Parcell's System!

[Browns57]

Assessing Parcells' four criteriaThe Tuna has four guidelines for drafting a QB. How well do they work?

ESPN Insider

Archive

 

 

The biggest question mark for any team going into a draft is how to measure intangibles at the quarterback position.

 

Personnel legend Don "Duke" Klosterman may have put this quandary best when he told former Giants general manager Ernie Accorsi, "Do not evaluate a quarterback the way you evaluate the other 21 positions. They're playing a different sport. With a quarterback, it's the things you can't put down on paper that make all the difference."

 

The problem this presents is simple: Those items that can't be put down on paper all generally lend themselves to emotional swings; a perfect example of this comes via the case of Tim Tebow. Tebow's significant pocket passer weaknesses have ESPN draft experts Mel Kiper (fourth round) and Todd McShay (third round) grading him as a less-than-stellar choice, but Tebow's seemingly off-the-charts intangibles have others -- such as Tony Dungy -- rating him as a first-round pick.

 

One solution to this quandary is to try to find a way to measure the impact of these seemingly unmeasurable characteristics. This is the path that Bill Parcells took when he put together the following four rules for drafting quarterbacks:

 

 

1. Be a three-year starter

2. Post at least 23 wins

3. Be a senior

4. Be a college graduate

 

 

The idea behind these guidelines is simple: Any quarterback who achieves each of these goals has proved that he can handle the rigors of frequent play, has a history of winning and will stick to a goal until he finishes it.

 

 

"Parcells' Guys"

These 15 quarterbacks meet the four qualities discussed in this article. Twelve of the 15 guys on this list started at least one game in the NFL in 2009.

 

Player Name First NFL team

Chad Pennington New York Jets

Philip Rivers San Diego Chargers

Kevin Kolb Philadelphia Eagles

Donovan McNabb Philadelphia Eagles

Brady Quinn Cleveland Browns

Carson Palmer Cincinnati Bengals

David Garrard Jacksonville Jaguars

Cade McNown Chicago Bears

Jason Campbell Washington Redskins

Charlie Whitehurst San Diego Chargers

Matt Leinart Arizona Cardinals

Byron Leftwich Jacksonville Jaguars

Eli Manning New York Giants

Drew Brees San Diego Chargers

Chad Henne Miami Dolphins

 

 

These sound like terrific mile markers to gauge intangibles, but does this system work? Do quarterbacks with these characteristics significantly outperform players who don't reach these goals?

 

To find the answer to these questions, I enlisted the help of the Stats & Information department at ESPN. I asked its researchers to compile the figures for all of the first-round picks in the BCS era (since the 1999 NFL draft) along with every other current starting quarterback who was drafted in that time in the four aforementioned categories.

 

The first study we did revolved around the three-year starter guideline. The initial quandary here was how to determine how many starts constitute three years. Every FBS (formerly Division I-A) team today plays a minimum of 12 games -- but that level has been in place only since 2006. In the years before that, the minimum was 11 games, so we ran the study with both 33 starts and 36 starts as the qualifying line.

 

At the 33-start level, quarterbacks were 637-542-1 (54 percent) in the NFL; at the 36-start level, they were 606-515-1, which is a very similar percentage mark of 54.1 percent.

 

College quarterbacks with fewer than 33 starts were 493-528-1, for a winning percentage of 48.3 percent; those with fewer than 36 starts were 524-555-1, for a winning percentage of 48.6 percent.

 

The difference here is an NFL win percentage of around 5.6 percent, or about nine-tenths of a win per season (16 games multiplied by 5.6 percent). Not quite a slam dunk for the high-volume college starts criterion, but certainly a notable positive indicator.

 

Next up is the 23 collegiate wins mark. The findings here were quite similar to the high volume of starts study. The quarterbacks who had a minimum of 23 wins posted an NFL record of 664-575-1, or a winning percentage of 53.6 percent. The quarterbacks who posted fewer than 23 wins had an NFL mark of 466-495-1, or a winning percentage of 48.5 percent. The favorable percentage differential was 5.1 percent, or nearly identical to the 33-36 starts criterion.

 

The third study looked at how senior quarterbacks fared compared with sophomores and juniors who declared for the draft. The seniors posted a professional record of 914-891-1, or a winning percentage of 50.6 percent. The second-year and third-year collegians did not post anywhere near as high of a volume of games as the seniors, but their 216-179-1 record equates to a 54.7 winning percentage, a mark that is 4.1 percent better than that of their counterparts.

 

 

Parcells has a good track record as an evaluator, but his QB guidelines aren't highly statistically significant -- except for college graduation.

 

The fourth criterion, graduating college, is a bit tougher to gauge because there are some instances where extenuating circumstances need to be taken into account. One example of this can be found in the case of Joe Flacco. Flacco had to put his final college classes on hold because of an odd confluence of rules. Here, we ended up giving any players in situations of this nature the benefit of the doubt and crediting them in the graded category.

 

The findings here were quite notable. Players who graduated posted a 965-855-1 NFL record, or a winning percentage of 53.0 percent. Quarterbacks who didn't graduate tallied an NFL mark of 165-215-1, or a winning percentage of 43.4 percent. That is a difference of 9.6 percent, or an average of around 1.5 extra wins per year. To put it into perspective, that mark is 75 percent greater than the average extra wins generated by the high-volume starts or collegiate wins criteria.

 

Each of these individual bars is high on its own, but the Parcells rules require that a player meet all four. That should mean only the best of the best make the final cut, but the numbers do not indicate that is the case. The combined record of the 16 quarterbacks who satisfied all four criteria (all of whom had at least 36 starts) was 494-432-1, or a 53.3 percent winning percentage. That is lower than the winning percentages generated by two of the individual criteria, so this combination of traits cannot make a claim as being the most notable success indicator.

 

That honor goes to the college graduate criterion. To put it another way, when talent evaluators are looking for a tiebreaker in making a choice of which quarterback to draft, they should turn to the classroom for guidance.

 

KC Joyner, aka the Football Scientist, is a regular contributor to ESPN Insider. He also can be found on Twitter (@kcjoynertfs) and at his Web site. Research was provided by John McTigue and Marty Callinan of the ESPN Stats & Information Group.

 

 

[Mark O]

Very interesting read....

[Browns57]

I really liked that analysis, but being a data analyst I couldn't help but notice that ESPN skipped the final step before coming to their conclusion. What is the winning percentage of all drafted NFL QB's in that time frame who meet all four criteria vs. those that did not meet the criteria. That would be a ton of data but they have the data and the software to do it. So I wonder why they didn't.

 

Anyway I know this has been discussed before, but given this criteria who is the QB that the Brown's should look at? For me it is Tebow!

 

 

Yeah I know Zombo!!! And I don't even like the Gators!!!

[Browns57]

I got mad respect for Parcells, and I know i'll get flack for this but he's no QB guru. Interesting read, no doubt but to adapt an analogy of his: If i'm shopping for the groceries i'm not going to go to the produce manager to find a top notch slab of beef. Just sayin'...

 

So who in your opinion is the manager of the meat department?

[Browns57]

I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the QB's drafted by Parcell's and the QB's drafted by Parcells. I will see if I can find that info. If anybody else has it, or knows where to find it please share. Here is what I found so far but I am sure there are more that I missed.

 

 

Bill Parcells

 

Tony Romo – Not drafted

Chad Henne

Drew Bledsoe

Chad Pennington

Jay Walker – 7th round

Chuck Clement – 6th round

 

 

Mike Holmgren

 

Brock Huard

Josh Booty

Jeff Kelly -7th round

Brett Favre – From Atlanta

 

 

Thus far I see 4 out of six good QB picks by parcells, and every one drafted before the sixth round is, has been, or will be a QB. (Yes Henne will be good)

 

Please feel free to add any others to this list.

 

[Browns57]

Great points but I would still say that if you want someone to groom a QB as a coach it is Holmgren, however he is not our coach and he won't be grooming who we qpick this year. His job is being part of the crew that picks the right guys so that Mangini can coach them. I thing that Parcells system has proven that he can draft better Qb's so lets hope that Holgren and Heckert put a lot of stock in his methods.

 

 

I would also have to disagree that either Wallace, or Hasselbeck are top tier QB's, but I do think Romo is and he will get it done for Dallas. They won one this year in the playoffs and played great in Dec. That is improvement. Also Pennington won comeback player of the year twice. They just don't give you that for coming off of injury. You get it because you come back and you have a great season. And Bledsoe getting benched for Brady.....Really!!!! Brady will go down as one of the best ever... That is like saying Montana wasn't very good because they sent him to KC so that Steve Young could play! Or Drew Bress!!!! When players get older and you have a young talent behind them you do what you have to do.

[Browns57]

Good debate I enjoyed it and I get what you are saying but I think you are missing my points, or ,maybe I just can't make them clear enough. Either way good debate.

 

I would still take Parcell's for evaluating and drafting a QB and you would take Holmgren. I would take Holmgren to coach them and work with them day in and day out. Got it.