BYU QBs through 15 career games/starts (updated)

Here is how BYU QBs have looked through the first 12 games of their careers. For the most part, these are starts, but some do include games in which they play a significant portion.



They are listed in order of highest PER to lowest.



Click to zoom, if necessary.
QBs.jpg

Interesting numbers and stats for guys through their first 12 games.

Last week, while watching the Tampa Bay Bucs game, I began to reminisce about the beginning of Steve Young's glorious (not)beginning of his pro football career with the Bucs. I'm sure that through his first 12 starts his QB rating was about 1/2 of what it would be later with the 49rs. (I'm sure because I looked it up last week after that Bucs game.) If one had to predict after his stint with the Bucs what kind of pro career he would have, I'm sure most would have predicted obscurity.



Just goes to show how a players production is influenced by the system he plays in, and by the competition he plays against. And many other factors - especially self confidence and teammate confidence.

Updated for 13 games.



I've also added how BYU QBs have performed versus teams with records above .500 (I did not include .500 teams).



As previously,the top 15% are denoted by green fields and bottom 15% are in red fields.



First 13 games:
13 Game QBs.jpg
vs Teams above .500.
BYU QBs vs 500.jpg

I'm seriously impressed by Hill's win % against teams over .500.

My McMahon numbers are off. My table didn't auto-count his numbers right.

I would submit that Hill has played behind a worse offensive line than any of the QB's listed on that chart.

Updated for first 14 Starts

A chart just showing the underclassmen. So far, Hill has been a little below average when it comes to accuracy and efficiency, but he has played the 2nd toughest schedule. But he's exactly average with TD/INT ratio and does have a better than average ppg and has a better than average defense.



The question, is, which way does his career go? The path of Detmer, McMahon and Hall; or Berry or Covey? Does he have a long path trajectory like Beck or does he fall off the map like Heaps? Or does he remain consistently average like Feterik?

I really like the analysis, but until it accounts for what Hill has done with his legs compared to what the other QBs didn't do with theirs, I don't think it gives an accurate picture of "how good" Hill really is.

While the chart doesn't include rushing, does it need to? BYU has only had ONE other QB that was a legitimate rushing threat and that was Steve Young. And Taysom has already shown to be a MUCH better runner than Young. In 14 games, Taysom already has nearly 500 yards more rushing than Young. He's already the leading QB rusher of all-time by more than 300 yards.



Do I really need to add to the chart the fact that Taysom is the best running QB ever in BYU history? To show that no one compares to him in that category?

SpiffCoug wrote:
While the chart doesn't include rushing, does it need to? BYU has only had ONE other QB that was a legitimate rushing threat and that was Steve Young. And Taysom has already shown to be a MUCH better runner than Young. In 14 games, Taysom already has nearly 500 yards more rushing than Young. He's already the leading QB rusher of all-time by more than 300 yards.



Do I really need to add to the chart the fact that Taysom is the best running QB ever in BYU history? To show that no one compares to him in that category?

I think so because a qb's rushing ability adds or detracts from how "good" a qb he is. The list is sorted by PER which attempts to combine all of the things that make a good passing qb by weighting/normalizing each category appropriately to allow for a comparison between multiple QBs with different passing strengths/weaknesses. But if you have two QBs with identical PERs but one qb has Taysom's legs and the other one doesn't, the one with the legs is "better" (e.g. would give the team a better chance of winning).



ESPN did this with their QBR rating (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9612585/total-quarterback-rating-college-football" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) but they don't publish their formula (ridiculous). But it could be as simple as changing the PER formula from:



[ { (8.4 * yards) + (330 * touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / attempts ]



to something like:



[ { (8.4 * passing_yards) + (330 * passing_touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / passing_attempts ]+ [ { (10 * rushing_yards) + (400 * rushing_touchdowns) - (300 * fumbles) - (50* sacks) } / rushing_attempts ]

I'll go back through and add rushing stats. But give me a bit as it will take a while to log all that data.



I'll run your formula as well and see what we come up with.



On fumbles, is it fumbles or fumbles lost?

Why are rushing touchdowns weighted more heavily than passing touchdowns? In the end, a TD is a TD, but I'd argue a QB who is successful at throwing the ball into the endzone is more valuable than one rushing it into the endzone.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'll go back through and add rushing stats. But give me a bit as it will take a while to log all that data.



I'll run your formula as well and see what we come up with.



On fumbles, is it fumbles or fumbles lost?

Don't kill yourself on it, but I would be interested in seeing what the numbers give. I'm totally shooting from the hip on the coefficients for each category, ideally I'd do a multi-variable regression on it to determine the strength of the relationship between each category and some other metric like points scored, RPI, or similar. Until I do that though, I think the coefficients are just eyeballed relative to the analog of each in the passing categories. When I chose those coefficients I was thinking "fumbles lost" but "fumbles" might be better since the difference between the two usually depends on whether the ball bounces to an O-lineman or a D-lineman and probably doesn't reflect the qb's ability in the "fumble" category as much as whether or not the qb coughed up the ball in the first place.



So yeah, I guess "fumbles" is the answer to your question. Like I said though, I assume it wouldn't matter much so if it's easier to do the other, that's still good.

hawkwing wrote:
Why are rushing touchdowns weighted more heavily than passing touchdowns? In the end, a TD is a TD, but I'd argue a QB who is successful at throwing the ball into the endzone is more valuable than one rushing it into the endzone.

True, but in the end it's a weighting of TDs per attempt not just straight TDs, I was assuming that getting 1 rushing TD per e.g. 10 attempts would be harder for a qb to do than the same ratio for pass attempts. Like I said in my previous post, I'm pulling these coefficients based on gut feel and not on any sort of analysis that would quantify how important each category is to winning. Until I have time to do that analysis (not in the next year at least) the best you could do would be to see how much you have to change the coefficients to upset the ranking.

Young had legs. McMahon ran when necessary and lowered his shoulder.



conversely, Q'S that can put up passing numbers without reducing defensive pressure by being dual threat proved something even further re their passing ability.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

My first thought is I didn't realize Berry actually started that many games.



Second thought is that this schedule was actually really strong, and Hill performed well against good competition.



Third is now I remember that 2004 schedule. Didn't BYU play 3 undefeated teams that year?

Updated!



Here is how BYU QBs have fared against teams with a winning record and through their first 15 starts. I've added rushing totals and two lines at the bottom. One is the average for each category and then how Hill compares to that average.



Click on each chart to zoom in.



And rememebr, the numbers in green represent the best 15% of that category and the red are the bottom 15%.


BYU QBs vs Teams with a Winning Record.jpgBYU QBs thru 15 Starts.jpg

Now that I think about, should I compare Hill to the average with Hill's stats factored into the average or without?

Against the 2nd hardest 15 game schedule (based on opponents win%), Hill is showing really well. Winning 2/3 of his games is really good. He can improve his PER and his completion %.



He's also just complete his Soph year. Most of the others who performed better on the list didn't get 15 starts until Jr/Sr year.