Stanley NFL Draft Stock

[Hawk1960]

Trying to project which college QBs will excel in the NFL is not easy, even for the better GMs in the league. Some of the best QBs in NFL history have been taken in the later rounds.

Here is a stat line that might surprise some people. Tom Brady, arguably the greatest NFL QB of all time, only completed 61.9% of his passes at Michigan and only threw 30TD with 17 INTs. I'm not saying Stanley is going to be the next Tom Brady, but he has completed 58% of his career passes with 52 TDs and only 16 INTs.

IMO, Stanley does "play it safe" but when he misses it is generally a miss in the right direction, hence the low number of INTs. He's not a gunslinger like Beathard or even Chuck Long but he also has a much better TD to INT ratio.

Selected career college QB Stats:

Hall of Famers:

Drew Brees 61.1% completion/90 TDs/ 45 INTs/ 2.00 TD/INT ratio
Tom Brady 61.9% completion/30 TDs/17 INTs/ 1.76 TD/INT ratio
Joe Montana 52.0% completion/25 TDs/15 INTs/ 1.67 TD/INT ratio
Brett Favre 52.4% completion/52 TDs/34 INTs/ 1.53 TD/INT ratio
Dan Marino 57.6% completion/79 TDs/69 INTs/ 1.14 TD/INT ratio

Iowa QBs:

Nate Stanley 57.7% completion/52 TDs/16 INTs/ 3.25 TD/INT ratio
CJ Beathard 58.1% completion/40 TDs/19 INTs/ 2.10 TD/INT ratio
Drew Tate 61.0% completion/61 TDs/34 INTs/ 1.79 TD/INT ratio
Chuck Long 64.9% completion/70 TDs/46 INTs/ 1.52 TD/INT ratio

 

[trj]

Trying to project which college QBs will excel in the NFL is not easy, even for the better GMs in the league. Some of the best QBs in NFL history have been taken in the later rounds.

Here is a stat line that might surprise some people. Tom Brady, arguably the greatest NFL QB of all time, only completed 61.9% of his passes at Michigan and only threw 30TD with 17 INTs. I'm not saying Stanley is going to be the next Tom Brady, but he has completed 58% of his career passes with 52 TDs and only 16 INTs.

IMO, Stanley does "play it safe" but when he misses it is generally a miss in the right direction, hence the low number of INTs. He's not a gunslinger like Beathard or even Chuck Long but he also has a much better TD to INT ratio.

Selected career college QB Stats:

Hall of Famers:

Drew Brees 61.1% completion/90 TDs/ 45 INTs/ 2.00 TD/INT ratio
Tom Brady 61.9% completion/30 TDs/17 INTs/ 1.76 TD/INT ratio
Joe Montana 52.0% completion/25 TDs/15 INTs/ 1.67 TD/INT ratio
Brett Favre 52.4% completion/52 TDs/34 INTs/ 1.53 TD/INT ratio
Dan Marino 57.6% completion/79 TDs/69 INTs/ 1.14 TD/INT ratio

Iowa QBs:

Nate Stanley 57.7% completion/52 TDs/16 INTs/ 3.25 TD/INT ratio
CJ Beathard 58.1% completion/40 TDs/19 INTs/ 2.10 TD/INT ratio
Drew Tate 61.0% completion/61 TDs/34 INTs/ 1.79 TD/INT ratio
Chuck Long 64.9% completion/70 TDs/46 INTs/ 1.52 TD/INT ratio

As I stated before unless this thing completely unravels he will get drafted. Where depends on how well he plays, obviously.

 

[WinOneThisCentury]

Trying to project which college QBs will excel in the NFL is not easy, even for the better GMs in the league. Some of the best QBs in NFL history have been taken in the later rounds.

Here is a stat line that might surprise some people. Tom Brady, arguably the greatest NFL QB of all time, only completed 61.9% of his passes at Michigan and only threw 30TD with 17 INTs. I'm not saying Stanley is going to be the next Tom Brady, but he has completed 58% of his career passes with 52 TDs and only 16 INTs.

IMO, Stanley does "play it safe" but when he misses it is generally a miss in the right direction, hence the low number of INTs. He's not a gunslinger like Beathard or even Chuck Long but he also has a much better TD to INT ratio.

Selected career college QB Stats:

Hall of Famers:

Drew Brees 61.1% completion/90 TDs/ 45 INTs/ 2.00 TD/INT ratio
Tom Brady 61.9% completion/30 TDs/17 INTs/ 1.76 TD/INT ratio
Joe Montana 52.0% completion/25 TDs/15 INTs/ 1.67 TD/INT ratio
Brett Favre 52.4% completion/52 TDs/34 INTs/ 1.53 TD/INT ratio
Dan Marino 57.6% completion/79 TDs/69 INTs/ 1.14 TD/INT ratio

Iowa QBs:

Nate Stanley 57.7% completion/52 TDs/16 INTs/ 3.25 TD/INT ratio
CJ Beathard 58.1% completion/40 TDs/19 INTs/ 2.10 TD/INT ratio
Drew Tate 61.0% completion/61 TDs/34 INTs/ 1.79 TD/INT ratio
Chuck Long 64.9% completion/70 TDs/46 INTs/ 1.52 TD/INT ratio

God dammit...I hate it when statistics get in the way of a good narrative. So, Stanley can throw 29 interceptions this year and still be under the number that arguably the best QB in Iowa history threw in his career. It's pretty evident when Stanley is missing, he's missing away from people. I guess, in recollecting some of the throws, I'm not sure he was meaning to do that...since many of them were just awful throws. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there.

My only comment is that he can still improve accuracy. Many of his throws are of the short variety to move the chains...so the 57.7% needs to be scrutinized. Long threw the ball in the seams and down the field...and was still at 64%.

 

[Hawk1960]

God dammit...I hate it when statistics get in the way of a good narrative. So, Stanley can throw 29 interceptions this year and still be under the number that arguably the best QB in Iowa history threw in his career. It's pretty evident when Stanley is missing, he's missing away from people. I guess, in recollecting some of the throws, I'm not sure he was meaning to do that...since many of them were just awful throws. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt there.

My only comment is that he can still improve accuracy. Many of his throws are of the short variety to move the chains...so the 57.7% needs to be scrutinized. Long threw the ball in the seams and down the field...and was still at 64%.

Your points were still valid, he does need to get above 60% and there is no reason he can't do that this year. He was at 59% last year so he was knocking on the door. It's only a drop here or there in some case or just a little better touch on the short passes. I think he does throw the ball away in some cases also to avoid the sack, which is not a bad thing. He was only sacked 15 times last year which is a good number and some of that credit has to go to the OL pass protection.

The thing about Chuck Long and the 64% was the time he had to throw the ball. He was definitely accurate and had a great arm but he used to sit back there and drink a cup of coffee in the pocket as our pass protection for him was really solid as I remember.

 

[trj]

2002 the year Brad Banks finished 2nd in the Heisman race his completion rate was 59.7. He didn’t have a big arm so he wasn’t exactly pushing the ball down the field. A lot of YAC.

As I stated in another thread BF has put in some of those short routes that the Patriots slot guys use. Those routes are dependent on the QB being accurate with the football. You could tell early last season that Easley was looking at NS sideways on some of those errant throws.

 

[Xerxes]

Trying to project which college QBs will excel in the NFL is not easy, even for the better GMs in the league. Some of the best QBs in NFL history have been taken in the later rounds.

Here is a stat line that might surprise some people. Tom Brady, arguably the greatest NFL QB of all time, only completed 61.9% of his passes at Michigan and only threw 30TD with 17 INTs. I'm not saying Stanley is going to be the next Tom Brady, but he has completed 58% of his career passes with 52 TDs and only 16 INTs.

IMO, Stanley does "play it safe" but when he misses it is generally a miss in the right direction, hence the low number of INTs. He's not a gunslinger like Beathard or even Chuck Long but he also has a much better TD to INT ratio.

Selected career college QB Stats:

Hall of Famers:

Drew Brees 61.1% completion/90 TDs/ 45 INTs/ 2.00 TD/INT ratio
Tom Brady 61.9% completion/30 TDs/17 INTs/ 1.76 TD/INT ratio
Joe Montana 52.0% completion/25 TDs/15 INTs/ 1.67 TD/INT ratio
Brett Favre 52.4% completion/52 TDs/34 INTs/ 1.53 TD/INT ratio
Dan Marino 57.6% completion/79 TDs/69 INTs/ 1.14 TD/INT ratio

Iowa QBs:

Nate Stanley 57.7% completion/52 TDs/16 INTs/ 3.25 TD/INT ratio
CJ Beathard 58.1% completion/40 TDs/19 INTs/ 2.10 TD/INT ratio
Drew Tate 61.0% completion/61 TDs/34 INTs/ 1.79 TD/INT ratio
Chuck Long 64.9% completion/70 TDs/46 INTs/ 1.52 TD/INT ratio

To be fair, when the hall of fame group & Chuck Long played in college during the 1980s & 1990s or in Montana's case the 1970s, the game was completely different. A 60% completion percentage was outstanding during that time and teams just didn't throw the ball as much, particularly close to the goal line were a lot of today's QBs in college & the NFL get really inflated TD numbers.

In today's game with rules that are heavily favoring offenses, especially QBs & WRs, a 60% competition percentage is pretty meh at the college level and flat out bad at the NFL level.

 

[Jonrn]

Stanley is an NFL intangibles guy, but I can’t see him ever getting beyond a Ruddock type NFL career with a passing completion percentage below 60%. Especially downfield 10+ yds. I hope he proves me wrong this year though. He’s like a triple AAA major league pitcher. He’s just inches away, but has reached a ceiling.

 

[DDThompson]

Trying to project which college QBs will excel in the NFL is not easy, even for the better GMs in the league. Some of the best QBs in NFL history have been taken in the later rounds.

Here is a stat line that might surprise some people. Tom Brady, arguably the greatest NFL QB of all time, only completed 61.9% of his passes at Michigan and only threw 30TD with 17 INTs. I'm not saying Stanley is going to be the next Tom Brady, but he has completed 58% of his career passes with 52 TDs and only 16 INTs.

IMO, Stanley does "play it safe" but when he misses it is generally a miss in the right direction, hence the low number of INTs. He's not a gunslinger like Beathard or even Chuck Long but he also has a much better TD to INT ratio.

Selected career college QB Stats:

Good and interesting stats H'60.

Stanley's percentage is down because he does throw it away when his receivers are covered or doesn't have time to throw. That's a good thing. And it probably happens 3-4 times a game.

That's not the accuracy I'm talking about. The accuracy I'm talking about is air-mailing 6 yards over the head of a wide open receiver that could go for 25 yards or a TD

or throwing it at the shoestrings or behind a crossing or swing route receiver that goes for 4 yards when hitting the receiver in stride could have gone for 8 yards (and a FD) or 20 yards.

and i'm sure that's the accuracy that most people are talking about.

 

[Caddy]

He will get drafted just because he looks the part and has a good arm. He will hold a clip board for a few years in the league. He just doesn’t have the it factor needed to excel. He does not handle blitzes well, his footwork is not good, and his accuracy is a huge question mark. Even on his completions the receiver rarely catches the ball in stride. They usually have to make an adjustment to make the catch. This year he is without 2 first round draft picks that he could rely on, defenses won’t have to account for them, and we have pretty much the same sub par group of receivers that had difficulty getting open last year. Still no home run threat anywhere in our back field either.

 

[Jonrn]

He will get drafted just because he looks the part and has a good arm. He will hold a clip board for a few years in the league. He just doesn’t have the it factor needed to excel. He does not handle blitzes well, his footwork is not good, and his accuracy is a huge question mark. Even on his completions the receiver rarely catches the ball in stride. They usually have to make an adjustment to make the catch. This year he is without 2 first round draft picks that he could rely on, defenses won’t have to account for them, and we have pretty much the same sub par group of receivers that had difficulty getting open last year. Still no home run threat anywhere in our back field either.

He will get drafted just because he looks the part and has a good arm. He will hold a clip board for a few years in the league. He just doesn’t have the it factor needed to excel. He does not handle blitzes well, his footwork is not good, and his accuracy is a huge question mark. Even on his completions the receiver rarely catches the ball in stride. They usually have to make an adjustment to make the catch. This year he is without 2 first round draft picks that he could rely on, defenses won’t have to account for them, and we have pretty much the same sub par group of receivers that had difficulty getting open last year. Still no home run threat anywhere in our back field either.[/QU

Completely accurate assessment. He likely won’t cost Iowa a win this year, but also isn’t going to get them to 10 wins.

I have to say though, being a clipboard guy in the NFL is a good gig. Get paid well, no head injuries or CTE. Years of enjoyment without the intense workouts the other positions go through. Sets you up well for a lucrative coaching career. I’d take it.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Your points were still valid, he does need to get above 60% and there is no reason he can't do that this year. He was at 59% last year so he was knocking on the door. It's only a drop here or there in some case or just a little better touch on the short passes. I think he does throw the ball away in some cases also to avoid the sack, which is not a bad thing. He was only sacked 15 times last year which is a good number and some of that credit has to go to the OL pass protection.

The thing about Chuck Long and the 64% was the time he had to throw the ball. He was definitely accurate and had a great arm but he used to sit back there and drink a cup of coffee in the pocket as our pass protection for him was really solid as I remember.

The pass protection was definitely the key to his success at Iowa. As was the balance he had for weapons. He had deep threats (Robert Smith and Dave Moritz) precision route runners (Bill Happel and Scott Helverson) pass catching TE's (Jonathon Hayes and Mike Flagg) and Ronnie Harmon out of the backfield.

His arm was actually NCAA average and it was exposed at the next level where he didn't get much OL protection either. Mark Vlasic had a much stronger arm during his time at Iowa.

 

[kicker22]

Last year inept running game, punting, wide receivers caused Stanley to look worse than he might have been.

I get the running game and receivers "causing Stanley to look worse than he might have been", but the punting game? I'm not sure how a punter, who is sent on to the field after the offense fails to get a first down can be blamed for how the QB looks. I think you could argue that an offense's inability to move the chains impacts a punter, but not sure how it works the other way around.

 

[InGoodCo]

I get the running game and receivers "causing Stanley to look worse than he might have been", but the punting game? I'm not sure how a punter, who is sent on to the field after the offense fails to get a first down can be blamed for how the QB looks. I think you could argue that an offense's inability to move the chains impacts a punter, but not sure how it works the other way around.

Field position. If you don't have a punter that can flip the field, you're offense is always playing in bad field position. Bad field position can be created by punter who kicked the ball to the offense on the previous possession. Iowa lives it's entire life as a program based on ball control and field position. Field position impacts what plays are called, how risky an OC is etc. Just a heads up if ya needed to know. I don't know a ton about football philosophy but I do know this much.

 

[InGoodCo]

Also - QB's over throw WR's ALL the time. Give me a break, they are taught to. An over throw is almost ALWAYS better than a turnover. Stanley needs to get better with the deep ball and accuracy, no argument, but he's one of the better QB's in the country and his draft status indicates it. Over throwing WR's is something that literally every QB in the country does regularly. If you don't DO that, you're going to be a turn over machine. The lack of awareness in the over all game of football on this site is some times alarming. I am pretty much a duffus but I know at least the basic fundamentals of how the game works.

 

[kicker22]

Field position. If you don't have a punter that can flip the field, you're offense is always playing in bad field position. Bad field position can be created by punter who kicked the ball to the offense on the previous possession. Iowa lives it's entire life as a program based on ball control and field position. Field position impacts what plays are called, how risky an OC is etc. Just a heads up if ya needed to know. I don't know a ton about football philosophy but I do know much.

Makes sense, but if offense isn't moving the ball they're equally responsible for bad field position. I'm glad you posted that though, because I wasn't thinking that angle.

 

[BVHawk95]

I get the running game and receivers "causing Stanley to look worse than he might have been", but the punting game? I'm not sure how a punter, who is sent on to the field after the offense fails to get a first down can be blamed for how the QB looks. I think you could argue that an offense's inability to move the chains impacts a punter, but not sure how it works the other way around.

Poor field position for the D, and even if they force a 3-and-out, it's better position for the opposing punter.

Ergo we end up starting in the 10-20 range instead of the 30-40.

 

[InGoodCo]

Makes sense, but if offense isn't moving the ball they're equally responsible for bad field position. I'm glad you posted that though, because I wasn't thinking that angle.

right, but not all of that is Stanley. Depending on where the ball goes is going to dictate how Iowa attempts to move the ball. Stanley moved the ball pretty well, take a look at his stats. His accuracy HAS to get better. But I severely doubt that it's low because of OVER thrown balls. Over thrown balls are missed opportunities. Let's say last season Stanley had 10 over thrown balls that would have been TD's. He cuts that down and hits half of those? And that's 5 more TD's to a guy who already throws a SHIT ton of TD's. Probably the best at doing it in school history.

IMO, my biggest knock on Stanley is he hasn't won enough. I don't put that ALL on him, but as far as legacy for Hawk fans it's all that matters.

 

[okeefe4prez]

he's one of the better QB's in the country

Some years are just dead years for QBs in the NFL draft and this is probably one of them. The kid might make a quantum leap, but I just don't seem being able to hit NFL sized windows consistently. That's really what it comes down to in the NFL. The window is basically barely larger than the ball on a lot of throws and Stanley sometimes shows he has that degree of accuracy, but probably not often enough for NFL scouts to think he is a credible NFL starter. He's also had major problems with dealing with pressure. The kid takes a lot of heat because our line has been incapable of blocking some 3-4 schemes the past few years, but he has rarely done himself any favors against those sets and if you can't make a quick read on a 3-4 with one guy dropping and an unknown guy rushing, you simply cannot play in the NFL. The 15 or so guys in the world who can competently play NFL QB have an ungodly ability to "feel" pressure and make 3 reads almost simultaneously while keeping tabs on the front 6 or 7. I'm just not seeing it with Stanley.

 

[Adam]

Stanley has an NFL arm but he will have to stop overthrowing his receivers by 10 yards to get serious NFL consideration.

Stanley is an NFL QB this time next year. Book it. However there is no way to tell yet if he is a quality NFL QB. Up to now it looks like back up QB with upside. He has a ways to go before he looks like a NFL starter.

 

[Northside Hawk]

Also - QB's over throw WR's ALL the time. Give me a break, they are taught to. An over throw is almost ALWAYS better than a turnover. Stanley needs to get better with the deep ball and accuracy, no argument, but he's one of the better QB's in the country and his draft status indicates it. Over throwing WR's is something that literally every QB in the country does regularly. If you don't DO that, you're going to be a turn over machine. The lack of awareness in the over all game of football on this site is some times alarming. I am pretty much a duffus but I know at least the basic fundamentals of how the game works.

All errant throws can lead to INT's. Especially overthrows. If you're overthrowing a receiver on a deep route that's probably better than risking a turnover. But overthrows on all other routes can easily lead to INT's. Tyler Sash used to sit back there in deep center field and feast on opposing QB's overthrows.