What Is The Upside Of QB Mike Glennon Of Tampa Bay Bucs?

June 27, 2013 by

The Tampa Bay Buccaneers drafted QB Mike Glennon in the 3rd round in the 2013 NFL Draft to compete with current backup QB, Dan Orlovsky.  The interesting part of Mike Glennon’s analysis, is his analytic profile comparison to a Quarterback that has won multiple Super Bowls.  That is correct, his upside is Eli Manning. Before stepping away, consider Eli Manning only has a career QB rating in the low 80s; however, while Eli has been average much of the time, he has been special in clutch situations.  While we don’t know whether Mike Glennon has the “clutch gene”, we can see that his upside QB rating would project in the low 80s.

Although he wouldn’t have been our top QB available at the time, considering how difficult it is to find a Quarterback in this league, Mike Glennon is certainly worth the gamble of his draft position.  The bigger question as to how far his career will go is if he can perform in the clutch well enough to mask his QB rating upside.

Filed Under: Football Analytics, NFL Draft, Quaterbacks (QB), Tampa Bay Buccaneers

Quarterbacks, Analytics, And Arbitrage

January 23, 2013 by

There is an ongoing debate right now regarding who the best Quarterback is of all time, and it usually results in a Joe Montana versus Tom Brady debate.  I see a different problem that needs to be resolved.  Why were neither taken in the first round?  The NFL is a league where the play of an organization’s QB will affect coaches, management, and their families.

With record turnover with Head Coaches and General Managers, the common theme by the media is the inability to find a Quarterback.  From radio to ESPN talking heads, to a recent USA Today article, it is clear that a system that evaluates Quarterbacks well is of tremendous value.

Understanding Quarterbacks is not an easy task, but rather a complex problem.  It takes outside the box analytical thinking.  What if you could bring in not 1, not 2, but 3 Quarterbacks that if provided the opportunity would be successful?  The only way to do that is to understand what leads to success and then use it as a framework to determine the probability of success.  The Cowboys were ahead of their time when they formulated a draft pick chart and used arbitrage to amass talent that would bring multiple Super Bowl Championships.  They understood the value of an asset because they did the research and analysis to make it quantifiable.

The Green Bay Packers had a great stretch of years bringing in Quarterbacks that went on to have success with other organizations, and none of them required an early pick.  Among them were Matt Hasselbeck (6th), Mark Brunnell (5th), Kurt Warner (UDFA), and Aaron Brooks (4th).  None of them were starters sitting behind Favre who was acquired via trade for a 1st round pick.  The type of success by the Packers to evaluate the QB position is something a strong analyical system can replicate.  It proves that an organization can accumulate multiple Quarterbacks that have a high probability of success and are also undervalued in the market.  Using an approach that is measurable, it is very possible to cash in on the arbitrage that exists with Quarterback evaluation.  Obtaining QBs for far below the perceived market value would also help remove the monetary bias and allow a true competition for the job.  And a competition among a good group of Quarterbacks means success for the coaches, management, and their families.  It also means a very satisfied owner and fan base.

Filed Under: Coaching Staff, Core Principle Articles, Dallas Cowboys, Football Analytics, Green Bay Packers, Head Coaches (HC), NFL Draft, Quaterbacks (QB), Scouting Department

The Analytical Versus Emotional Approach

December 6, 2012 by

It never ceases to amaze me at how often individuals, businesses, and football organizations make decisions based on emotion and with no or limited insight.  A team tells itself, we must draft a Quarterback because we don’t have one, then selecting one by force that prevents the organization from making positive strides.  You will never get that pick back once it is made.  I am not going to mince words; emotional decisions are a feminine trait.  It is why estrogen is linked and tied to emotional swings.  It takes some fortitude to make smart decisions based on analysis and sound logic without worrying about what the fans think.  Scouts are guilty as well; there are some scouts would rather not make a call on a player out of fear for their job and would rather pass the buck to management. There are also some very intelligent scouts that have the ability to handle a structure that would give them leverage to do what they do best. Organizations can do things to empower their scouts and use their limited time resources more efficiently.

Whether you use a draft pick to take a QB should rely on logic, data, and risk analysis.   A more full approach would be to ask the right questions.  What is the likelihood success of Quarterback A?  If it is only about a 20% success rate, would I want to put my job on the line with those odds?  What if Quarterback B was 80%+ likely to be successful?  We do not have to go any further back than the 2012 draft to see teams making decisions based on an emotional approach and without proper risk analysis.  Maybe there aren’t any QBs that have a good probability of success in a particular draft… if you need a QB, are you still going to select one or are you going to use your draft picks to get the best overall return for your organization so that you can win over the long haul?  The QB decision should include a full analysis of all the available QB options; it should not neglect a QB that may be incorrectly evaluated using other approaches.  There are organizations that insist on being a drunk driver… oh, they may get home sometimes, but if they make a habit out of it, they are not going to get very far and may do a lot of damage along the way.

The key to the analytical approach is that it is quantifiable, measurable, and thus can be improved upon over the course of time.  Any other decision is a blind decision, increased risk for failure, not measurable, and thus not manageable.  It is not based on logic, but rather on emotion or “gut instinct”; a handful of practices, an experience with the player, an interview or two… in other words, a limited view of the overall scope.  Football is a great game, for it relies on teamwork and the objective couldn’t be any more black or white.  Did you win the last game of the season?  Are you measuring so that you can manage?  If that answer is no, then you are making a habit of getting drunk and trying to drive home.

Filed Under: Core Principle Articles, Football Analytics, NFL Draft, Quaterbacks (QB), Scouting Department