Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Rule of 26-27-60 helps predict NFL quarterback success or failure

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • The Rule of 26-27-60 helps predict NFL quarterback success or failure

    From SI.com
    Perhaps we should not be stunned by JaMarcus Russell's utter flop as an NFL quarterback -- low-lighted this week by his arrest for possession of a controlled substance in Alabama.

    But could a simple formula have warned us of Russell's lack of NFL readiness? And Ryan Leaf's and David Carr's and other failed, high-pick quarterbacks?

    Call it the Rule of 26-27-60.

    Here is the gist of it: If an NFL prospect scores at least a 26 on the Wonderlic test, starts at least 27 games in his college career and completes at least 60 percent of his passes, there's a good chance he will succeed at the NFL level.

    There are, of course, exceptions. If NFL general managers always could measure heart, determination and other intangibles, then Tom Brady would not have been drafted in the sixth round.

    But short of breaking down tape, conducting personal interviews and analyzing every number and every snap of every game, remember the Rule of 26-27-60 the next time a hotshot prospect comes down the pike.

    Since 1998, these are some of the NFL quarterbacks who aced all three parts of the Rule of 26-27-60: Peyton Manning, Phillip Rivers, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Tony Romo, Matt Schaub, Kyle Orton, Kevin Kolb, Matt Ryan, Ryan Fitzpatrick and Matt Stafford.


    Meanwhile, among the once highly-touted prospects who failed at least one part of the formula: Ryan Leaf, Joey Harrington, Michael Vick, Akili Smith, Tim Couch, Daunte Culpepper, David Carr, Vince Young and JaMarcus Russell.

    There are a few notable exceptions to the rule but only by slight margins. Two-time Super Bowl champ Ben Roethlisberger scored a 25 on the Wonderlic, just one point short of the standard of 26. Jay Cutler -- a mixed-bag thus far in the NFL -- scored exactly a 26 on his Wonderlic and had the starts, but completed 57 percent of his passes at Vanderbilt. Joe Flacco, who's been to the playoffs in each of his first two seasons, fell short in the starts category.

    How about the quarterback class of 2010? Top pick Sam Bradford aces the rule easily, but the other three high-profile rookie QBs -- the Browns' Colt McCoy, the Broncos' Tim Tebow and the Panthers' Jimmy Clausen -- all fall short on the Wonderlic, although not by much.

    It stands to reason why the Rule of 26-27-60 makes the most sense as a quick guide to NFL quarterbacking success, too.

    The 26 represents the minimum Wonderlic score required to score a passing grade. Consider some of the lower-scoring quarterbacks drafted since 1998 when it comes to the Wonderlic: Vick (who scored a 20), Akili Smith (26), Couch (22), Carr (24), Young (16, first reported as a six) and Russell (24). All of them have been considered at best under-achievers, at worst busts.

    The most notable exceptions to the rule are Brett Favre, who scored a reported 22 on the Wonderlic, and Donovan McNabb, who scored a reported 14.

    The 27 represents the minimum number of starts a quarterbacking draft prospect should have had in college to make the grade. Ask any NFL scout if he would rather have 12 games to grade or 27. Playing a lot of games means more opportunity to hone your craft in the heat of battle and gain confidence in your ability to perform under pressure. That translates well to the next level. Oregon's Akili Smith was drafted in 1999 after making just 11 collegiate starts. He ultimately made just 17 starts in Cincinnati.

    And how many quarterbacks, like Leaf and Russell, have been drafted based on "upside." That is another way of saying a player couldn't complete 60-percent in college. Do you really think he can do it at the next level?

    The exceptions are few. Finding NFL quarterbacks certainly is a science, but it's not rocket science. When in doubt, turn to the Rule of 26-27-60.

    Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...#ixzz0vMM1fPv2
    "That's a crap question."
    - Kyle Orton

  • #2
    I don't think McDaniels cares too much about this rule because he drafted Tebow anyway to replace Orton
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Aaron Rodgers didn't fall under this rule and he turned out just fine and dandy so I'd say we're good!

      Also, Brady doesn't fall under that rule since he started just 25 games at Michigan I believe...

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Roddoliver View Post
        I don't think McDaniels cares too much about this rule because he drafted Tebow anyway to replace Orton
        Just where has McDaniels said that? Just give us a single, credible link that quotes McD saying that Timmy is Kyle's REPLACEMENT, please.

        The contract Tebow just signed keeps his salary around $2.24M per year if he stays on the bench. About $750,000 per year LESS than what they paid Simms to sit on the bench...
        "That's a crap question."
        - Kyle Orton

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
          Just where has McDaniels said that? Just give us a single, credible link that quotes McD saying that Timmy is Kyle's REPLACEMENT, please.

          The contract Tebow just signed keeps his salary around $2.24M per year if he stays on the bench. About $750,000 per year LESS than what they paid Simms to sit on the bench...
          And how is Simms doing right now?

          Orton was the starter all along. It didn't matter that Simms was getting paid more. Money does not have anything to do with a players role on the team.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Hoserman117 View Post
            Aaron Rodgers didn't fall under this rule and he turned out just fine and dandy so I'd say we're good!

            Also, Brady doesn't fall under that rule since he started just 25 games at Michigan I believe...
            So a couple of exceptions to the rule disprove the general applicability of that rule? Why not claim Jamarcus Russell or David Carr should be successes as well?
            "That's a crap question."
            - Kyle Orton

            Comment


            • #7
              Already posted before.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
                So a couple of exceptions to the rule disprove the general applicability of that rule? Why not claim Jamarcus Russell or David Carr should be successes as well?
                Never once did I say the rule is completely wrong, I was just pointing some things out. Sure it's a good baseline to look at, but you're clearly implying that Orton should be the QB of the future instead of Tebow because of this rule.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Neckbeard has such thin skin. I don't think I've seen anyone get so damn defensive.


                  Can't wait to see what he'll be like when Orton is left out in the cold after this season.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by neckbeard View Post
                    Just where has McDaniels said that? Just give us a single, credible link that quotes McD saying that Timmy is Kyle's REPLACEMENT, please.

                    The contract Tebow just signed keeps his salary around $2.24M per year if he stays on the bench. About $750,000 per year LESS than what they paid Simms to sit on the bench...
                    My bad. You are right. We drafted a 1st round quarterback for him to be worthy of becoming Orton's backup. And the kid's Wonderlic is 4 points below the requirement, so unfortunately he will be a bust.

                    note: I find it interesting that people say "college is college, it does not matter in the NFL" to ignore Tebow's success, yet there is a rule for quarterbacks' success based on starts and completions in college.

                    Anyway, I was walking down the street and found this:

                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Roddoliver View Post
                      OK. That's pretty effin' funny, CPs to you my friend... :clap:
                      "That's a crap question."
                      - Kyle Orton

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I would like to see a chart of all QB's and how they line up on that chart before I give this a whole lot of credibility. He list some very good QB's that met the "Test" but state that is some of them. OK - show me all of them. If they are all successful that would mean a great deal more as a standard. If there are many that met this "test" but failed then this is just hyperbole. Conversely, how about all the QB's that failed but were successful instead of picking some examples. If not saying this is wrong or inaccurate but show me the whole truth not state a position and pick examples that fit for your theory.

                        Interesting though even if not totally accurate.

                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Nimrod View Post
                          I would like to see a chart of all QB's and how they line up on that chart before I give this a whole lot of credibility. He list some very good QB's that met the "Test" but state that is some of them. OK - show me all of them. If they are all successful that would mean a great deal more as a standard. If there are many that met this "test" but failed then this is just hyperbole. Conversely, how about all the QB's that failed but were successful instead of picking some examples. If not saying this is wrong or inaccurate but show me the whole truth not state a position and pick examples that fit for your theory.

                          Interesting though even if not totally accurate.

                          That's basically what I was thinking this whole time but too lazy to type it up

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Hoserman117 View Post
                            That's basically what I was thinking this whole time but too lazy to type it up
                            NP - your welcome.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              You're a little late to the party...

                              http://forums.denverbroncos.com/showthread.php?t=169372

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X