The Contrasting Statistical Profiles of Geno Smith and Mike GlennonWe were very spoiled last year. Andrew Luck, Robert Griffin III, and Russell Wilson had outstanding rookie seasons in 2012, and perhaps that set expectations a bit high for the 2013 class. No one will confuse those three with EJ Manuel, Geno Smith, and Mike Glennon, all of whom struggled for most of their rookie seasons. But while Smith and Glennon didn’t produce excellent numbers, they produced very interesting ones.Among the 35 quarterbacks with the most pass attempts, Glennon finished a very pedestrian 27th in Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt. But he did it in a very unique way: Glennon had an outstanding 19/9 touchdown-to-interception ratio, but he ranked dead last in Net Yards per Attempt. One reason for that is Glennon averaged only 10.6 yards per completion, the 3rd worst average among the 35 passers.Smith finished 34th in ANY/A, largely due to his horrific 12/21 TD/INT ratio. He was a bit better in NY/A, ranking 28th, but what’s interesting about the Jets quarterback is that he ranked 7th in yards per completion. That metric is not a particularly effective measure of passer quality — after all, Matt Ryan ranked 35th — but it is a pretty good way to describe a quarterback’s style. While both Glennon and Smith were below average, they were below average in very different ways.The table below shows the 35 quarterbacks with the most pass attempts in 2013. The quarterbacks are listed in descending order by their ANY/A average. Then, for each quarterback, I’ve listed his NY/A average, his TD/INT Ratio, and his Yards per Completion average, along with where he ranks in those three categories. As always, all tables are fully sortable and searchable.CLICK LINK FOR TABLESo what can we learn from the statistical profiles of Smith and Glennon? Since 1970, there have been 97 rookie quarterbacks who (1) ranked among the top 35 passers that year in attempts and (2) were 24 years old or younger. For each of those 97 quarterbacks, I recorded where they ranked as rookies in NY/A, TD/INT Ratio, and Y/C. Then, I created a “similarity scores” for each of the three rookies to each of the other quarterbacks in this dataset. The similarity score is based on a simple formula. For example, Mark Sanchez grades out as very similar to Geno Smith. Sanchez ranked 21st in NY/A, Smith 28th (the absolute value of the difference is 7); Sanchez ranked 31st in TD/INT ratio, Smith 35th (difference of 4). Both ranked 7th in yards per completion. Therefore, Sanchez is graded as an 11 relative to Smith. Obviously a lower score indicates a more similar rookie quarterback.But the most similar quarterback to Smith is Terry Bradshaw, who ranked 29th in NY/A (absolute value of 1), 33rd in TD/INT ratio (2), and 2nd in yards per completion (5), for a similarity score of 8. Glennon has a similarity score of 55 to Geno Smith, making him the 4th least similar rookie quarterback to Geno Smith. Of the three quarterbacks more dissimilar to Geno, two of them had outstanding rookie years – Dan Marino and RG3 — which shows just how drastic the differences were between Smith and Glennon that they could both be below average and grade as so dissimilar. The table below shows where each of the 97 rookie quarterbacks rank in NY/A, TD/INT ratio, and Yards per Completion. I’ve also included the similarity score grade for each quarterback relative to Smith, Glennon, and Manuel in the three columns at the far right of the table. Currently, the table is sorted from most-to-least similar to Smith, but you can click on the “MG SS” column to sort the table from most-to-least similar to Glennon or the “EM SS” to do the same for Manuel.CLICK LINK FOR TABLEMaybe I’m just a huge geek, but I find this table fascinating. For Smith, the most similar comps are a Hall of Famer…. and two other Jets quarterbacks (and fans don’t have particularly fond memories of either of them). The positive takeaway for Smith fans is that having a bad TD/INT ratio as a rookie is far from a death knell: Eli Manning, Troy Aikman, and Bradshaw all also ranked in the bottom three of the league in that metric as rookies. In particularly, Bradshaw and Aikman were also surrounded by a lack of offensive talent, like Smith. John Elway, Vinny Testaverde, Kerry Collins, and Dan Fouts also produced big yards per completion numbers but little else as rookies. Of course, so did Sanchez, Heath Shuler, Tony Banks, and Patrick Ramsey.For Tampa Bay fans, the most similar quarterback to Glennon is…. Bruce Gradkowski? I’ll admit, that’s not a name I expected to see. Part of the issue is that Glennon’s place on the list is odd: his two biggest strengths as a prospect were his size and his cannon arm, and you expect the Collins/Testaverde/Bradshaw comps to be to Glennon, not Smith. This might be a case where the statistics are misleading. According to NFLGSIS, Glennon ranked 16th in average depth of pass, and 10th in average air yards per completion when looking at only completed passers. But he ranked dead last in YAC per completion, which was enough to bring him far down the yards per completion list. That jives with Pro Football Focus, which lists Glennon as having 67.3% of his yards through the air, the highest rate in the league. The non-Bucs who rate as most similar to Glennon won’t inspire optimism among Tampa fans, either: Jeff George, Tim Couch, Blaine Gabbert, David Woodley, and… Ken Anderson? The Bengals great struggled as a rookie, but posted a positive TD/INT differential as a rookie, which was pretty rare in the early ’70s.As for Manuel? He had weak numbers across the board, so I don’t think this similarity test will tell us much about his future.
I'll take Ken Anderson. Might be the best news on Glennon yet.
Funny thing about "similarity" scores is how different the type of QB can be and still have similar numbers. Woodley's a good example - doesn't resemble Glennon to me in the slightest.
For Tampa Bay fans, the most similar quarterback to Glennon is…. Bruce Gradkowski? I’ll admit, that’s not a name I expected to see.
I'm mentioned this exact comparison before. Glennon was better than Grads as a rookie, but they have a lot of similarities. It's also a good data point for those who say Glennon can "only get better" after his rookie year. How much better did Grads get?
Gradkowski was small and pushed the ball. Glennon is a giraffe and the ball comes out smooth.
It's funny - my first instinct was to run from that, but I do think the deep issues are similar. Difference is that I never expected G-Force to get better since his deep accuracy was a function of his lack of arm strength. Glennon really should be able to improve.
What a stupid article . Geno Smith is similar to both Sanchez ( a bum ) and Terry Bradshaw ( an HOFer ). LOL ....great. So , in short - these numbers tell us nothing about what route these guys careers will take.
From 2013.Statistical Analysis of Mike Glennon, N.C. State We feel the debate on Mike Glennon as an NFL prospect is going to be -- is he the next Matt Ryan or Eli Manning, or a lesser-version of them? There will be a ton of "poor man's Matt Ryan" thrown around with Glennon...as everything about Glennon's style, mechanics, and physical attributes screams a Matt Ryan-clone. Your scouting "feeling" and valuation of Glennon will likely be determined by what you think of Eli and Ryan.Do you see Eli and Ryan as more elite NFL QBs...or just really good QBs?If you think there is a legit scouting debate to be had on whether Glennon is a future "B" grade QB or a possible "A" grade QB -- then that makes Glennon the best QB available in this draft, and quite possibly a top-3 pick due to the lack of available talent at QB in this draft.Our computer models think the debate on Glennon is more between is he a "B" or a "C+" grade...and that's a gigantic business quandary as well.At least QBs that go on to perform like "D's" will flame out fast and you can get on with your life (Blaine Gabbert, Matt Leinart, etc.). The "B" level QBs provide organizational "hope" when paired with great surrounding cast (Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, etc.) The "C" grade QBs will keep you in a Ryan Fitzpatrick or Josh Freeman type of QB purgatory -- the organizational decision to "fish or cut bait" as whether to pull the trigger and start all over again becomes increasingly difficult with a "C or C+" grade QB.Organizations fire head coaches willy-nilly, but they hang on to starting QBs beyond the obvious point of "no return." The term "no return" being -- you get no great return on your investment. No major playoff runs for the franchise, but the year-to-year win-loss record never bad enough to get high draft picks and thus getting into a position to capture an obvious elite QB prospect via the draft. A "good" NFL QB can be like an NFL version of purgatory -- stuck in a tormenting, nomadic "in-between" state of nothingness.The momentum and circumstances are in place for Glennon to be the darling of the JAN-FEB NFL Draft scouting world. Fans/scouts who are pumping Matt Barkley and Geno Smith as the top QBs in the 2013 NFL Draft will feel like they are doing "your grandpa's football scouting" once we get past the Super Bowl. Those two QBs (Geno and Barkley) will likely be "old news" when we get into February. The NFL Draft scout/fan who is attempting to be hip and chic is going to wind up on Glennon's door step quickly.Anyone who studies this closely is going to see the flaws in Geno and Barkley...top scouts are not going to marry themselves to either of them like in a manner we did with an Andrew Luck (with good reason). The scouting world is looking for a Geno-Barkley alternative. Some because they know those top two guys are shaky top prospects, some will go against Smith-Barkley just because they just want to be different/contrarian/seen as "smart."Glennon as any scout's top QB-prospect makes all the sense in the world on the surface. Glennon looks the part at 6'5"+ and 230+ pounds. He has a prototypical non-mobile QB's body. He has a decent arm strength/velocity and back-to-back college seasons with 30+ TDs thrown for, with more than a 2-to-1 ratio of TDs versus INTs (2011-12). Glennon makes a ton of sense as the top QB prospect in this draft.Our computer scouting models see hope within Glennon's data. The computer sees Glennon as a kind of Matt Ryan or Eli Manning conflicting situation -- both Eli and Ryan were college QBs that our computer thought to be a little too inaccurate to be "elite" level in the NFL. However, both QBs went on to be in an NFL debate of whether they are "elite" or not...or just really, really good.The nagging issue that our computer models see on Glennon is a turnover problem. Matt Ryan and Eli Manning struggled with lower completion percentages than you'd like to see in college (as a translation to NFL great-elite), similar to what Glennon struggles with. Where Glennon starts to separate (in a bad sense) from Eli and Ryan is in his turnover propensity. I started scouting Glennon ahead of their 2012 bowl game against Vanderbilt (so no Vandy data at that point). We saw the high turnover rate then...along with a lot of positives, but the turnover problem kept haunting us. So, what did Glennon do on the big stage against a decent SEC team in their bowl game? He had three picks early and his only TD was late in the game in meaningless garbage time.Our computer scouting is conflicted here with Glennon, but if we had to give an absolute "thumbs-up" or down...the computer says more down. However, we need to discuss the nuisances and/or opportunities within that being a shaky "thumbs-down." The computer readings on Glennon are schizophrenic. For every encouraging sign we get, we find another troubling one.(--) One of our computer's biggest problems with Glennon is his inaccuracy metrics. When you isolate Glennon's 2012 down to just his ACC conference games -- he was a 55.7% Comp. Pct. passer. Below 60% is not a good sign for translating ahead.(+) When you look at Glennon's performance in his toughest 2012 ACC conference battles (Florida St., Miami, Florida, UNC, Clemson) -- he threw for 16 TD/5 INT. He averaged 3.2 passing-TDs per game against his toughest conference rivals. That is excellent, comparing it historically.(--) Then you look at Glennon when he faced two SEC teams this season (Tenn. and Vandy), and he threw for 2 TD/7 INTs in two losses. That's a complete mess.(+) Glennon threw at least one TD pass in 24 of his last 26 games played (last two full seasons). Including one or more in each of his last 16 games played.Over the past two seasons, Glennon has played 26 games. In each season, he has had three "easy" games (Liberty, C. Mich., S. Ala 2x, U Conn, and Citadel). In those six games, Glennon has thrown for 14 TD/0 INTs. In the other 20 games played, 48 TD/29 INT -- a tremendous TD pace, but a more porous INT rate (again, looking for the best of the best).Our computer analysis sees both sides of the argument on Glennon, but in the end it is a shaky "thumbs-down" to become great-elite QB, but very possible to be a solid-good QB in the NFL...if that's what you want?The NFL QB that Mike Glennon most compares to statistically in college, within our system:Like Mike Glennon, Matt Ryan also played in the ACC. To our computer scouting models, the two QBs are like "twins." They played in the same conference, similar names for a lot of opponents, and similar sized, "smart" QBs who had very parallel output.In Ryan and Glennon's final college seasons (including all games equally) per game:330.8 passing-yards, 2.38 TD/1.30 INT, 58.5% Comp Pct. = Glennon (13 games)321.9 passing-yards, 2.21 TD/1.36 INT, 59.3% Comp Pct. = Ryan (14 games)Both Ryan and Glennon are known as very intelligent/cerebral QBs, and very good leaders. Both struggled with a lower Completion Percentage and a little higher turnover rate in college, but also threw for a bunch of TDs. When paired down to the more difficult games on their schedule, Glennon becomes much more turnover prone than Ryan.One noticeable difference between Matt Ryan, Eli Manning, Ryan Tannehill (QBs the computer thinks match Glennon), and Mike Glennon is that they all played for college teams that were not elite programs prior. However, Ryan and Manning went on in their final college campaigns to lead their teams to more improbable top 10-15 finishes and huge bowl wins. Glennon and Tannehill got their teams just above .500, and both were unimpressive in their final bowl games.When it is all said and done, the computer sees the Matt Ryan potential in Mike Glennon, but comes down on the side of "poor man's Matt Ryan." A QB that is likely to be an NFL starter, and possible solid producer in the right system/franchise, but not a "savior" type of QB like what just occurred with the top of the 2012 rookie QB class.
these numbers tell us nothing about what route these guys careers will take.
That's exactly what several people have been saying all year in response to those who tout Glennon's "record breaking" rookie numbers.
...and then they start babbling about the "eye test."
Freeman goes 27th in any statistical category and it's fire the bum.Glennon does it, ...and excuses are made. ..I guess we'll have to wait a few more years for some of these numbskulls to stop making excuses again.
Glennon is smart, a hard worker, smart with the football, humble about his abilities and weaknesses, and has good arm strength. He has the potential to be a Top 15 QB.The question is whether or not that's good enough.
Good question, but I would have to say no.Schiano's system protected him from the real qb world. If he has to go out there to win games in another guy's more complex/demanding system, he will be worse than average.And statistically, he's not even average yet. That's the sad part. Hell, I consider myself defending him when I say he's average.
Schiano's system protected him from the real qb world.
theres a few articles and interviews out there that say the opposite, that schiano and his system made life miserable for QBs.
He has the potential to be a Top 15 QB.
Does he? I'm not sure that's accurate
