sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
A metric analysis reveals that the Arkansas QB is better than Missouri's Gabbert
By KC Joyner
ESPN Insider
In 1970, Bill Walsh was the top offensive assistant for Paul Brown's Cincinnati Bengals. Walsh had devised a vertical passing game built around quarterback Greg Cook, the top draft pick in 1969, but a shoulder injury forced Cook to retire after one season. This left Walsh with the weak-armed Virgil Carter at quarterback.
Carter was good at diagnosing coverages and getting the ball out of the pocket quickly. Walsh knew that trying to run a vertical offense was not going to work, so he created the system that evolved into the West Coast offense.
Even the greatest playcaller in NFL history could not use a one-size-fits-all approach to quarterbacking, instead adapting his offensive philosophy to his quarterback's strengths and weaknesses.
That lesson seems to be lost when it comes to comparing Ryan Mallett and Blaine Gabbert. Gabbert is currently considered by many pundits to be the No. 1 quarterback in this draft, but a metric and game scouting review of the two provides several pieces of evidence to show that Mallett is the better choice.
Here are Gabbert's numbers from the four games in which he faced an opponent from a BCS automatic qualifying school that ended up ranked in the top 40 in passer rating allowed (at Texas A&M Aggies, versus Oklahoma Sooners, at Nebraska Cornhuskers and versus Iowa Hawkeyes in the Insight Bowl). The idea here is to see how he fared against top-level competition:
Route/Depth/Att/Comp/Yds/TD/Int/Pen/Pen Yds/YPA
Short (up to 10 yards downfield) 125 92 689 4 1 3 20 5.5
Medium (11-19 yards) 34 20 399 2 1 1 10 11.7
Deep (20-29 yards) 13 8 214 0 0 0 0 16.5
Bomb (30+ yards) 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.0
Other (throwaways, etc.) 11 0 0 0 0 1 10 0.8
Total 189 120 1302 6 2 5 40 6.9
Vertical (11+ yards) 52 28 613 2 1 1 10 11.8
Now check out Mallett's totals in his four games against tough competition (versus Alabama Crimson Tide, at Texas A&M, versus LSU Tigers and versus Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl).
Route/Depth/Att/Comp/Yds/TD/Int/Pen/Pen Yds/YPA
Short (up to 10 yards downfield) 88 66 598 1 1 1 1 6.7
Medium (11-19 yards) 24 12 295 3 1 0 0 12.3
Deep (20-29 yards) 12 5 117 2 3 0 0 9.8
Bomb (30+ yards) 10 4 233 3 1 0 0 23.3
Other (throwaways, etc.) 12 2 21 0 1 0 0 1.8
Total 146 89 1264 9 6 1 1 8.6
Vertical (11+ yards) 46 21 645 8 5 0 0 14.0
Let's break this down by sections:
Total and vertical yards per attempt (YPA)
In games against top-level competition, Mallett tops Gabbert in total YPA, vertical YPA and in two of the three vertical YPA categories (medium and bomb).
Short passes
Short passes are supposed to be Gabbert's specialty, but Mallett had a better completion rate and YPA total on these throws.
Interceptions and passer rating
Gabbert did have a sizable advantage in fewest interceptions thrown, but it still wasn't enough to give him the lead in the passer rating category.
The passer rating system assigns a penalty based on interception rates, but even accounting for that, Mallett posted a higher number here both in the overall category (144.19 for Mallett versus 130.32 for Gabbert) and on vertical throws (199.08 to 156.47).
Productivity on standard vertical route types
Mallett also had a significant productivity level lead when throwing any of the six standard vertical route types (comeback, corner, deep in, deep out, go, post).
Gabbert was 10-of-23 for 198 yards when throwing these types of passes. That equates to an 8.6 YPA and a passer rating of 115.79, both of which are mediocre showings at this route depth level.
Now look at Mallett's totals on these routes: 14 of 31 for 454 yards, five touchdowns and four interceptions. That equates to a 14.6 YPA and a 195.59 passer rating, both of which are elite totals.
Athleticism
Gabbert did fare much better in many of the combine drills, but leaning on this as a reason to pick him higher leads to a somewhat rhetorical question: How would Philip Rivers, Peyton Manning or Tom Brady fare if they had to do those drills today?
What those three have in common is that they are pocket passers. Pocket passers need a specialized type of athleticism that doesn't show up in combine drills. Mallett is a pocket passer and thus the poor showing at several combine drills should not hurt his value.
Footwork/freelancing ability
The scouting notes say both quarterbacks fare well in the footwork area. Mallett does have some issues in this area when he is on the move, but it isn't a Cam Newton-like situation where his entire body of mechanics is out of whack. This weakness should only require some fine-tuning to correct.
Gabbert's footwork in and out of the pocket was fine, but he seemed quite uncomfortable when situations called for him to freelance. Gabbert's mind seemed to operate in the same manner. For example, he was very successful for most of the game against Iowa because the Hawkeyes tend to sit back in coverage.
He ran into trouble when Iowa mixed things up. A great example of this occurred in the middle of the fourth quarter, when a Hawkeyes linebacker blitzed -- something that Gabbert didn't seem to expect. His reaction was to scramble to his left, even though one of the Tigers' offensive lineman peeled out to pick up the late blitz. Gabbert then put his head down while running toward the sidelines and didn't turn his head to look downfield until he had run nearly the entire width of the field.
By that time, a Hawkeyes defender was closing in. Instead of throwing the ball away (something he was very good about doing all season long), Gabbert decided to force a pass to a receiver who was very well covered. An Iowa defender picked off the pass and returned it for what turned out to be the game-winning touchdown.
Gabbert's flustered reaction both in and out of the pocket on a play that would have been best served by his normally overly cautious approach showed that freelancing could be a significant weakness in his game.
In the end, it comes down to this: Gabbert has the physical tools necessary to succeed in the NFL, but he has a long history of working in a dink-and-dunk offense and isn't good at adjusting to in-game surprises. A team will either have to retool its system around his current limitations or wait for him to retool his skill set to an NFL-style system. Mallett, on the other hand, has shown that he is capable of operating a vertical-based NFL offense right out of the gate. His combination of size, long pass ability and a willingness to take chances in the vertical game are very reminiscent of Ben Roethlisberger.
That Day 1 readiness is why Mallett should be considered a better pro prospect than Gabbert.
By KC Joyner
ESPN Insider
In 1970, Bill Walsh was the top offensive assistant for Paul Brown's Cincinnati Bengals. Walsh had devised a vertical passing game built around quarterback Greg Cook, the top draft pick in 1969, but a shoulder injury forced Cook to retire after one season. This left Walsh with the weak-armed Virgil Carter at quarterback.
Carter was good at diagnosing coverages and getting the ball out of the pocket quickly. Walsh knew that trying to run a vertical offense was not going to work, so he created the system that evolved into the West Coast offense.
Even the greatest playcaller in NFL history could not use a one-size-fits-all approach to quarterbacking, instead adapting his offensive philosophy to his quarterback's strengths and weaknesses.
That lesson seems to be lost when it comes to comparing Ryan Mallett and Blaine Gabbert. Gabbert is currently considered by many pundits to be the No. 1 quarterback in this draft, but a metric and game scouting review of the two provides several pieces of evidence to show that Mallett is the better choice.
Here are Gabbert's numbers from the four games in which he faced an opponent from a BCS automatic qualifying school that ended up ranked in the top 40 in passer rating allowed (at Texas A&M Aggies, versus Oklahoma Sooners, at Nebraska Cornhuskers and versus Iowa Hawkeyes in the Insight Bowl). The idea here is to see how he fared against top-level competition:
Route/Depth/Att/Comp/Yds/TD/Int/Pen/Pen Yds/YPA
Short (up to 10 yards downfield) 125 92 689 4 1 3 20 5.5
Medium (11-19 yards) 34 20 399 2 1 1 10 11.7
Deep (20-29 yards) 13 8 214 0 0 0 0 16.5
Bomb (30+ yards) 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.0
Other (throwaways, etc.) 11 0 0 0 0 1 10 0.8
Total 189 120 1302 6 2 5 40 6.9
Vertical (11+ yards) 52 28 613 2 1 1 10 11.8
Now check out Mallett's totals in his four games against tough competition (versus Alabama Crimson Tide, at Texas A&M, versus LSU Tigers and versus Ohio State Buckeyes in the Sugar Bowl).
Route/Depth/Att/Comp/Yds/TD/Int/Pen/Pen Yds/YPA
Short (up to 10 yards downfield) 88 66 598 1 1 1 1 6.7
Medium (11-19 yards) 24 12 295 3 1 0 0 12.3
Deep (20-29 yards) 12 5 117 2 3 0 0 9.8
Bomb (30+ yards) 10 4 233 3 1 0 0 23.3
Other (throwaways, etc.) 12 2 21 0 1 0 0 1.8
Total 146 89 1264 9 6 1 1 8.6
Vertical (11+ yards) 46 21 645 8 5 0 0 14.0
Let's break this down by sections:
Total and vertical yards per attempt (YPA)
In games against top-level competition, Mallett tops Gabbert in total YPA, vertical YPA and in two of the three vertical YPA categories (medium and bomb).
Short passes
Short passes are supposed to be Gabbert's specialty, but Mallett had a better completion rate and YPA total on these throws.
Interceptions and passer rating
Gabbert did have a sizable advantage in fewest interceptions thrown, but it still wasn't enough to give him the lead in the passer rating category.
The passer rating system assigns a penalty based on interception rates, but even accounting for that, Mallett posted a higher number here both in the overall category (144.19 for Mallett versus 130.32 for Gabbert) and on vertical throws (199.08 to 156.47).
Productivity on standard vertical route types
Mallett also had a significant productivity level lead when throwing any of the six standard vertical route types (comeback, corner, deep in, deep out, go, post).
Gabbert was 10-of-23 for 198 yards when throwing these types of passes. That equates to an 8.6 YPA and a passer rating of 115.79, both of which are mediocre showings at this route depth level.
Now look at Mallett's totals on these routes: 14 of 31 for 454 yards, five touchdowns and four interceptions. That equates to a 14.6 YPA and a 195.59 passer rating, both of which are elite totals.
Athleticism
Gabbert did fare much better in many of the combine drills, but leaning on this as a reason to pick him higher leads to a somewhat rhetorical question: How would Philip Rivers, Peyton Manning or Tom Brady fare if they had to do those drills today?
What those three have in common is that they are pocket passers. Pocket passers need a specialized type of athleticism that doesn't show up in combine drills. Mallett is a pocket passer and thus the poor showing at several combine drills should not hurt his value.
Footwork/freelancing ability
The scouting notes say both quarterbacks fare well in the footwork area. Mallett does have some issues in this area when he is on the move, but it isn't a Cam Newton-like situation where his entire body of mechanics is out of whack. This weakness should only require some fine-tuning to correct.
Gabbert's footwork in and out of the pocket was fine, but he seemed quite uncomfortable when situations called for him to freelance. Gabbert's mind seemed to operate in the same manner. For example, he was very successful for most of the game against Iowa because the Hawkeyes tend to sit back in coverage.
He ran into trouble when Iowa mixed things up. A great example of this occurred in the middle of the fourth quarter, when a Hawkeyes linebacker blitzed -- something that Gabbert didn't seem to expect. His reaction was to scramble to his left, even though one of the Tigers' offensive lineman peeled out to pick up the late blitz. Gabbert then put his head down while running toward the sidelines and didn't turn his head to look downfield until he had run nearly the entire width of the field.
By that time, a Hawkeyes defender was closing in. Instead of throwing the ball away (something he was very good about doing all season long), Gabbert decided to force a pass to a receiver who was very well covered. An Iowa defender picked off the pass and returned it for what turned out to be the game-winning touchdown.
Gabbert's flustered reaction both in and out of the pocket on a play that would have been best served by his normally overly cautious approach showed that freelancing could be a significant weakness in his game.
In the end, it comes down to this: Gabbert has the physical tools necessary to succeed in the NFL, but he has a long history of working in a dink-and-dunk offense and isn't good at adjusting to in-game surprises. A team will either have to retool its system around his current limitations or wait for him to retool his skill set to an NFL-style system. Mallett, on the other hand, has shown that he is capable of operating a vertical-based NFL offense right out of the gate. His combination of size, long pass ability and a willingness to take chances in the vertical game are very reminiscent of Ben Roethlisberger.
That Day 1 readiness is why Mallett should be considered a better pro prospect than Gabbert.
