: .909 Accuracy: .900
Placement: .500 Placement: .682 Placement: .657
59
thedraftnetwork.com

dwayne haskins Dropbacks


Scrambles
EXCEPTIONAL DATA
364

ohio state Sacks


13
9
3.6%
2.5%
rs sophomore Batted 2 0.5%
Throwaway 4 1.1%
Born: 5/3/1997 Drops 20
Drop Rate 6.0%
Adjusted completion % 68.5%

Contextual Data: Raw


Progression Launch Point Throwing Platform Pressure Target Window
First Read Beyond In Pocket Out Pocket Clean Adjusted Move Time Pressured Clear Tight
Comp 192 18 198 12 192 8 10 166 44 194 16
Attempt 308 28 316 20 296 22 18 262 74 264 72
Comp% 62.3% 64.3% 62.7% 60.0% 64.9% 36.4% 55.6% 63.4% 59.5% 73.5% 22.2%
Att% 91.7% 8.3% 94.0% 6.0% 88.1% 6.5% 5.4% 78.0% 22.0% 78.6% 21.4%
Yards 2,462 230 2,578 114 2,612 36 44 2,162 530 2,446 246
Yards % 91.5% 8.5% 95.8% 4.2% 97.0% 1.3% 1.6% 80.3% 19.7% 90.9% 9.1%
Accuracy 0.883 0.786 0.880 0.800 0.905 0.545 0.778 0.916 0.730 0.886 0.833
Placement 0.614 0.607 0.623 0.450 0.649 0.318 0.389 0.656 0.459 0.652 0.472
INTable 10 0 8 2 6 2 2 6 4 2 8
INTa % 3.2% 0.0% 2.5% 10.0% 2.0% 9.1% 11.1% 2.3% 5.4% 0.8% 11.1%

Contextual Data: Change


Beyond First Read Out of Pocket Adjusted Move Pressured Tight Window
Completion 3.1% -4.2% -43.9% -14.4% -6.2% -69.8%
Accuracy -11.0% -9.1% -39.8% -14.1% -20.3% -6.0%
Placement -1.1% -27.8% -50.9% -40.0% -30.0% -27.5%
INTable -100.0% 295.0% 348.5% 448.1% 136.0% 1366.7%

60
thedraftnetwork.com

dwayne haskins ohio state


rs sophomore
Born: 5/3/1997
target heat map Yardage heat map

Accuracy heat map placement heat map

61
thedraftnetwork.com
clutch performance
dwayne haskins Completions
Attempts
3rd Down
56
98
3rd & 5+
48
80
Red Zone
14
38
ohio state Yards 662 584 98
rs sophomore Completion %
Accuracy
57.1%
0.878
60.0%
0.900
36.8%
0.895
Born: 5/3/1997 Placement 0.592 0.563 0.553
Conversions 36 30 6
Conversion % 36.7% 37.5% 15.7%
Adjusted Conversion % 40.3% 41.8% 18.2%
INTable 0 0 2
INTable % 0.0% 0.0% 5.3%

Pressure: Cause RESPONSE BY PRESSURE TYPE

BLOCKING
PRESSURE

Pressure: Response
QB
PRESSURE

OUT OF
POCKET

62
thedraftnetwork.com

comparative data

63
thedraftnetwork.com

64
thedraftnetwork.com

65
thedraftnetwork.com

66
thedraftnetwork.com

67
thedraftnetwork.com

68
thedraftnetwork.com

69
thedraftnetwork.com

70
thedraftnetwork.com

71
thedraftnetwork.com

72
thedraftnetwork.com

73
thedraftnetwork.com

74
thedraftnetwork.com

75
thedraftnetwork.com

76
thedraftnetwork.com

77
thedraftnetwork.com

78
thedraftnetwork.com

79
thedraftnetwork.com

80
thedraftnetwork.com

81
thedraftnetwork.com

82