The rule of 26-27-60 and how it relates to Flacco

**wickedsolo** · 01-21-2012, 12:03 PM

Interesting Article:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ule/index.html

I know it's from a while ago, but Tony's latest blog on why Cam Cameron won't be here made me think about it. In Tony's blog article he discusses how there is the possibility that Flacco just may not be intelligent enough to handle the entire playbook, make reads/audibles at the LOS, and think quickly.

I googled his Wonderlic score (which is neither here nor there at depicting intelligence, but interesting nonetheless) and he scored a 27.

The writer in the SI article points out that scouts are looking for 3 numbers.
26 - minimum wonderlic score, which tests quick thinking, deductive reasoning, and general problem solving skills.
27 - minimum number of starts in college because the more starts means the more game tape to gauge a player.
60 - minimum completion percentage while in college because if you're completion % is low in college there is a correlation for it to suffer more in the pro's where defenses are faster and better coached.

Here are Flacco's numbers: 27-22-63. Keep in mind that he had less than 27 starts due to red-shirting his freshman year and then transferring to Delaware.

**pslholder96** · 01-21-2012, 12:17 PM

While I did not read Tony's lastest blog I do specifically remember John Harbaugh mention that one of the reasons they drafted Joe was because of his ability to pick up the playbook.

**Tspot-D-Ravenator** · 01-21-2012, 12:22 PM

so what does this have to do with anything tomorrow, wicked? just wonderin'

**Mista T** · 01-21-2012, 12:25 PM

With all due respect to Tony & Sports Illustrated: I'll take the "26-27-60 rule" with a grain of salt. Not that's it's total bullshit, but it's just a piece of data. Take Manning's Wonderlic score compared to Flacco's, for instance.

I'll put a lot more stock into how seasoned, qualified former NFL QBs evaluate Flacco, e.g. Jaws and Dilfer earlier this week. I just heard Simms on "NFL Today" call Flacco an "elite passer" and dared anyone else on the show to identify a single bad pass thrown by Flacco against Houiston.

**NC Raven** · 01-21-2012, 12:48 PM

It's an interesting way to do a "rough cut" when examining a batch of QB's, anyway.

Of the three, I'd say the completion percentage is the one that needs the most paying attention to, then starts, then Wonderlic.

Then you have factors like system and measurables. A guy like Colt McCoy would fail on those two things, even if he had all the others. (So naturally Cleveland picks him).

Also the "ridiculously dominant team" guys, like QB's from powerhouses who win by sheer talent disparity -- like Oklahoma (Bradford and some of the guys who preceded him like Heupel, Jason White, etc.) LSU (Russell) Florida (take your pick, going back to the Spurrier days).

**wickedsolo** · 01-21-2012, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Tspot-D-Ravenator

so what does this have to do with anything tomorrow, wicked? just wonderin'

Nothing just found it and wanted to share.

**wickedsolo** · 01-21-2012, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by NC Raven

It's an interesting way to do a "rough cut" when examining a batch of QB's, anyway.

Of the three, I'd say the completion percentage is the one that needs the most paying attention to, then starts, then Wonderlic.

Then you have factors like system and measurables. A guy like Colt McCoy would fail on those two things, even if he had all the others. (So naturally Cleveland picks him).

Also the "ridiculously dominant team" guys, like QB's from powerhouses who win by sheer talent disparity -- like Oklahoma (Bradford and some of the guys who preceded him like Heupel, Jason White, etc.) LSU (Russell) Florida (take your pick, going back to the Spurrier days).

That's kind of how I looked at it as well.

And like Mista T stated above, it's just a stat that can be used in any way for almost any type of an argument.

Again, I just thought it was interesting and maybe would make folks think that Flacco isn't the slow dummy that some would have us believe.

**NC Raven** · 01-21-2012, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Again, I just thought it was interesting and maybe would make folks think that Flacco isn't the slow dummy that some would have us believe.

In moments of frustration I've occasionally joined the "slow witted Flacco" chorus. But since that time, and in watching the replays of some of the "paralysis" plays where Flacco looks like he's standing there like a deer in headlights, it's clear that on those plays there's nobody open and nothing likely to become open. I stare at the TV wide-eyed going WTF!! when I look at a replay from the camera angle showing the QB perspective of the field.

It's not like he's not seeing open guys on plays where he has time and space to throw. It's always either a bad play or bad protection; I am hard pressed to recall many plays where he was at fault, though like every player in the league, neither he nor anyone else is perfect. It seems like he mostly only has the time to throw when we have three guys in the pattern, and there's 7 or 8 in coverage.

I have since concluded there's nothing wrong with Flacco, and that he'd be as "stat friendly" as any of them with the same offensive schemes and protections they have. He does a great job with what he has to work with, scheme wise. So for the most part do the rest of the players on offense.

**DelawareRaven** · 01-21-2012, 02:08 PM

Originally Posted by wickedsolo

Interesting Article:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ule/index.html

I know it's from a while ago, but Tony's latest blog on why Cam Cameron won't be here made me think about it. In Tony's blog article he discusses how there is the possibility that Flacco just may not be intelligent enough to handle the entire playbook, make reads/audibles at the LOS, and think quickly.

I googled his Wonderlic score (which is neither here nor there at depicting intelligence, but interesting nonetheless) and he scored a 27.

The writer in the SI article points out that scouts are looking for 3 numbers.
26 - minimum wonderlic score, which tests quick thinking, deductive reasoning, and general problem solving skills.
27 - minimum number of starts in college because the more starts means the more game tape to gauge a player.
60 - minimum completion percentage while in college because if you're completion % is low in college there is a correlation for it to suffer more in the pro's where defenses are faster and better coached.

Here are Flacco's numbers: 27-22-63. Keep in mind that he had less than 27 starts due to red-shirting his freshman year and then transferring to Delaware.

Actually Flacco started 26 games for Delaware. That includes 3 playoff games & the National Championship in 2007.

**Beau Petard** · 01-21-2012, 02:48 PM

wicked--
Thanks for the interesting slant on those numbers. I do agree that they are not necessarily a predictor, but likely offer a good way for NFL teams to factor in another variable in how to assess the future success of guys at QB. Plus, teams have x amount of resources, including time, to perform these evaluations before they have to draft, so it makes sense to me to use these things as a way to get a handle on who are your prime targets for acquisition, in which round, who else might be interested and impact upon your own selections, etc.

And NCR, your post got me to thinking about my thread on the Ravens and Flacco as far as my lack of understanding about quick release patterns and the whole "Why doesn't Flacco pass 'better'?" Filmstudy offered some good thoughts on this as well in his thread, and I'm starting to wonder if the whole offense needs a fresh look at some point. Obviously it's not doing too bad, given that it's headed into the AFC Championship, so I can't be too harsh with my criticisms, but I have to wonder how the team will "improve" the offense over the next few seasons.

**lowrider** · 01-21-2012, 02:57 PM

Originally Posted by NC Raven

I have since concluded there's nothing wrong with Flacco, and that he'd be as "stat friendly" as any of them with the same offensive schemes and protections they have. He does a great job with what he has to work with, scheme wise. So for the most part do the rest of the players on offense.

I've been feeling this way for the past 2 years. Another thing that no one seems to want to acknowledge is that this year Joe is not surrounded with great veteran talent at the receiver positions. Pitta, Dixon, and smith are all young and inexperienced. Evans has been injured almost the entire season. Boldin is the only experienced WR who has been consistent all year long. I have wondered if this has had any impact on how cam calls his plays.

**wickedsolo** · 01-21-2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by lowrider

I've been feeling this way for the past 2 years. Another thing that no one seems to want to acknowledge is that this year Joe is not surrounded with great veteran talent at the receiver positions. Pitta, Dixon, and smith are all young and inexperienced. Evans has been injured almost the entire season. Boldin is the only experienced WR who has been consistent all year long. I have wondered if this has had any impact on how cam calls his plays.

I don't even think you can claim that Boldin has been consistent at all. He's had difficulty shaking man coverage and he has dropped a lot of passes this season. That's not what I would call consistent.