Zachary Krueger

Denny "Earthquake" Carter live at the Super Bowl, folkssssssssss

Appreciate the kind words, thanks for sharing 🙏

He’s in his fourth year of college. He redshirted as a freshman.

Good chat 🍻

I don't think it's 100% certain that Mendoza won't work. I'm not that stubborn. But of the 39 players in that list who had a chance to be a pro, one (Josh Allen) was good/great - a 2.6% hit rate. I think the riskier bet than parsing out comps is assuming an obvious hit is being miscast by the data.

I thought Shedeur Sanders was a Day 3 talent based on this stuff and comped him to Sam Howell. Sam Howell fell to Round 5 and had several people saying he was once a first-round grade. Shedeur fell to the fifth round and had a ton of first-round grades.

I didn't like Cam Ward.

I got you.

I guess that's where we differ. Because my point is what if he's just being incorrectly valued and him being with all these players who didn't workout is a red flag rather than something we need to explain away?

I think something like negative play rate or pressure to sack rate doesn't care much about QB athleticism. Some of the best athletes are the worst at both, while some of the worst athletes are the best at both.

It's also possible that those guys went in the later rounds because NFL scouts/GMs determined they made too many negative plays.

Most of those later-round guys seldom work out. There are tons of later-round guys across the league right now. Of 36 QBs w/ min. 200 pass attempts this season, 28 were first round picks.

The apples and oranges being more athletic vs. less athletic?

I need to double-check, but I believe only one QB in this year's class hit my breakout age threshold in the 2026 class. That was Drew Allar in his second season on campus.

Of the 37 first-round QBs taken since 2015, 20 hit that mark in their third season or earlier.

Also, there are only five who hit it in year five or later -- Penix, Pickett, Wentz, Burrow, Cam Ward.

Six never hit it -- Daniel Jones, Jordan Love, Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Josh Allen.

I guess there are multiple ways to view it. I don't think it's the most predictive but I do think it's interesting that the way I measure breakout age ATM -- which is the first year they received a PFF offensive grade of ≥ 85.0 (min. 200 dropbacks in a season) -- that those players get drafted high.

I don't think this proves anything, but my hypothesis is/was the more "explosive players" will likely have a scoring% on drives where they were sacked that will be similar to the "less explosive players." The trade-off would need to be glaringly obvious for me to say one is better than the other.

In 2023, Jayden Daniels was on 117 offensive drives. On 19 of those drives, he took at least one sack, and his team scored a TD or FG on six of them (31.6%)

For his career, Daniels led his team to points on 28.8% of the drives on which he was sacked.

I'm going to look more into this but it will take some time. I did get two players tho -- 2025 Fernando Mendoza and 2023 Jayden Daniels.

In 2025, Mendoza was on 157 drives. On 23 of those drives, he took at least one sack. On five of those drives, his team still scored a FG or TD (21.7%).

Yeah, I see what you're saying. I appreciate you sending that.

If sacks are ruining drives, then I'm not sure what you get in an explosive player is all that meaningful.

This isn't the first time someone has tried to use rushing QBs as an exception, but when considering success rate, on a per-play basis, a sack makes it hard to get back on schedule.

I think the real question you need to answer is whether the negative plays these explosive QBs are taking are being offset by these explosive plays. On a per-drive basis, I would assume a lot of these negative plays are drive killers -- we know INTs and lost fumbles are.

Interesting. FWIW, I'd be more concerned about sacks and interceptions than fumbles lost -- which is what I use in my NegPL% formula rather than total fumbles. Fumbles lost make up a very small percentage of the total, but I prefer it because we know it was a turnover.

At the end of the day, I'm trying to measure how often a player is prone to bad plays relative to their peers. Respectfully, I'm not sure what being fast/slow has to do with it. If a player has an above-average rate of plays that cost his team, I think that's bad, and we should be concerned.

Guys who maybe run more and have bad NegPL% or P2S are probably not as good of processors and decision makers when it comes right down to it.

In the screenshot you referenced, 85% of those players averaged less than 100 rush attempts (designs + carries) per season based on PFF CFB rushing data.

I'm not sure where to begin with this one, but I would say it's important to note some of the best negative play rates involve the players you describe - guys good at extending plays. I also view things like NegPL% and Pressure to Sack rate as a processing stat.

A look at the highest negative play rates and pressure to sack rates for 2026 QB prospects vs. Power 4 programs in 2025 (min. 200 dropbacks):

Taylen Green and Fernando Mendoza are 1st and 2nd highest in both.

Appreciate you checking it out 🍻

Against serious competition in 2025 he was virtually the same guy he was from 2023-2024 at Cal in terms of metrics that measure sack avoidance and negative plays.

He had a 27.0% pressure to sack rate in the postseason (conference championship + CFB playoffs).

Fernando Mendoza's career negative play rate is 8.4%. His career pressure to sack rate is 21.1%

In 2025 at Indiana, vs. Power 4 opponents (sorry ODU, Kennesaw State, and Indiana State) Mendoza had an 8.0% NegPL% and a 21.2% P2S.

Among 43 QBs he ranked:

* NegPL% - 10th highest
* P2S - 7th highest

Instead he thrived on one of the best rosters in the nation. Yes, he also improved but considering the bad situation he’s likely to go into as a pro, I care about how he did in bad CFB environments. Pros are far more difficult and why they break one top prospect after another.