Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
QB C.J. Stroud, HOU (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Faust
- Start date
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
who is leaking this information? which is supposed to be confidential and covered under HIPAA.
IDK, like maybe not holding the top 2 picks lol? naw, that would never happen...
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
S2 has 25% off the league under contract. I've heard their executives doing interviews a few times this offseason, I believe they will continue to provide the service to 2 teams in each division for 3 years before they revisit if they open it up to other teams.
Purdy tested extremely high last year, but honestly I don't think anyone knew about S2 before this draft cycle. Imagine the demand they'll have in two more years.
PFF didn't have any NFL clients in 2010. Started out as a hobby business by a guy in the U.K. (2004-10.) They had 3 NFL franchise clients in 2011. Within 3 years they had created tremendous deman, and within 5 years they changed how NFL coaches used data for decision making. Analytics became a thing.
S2 wants to be the next PFF.
Purdy tested extremely high last year, but honestly I don't think anyone knew about S2 before this draft cycle. Imagine the demand they'll have in two more years.
PFF didn't have any NFL clients in 2010. Started out as a hobby business by a guy in the U.K. (2004-10.) They had 3 NFL franchise clients in 2011. Within 3 years they had created tremendous deman, and within 5 years they changed how NFL coaches used data for decision making. Analytics became a thing.
S2 wants to be the next PFF.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Nothing wrong with that take. Young is awesome, he's just small.
rockaction
Footballguy
Why would this be covered under HIPAA? I'm actually asking because I don't know.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
If nothing else, I would be surprised if there isn't some kind of clause related to it
rockaction
Footballguy
We always found out Wonderlic scores (albeit late). It did seem invasive and weird. If somebody asked your psychologist what your IQ was and she divulged it, you'd probably be pretty pissed, especially when tens of millions of dollars are at stake.
Grahamburn
Footballguy
If Stroud turns out to be a great player this test won’t be worth the paper it’s printed on and we can use it to wipe our rear ends.
Yes, I know it’s digital.
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
NFL Rookie Watch
@NFLRookieWatxh
CJ Stroud reportedly scored an “18%” on the S2 cognition test, a cognitive test that focuses on processing and decision-making. Stroud’s score was the lowest of all reported scores from this year’s QB draft class. Every other QB’s score was at least 28% higher than Stroud’s
Context is how to judge a stat like this going forward.
Knowing CJ scored much lower than this year's QB prospects is a great data point for judging how useful the S2 cognitive test is.
Revisit in a few years but the S2 can't stand alone.
We know other factors like injuries, supporting cast, coaching, off-field issues, etc., play the biggest role but nobody really knows those the extent of those things prior to the draft.
The only thing we have now are the S2 scores knowing CJ scored much lower than the rest of this class.
FIRST ROUND MOCK@firstroundmock
As a former NFL Scout, I have something that’s far better than the S2. It’s called game film. This is what game film revealed about C.J. Stroud - it revealed the S2 is flawed and it can’t replace game film evaluation.
LINK >>> 10 Games Prove C.J. Stroud Will be a Superstar in the NFL
Last edited:
Bracie Smathers
Footballguy
The top QB S2 scores from this draft class as comparison.
Shane P. Hallam
@ShanePHallam
S2 Cognition test results per
@BobMcGinn:
Bryce Young - 98%
Jake Haener - 96%
Will Levis - 93%
Jaren Hall - 93%
Clayton Tune - 84%
Anthony Richardson - 79%
Hendon Hooker - 46%
CJ Stroud - 18%
Your Blueprint to Understanding the Best Quarterbacks (Part 1)
Shane P. Hallam
@ShanePHallam
S2 Cognition test results per
@BobMcGinn:
Bryce Young - 98%
Jake Haener - 96%
Will Levis - 93%
Jaren Hall - 93%
Clayton Tune - 84%
Anthony Richardson - 79%
Hendon Hooker - 46%
CJ Stroud - 18%
Your Blueprint to Understanding the Best Quarterbacks (Part 1)
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
So where is his best landing spot? Dropping past Houston might turn out to be a blessing.
Hafuxd002020
Footballguy
A 50 on this test is average? Will a 46 hurt Hendon Hooker's draft stock as well?
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Wish I had a technical answer for ya but HR law & medical privacy is outside my wheelhouse. I’ve heard that from both the Sam & Steve (PFF whatever that pod is called) & the S2 founder.
The rich part is when the S2 founder will say “we cannot disclose” but then reveals “Brock Purdy was in the 90th percentile. The high part.” Bruh wat.
(I believe it was 98th percentile)
That’s the other thing people misinterpret. The numbers are the percentile of everyone they’ve tested, not a raw score. They’ve been building their baseline for awhile. Initially they did only the NFC South - Saints were one of the two first teams, Brees scored 95th percentile +.
The test can currently be administered only on their proprietary gaming platform. It measures reaction times within 2 milliseconds. They claim it mimics the real time processing quarterbacks face when reading coverages. They claim you cannot improve your score through repetition, you can’t prepare for it, et al. None of which has been independently verified to my knowledge.
They first tested Bryce when he was 16 (#1 h.s. QB prospect.)
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
I’m sure to get a contract with 8 NFL franchises the vetting process was fairly rigorous. Some NFL lawyer likely decided it fell under some broad interpretation of private medical info. Just speculation here by me, don’t know the answer.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
And then sadly Bryce never had a growth spurt.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
S2 testing seems closer to 40 times and bench reps than iq scores and no one questions those numbers being circulated.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
This is def a high stakes year for S2. Lot of buzz. If it turns out to have the same predictive value as the Wonderlic it’ll go the way of the Dodo bird.
Story time.
I once landed a $125K VP of Finance job offer (20 years ago, do the math) almost solely based on my Wonderlic. Was woefully under qualified - my expertise was mergers & acquisitions in another industry, I had solely worked in taxation, Big 4 professional services and then internal M & A for a rapidly growing telecom provider.
While I was mulling it over - the bonus, company car, and stock grants matched the salary - I called up the guy retiring in a year I would be replacing. Setup a lunch date. “You’re a regional manufacturer in every mid-Atlantic major city. You’re using a national search firm. What led you to the conclusion someone well outside your ideal candidate is the right guy?” You set the company record for the Wonderlic. We’ve given it to every candidate in the last 15 years.
That’s not good process. At all.
massraider
Footballguy
No, because the crowd isn't here to bash Hendon Hooker. Herndon Hooker is a favorite, so he gets a pass.
Also, the crowd is here to tell you Richardson is overrated, so they are ignoring his great score.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Probably sets a series of moves in motion.
At least one was always going to drop. There have been four QBs in the top ten of draft twice - 1949 & 2018 (Baker, Sam, Josh and Josh.)
2018 might be instructive. Everyone is so desperate to find the next Mahomes or Hurts. None of the Big Four this year are blue chip.
Mayfield - short arm, barrel chested. I know this is about as sophisticated as decal scouting but seriously?
Darnold - in hindsight this is pretty embarrassing.
Allen - worked out but boy that was some rough college tape to project his future off.
Rosen - this guy was actually a thing. For less than a year, but still.
Weird group, right?
This year you’re got
- outlier body type
- guy that has awesome protection + elite receivers
- weirdo who had massive regression
- the ultimate “built in a lab” athlete with less than 400 pass attempts in college.
-OZ-
Footballguy
I watched him in the SEC. He’s more than media hype but I’m not seeing first round talent.
massraider
Footballguy
Also:
It's a shame Stroud scored badly, but THIS many QBs crushed this test? This test is measuring processing speed, is that the concept? How lucky that this year we have so many QBs with brain speed approaching Rain Man levels.
Is Jake Haener even allowed in casinos?!??
-OZ-
Footballguy
Yeah but he uses it well
-OZ-
Footballguy
That’s a fair take. I’ll still take the guy whose concern is injury due to size but when he plays I have very little doubt will perform at an elite level.
Just be sure to have a competent backup and good o line
Largent
Footballguy
Seattle would run to the podium at 5
Leroy Hoard
Footballguy
If we only knew what score Kyler Murray got.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
I love that you’re betting sauce you haven’t won yet.
I have no doubt it’s a good test. I actually was very impressed by it considering the Purdy success.
That said, like all evaluations I also have no doubt that there are exceptions. I refuse to believe Stroud is going to be a bust because of his performance on this test. Again, his off-script performance in the Peach Bowl showed me he processes at a very, very high level. And they had him off-script for basically the entire game.
No test is everything to everyone. Stroud may well prove to be the exception.
Or you’ll be right, and if you win the draft contest I’ll still send you your sauce.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
That’s a very interesting question.
Like @rockaction i find it odd that this is described as a HIPPA thing. That’s typically reserved for medical stuff.
I suspect it’s more like an NDA type confidentially agreement situation.
rockaction
Footballguy
It was also a video game joke.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Since their college career performance is apparently rendered irrelevant by this new testing, instead of the combine perhaps the QBs should compete in a Madden tournament instead.
They did that some years ago. How do you think Kyler got to be the number 1 pick?Since their college career performance is apparently rendered irrelevant by this new testing, instead of the combine perhaps the QBs should compete in a Madden tournament instead.
TomServo
Footballguy
When Zach Wilson scores 80+, it is entirely possible that the inverse of this test predicts success.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Yeah, if that’s true, we’re getting a pretty selective data set. “Skewed” seems like an appropriate term for it.
Without knowing how *every* QB has scored since this testing format started, whatever data we’re spoon fed seems somewhat worthless. AnecdotL at best.
Also, it strikes me that if that much credence were lent to this testing, Brock Purdy should not have been Mr Irrelevant. It’s only after the fact with 20-20 hindsight that anyone is pointing to his test results.
Just thinking out loud here…
maybe Brock Purdy is why there seems to be an increased emphasis on the test this year...
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Yes, I’ve read all that.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
But cherry picking a couple of players that validate the test without a larger data set is worthless from an analysis perspective.
Great marketing for the company though.
When a full list of players is posted, we might see much more anomalies - variance in the data - things like a Zach Wilson or Josh Johnson testing high yet still being terrible in the NFL.
Right now we only have an anecdotal claim that no who’s ever tested low has been successful. And we have a handful of successful NFL QBs who tested high (Burrow, Brees) - but unfortunately it’s only pieces of the bigger picture.
Donnybrook
Footballguy
I like how this S2 founder is cherry picking his stats which seems to be arbitrary cutoffs since we don't actually know the player and the associated score. The rumor is that Zack Wilson apparently scored an 84. I don't know how the AIQ test relates to the S2 but they were hyping up Baker Mayfield in 2018 as getting the 2nd highest AIQ ever.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
BTW: Tanner McKee scored a 99 on the S2 and it hardly gets mentioned.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Thank you. That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.I like how this S2 founder is cherry picking his stats which seems to be arbitrary cutoffs since we don't actually know the player and the associated score. The rumor is that Zack Wilson apparently scored an 84. I don't know how the AIQ test relates to the S2 but they were hyping up Baker Mayfield in 2018 as getting the 2nd highest AIQ ever.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
BTW: Tanner McKee scored a 99 on the S2 and it hardly gets mentioned.
Of course there's variance in the data, the point is trying to find a correlation. From the above there appears to be one. Is this the end all be all of evaluation, of course not. Stroud may go on to have a great career and I'm sure many who score high will be busts. The question is it a meaningful factor to consider, amongst many other factors. I would argue that it is.Yes, I’ve read all that.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
But cherry picking a couple of players that validate the test without a larger data set is worthless from an analysis perspective.
Great marketing for the company though.
When a full list of players is posted, we might see much more anomalies - variance in the data - things like a Zach Wilson or Josh Johnson testing high yet still being terrible in the NFL.
Right now we only have an anecdotal claim that no who’s ever tested low has been successful. And we have a handful of successful NFL QBs who tested high (Burrow, Brees) - but unfortunately it’s only pieces of the bigger picture.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
But you cannot possibly make the correlation without a complete data set.Of course there's variance in the data, the point is trying to find a correlation. From the above there appears to be one. Is this the end all be all of evaluation, of course not. Stroud may go on to have a great career and I'm sure many who score high will be busts. The question is it a meaningful factor to consider, amongst many other factors. I would argue that it is.Yes, I’ve read all that.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
But cherry picking a couple of players that validate the test without a larger data set is worthless from an analysis perspective.
Great marketing for the company though.
When a full list of players is posted, we might see much more anomalies - variance in the data - things like a Zach Wilson or Josh Johnson testing high yet still being terrible in the NFL.
Right now we only have an anecdotal claim that no who’s ever tested low has been successful. And we have a handful of successful NFL QBs who tested high (Burrow, Brees) - but unfortunately it’s only pieces of the bigger picture.
And at present we have a tiny sample size of cherry picked data presented as evidence of that alleged correlation.
It’s skewed data. It’s like that stat on the scoreboard at a baseball game where they say so and so is batting .409 against left handed albino pirchers at night when the wind is blowing east.
Doesn’t mean they’re a .409 hitter.
It's a small sample size, I'll grant you that. I don't think your analogy is really applicable though. It does diminish but not eliminate its value.But you cannot possibly make the correlation without a complete data set.Of course there's variance in the data, the point is trying to find a correlation. From the above there appears to be one. Is this the end all be all of evaluation, of course not. Stroud may go on to have a great career and I'm sure many who score high will be busts. The question is it a meaningful factor to consider, amongst many other factors. I would argue that it is.Yes, I’ve read all that.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
But cherry picking a couple of players that validate the test without a larger data set is worthless from an analysis perspective.
Great marketing for the company though.
When a full list of players is posted, we might see much more anomalies - variance in the data - things like a Zach Wilson or Josh Johnson testing high yet still being terrible in the NFL.
Right now we only have an anecdotal claim that no who’s ever tested low has been successful. And we have a handful of successful NFL QBs who tested high (Burrow, Brees) - but unfortunately it’s only pieces of the bigger picture.
And at present we have a tiny sample size of cherry picked data presented as evidence of that alleged correlation.
It’s skewed data. It’s like that stat on the scoreboard at a baseball game where they say so and so is batting .409 against left handed albino pirchers at night when the wind is blowing east.
Doesn’t mean they’re a .409 hitter.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
Respectfully, it invalidates any claim that the test is an accurate measure or that the results correlate to success.It's a small sample size, I'll grant you that. I don't think your analogy is really applicable though. It does diminish but not eliminate its value.But you cannot possibly make the correlation without a complete data set.Of course there's variance in the data, the point is trying to find a correlation. From the above there appears to be one. Is this the end all be all of evaluation, of course not. Stroud may go on to have a great career and I'm sure many who score high will be busts. The question is it a meaningful factor to consider, amongst many other factors. I would argue that it is.Yes, I’ve read all that.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
But cherry picking a couple of players that validate the test without a larger data set is worthless from an analysis perspective.
Great marketing for the company though.
When a full list of players is posted, we might see much more anomalies - variance in the data - things like a Zach Wilson or Josh Johnson testing high yet still being terrible in the NFL.
Right now we only have an anecdotal claim that no who’s ever tested low has been successful. And we have a handful of successful NFL QBs who tested high (Burrow, Brees) - but unfortunately it’s only pieces of the bigger picture.
And at present we have a tiny sample size of cherry picked data presented as evidence of that alleged correlation.
It’s skewed data. It’s like that stat on the scoreboard at a baseball game where they say so and so is batting .409 against left handed albino pirchers at night when the wind is blowing east.
Doesn’t mean they’re a .409 hitter.
Any data set that’s been cherry picked cannot be considered anything but manipulation.
I didn't interpret that sample as cherry picked but that those were the QBs tested. The study began being used in 2015 so QB's wouldn't have been tested if they were drafted before then, unless they took a test after they were drafted which I believe some not all did. That's my understanding anyway based on what I've read, but am not positive.Respectfully, it invalidates any claim that the test is an accurate measure or that the results correlate to success.It's a small sample size, I'll grant you that. I don't think your analogy is really applicable though. It does diminish but not eliminate its value.But you cannot possibly make the correlation without a complete data set.Of course there's variance in the data, the point is trying to find a correlation. From the above there appears to be one. Is this the end all be all of evaluation, of course not. Stroud may go on to have a great career and I'm sure many who score high will be busts. The question is it a meaningful factor to consider, amongst many other factors. I would argue that it is.Yes, I’ve read all that.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
But cherry picking a couple of players that validate the test without a larger data set is worthless from an analysis perspective.
Great marketing for the company though.
When a full list of players is posted, we might see much more anomalies - variance in the data - things like a Zach Wilson or Josh Johnson testing high yet still being terrible in the NFL.
Right now we only have an anecdotal claim that no who’s ever tested low has been successful. And we have a handful of successful NFL QBs who tested high (Burrow, Brees) - but unfortunately it’s only pieces of the bigger picture.
And at present we have a tiny sample size of cherry picked data presented as evidence of that alleged correlation.
It’s skewed data. It’s like that stat on the scoreboard at a baseball game where they say so and so is batting .409 against left handed albino pirchers at night when the wind is blowing east.
Doesn’t mean they’re a .409 hitter.
Any data set that’s been cherry picked cannot be considered anything but manipulation.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
We don’t know how many QB were tested. That’s the issue I have with it.I didn't interpret that sample as cherry picked but that those were the QBs tested. The study began being used in 2015 so QB's wouldn't have been tested if they were drafted before then, unless they took a test after they were drafted which I believe some not all did. That's my understanding anyway based on what I've read, but am not positive.Respectfully, it invalidates any claim that the test is an accurate measure or that the results correlate to success.It's a small sample size, I'll grant you that. I don't think your analogy is really applicable though. It does diminish but not eliminate its value.But you cannot possibly make the correlation without a complete data set.Of course there's variance in the data, the point is trying to find a correlation. From the above there appears to be one. Is this the end all be all of evaluation, of course not. Stroud may go on to have a great career and I'm sure many who score high will be busts. The question is it a meaningful factor to consider, amongst many other factors. I would argue that it is.Yes, I’ve read all that.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
But cherry picking a couple of players that validate the test without a larger data set is worthless from an analysis perspective.
Great marketing for the company though.
When a full list of players is posted, we might see much more anomalies - variance in the data - things like a Zach Wilson or Josh Johnson testing high yet still being terrible in the NFL.
Right now we only have an anecdotal claim that no who’s ever tested low has been successful. And we have a handful of successful NFL QBs who tested high (Burrow, Brees) - but unfortunately it’s only pieces of the bigger picture.
And at present we have a tiny sample size of cherry picked data presented as evidence of that alleged correlation.
It’s skewed data. It’s like that stat on the scoreboard at a baseball game where they say so and so is batting .409 against left handed albino pirchers at night when the wind is blowing east.
Doesn’t mean they’re a .409 hitter.
Any data set that’s been cherry picked cannot be considered anything but manipulation.
says '27 starting QB's'We don’t know how many QB were tested. That’s the issue I have with it.I didn't interpret that sample as cherry picked but that those were the QBs tested. The study began being used in 2015 so QB's wouldn't have been tested if they were drafted before then, unless they took a test after they were drafted which I believe some not all did. That's my understanding anyway based on what I've read, but am not positive.Respectfully, it invalidates any claim that the test is an accurate measure or that the results correlate to success.It's a small sample size, I'll grant you that. I don't think your analogy is really applicable though. It does diminish but not eliminate its value.But you cannot possibly make the correlation without a complete data set.Of course there's variance in the data, the point is trying to find a correlation. From the above there appears to be one. Is this the end all be all of evaluation, of course not. Stroud may go on to have a great career and I'm sure many who score high will be busts. The question is it a meaningful factor to consider, amongst many other factors. I would argue that it is.Yes, I’ve read all that.Well don't think it's just based on him,Well yes. That was sort of my point.
It’s 20-20 hindsight applied to a very, very small sample size (of 1 player).
We basically have 1 QB who was overlooked in the draft, who had a modicum of success in a relatively small sample size (of 8 games).
No knock on Purdy, but his modest NFL success in one of the best offenses in the league, a system where even Josh Johnson can compete a pass, correlated to his success on this test, may not actually validate this test for all players.
Radical of me to say, I realize.
From a Sporting News article:
Ally said Bengals quarterback Joe Burrow scored in the 97th percentile. Second-year 49ers quarterback Brock Purdy — who led San Francisco to the NFC championship game after taking over midway through the season — reportedly scored in the "mid-90s." The same goes for the Chiefs’ Patrick Mahomes and the Bills’ Josh Allen.
Moreover, Ally told The Athletic in February that S2 limited test results to 27 starting quarterbacks from the 2021 season onward. Of that group, 13 had a career passer rating over 90. Their average S2 score was in the 91st percentile. The remaining 14, who each had career passer ratings less than 90, averaged a score in the 51st percentile, with scores ranging from 8 to 90.
But cherry picking a couple of players that validate the test without a larger data set is worthless from an analysis perspective.
Great marketing for the company though.
When a full list of players is posted, we might see much more anomalies - variance in the data - things like a Zach Wilson or Josh Johnson testing high yet still being terrible in the NFL.
Right now we only have an anecdotal claim that no who’s ever tested low has been successful. And we have a handful of successful NFL QBs who tested high (Burrow, Brees) - but unfortunately it’s only pieces of the bigger picture.
And at present we have a tiny sample size of cherry picked data presented as evidence of that alleged correlation.
It’s skewed data. It’s like that stat on the scoreboard at a baseball game where they say so and so is batting .409 against left handed albino pirchers at night when the wind is blowing east.
Doesn’t mean they’re a .409 hitter.
Any data set that’s been cherry picked cannot be considered anything but manipulation.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
This year or all time?
Says from 2021 onward, now what it doesn't say is how a starting qb was determined, was it a starter for a few games or most of the season, it would be good if there was more clarity around that. There are definite holes in the information that is being provided, don't get me wrong, but as a whole I think it's a relevant factor, but no worries if you disagree.
Hot Sauce Guy
Footballguy
No, I agree with you mostly… But incomplete data sets can be manipulated to tell a story to the narrator wishes to convey as opposed to giving us all of the data and letting us interpret it for ourselves. That’s my only beef with this.
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
For what it’s worth, the guy who broke this S2 story - Bob McGinn - has Stroud #2 on his QB list behind Young. McGinn’s draft analysis is highly regarded and is based almost exclusively on his interviews with NFL scouts. One of the scouts indicated a very low S2 score would take the player off his list but for the most part its just one data point as one would expect. Overall, they love him.
Everyone has the same concern with Stroud - he’s got at least 3 NFL linemen and 2-3 NFL level receivers on his offense throughout college so it’s hard to get a read on him.
