Future success indicator for QB's?

[My2Cents]

Jonathan Bales wrote a fascinating article on QB hand size that suggests a QB's success can sometimes be determined by his hand size in relation to his height. He came up with a mathematical formula for his theory. Therefore, I did the math on the incoming rookie QB group. The results were this:

Manziel - 13.79
Bortles - 12.1
Bridgewater - 12.48
Carr - 12.28
McCarron - 13.29
Mettenberger - 12.53
Garoppolo - 12.46
Boyd - 13.103
Savage - 12.549
Murray - 12.6
Thomas - 13.764
Mathews - 13.392
Morris - 13.72
Shaw - 12.793
Fales - 12.416

http://www.rotoworld.com/articles/nfl/47036/311/exploring-qb-hand-size

 

[patchick]

Interesting, do you have a link to the article? At first glance, I don't understand the scores since plenty of those QBs have bigger hands than Manziel. Does this formula give short QBs an advantage?

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/2/21/5432976/nfl-scouting-combine-quarterback-measurements

 

[Sciz]

Now I understand why teams are worried that these extra two weeks will lead to over-analysis.

 

[My2Cents]

Interesting, do you have a link to the article? At first glance, I don't understand the scores since plenty of those QBs have bigger hands than Manziel. Does this formula give short QBs an advantage?

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/2/21/5432976/nfl-scouting-combine-quarterback-measurements

Yes. The link to the article is a hyperlink. Just click on the phrase "QB hand size" in my initial post and it'll take you there. No advantage for smaller QB's. I'll let Jonathan Bales explain further.

 

[My2Cents]

Now I understand why teams are worried that these extra two weeks will lead to over-analysis.

Hand size is not a new concern for teams. Not a case of over-analysis, but I'm not a fan of the extended draft either. I would encourage you to read the article, if you haven't already. Thanks.

 

[patchick]

Yes. The link to the article is a hyperlink. Just click on the phrase "QB hand size" in my initial post and it'll take you there. No advantage for smaller QB's. I'll let Jonathan Bales explain further.

OK, now I'm even more confused. Here's his formula:

"HS/H*100 (hand size divided by height multiplied by 100)" [Though from context I think he really meant (HS/H)*100]

How can that not give an advantage to a smaller QB? A 6'6" QB with 10" hands would have a score of 12.82, while a 5'0" QB with 10" hands would have an amazing score of 16.67" -- draft that munchkin! Unless I'm missing something major, his formula looks like nonsense.

 

[My2Cents]

OK, now I'm even more confused. Here's his formula:

"HS/H*100 (hand size divided by height multiplied by 100)" [Though from context I think he really meant (HS/H)*100]

How can that not give an advantage to a smaller QB? A 6'6" QB with 10" hands would have a score of 12.82, while a 5'0" QB with 10" hands would have an amazing score of 16.67" -- draft that munchkin! Unless I'm missing something major, his formula looks like nonsense.

We can't be sure if there is something to his theory or not, at this point. I did the math just to see
how these prospects would rate, according to the theory.

My own personal opinion is that, while it's nice to have a QB with big hands, the best indicator of future success is previous success, specifically in regards to accuracy. If a QB is highly accurate in college, he should continue that in the NFL. Conversely, if a QB is inaccurate in college, a jump up is unlikely later.
Unfortunately, I don't have a mathematical equation to test the theory.

Either way, I'll pass on the munchkins, lol.

 

[manxman2601]

OK, now I'm even more confused. Here's his formula:

"HS/H*100 (hand size divided by height multiplied by 100)" [Though from context I think he really meant (HS/H)*100]

How can that not give an advantage to a smaller QB? A 6'6" QB with 10" hands would have a score of 12.82, while a 5'0" QB with 10" hands would have an amazing score of 16.67" -- draft that munchkin! Unless I'm missing something major, his formula looks like nonsense.

I'm not doing the maths on this but bearing in mind that there aren't many 5'5" QBs entering in the draft and that there's actually a fairly narrow range (6' to 6'5" or so), I wonder whether the difference between a 9" hand and a 10" hand impacts this equation more than the difference between two or three inches in height. The fact that Manziel and Thomas top out the list suggests that big hands do lead to a higher score.

 

[patchick]

We can't be sure if there is something to his theory or not, at this point. I did the math just to see how these prospects would rate, according to the theory.

I'm not saying that his THEORY is nonsense, I'm saying that his FORMULA is nonsense -- it doesn't do what he thinks it does. He wrote:

Given the choice between a 6’5” quarterback and a 6’0” quarterback with all other things being equal or unknown, I’ll take the taller one."

But then he proposed a "formula" in which the opposite is true: the shorter the quarterback, the better. Worse yet, the guy with the biggest hands in the draft, Logan Thomas, comes out behind Manziel because he's so tall.

My guess is that he wanted something flashier than just saying "big hands are more important for a qb than height." And he knew that people like numerical ratings. So he created one, which is unfortunately worse than just using raw hand size as a metric.

Something like this might come closer to the kind of he's after. It acknowledges the value of a tall frame but places greater weight on hand size:

[Hand^2*Height^(1/2)]/100

To make it sound extra awesome, I'm going to give it a name: the the Patsfans Quarterback Size Index, or PQSI. Here are some sample PQSI scores:

Jimmy Garappolo: 7.16
Connor Shaw: 7.26
Johnny Manziel: 8.07
A.J. McCarron: 8.67
Logan Thomas: 10.41

As you see, Manziel comes out ahead of a taller QB like Garappolo on size because he has bigger hands, but QBs like McCarron and Thomas who have big hands and height fare the best.

 

[Oinko]

This is just a ruse to try and figure out their penis size.

 

[My2Cents]

This is just a ruse to try and figure out their penis size.

Not to stir the crap, but Mike Vick has some of the tiniest digits in the league.

 

[My2Cents]

Not to stir the crap, but Mike Vick has some of the tiniest digits in the league.

Geno Smith isn't far behind.