CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Four => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on May 24, 2026, 07:28:17 PM
-
Player A
Year 1: 259-395 (65.6%) for 3,896 yds and 34 TD with 12 INT ~ 170.8 rating.......rush N/A
Year 2: 287-503 (57.1%) for 3,402 yds and 22 TD with 17 INT ~ 121.5 rating.......rush N/A
.
Player B
Year 1: 90-152 (59.2%) for 1,840 yds and 12 TD with 5 INT ~ 180.4 rating.....108 car for 585 yds rushing (5.4 ypc) with 8 TD
Year 2: 87-161 (54.0%) for 1,234 yds and 8 TD with 6 INT ~ 127.4 rating.....104 car for 617 yds rushing (5.9 ypc) with 8 TD
.
Player C
Year 1: 107-161 (66.5%) for 1,474 yds and 7 TD with 6 INT ~ 150.3 rating.....156 car for 418 rushing yds (2.7 ypc) with 8 TD
Year 2: 119-204 (58.3%) for 1,131 yds and 4 TD with 10 INT ~ 101.6 rating.....104 car for -1 rushing yard (0.0 ypc) with 2 TD
.
Who fell off the biggest cliff? Player IDs after voting concludes.
-
player "A"
-
A
-
Who fell off the biggest cliff? Player IDs after voting concludes.
Made my vote for Player C. Will give reasoning once voting concludes.
-
Player C went from useful dual-threat production to basically losing the entire rushing side:
418 rushing yards and 8 rushing TDs down to -1 rushing yard and 2 rushing TDs. Add the passing drop and the higher INTs, and that’s the biggest all-around collapse.
So my ranking would be:
1. Player C - worst overall regression
2. Player A - worst pure passing/volume regression
3. Player B - ugly passing drop, but rushing softened the fall
-
C is the worst regression (and I think I might remember who it was and be laughing about his pro prospects?)
B feels like an option QB who dipped slightly with some noise. EDIT: I now have a guess for B and it’s not a pure option guy, but more of a modern one.
A feels like a gunslinger who got overconfident and sloppy (I also think I know who that was)
And wrong on all guesses!
-
C is the worst regression (and I think I might remember who it was and be laughing about his pro prospects?)
B feels like an option QB who dipped slightly with some noise. EDIT: I now have a guess for B and it’s not a pure option guy, but more of a modern one.
A feels like a gunslinger who got overconfident and sloppy (I also think I know who that was)
And wrong on all guesses!
Could you share your guesses? (not the actual players)
I'm curious who you were thinking.
-
The first one had some Jameis Winston energy and the second one had some Jake locker energy. But both of them were better.
Last minute, I started to wonder if the middle one was Anthony Richardson, but he was a lot less productive in his first season that I remember and kind of more productive in his second.
(Sorted through some folks, eventually figured out A)
-
My thoughts--guess since everyone is talking reasoning I might as well add my own...
A: Drop-off on every statistical measure, comp%, ypc, ypa, TD/INT. But this to me is perhaps a team that got worse around the player, and he was asked to contribute a lot more volume. I don't worry about the raw INT numbers, because it's on almost 25% higher volume. And I don't necessarily worry about raw TD numbers, because depending on system teams can punch it in on the ground. I recall one year Curtis Painter at Purdue had a pretty bad TD:INT ratio, but that was when the team was running some spread option and RB Kory Sheets had a massive year for rushing TDs. They schemed the ball to the RB in the red zone so the lack of TDs wasn't Painter's fault. So to me this is a player that was just asked to do SO much more and statistically suffered because the team around him wasn't as good.
B: Dual threat QB that ultimately isn't exactly a volume passer to begin with. Took a statistical step back throwing the ball in year 2, but not massively. Had greater than 10 ypa in year 1 and greater than 10 ypc in year 2, so this wasn't a "dink and dunk" passing game. So I'm not going to penalize one additional INT on slightly higher volume, and much like player A, a few fewer passing TDs is statistical noise. The rushing didn't fall off, so to me this player didn't regress all that much at all.
C: First year under 10 ypa and second year nearly down to 5 ypa, so this team wasn't throwing deep all the time. At 5 ypa, under 60% completion with 10 interceptions (almost 1 in every 20 attempts) is pretty terrible. Significant statistical drop-off in pretty much every measure in the passing game. Rushing also fell off a cliff, so he wasn't adding value with his legs. Perhaps some of that was due to taking sacks which count against rushing yards, but it's still pretty bad.
So I had to vote C.
-
I know its about the player but I'm guessing player A's team was decidedly worse in winning percentage in the 2nd season
because TD/INT
-
Yeah, the 17 INT's tipped player A in for me.
-
Yeah, the 17 INT's tipped player A in for me.
Eh. Player A's interceptions per attempt is between players B and C.
A: INT every 22.8 throws, 6.8 ypa, 11.9 ypc
B: INT every 26.8 throws, 7.7 ypa, 14.2 ypc
C: INT every 20.4 throws, 5.5 ypa, 9.3 ypc
So player A was throwing 1.3 yards deeper on average, completing 2.6 yards deeper on average, and yet still throwing INTs at a rate 2.4 per attempt better than player C
Player C had 40% of the attempts as player A, should have had higher-percentage throws based on ypa, and yet turned it over at a higher rate. And yet couldn't save his output with his legs.
-
17 is too many.
-
I know its about the player but I'm guessing player A's team was decidedly worse in winning percentage in the 2nd season
because TD/INT
Not wrong.
-
17 is too many.
361 comp on 562 att (64.2%) for 5,188 yds with 41 TD and 28 INT.......155.9 rating
.
This is a Heisman-winner's stat line (otherwise unrelated to this thread)
-
Eh. Player A's interceptions per attempt is between players B and C.
Yes, but we're not comparing year 2.
We're comparing regression/cliff between year 1 and 2.
34 TD with 12 INT
22 TD with 17 INT
-
I know its about the player but I'm guessing player A's team was decidedly worse in winning percentage in the 2nd season
because TD/INT
Kinda-sorta.....but the WHY behind the TD/INT is revealing....
-
Kinda-sorta.....but the WHY behind the TD/INT is revealing....
Led me down a weird rabbit hole about that offensive coordinator in the second year
-
Yes, but we're not comparing year 2.
We're comparing regression/cliff between year 1 and 2.
34 TD with 12 INT
22 TD with 17 INT
Fair, but I also think going from 6 INT in year 1 to 10 INT in year 2 is pretty bad, especially since TDs went from 7 to 4. Oh, and rushing went from 2.7 ypc and 8 TDs to 0 ypc and 2 TDs.
With that, I think you can still justify that the regression for player C was worse.
-
Yes, it's between A & C.
Rushing stats for A would be nice.
12 fewer TDs and 5 more INTs is impressive
-
The one on the loosingest team
-
The one on the loosingest team
Player A: 10-2 to 8-5
Player B: 11-1 to 11-1
Player C: 9-2 to 3-6-1
-
yikes!
-
Player A: Heisman runner-up ---------> n/a
Player B: 3rd in Heisman voting --------> 6th in Heisman voting
Player C: Heisman winner ----------> n/a
.
I think this is a little eye-opening, where player B seems to have had the least of a drop-off, but to remain in the top 6 for the Heisman with the passer rating drop-off for a low-volume QB seems odd to me.
This is fun, though.
-
Wow... I should rescind my vote now that I know we're talking about ancient history.
-
Wow... I should rescind my vote now that I know we're talking about ancient history.
What does that matter?
-
What does that matter?
It matters, to me, because football has changed over time. I was thinking of these players with some level of framing of the modern game of football. And I was able to figure out when player C was active based on your context given.
I don't know what time frame players A and B are from--I'm guessing A is far more recent than C because of the passing volume. Didn't figure out who A and B are, but I also think it's possible B is more recent and is specifically an option or dual-threat QB.
But if I'm trying to compare regression based on a framing that it was mostly modern players, and now I have to compare players that very well might be spread across decades, and I don't know what era they played in, I don't have the context to evaluate disparate statistics.
So when I say "rescind my vote" it's more that I'm not sure I can entirely justify an opinion when I don't have enough facts to do so. I don't want to pollute your poll with flawed reasoning just because I assumed player C wasn't playing two decades before I was born. That era was when I [obviously] wasn't following college football and I haven't really learned enough about the era to evaluate player stats.
-
What does that matter?
I’d second that the context of a bad passing season is pretty notable.
Like the second season for A would be quite bad today, decidedly better in 1999 and still quite solid in 1980.
(Used those hints to figure out both of them. I’d still stick with C as the worst regression. And find B amusing and interesting)
-
But it's not about the quality of seasons, it's about the drop-off from one season to the next. You don't have to compare any of the 3 to each other, only themselves.
-
dat's what I said
-
But it's not about the quality of seasons, it's about the drop-off from one season to the next. You don't have to compare any of the 3 to each other, only themselves.
I would slightly disagree with that.
There is still a context that comes with knowing if the worst season is a truly bad season or an average season or or whatnot.
Some of it might be the word regression. Like, I could and might make the case the first season for B involved some good fortune on deep balls. So it was less a regression, but more water coming closer to its level.
(all that said, even if the context is changed around the stats for the third guy, I’m still picking him)