We've talked about David Lewin's QB projection system here, as it projects Jason Campbell as an outstanding QB prospect. That observation (that he did so well under the Lewin system) was far more intriguing to me than, say, Adam Schefter "Pro Bowl prediction" report. The Outsiders design their data systems for prediction, unlike the subjective pronouncements of JC's teammates or coaches or anyone else. Thus when FO projects X, you can know that is a founded and justifiable assertion (even if it proves wrong). I wish the guys at FO, who have been breaking into the mainstream at Fox Sports, had a larger role in shaping NFL debate amongst casual fans. We'd all be better off.
It is with both great pride as well as empathetic frustration for what's happened to them, that I point readers to a suspicious situation whereas NFL.com's Gil Brandt writes something that sounds a lot like it was written by someone else earlier. You can guess my own conclusion based on the presence of this post, though I beg reader(s) reach their own conclusion in the comments section. First, what was written by FO Godfather Aaron Schatz:
It's true: College statistics really can predict NFL performance. For our 2006 Pro Football Prospectus, we studied 10 years' worth of drafts and discovered that the greatest indicator of NFL success for QBs taken in the first two rounds is the number of college games they started. Philip Rivers, for one, started 51 games at NC State. Donovan McNabb started 49 college games and Carson Palmer started 45. On the flip side, busts-to-be Joey Harrington (28), Jim Druckenmiller (24), and Akili Smith (19) had relatively little starting experience.