benjamin solak of ndt scouting · contextualized quarterbacking benjamin solak of ndt scouting...

Contextualized Quarterbacking

Benjamin Solak of NDT Scouting

presents

a charting and data-precipitating endeavor designed to

provide steadfast responses to quarterbacking narratives,

thereby improving the landscape of quarterback evaluations.

2

Table of Contents

Introduction …………………………………………………………… 3

Methodology …………………………………………………………… 4

Kurt Benkert ………………………………………………………… 14

Baker Mayfield ……………………………………………………… 17

Luke Falk ……………………………………………………………… 20

Kyle Lauletta ………………………………………………………… 23

Mason Rudolph ……………………………………………………… 26

Brandon Silvers ……………………………………………………… 29

Mike White …………………………………………………………… 32

Josh Allen ……………………………………………………………… 35

Comparative Measures …………………………………………… 38

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………51

3

Introduction

I don’t pretend to know much about scouting in the media. I haven’t

done it for very long. Still learning on the daily, I often discover two

things I don’t know for every one thing that I do.

Among the things I can comfortably say I’ve learned, however, is this:

media scouting is inherently 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 for-

est,” as it were, and begins bickering about the trees. Being right is now

the only goal, the ultimate goal—and, invariably accompanying the de-

sire to be right, is the temptation to make 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. I suppose

I’m making it out as far more dramatic than it really is—I often do that,

I’m afraid—but the salient point is this: prospects often make us argue,

which turns into jabs and even insults. Quarterbacks, as the most im-

portant and complex of evaluations, are the most serious offenders.

As such, I wanted to improve the conversation around quarterbacks spe-

cifically, with a method entrenched in unfettered truths. As such, the CQ

became: a project wherein every throw is categorized and 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

4

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. While there

are still characteristics of these quarterbacks to be gleaned on plays like

these, that endeavor is for a more heuristic eye.

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

throws wherein the camera catches the entire process of release, flight,

and arrival of the football, and the target and quarterback both end up

where they should. I also insisted on a traditional release motion. Sorry,

shovel passes—you just didn’t make the cut.

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 ceil-

ings, coachability, et cetera—is so important.

5

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 didn’t want to see a quarterback robot-

ically move his eyes to predetermined landmarks in his sequence, only

to deliver the ball where it should have gone all along. I wanted to see a

quarterback make a decision—a conscious reading of leverage/spacing

beyond the simple “If that corner buzzes to the flat, I’ll hit the seven

over top; if he drops, I’ll hit the back on the flare route.”

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.

6

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

acuity, playbook understanding, 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/

motion man, common in Virginia’s offense—the consideration of “In the

Pocket” was widened accordingly.

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

screen, throw the tunnel screen the other way” that everyone and their

grandmother ran, 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 applied

on a case-by-case basis without strong indicators. As you watch more

reps of a quarterback, you become more familiar with his “Clean Plat-

form,” which correspondingly makes it easier to find his “Adjusted Plat-

form,” the most elusive of the three (“Move Platform” is the third).

7

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 trickiest of the considerations, as it can result in so

many outcomes: an easy climb of the pocket and “Clean Platform”

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?

The subtext says this: do not use the “Pressure” stats to evaluate a QB’s

decision-making under pressure. Of course, don’t use any CQ data to

8

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 frequency of pressure out of pocket to contextu-

alize QB escapability.

The main takeaway: who can stay cool, and who panics.

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

quarterbacks who create their own pressure by retreating to deep into

the pocket or rolling out unnecessarily. When color flashes, the quarter-

back has a reflex: flee or hang tough. Often, that decision itself deter-

mines whether or not a defender’s valiant effort becomes “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.” Not specific and hard to enumerate, but

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.

9

Methodology

“Tight Window” metrics help us understand how fearless a QB can be, as

well as help us contextualize the presumption that their WRs failed to

separate. A quick note to that regard, 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.

10

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 more 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 advantageously. In this effort, a word of caution:

The QB’s job is, first and foremost, to deliver a catchable football. We

must caution one another from falling too far down Alice’s rabbit-hole

when it comes to accuracy and placement.

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 don’t worry about that.

11

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.

12

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 into which a player was leaving.

I chart INTables and Drops both quite strictly. I don’t care if the CB

didn’t turn around—the ball should never have been in a place he

could have played on it in the first place. WRs are players, too—if you

smack at least 1.5 hands on that ball, I don’t care what acrobatics you

did to get there—throw some Stickum on and reel that puppy in.

13

Quarterback Data Sheets

14

20

+

8/36, 324 yds Accuracy: .722

Placement: .528

1/6, 51 yds Accuracy: .5

Placement: .083

9/24, 336 yds Accuracy: .458

Placement: .375

18/66, 711 yds Accuracy: .606

Placement: .432

10

-19

9/20, 165 Accuracy: .7

Placement: .475

12/23, 215 yds Accuracy: .782

Placement: .435


Placement: .469

27/59, 478 yds Accuracy: .746

Placement: .458

0-9

41/52, 303 yds Accuracy: .923

Placement: .587

49/76, 426 yds Accuracy: .974

Placement: .717

51/81, 516 yds Accuracy: .938

Placement: .685

141/209, 1,245 yds Accuracy: .947

Placement: .672

<0

24/27, 120 yds Accuracy: .96

Placement: .85

5/5, 35 yds Accuracy: 1

Placement: .8


Placement: .70

63/70, 290 yds Accuracy: .986

Placement: .764

82/135, 912 yds Accuracy: .844

Placement: .607

67/110, 727 yds Accuracy: .909

Placement: .627

100/159, 1,085 yds Accuracy: .862

Placement: .620

BEYOND LoS Accuracy: .844

Placement: .587

Charting by Region

3rd Down 3rd (5+) Red Zone

Comp 61 36 15

Att 104 66 31

Yards 656 408 134

Comp % 58.7% 54.5% 48.4%

Accuracy 0.913 0.894 0.806

Placement 0.596 0.598 0.661

Conversion 39 18 5

Conversion % 37.5% 27.3% 16.1%

Adj. Conv. % 40.5% 30.3% 21.2%

INTable 5 4 2

INTable % 4.8% 6.1% 6.5%

Situational Data

TD INTable YAC

19 24 1341

Comp Comp % INT INTa % YAC %

249 61.6% 9 5.9% 49.3%

Att Yards TD:INT Accuracy Placement

404 2,720 2.11 .869 .617

Chartable Attempts

Senior, UVA, born 8/7/1995

Games Charted (11): v. Indiana, v. Connecticut, @ Boise State, v. Duke, @ UNC, v.

Boston College, v. Georgia Tech, @ Louisville, @ Miami (FL), v. Virginia Tech,

n. Navy

Kurt Benkert

The Skinny

Kurt Benkert’s film illustrates a streaky QB that can really operate when

he’s in a groove, but fails to recover after small mistakes. A right-handed

QB, Benkert favored the right side target-wise, but actually proved more

accurate downfield (10+) to his left-hand side, a phenomena likely

attributed to his penchant for exiting the pocket and throwing an accu-

rate ball on the move. Benkert tends to create pressure when there is

none, and must improve his ability to manage a clean/slightly collapsing

pocket with subtle movements and downfield eyes. Despite having a high

-velocity arm, Benkert struggled in general with deep ball accuracy and

with tight-window throws, likely due to high-variance mechanics. Benkert

currently projects as an Early Day 3/Late Day 2 investment who has start-

er traits if his inconsistencies can be ironed out, and his strengths fo-

cused.

15

20

+ 11.9% 1.9% 12.4% 1

0-1

9

6.1% 7.9% 3.6%

0-9

11.1% 15.7% 19.0%

<0 4.4% 1.3% 5.0%

Yardage Heat Map

20

+ 8.9% 1.5% 5.9%

10

-19

5.0% 5.7% 4.0%

0-9

12.9% 18.8% 20.0%

<0 6.7% 1.2% 9.4%

Target Heat Map 2

0+ 0.528 0.083 0.375

10

-19

0.475 0.435 0.469

0-9

0.587 0.717 0.685

<0 0.852 0.800 0.697

Placement Heat Map

20

+ 0.722 0.500 0.458

10

-19

0.700 0.783 0.750

0-9

0.923 0.974 0.938

<0 0.963 1.000 1.000

Accuracy Heat Map

Senior, UVA, born 8/7/1995



n. Navy

Kurt Benkert Dropbacks 474

Scrambles 19 4.0%

Sacks 24 5.1%

Batted 9 1.9%

Throwaway 18 3.8%

Drops 28

Drop rate 6.9%

Adjusted comp% 68.6%

Exceptional Data

16

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp 209 39 Comp 206 42 Comp 180 13 55 Comp 221 27 Comp 213 35

Att 330 74 Att 337 67 Att 287 35 82 Att 341 63 Att 301 103

Comp% 63% 53% Comp% 61% 63% Comp% 63% 37% 67% Comp% 65% 43% Comp% 71% 34%

Att% 82% 18% Att% 83% 17% Att% 71% 9% 20% Att% 84% 16% Att% 75% 25%

Acc. 0.888 Acc. 0.875 Acc. 0.895 0.657 0.866 Acc. 0.897 Acc. 0.910 0.836 0.784 0.714 0.748

Plc. 0.632 0.554 Plc. 0.625 0.582 Plc. 0.643 0.443 0.604 Plc. 0.636 0.516 Plc. 0.658 0.500

INTable 19 5 INTable 17 7 INTable 14 3 7 INTable 16 8 INTable 9 15

INTa % 5.8% 6.8% INTa % 5.0% 10.4% INTa % 4.9% 8.6% 8.5% INTa % 4.7% 12.7% INTa % 3.0% 14.6%

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp %c

-16.8% Comp %c

2.6% Comp %c

-40.8% 6.9% Comp %c

-33.9% Comp %c

-52.0%

Acc. %c

-11.7% Acc. %c

-4.5% Acc. %c

-26.6% -3.3% Acc. %c

-20.4% Acc. %c

-17.9%

Plc. %c

-12.3% Plc. %c

-6.8% Plc. %c

-31.1% -6.1% Plc. %c

-18.9% Plc. %c

-24.0%

INTable %c

17.4% INTable %c

107.1% INTable %c

75.7% 75.0% INTable %c

INTable %c

387.1% 170.6%



n. Navy

Contextual Data: Raw

Contextual Data: Change

Redshirt Senior, UVA, born 1/1/1997

Comparative Measures

Top Quartile Bottom Quartile

Acc “Move Platform” % attempt “Tight Window” Drop %

Adj. conv. % (3 & 5+) Adj. conv. % (RZ)

Kurt Benkert

Approaching the Senior Bowl From the film alone, I’m not sure how different Kurt Benkert and Josh Allen are, and that’s the biggest question I have coming in to

the Senior Bowl. The similarities between Allen and Benkert fall with their strengths: Benkert’s ability to generate velocity from all

throwing platforms, arm angles, and to all levels of the field truly impresses. Benkert’s rarely spent more than two reads in the

pocket during his time with the Cavaliers, either committing quickly to a half-field read, or delivering a pre-read fade route down

the field. He seemed uncomfortable hanging in the pocket—his offensive line, admittedly, did nothing to alleviate these concerns.

As such, Benkert often fled relatively clean pockets, and looked to freelance when he could have, perhaps, retained the structure

of the play and moved on to a tertiary read (if such a read existed in the scheme). Accordingly, Benkert must show comfort oper-

ating from a pocket in Mobile: resetting his throwing platform, scanning across the field, and delivering an accurate ball.

Continuing our theme of comparison, Josh Allen will need to show similar traits as well. Benkert has the opportunity to become

the subject of most “Senior Bowl QB Riser” articles if he can show his comparable athleticism and velocity, while hopefully muster-

ing some consistency in his accuracy and placement.

17

20

+

7/14, 313 yds Accuracy: .714

Placement: .607

15/26, 655 yds Accuracy: .846

Placement: .384

13/29, 451 yds Accuracy: .862

Placement: .690

35/69, 1419 yds Accuracy: .826

Placement: .558

10

-19

14/19, 249 yds Accuracy: .895

Placement: .658

32/47, 618 yds Accuracy: .915

Placement: .521

22/30, 347 yds Accuracy: .967

Placement: .633

68/96, 1214 yds Accuracy: .927

Placement: .583

0-9

20/22, 315 yds Accuracy: .955

Placement: .682


Placement: .739


Placement: .793

81/97, 1045 yds Accuracy: .989

Placement: .742

<0


Placement: .825


Placement: .844


Placement: .871


Placement: .850

59/75, 1018 yds Accuracy: .907

Placement: .700

98/135, 1939 yds Accuracy: .941

Placement: .607

86/119, 1201 yds Accuracy: .958

Placement: .748


Placement: .636

Charting by Region


Comp 42 29 34

Att 69 45 45

Yards 574 397 341

Comp % 60.9% 64.4% 75.6%

Accuracy .942 .956 1

Placement .587 .556 .789

Conversion 31 20 21

Conversion % 44.9% 44.4% 46.7%

Adj. Conv. % 48.3% 45.8% 44.6%

INTable 8 5 1

INTable % 11.6% 11.1% 2.2%

Situational Data

TD INTable YAC

38 15 1976


243 73.9% 5 4.5% 47.5%


329 4,158 7.6 .939 .679

Chartable Attempts

Redshirt Senior, OKLA, born 4/14/1995

Games Charted (14): v. UTEP, @ Ohio State, v. Tulane, @ Baylor, v. Iowa State, @

Texas, @ Kansas State, v. Texas Tech, @ Oklahoma State, v. TCU, @ Kansas, v. West

Virginia, n. TCU (CCG), n. UGA

Baker Mayfield

The Skinny

Baker Mayfield’s film illustrates an exceptionally accurate quarterback—

from the pocket, on the run, pressured, in variable arm angles, moving

through his reads, everything—who is only limited by his gamer mentality

and occasionally, his height. Baker uses the entirety of his pliable frame

to generate velocity, which allows him to reach 60+ yards down the field,

but can occasionally lead to a slingshot motion that drives the ball high to

its target. Baker’s typically high placement is more prevalent when he

cannot set a base, and especially when bodies obstruct his throwing hall-

way, in which he is forced into a high release point due to his smaller

frame. It is not yet an issue, but it is certainly worthy of note. Beyond

that, Baker’s best trait—beyond his accuracy—is his creativity and arm

talent, which allows him to make wild, unscripted plays. He projects as a

first-round quarterback and best into a spread/WCO.

18

20

+ 7.5% 15.8% 10.8% 1

0-1

9

6.0% 14.9% 8.3%

0-9

7.6% 13.1% 4.4%

<0 3.4% 2.9% 5.3%

Yardage Heat Map

20

+ 4.3% 7.9% 8.8%

10

-19

5.8% 14.3% 9.1%

0-9

6.7% 14.0% 8.8%

<0 6.1% 4.9% 9.4%

Target Heat Map 2

0+ 0.607 0.385 0.690

10

-19

0.658 0.521 0.633

0-9

0.682 0.739 0.793

<0 0.825 0.844 0.871

Placement Heat Map

20

+ 0.714 0.846 0.862

10

-19

0.895 0.915 0.967

0-9

0.955 1.000 1.000

<0 1.000 1.000 1.000

Accuracy Heat Map





Baker Mayfield Dropbacks 397

Scrambles 31 7.8%

Sacks 21 5.3%

Batted 5 1.3%

Throwaway 11 2.8%

Drops 24

Drop rate 7.3%


Exceptional Data

19

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window









First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp %c

-19.7% Comp %c

-4.8% Comp %c

-10.4% 2.4% Comp %c

-15.9% Comp %c

-50.0%

Acc. %c

-5.1% Acc. %c

-4.7% Acc. %c

1.3% -1.1% Acc. %c

-3.9% Acc. %c

-7.5%

Plc. %c

-12.2% Plc. %c

2.6% Plc. %c

-11.3% 8.3% Plc. %c

-14.6% Plc. %c

-0.5%

INTable %c

81.7% INTable %c

7.7% INTable %c

-5.2% -65.6% INTable %c

INTable %c

235.8% -51.3%







Notable Measures


Acc/place under all 5 con-texts Acc/place “Beyond LoS” Adj. conv. % (3rd) Adj. conv. % (3 & 5+) Adj. conv. % (RZ) % attempt “Beyond 1st R.”

INTable Baker Mayfield

Approaching the Senior Bowl I imagine Baker Mayfield wakes up every day thinking he’s the top dog; approaching the Senior Bowl should be no different. Mark-

edly the most talented quarterback of the field, Baker still does have a few boxes to check, but the biggest is this: don’t lose

ground. As long as Baker delivers as consistently a catchable football to all levels of the field, and from all platforms, he will remain

firmly in the mix of the top quarterbacks in this Draft. Baker must also endeavor not to lose ground—and perhaps, even make

some—during the interview portions of the week. His interactions with the media have always been fine, but coaches will likely

press him on some of the competitive shenanigans and antics. It will also be interesting to see to what degree Baker becomes the

leader of his team/the QB group during his limited time at Mobile, and what his leadership style looks like up close.

From a more play-oriented perspective, I’m interested to see to what degree Baker’s high placement is a product of his height.

Throwing drills without linemen will help illumine this question. Baker can be late to his reads down the field, which makes his long

balls often appear underthrown, so his deep placement should also be examined in throwing drills. Finally, Baker can throw from

too wide of a base as he works through his progressions, and I’m interested to see if that is a mechanical issue or harmless idiosyn-

crasy up close.

20

20

+

6/24, 177 yds Accuracy: .583

Placement: .271

9/19, 285 yds Accuracy: .895

Placement: .527

13/29, 451 yds Accuracy: .704

Placement: .407

23/70, 701 yds Accuracy: .714

Placement: .393

10

-19

9/22, 143 yds Accuracy: .909

Placement: .613

14/37, 249 yds Accuracy: .676

Placement: .432

10/29, 138 yds Accuracy: .655

Placement: .586

33/88, 530 yds Accuracy: .727

Placement: .528

0-9

18/28, 140 yds Accuracy: .857

Placement: .482

71/93, 689 yds Accuracy: .968

Placement: .726

33/43, 233 yds Accuracy: .884

Placement: .616

122/164, 1062 yds Accuracy: .927

Placement: .655

<0


Placement: .738


Placement: .778

70/75, 357 yds Accuracy: .987

Placement: .747

125/137, 702 yds Accuracy: .993

Placement: .748

73/118, 692 yds Accuracy: .864

Placement: .559

109/167, 1336 yds Accuracy: .898

Placement: .644

121/174, 967 yds Accuracy: .862

Placement: .635


Placement: .564

Charting by Region


Comp 68 37 39

Att 122 78 62

Yards 872 637 309

Comp % 55.7% 47.4% 62.9%

Accuracy 0.836 0.782 0.871

Placement 0.545 0.506 0.653

Conversion 52 28 15

Conversion % 42.6% 35.9% 24.2%

Adj. Conv. % 47.0% 36.2% 23.9%

INTable 12 9 5

INTable % 9.8% 11.5% 8.1%

Situational Data

TD INTable YAC

23 11 1728


303 66.0% 11 6.1% 57.7%


459 2,995 2.09 .876 .618

Chartable Attempts

Redshirt Senior, WSU, born 12/28/1994

Games Charted (11): v. Montana State, v. Boise State, v. Oregon State, v. USC, @

Oregon, @ California, v. Colorado, @ Arizona, v. Stanford, @ Utah, @ Washington

Luke Falk

The Skinny

Luke Falk leaves Washington State a prolific passer, but I fear for his pro

transition. Falk can deliver a pretty ball, and has the touch to drop throws

in the bucket both in the middle of the field and on the sideline. Howev-

er, he lacks the arm strength to vary velocity, and as such, simply cannot

“make all of the throws.” Falk’s pocket presence is inconsistent, and

when paired with his average athleticism, tethers his game to the pocket

and entirely handicaps him when pressured. Born and bred in the Air

Raid, Falk regularly sits on his primary read for extended periods of time,

relying on the spacing of his offense to eventually open a throwing win-

dow. Beyond the occasional impressive touch pass into traffic, Falk simply

does not regularly demonstrate NFL skills, nor does he have raw NFL

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.

21

20

+ 5.9% 9.5% 8.0% 1

0-1

9

4.8% 8.3% 4.6%

0-9

4.7% 23.0% 7.8%

<0 7.7% 3.8% 11.9%

Yardage Heat Map

20

+ 5.2% 4.1% 5.9%

10

-19

4.8% 8.1% 6.3%

0-9

6.1% 20.3% 9.4%

<0 9.6% 3.9% 16.3%

Target Heat Map 2

0+ 0.271 0.526 0.407

10

-19

0.614 0.432 0.586

0-9

0.482 0.726 0.616

<0 0.739 0.778 0.747

Placement Heat Map

20

+ 0.583 0.895 0.704

10

-19

0.909 0.676 0.655

0-9

0.857 0.968 0.884

<0 1.000 1.000 0.987

Accuracy Heat Map




Luke Falk Dropbacks 531

Scrambles 25 4.7%

Sacks 35 6.6%

Batted 4 0.8%

Throwaway 8 1.5%

Drops 31

Drop rate 6.8%


Exceptional Data

22

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window









First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp %c

-7.9% Comp %c

-20.7% Comp %c

-17.5% -1.0% Comp %c

-31.0% Comp %c

-66.1%

Acc. %c

-2.9% Acc. %c

-22.7% Acc. %c

-8.7% -12.0% Acc. %c

-13.7% Acc. %c

-22.7%

Plc. %c

-2.1% Plc. %c

-17.7% Plc. %c

-21.9% -10.7% Plc. %c

-28.0% Plc. %c

-23.9%

INTable %c

-15.2% INTable %c

-48.7% INTable %c

-12.1% -62.3% INTable %c

INTable %c

391.9% 46.3%






Notable Measures


YAC % % attempt “Beyond 1st R.”

Adj. conv. % (Red Zone) Acc “Move Platform” Place “Out of Pocket”

Luke Falk

Approaching the Senior Bowl Falk’s primary goal at the Senior Bowl must first be to continue delivering a consistently accurate, well-placed ball—despite how

the various contexts (pressure, out of pocket, tight window throws) affect his accuracy and placement, he should look very clean in

drills, delivering the football where it belongs. That’s step one.

Falk’s biggest area of gain, in my opinion, will be demonstrating to what extent his arm can reach all levels of the field, and with

what velocity he can deliver the football. Falk has attempted—and completed—such NFL throws as the deep comeback, the deep

out, the back-shoulder fade, et cetera. Those throws often lacked mustard and looked more “jump ball” than anything else. Per-

haps in drills, Falk will be able to model some velocity that he rarely called up on in game situations. It’s unlikely his arm stands out

among Mayfield’s and Allen’s, but he can make some ground here against his own film.

Beyond this, the Senior Bowl does not provide an ideal proving grounds re: throws against pressure, outside of the pocket, into

tight windows. Falk will likely have to stand on his tape when it comes to those categories, and in the end, that will eventually lead

to his depressed Draft stock.

23

20

+


Placement: .583


Placement: .25


Placement: .667

5/15, 121 yds Accuracy: .667

Placement: .467

10

-19


Placement: .583


Placement: .087


Placement: .813

18/27, 364 yds Accuracy: .926

Placement: .759

0-9


Placement: .912


Placement: 1

11/15, 95 yds Accuracy: .867

Placement: .733

29/37, 217 yds Accuracy: .946

Placement: .851

<0


Placement: 1

0/0, 0 yds Accuracy: N/A

Placement: N/A


Placement: .875


Placement: .938

24/33, 264 yds Accuracy: .939

Placement: .803

15/24, 228 Accuracy: .875

Placement: .708

20/30, 253 yds Accuracy: .867

Placement: .767


Placement: .747


Comp 15 12 4

Att 26 20 8

Yards 168 153 34

Comp % 57.7% 60.0% 50.0%

Accuracy 0.923 0.950 0.875

Placement 0.750 0.775 0.938

Conversion 7 5 2

Conversion % 26.9% 25.0% 25.0%

Adj. Conv. % 26.7% 26.1% 33.3%

INTable 2 2 0

INTable % 7.7% 10.0% 0.0%

Situational Data

TD INTable YAC

3 4 295


59 67.8% 4 4.6% 39.6%


87 745 .75 .896 .764

Chartable Attempts

Redshirt Senior, Richmond, born 3/17/1995

Games Charted (3): @ Villanova, @ JMU, v. William & Mary

Kyle Lauletta

The Skinny

The ball goes where Kyle Lauletta wants it to go. His release is lightning-

quick, and while his mental processing isn’t as snappy, the combination

of the two allow him to read and react to tight windows/defensive lever-

age very nicely. Mechanically pure, Lauletta generates all of his velocity

from his lower half and through his core, which helps him remain accu-

rate on high-velocity throws. However, he does not have an impressive

arm , and labors to reach even 40-45 yards down the field. Without a

clean base, his velocity notably falls off, though he still remains competi-

tively accurate when on the run. Despite being listed at 6’3, a high inci-

dence of Lauletta’s throws were batted at the line of scrimmage, which

puts in question his height and release point. Lauletta struggles notably

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

24

20

+ 10.2% 6.0% 0.0% 1

0-1

9

10.5% 18.8% 19.6%

0-9

10.6% 5.8% 12.8%

<0 4.2% 0.0% 1.6%

Yardage Heat Map

20

+ 6.9% 6.9% 3.4%

10

-19

6.9% 14.9% 9.2%

0-9

19.5% 5.7% 17.2%

<0 4.6% 0.0% 4.6%

Target Heat Map 2

0+ 0.583 0.250 0.667

10

-19

0.583 0.808 0.813

0-9

0.912 1.000 0.733

<0 1.000 #DIV/0! 0.875

Placement Heat Map

20

+ 0.833 0.500 0.667

10

-19

0.833 1.000 0.875

0-9

1.000 1.000 0.867

<0 1.000 N/A 1.000

Accuracy Heat Map



Kyle Lauletta Dropbacks 109

Scrambles 6 5.5%

Sacks 8 7.3%

Batted 5 4.6%

Throwaway 3 2.8%

Drops 7

Drop rate 8.0%


Exceptional Data

25

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window









First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp %c

-6.1% Comp %c

19.6% Comp %c

-36.8% 12.4% Comp %c

-32.3% Comp %c

-35.4%

Acc. %c

-23.3% Acc. %c

-4.9% Acc. %c

-55.6% -11.3% Acc. %c

-11.4% Acc. %c

-9.9%

Plc. %c

-13.1% Plc. %c

5.5% Plc. %c

-55.6% -2.4% Plc. %c

-10.2% Plc. %c

0.1%

INTable %c

73.8% INTable %c

-1.5% INTable %c

-100.0% -6.3% INTable %c

INTable %c

311.8% 195.5%





Notable Measures


Acc/place “Beyond LoS” Place “Beyond 1st R.” Place “Out of Pocket” Place “Move Platform” Acc/place “Pressured” Acc/place “Tight Window”

% attempt “Beyond 1st. R” Adj. conv. % (3rd) Adj. conv. % (3 & 5+) Acc/place “Adjusted Platform” Acc “Beyond 1st R.”

Kyle Lauletta

Approaching the Senior Bowl Lauletta walks into Mobile with the most to gain out of all the quarterbacks. The formula is simple: look like you belong, and you’ll

go from FCS darling to competitive late-round selection. Looking like he belongs is the key, however, and that starts in the first day,

during measurements. Listed at 6030 216, Lauletta strikes me as a touch shorter and a touch lighter. He’ll likely be among the

shortest of QBs present (along with Mayfield and Silvers), and I imagine he’ll be the lightest. If he can hang close to Mayfield/

Silvers, it won’t stick out, but if he’s an inch or so shorter and 7-10 pounds lighter, it’ll put him at an early disadvantage for NFL

teams. Hand size, as always, will also be key—I expect he barely makes the 9” threshold.

Lauletta worked a relatively simply route tree in Richmond, and there may be a slight learning curve during practices as he deter-

mines how best to locate the football, but I imagine by the end of the week his ball placement will shine comparatively, especially

in drills that include defenders. NFL teams will be impressed by how the ball leaves his hand, but they’ll be more interested in ra-

dar gun measurements, and how Lauletta’s velocity compares to FBS quarterbacks. Again, I believe Lauletta can remain competi-

tive in this regard when his mechanics are sound—but he must prove it.

I’ll also be interested to see the extent to which Lauletta leads, and how vocal he is among FBS players.

26

20

+


Placement: .5

15/27, 590 yds Accuracy: .704

Placement: .519

16/39, 662 yds Accuracy: .744

Placement: .526

44/96, 1,814 yds Accuracy: .75

Placement: .516

10

-19

39/64, 596 yds Accuracy: .843

Placement: .563

43/72, 968 yds Accuracy: .889

Placement: .549

20/39, 252 yds Accuracy: .872

Placement: .410

102/175, 1,816 yds Accuracy: .869

Placement: .523

0-9

21/28, 214 yds Accuracy: .821

Placement: .643

28/39, 296 yds Accuracy: .897

Placement: .744

37/48, 347 yds Accuracy: .938

Placement: .667

86/115, 857 yds Accuracy: .896

Placement: .687

<0


Placement: .774

15/18, 99 yds Accuracy: .889 Placement: .75


Placement: .696

75/88, 420 yds Accuracy: .977

Placement: .744

109/164, 1,574 yds Accuracy: .872

Placement: .619

101/156, 1,953 yds Accuracy: .859

Placement: .615

97/154, 1,380 yds Accuracy: .883

Placement: .571


Placement: .570


Comp 65 47 31

Att 110 83 67

Yards 894 704 308

Comp % 59.1% 56.6% 46.3%

Accuracy 0.855 0.807 0.806

Placement 0.586 0.530 0.627

Conversion 55 37 14

Conversion % 50.0% 44.6% 20.9%

Adj. Conv. % 50.4% 46.8% 25%

INTable 6 6 8

INTable % 5.5% 7.2% 11.9%

Situational Data

TD INTable YAC

37 33 1,855


307 64.8% 8 6.9% 37.8%


474 4,907 4.625 .871 .602

Chartable Attempts

Senior, OKST, born 7/17/1995

Games Charted (13): v. Tulsa, @ South Alabama, @ Pitt, v. TCU, @ Texas Tech, v.

Baylor, @ Texas, @ West Virginia, v. Oklahoma, @ Iowa State, v. Kansas State, v.

Kansas, n. Virginia Tech

Mason Rudolph

The Skinny Mason Rudolph presents an interesting evaluation and a tough riddle. He

throws a very catchable football, but his ball placement is overestimated,

likely due to the wide-open nature of his offense. Well-built, Rudolph has

a strong arm that can reach 60+ yards down the field, and his greatest

strength is his downfield accuracy and placement—but again, one won-

ders the extent to which scheme/WRs assisted with those numbers. Sur-

prising, perhaps, are Rudolph’s numbers beyond his first read, outside of

the pocket, and even throwing into tight windows—there are signs of

promise in all three, which indicate that Rudolph could indeed grow be-

yond his scheme. Rudolph’s struggles with ball placement, zip, and off-

platform limit him as a creative passer, but he certainly has fringe starting

potential in a vertical-based offense with a strong offensive line.

Charting by Region

27

20

+ 11.5% 12.0% 13.5% 1

0-1

9

12.1% 19.7% 5.1%

0-9

4.4% 6.0% 7.1%

<0 4.1% 2.0% 2.4%

Yardage Heat Map

20

+ 6.3% 5.7% 8.2%

10

-19

13.5% 15.2% 8.2%

0-9

5.9% 8.2% 10.1%

<0 8.9% 3.8% 5.9%

Target Heat Map 2

0+ 0.500 0.519 0.526

10

-19

0.563 0.549 0.410

0-9

0.643 0.744 0.667

<0 0.774 0.750 0.696

Placement Heat Map

20

+ 0.800 0.704 0.744

10

-19

0.844 0.889 0.872

0-9

0.821 0.897 0.938

<0 1.000 0.889 1.000

Accuracy Heat Map





Mason Rudolph Dropbacks 525

Scrambles 14 2.7%

Sacks 22 4.2%

Batted 5 1.0%

Throwaway 9 1.7%

Drops 25

Drop rate 5.3%


Exceptional Data

28

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window









First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp %c

-6.5% Comp %c

-14.2% Comp %c

-10.0% -21.0% Comp %c

-15.5% Comp %c

-54.6%

Acc. %c

0.0% Acc. %c

1.1% Acc. %c

-7.1% -8.4% Acc. %c

-9.2% Acc. %c

-13.3%

Plc. %c

-10.9% Plc. %c

-3.9% Plc. %c

-3.4% -18.0% Plc. %c

-14.6% Plc. %c

0.3%

INTable %c

-34.1% INTable %c

-43.9% INTable %c

84.4% -100% INTable %c

INTable %c

402.2% 122.4%







Notable Measures


Acc “Beyond 1st R.” Acc “Out of Pocket” Acc “Adjusted Platform” INTable % Adj. conv. % (3rd) Adj. conv. % (3 & 5+) % attempt “Tight Window”

Place “Move Platform” Mason Rudolph

Approaching the Senior Bowl Much like his evaluation, what Mason Rudolph must accomplish at the Senior Bowl is a bit of a conundrum. NFL teams may view

him as up in the Baker Mayfield/Josh Allen tier, but he doesn’t have the numbers to compete with Baker or the tools to compete

with Allen. To my eyes, and by the numbers, Rudolph is far closer to Luke Falk than he is to Baker—it’s his job, I suppose, to prove

that take wrong.

Rudolph’s first test will be the 15 yard out from the far hash—a throw he completed often in Oklahoma State, but with questiona-

ble velocity and timing. If he can deliver that ball with a tighter spiral and lower trajectory, that will help alleviate some of the ve-

locity concerns that liken him to Falk.

After that, Rudolph must prove that he has competitive placement. Playing with two catch radius monsters in Marcell Ateman and

James Washington, Rudolph’s poorly placed footballs were regularly rescued—he will not enjoy such a luxury at the Senior Bowl. I

suspect his accuracy, lauded by many, will be put under a more critical spotlight when Ateman/Washington aren’t around to save

him.

Josh Allen is going to throw the ball 70+ yards down the field, just to prove he can. What can Rudolph reach?

29

20

+

8/29, 291 yds Accuracy: .552

Placement: .397


Placement: .333

5/12, 170 yds Accuracy: .667

Placement: .458

17/53, 627 yds Accuracy: .62

Placement: .396

10

-19

11/24, 157 yds Accuracy: .75

Placement: .458

15/38, 293 yds Accuracy: .816

Placement: .447

12/29, 192 yds Accuracy: .724

Placement: .483

38/91, 642 yds Accuracy: .769

Placement: .462

0-9

27/37, 249 yds Accuracy: .892

Placement: .649

31/48, 323 yds Accuracy: .958

Placement: .688

36/46, 346 yds Accuracy: .913

Placement: .717

94/131, 918 yds Accuracy: .924

Placement: .687

<0

45/50, 382 yds Accuracy: .980

Placement: .680

22/26, 228 yds Accuracy: .962

Placement: .712


Placement: .717

105/122, 863 yds Accuracy: .984

Placement: .701

91/140, 1,079 yds Accuracy: .829

Placement: .575

72/124, 1,010 yds Accuracy: .895

Placement: .585

91/133, 961 yds Accuracy: .880

Placement: .643


Placement: .556


Comp 61 49 25

Att 112 89 44

Yards 748 605 276

Comp % 54.5% 55.1% 56.8%

Accuracy 0.839 0.831 0.795

Placement 0.558 0.539 0.545

Conversion 40 29 12

Conversion % 35.7% 32.6% 27.3%

Adj. Conv. % 39.2% 34.4% 30.0%

INTable 6 5 3

INTable % 5.4% 5.6% 6.8%

Situational Data

TD INTable YAC

17 14 1,762


254 64.0% 5 3.5% 57.7%


397 3,050 3.4 .872 .601

Chartable Attempts

Redshirt Senior, TROY, born 5/09/1994

Games Charted (12): @ Boise State, v. Alabama State, @ New Mexico State, v.

Akron, @ LSU, v. South Alabama, @ Georgia State, v. Georgia Southern, v. Idaho, v.

Texas State, @ Arkansas State, n. North Texas

Brandon Silvers

The Skinny Brandon Silvers, I’m afraid, does little to excite. He can really whip it, but

a lot of his velocity results from a massive windup that was masked by

wide-open throwing windows in an Air-Raid inspired offense under Troy

HC Neal Brown. He doesn’t model fantastic anticipation, which only fur-

thers the issue of his slow release. If those heaters can still arrive in the

narrow NFL windows, Silvers has some potential as a gun-slinging backup.

But at present, Silvers struggles mightily against pressure, has very spo-

radic downfield accuracy, and often panics when asked to move beyond

his first read. The majority of his production came in the form of YAC, and

the majority of his interceptable balls came on force-feeds to his primary

read. His sidearm mechanics—and correspondingly wonky placement—

could work with massive strides in anticipation, processing, and poise,

but it’s tough to imagine those gains coming to fruition.

Charting by Region

30

20

+ 9.5% 5.4% 5.6% 1

0-1

9

5.1% 9.6% 6.3%

0-9

8.2% 10.6% 11.3%

<0 12.5% 7.5% 8.3%

Yardage Heat Map

20

+ 7.3% 3.0% 3.0%

10

-19

6.0% 9.6% 7.3%

0-9

9.3% 12.1% 11.6%

<0 12.6% 6.5% 11.6%

Target Heat Map 2

0+ 0.397 0.333 0.458

10

-19

0.458 0.447 0.483

0-9

0.649 0.688 0.717

<0 0.680 0.712 0.717

Placement Heat Map

20

+ 0.552 0.750 0.667

10

-19

0.750 0.816 0.724

0-9

0.892 0.958 0.913

<0 0.980 0.962 1.000

Accuracy Heat Map





Brandon Silvers Dropbacks 430

Scrambles 5 1.2%

Sacks 13 3.0%

Batted 4 0.9%

Throwaway 11 2.6%

Drops 31

Drop rate 7.8%


Exceptional Data

31

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window









First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp %c

-23.7% Comp %c

-10.8% Comp %c

-18.2% 4.9% Comp %c

-50.5% Comp %c

-51.8%

Acc. %c

-5.9% Acc. %c

-12.0% Acc. %c

-9.2% -5.5% Acc. %c

-27.0% Acc. %c

-10.8%

Plc. %c

-9.3% Plc. %c

-2.2% Plc. %c

-1.7% -5.6% Plc. %c

-42.2% Plc. %c

-19.0%

INTable %c

-100.0% INTable %c

-100.0% INTable %c

35.6% -100% INTable %c

INTable %c

695.3% 8.2%







Notable Measures


Place “Adjusted Platform” YAC % Drop rate

% attempt “Beyond 1st R.” % attempt “Tight Window” INTable % Acc “Pressured” Acc/place “Beyond LoS”

Brandon Silvers

Approaching the Senior Bowl My concerns with Silvers are documented and well-founded (I believe). At the Senior Bowl, I hope Silvers can first show me just

how transcendent his velocity is when he whips it. He may deliver the fastest ball in this class, which is always a positive—though it

isn’t the whole conversation.

Silvers’ biggest problem will come when his release is witnessed along the likes of Mayfield’s, Rudolph’s, and Lauletta’s. His looping

motion is reminiscent of Blake Bortles’, and will raise a massive red flag for NFL decision-makers. Silvers will likely be unable to

prove in the short week in Mobile that he can correct his motion with any consistency—that’s an in-house problem, for whatever

team picks him up. I’m not sure there’s much he can show to alleviate this concern.

Silvers is more dedicated to his first read (90% of attempts) than all other QBs charted. He will not, however, run an Air Raid

offense in Mobile, and must show that he has the mind to handle a more traditional progression read while re-setting his base. If

he cannot show some promise here, I’m not sure if Silvers is worthy of a draft selection.

32

20

+

8/17, 367 yds Accuracy: .588

Placement: .412


Placement: .125


Placement: .143

11/28, 442 yds Accuracy: .538

Placement: .304

10

-19


Placement: .455


Placement: .55


Placement: .5


0-9


27/33, 253 yds Accuracy: .939

Placement: .773

15/17, 149 yds Accuracy: .941

Placement: .765

56/70, 508 yds Accuracy: .914

Placement: .721

<0


Placement: .636


Placement: .625


Placement: .778

19/24, 83 yds Accuracy: .958

Placement: .689

35/59, 581 yds Accuracy: .780

Placement: .525

38/51, 435 yds Accuracy: .922

Placement: .667

28/39, 248 yds Accuracy: .821

Placement: .615

BEYOND LoS Accuracy: .816 Placement: .58


Comp 26 16 11

Att 39 28 19

Yards 273 199 98

Comp % 66.7% 57.1% 57.9%

Accuracy 0.872 0.821 0.842

Placement 0.615 0.571 0.658

Conversion 17 10 6

Conversion % 43.6% 35.7% 31.6%

Adj. Conv. % 42.9% 37.9% 36.8%

INTable 1 1 1

INTable % 2.6% 3.6% 5.3%

Situational Data

TD INTable YAC

9 8 523


101 67.8% 2 5.4% 41.4%


149 1,264 4.5 .839 .597

Chartable Attempts

Redshirt Senior, WKU, born 3/25/1995

Games Charted (3): v. Florida Atlantic, v. Middle Tennessee, n. Georgia State

Mike White

The Skinny Mike White checks the common boxes: big frame, strong arm, can move

around a bit. I don’t think he’s as mobile as he thinks he is, which leads to

a high propensity of silly sacks taken. That’s my biggest pause with

White’s game: what’s between the ears. White has shown the ability to

manipulate coverages with his eyes, and often has a good pre-snap plan

for the coverage shell/route concept. If his initial read doesn’t open, how-

ever, White lacks the poise and processing speed to consistently get to a

secondary read/make a wise decision. 95% of White’s tape is two plays:

first read/checkdown, or frantic, hopeless improvisation that often goes

awry. White hits enough marks in the “tools” department to warrant a

late selection and further investigation, but his decision-making must im-

prove drastically, in my opinion, before he can develop into a reliable

passer.

Charting by Region

33

20

+ 29.0% 3.9% 2.1% 1

0-1

9

5.5% 8.8% 4.0%

0-9

8.4% 20.0% 11.8%

<0 3.1% 1.7% 1.7%

Yardage Heat Map

20

+ 11.4% 2.7% 4.7%

10

-19

7.4% 6.7% 4.0%

0-9

13.4% 22.1% 11.4%

<0 7.4% 2.7% 6.0%

Target Heat Map 2

0+ 0.412 0.125 0.143

10

-19

0.455 0.550 0.500

0-9

0.600 0.773 0.765

<0 0.636 0.625 0.778

Placement Heat Map

20

+ 0.588 1.000 0.143

10

-19

0.727 0.900 1.000

0-9

0.850 0.939 0.941

<0 1.000 0.750 1.000

Accuracy Heat Map



Mike White Dropbacks 170

Scrambles 0 0.0%

Sacks 13 7.6%

Batted 5 2.9%

Throwaway 3 1.8%

Drops 9

Drop rate 6.0%


Exceptional Data

34

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window









First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp %c

-16.3% Comp %c

-47.2% Comp %c

-23.4% -2.1% Comp %c

-15.7% Comp %c

-47.2%

Acc. %c

-16.4% Acc. %c

-45.5% Acc. %c

-30.7% -0.3% Acc. %c

-12.6% Acc. %c

-32.0%

Plc. %c

-19.5% Plc. %c

-45.3% Plc. %c

-3.8% 11.8% Plc. %c

-15.1% Plc. %c

-42.2%

INTable %c

148.3% INTable %c

44.0% INTable %c

273.3% 154.5% INTable %c

INTable %c

620.2% 81.6%





Notable Measures


Adj. conv. % (Red Zone) Acc/place “Tight Window” Acc “Adjusted Platform” Acc/place “Out of Pocket” Place “Beyond 1st R.”

Mike White

Approaching the Senior Bowl As we can see from the Contextual Data: Change table, 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 Ken-

tucky. Perhaps Senior Bowl week, with less immediate pressure in his face, will allow White to move beyond his first read more

peacefully, hang in the pocket more consistently, and play better overall.

This is White’s greatest hurdle to clear at the Senior Bowl: he must show that he can match a strong pre-snap mind with a passable

post-snap mind; he must demonstrate that he can make decisions in real time under varying circumstances.

I expect White to impress during the drills, undoubtedly: he has the arm and at least passable accuracy/placement to all levels of

the field, including the deep area (with outliers in the data, due to small sample size, recognized). It’s about the 11-on-11s for

White; it’s even about the game, dare I say it. He simply must play better ball when the circumstances around him aren’t con-

trolled.

35

20

+

7/14, 256 yds Accuracy: .714

Placement: .429

5/12, 156 yds Accuracy: .667

Placement: .417


Placement: .313

13/42, 435 yds Accuracy: .571

Placement: .381

10

-19

7/19, 122 yds Accuracy: .684

Placement: .342

10/17, 169 yds Accuracy: .824

Placement: .559

20/30, 323 yds Accuracy: .867

Placement: .617

37/66, 614 yds Accuracy: .803

Placement: .523

0-9

15/24, 130 yds Accuracy: .917

Placement: .563

10/17, 69 yds Accuracy: .882

Placement: .559


Placement: .638

54/81, 412 yds Accuracy: .901

Placement: .599

<0


Placement: .625


Placement: .7

10/14, 34 yds Accuracy: .786

Placement: .429

26/31, 119 yds Accuracy: .903

Placement: .548

40/69, 556 yds Accuracy: .826

Placement: .486

30/51, 431 yds Accuracy: .824

Placement: .539

60/100, 593 yds Accuracy: .79

Placement: .55


Placement: .524


Comp 39 33 14

Att 65 55 25

Yards 388 324 156

Comp % 60.0% 60.0% 56.0%

Accuracy 0.862 0.836 0.840

Placement 0.531 0.545 0.600

Conversion 25 19 8

Conversion % 38.5% 34.5% 32.0%

Adj. Conv. % 38.9% 35.9% 27.8%

INTable 6 5 2

INTable % 9.2% 9.1% 8.0%

Situational Data

TD INTable YAC

15 18 503


130 59.1% 5 8.2% 31.8%


220 1,580 3 .809 .527

Chartable Attempts

Redshirt Junior, WYO, born 5/21/1996

Games Charted (10): @ Iowa, v. Oregon, v. Hawaii, v. Texas State, @ Utah State, @

Boise State, v. New Mexico, v. Colorado State, @ Air Force, n. Central Michigan

Josh Allen

The Skinny Josh Allen’s sheet here only re-affirms what I already believed: you’re

drafting a player solely on a potential, no matter where you take Allen.

Allen makes some jaw-dropping throws, and certainly has some genera-

tional talent. But the risks he takes when asked to process/decide beyond

his first read or under pressure are absurd, and he cannot be trusted on

an NFL field with his sporadic ball placement. On top of his poor decision-

making as a passer, Allen scrambled on nearly 1 out of every 10 drop-

backs and took a sack on 1 out of every 13. He simply is not yet an NFL

quarterback—just a dude with insane contact balance, nice speed, and a

cannon attached to his right shoulder. Allen very well can become an NFL

quarterback, but a team investing in Allen faces the two steepest chal-

lenges a young QB can face: improving decision-making (especially under

pressure) and improving accuracy.

Charting by Region

36

20

+ 16.2% 9.9% 1.5% 1

0-1

9

7.7% 10.7% 20.4%

0-9

8.2% 4.4% 13.5%

<0 3.0% 2.3% 2.2%

Yardage Heat Map

20

+ 6.4% 5.5% 7.3%

10

-19

8.6% 7.7% 13.6%

0-9

10.9% 7.7% 18.2%

<0 5.5% 2.3% 6.4%

Target Heat Map 2

0+ 0.429 0.417 0.313

10

-19

0.342 0.559 0.617

0-9

0.563 0.559 0.638

<0 0.625 0.700 0.429

Placement Heat Map

20

+ 0.714 0.667 0.375

10

-19

0.684 0.824 0.867

0-9

0.917 0.882 0.900

<0 1.000 1.000 0.786

Accuracy Heat Map




Josh Allen Dropbacks 285

Scrambles 28 9.8%

Sacks 22 7.7%

Batted 5 1.8%

Throwaway 10 3.5%

Drops 10

Drop rate 4.5%


Exceptional Data

37

First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window









First Read

Beyond

In Pocket

Out Pocket

Clean Adjusted Move

No Pressure

Pressured

Clear Tight

Window

Comp %c

-37.5% Comp %c

-10.9% Comp %c

-24.3% 6.3% Comp %c

-39.3% Comp %c

-57.4%

Acc. %c

-18.0% Acc. %c

-7.7% Acc. %c

-9.1% -4.3% Acc. %c

-20.1% Acc. %c

-16.5%

Plc. %c

-28.6% Plc. %c

-20.4% Plc. %c

-55.3% -2.8% Plc. %c

-36.3% Plc. %c

-15.2%

INTable %c

288.9% INTable %c

70.0% INTable %c

43.0% 50.5% INTable %c

INTable %c

46.0% 395.1%






Notable Measures


INTable % % attempt “Tight Window” Adj. conv. % (3rd) Acc/place “Tight Window” Acc/place “Out of Pocket” Acc/place “Move Platform” Acc/place “Beyond 1st R.” Acc/place “Beyond LoS”

Josh Allen

Approaching the Senior Bowl If you came to the Senior Bowl to see Josh Allen sling the football 70+ yards down the field, you’re wasting your time. Sure, you’ll

see it—but you’re learning nothing new about the player. Be enraptured at your own risk.

The best thing Allen can show us that’s new is improved ball placement—or, at least, passable consistency. His tape littered with

pedestrian throws that went inexplicably awry, Allen would benefit greatly from a week of purely catchable footballs. I’m sure eve-

ry QB, with new WRs on a new stage, will have a few misses. As long as Allen doesn’t have markedly more than the next guy, he’ll

take home a win.

Sold to many scouts on his frame and athleticism, Allen better measure—and look—the part. The height and hand size are one

thing—there are some mobile QBs in Mobile this year (Baker Mayfield, Kurt Benkert), and Allen must blow them out of the water

when on the move to retain his allure as a Newton/Wentz-esque athlete. At least, until the Combine comes around, and he gets

tested for real.

Another big selling point for Allen that he needs to confirm: his personality. An affable young fella, Allen better show he can still

command a huddle and demand respect, especially next to a character like Baker Mayfield.

38

Comparative Measures

51

Acknowledgments

I am overwhelmed by my debts. This project was a massive undertak-

ing—one, of course, still unfinished, as there are plenty more 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 cease to push my bar. They honor me by

including me in their ranks and freely offering the lessons of their expe-

rience. 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 these instead. In all sincerity, it

is by the University of Chicago’s grace that I attend such an excellent

school, affording me both opportunities to do great things through it,

and freedom to pursue similarly great things outside of it.

I don’t know 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 jack squat; you were

my rock.

And finally, thank you again for reading. I hope the data here assists you

in making better QB evaluations, and that you return for the full release

of Contextualized Quarterbacking, when all Draft-eligible QBs are includ-

ed. Please feel encouraged to reach out through e-mail

([email protected]) or on Twitter (@BenjaminSolak) with any

helpful criticisms, concerns, or questions.

- Benjamin N. Solak

benjamin solak of ndt scouting · contextualized quarterbacking benjamin solak of ndt scouting...

Documents