About one year ago, C2C’s very own Chris Moxley published the “Year 1 Zero” theory (Y1Z), one of the strongest edges in wide receiver prospect analysis. Those who follow the theory often know when to divest in a specific receiver sooner than their competition.
While Y1Z requires tracking a player through their first year in college, a new metric for quarterbacks will help identify players to circle and those to avoid, even before they step on campus. In this article, I introduce the QB Star Index (QSI), which takes many inputs and distills all that data into one score that can help project NFL production.
What is the QSI?
C2C’s recruiting team collected verified size, athletic data, multi-sport participation, and ball velocity on quarterbacks dating back to 1991. We believe the emphasis on these inputs is unique to our method. Not all data could be collected going back that far, and in the older cohorts, there are fewer quarterbacks per class in the dataset.
For instance, only Brett Favre has a QSI score from 1991. Because of this, there could be selection bias for the older cohorts, as only notable quarterbacks have discoverable information. Beginning around 2010, each class has roughly 20 prospects represented, with even more in the most recent classes. In total, I analyzed the 332 quarterbacks from 1991 to 2023 in our database. Despite the fact that the denominator does not represent all high school quarterbacks in the timeframe, the results are strong enough that this author believes the results are actionable.
A Better Chance at Draft Capital
The QSI is an important part of a QB prospect’s evaluation. A majority of quarterbacks drafted in the first round over the last twenty years had a QSI score over 0.9 (or 90th percentile in our database). Forty-eight percent (37/76) of first-round draft picks evaluated reached the 0.9 threshold.
Players that score at least 0.7 on the QB Star Index make up 82% (63/76) of all first-round picks over this time frame. The lower the QSI, the less likely a QB will be selected early in the NFL draft. On the flip side, players who score less than 0.2 on the QB Star Index rarely get selected before the later rounds. Teddy Bridgewater (0.166), Tua Tagovailoa (0.131), and Mac Jones (0.09) are the only QBs with a QSI score below 0.2 who received first-round draft capital.
Draft capital correlates with future fantasy production, but what about QSI? I’m glad you asked, reader! A higher QSI does correlate with more career NFL fantasy points. Even among first-round picks, who will all be given ample opportunity to succeed, QSI matters for future production.
The chart above shows there are numerous busts in the NFL, even among high draft picks. Playing QB in the NFL is one of the hardest things to do in sports. However, as a player approaches 0.75, the likelihood of good NFL fantasy production increases. Only Philip Rivers (0.426) is a first-round pick with a QSI below 0.5 and over 3,000 career fantasy points in our database. Because of his youth, Tagovailoa has a chance to become the second but still has a long way to go. This year, per Fantasy Pros QB ADP, nine of the top twelve NFL fantasy QBs have a QSI above 0.9. Two more are just below 0.9: CJ Stroud (0.897) and Joe Burrow (.822). Only one QB in the top twelve has a QSI below 0.8, which is Brock Purdy (0.515).
Evaluating Recruits
The application of these data to prospect scouting at the high school level is that QB prospects with a QSI below 0.75 have a very small chance of becoming relevant NFL fantasy producers. Notable exceptions are Tagovailoa, Rivers, and Purdy, as discussed above, as well as Derek Carr (0.691), Drew Brees (0.517), and Geno Smith (0.490). Ideally, a prospect will have a QSI above 0.9. This is the case with C2C’s favorite 2024 breakout, South Carolina’s LaNorris Sellers. However there are enough hits between 0.75-0.89 to hang on to your evaluation if you really believe. While some historical examples show a player with a QSI below that can succeed, it is rare. Despite the facts above, many high-ranking prospects for the recruiting services have surprisingly low QSI scores.
The 2023 class was supposed to be a gold mine for QBs. However, the early returns are already looking bleak. Had QSI been discovered back then, perhaps C2C rankers and college fantasy drafters could have made some better decisions. Consensus top 5 QB Dante Moore had a terrible QSI of 0.057 and has now transferred out of UCLA and enters 2024 as the QB2 at Oregon at best. Malachi Nelson, another top 5 QB with a QSI of 0.257, transferred from Southern Cal and lost the QB1 battle against “Maddux Madsen” at Boise St.
Arch Manning (0.544) is understandably sitting in year two behind Quinn Ewers (0.839), but Manning’s QSI is not reassuring. Oklahoma’s Jackson Arnold (0.641) is in line to start and produce in year two. Nico Iamaleava does not have a complete QSI due to a lack of verified information, including ball velocity. We anticipate Iamaleava’s value will be high and that he will have a strong QSI once the numbers come in.
The 2024 Class
The incoming freshman class of 2024 is littered with potential landmines at the QB position. Dylan Raiola, unanimous five-star and the crown jewel of Nebraska’s recruiting class, brings a QSI of only 0.663 to Lincoln. Former Alabama commit and current Ohio State Buckeye Julian Sayin’s QSI of 0.041 projects an undraftable skill set at the NFL level. Sayin was another unanimous five-star prospect among the recruiting services. In fact, most of the consensus top 10 QBs in 2024 all have QSI scores below 0.8. For many drafters, these are the QBs coveted early in C2C as well as college fantasy dynasty leagues. Draft at your own risk.
The 2024 class does not have a ton of star potential through the lens of QSI. Only Florida’s DJ Lagway has a QSI over 0.9 and a five-star label per the recruiting services. Wyoming’s Deyon Batiste and Central Michigan’s Jayden Glasser also have QSI scores over 0.9 but are seen as considerably less talented by the traditional recruiting services and enrolled at G5 schools. Kansas State’s Blake Barnett and Oregon’s Luke Moga are the only QBs with a QSI over 0.8 who also enrolled at a preseason top-25 program. Barnett’s velo doesn’t cross the acceptable threshold. Moga completed less than 50% of his passes in high school.
The Future of QSI
As it stands now, this author will prioritize QSI over other methods of QB evaluation. At the very least, QSI can put quarterbacks into buckets of NFL potential, and then the eyeball test can differentiate within those groups. There is more to understand about this metric and each input’s role in correlating to future fantasy production.
C2C will continue to collect the QSI scores for recruits over the coming years. As we advance, we will build out a more robust denominator, as we will have QSIs with many more quarterbacks in each class. As the 2023 class matures and graduates to the NFL, there will be additional evidence to support the importance of QSI and its relationship to NFL draft capital and performance.
