Quantifying Quarterbacks is an NFL Draft focused quarterback charting project geared toward providing as much information about as much of a quarterback's recent career as possible. Over 20 data points are recorded for any given pass attempt, ranging from down-and-distance, personnel grouping, play-action, depth of target, accuracy, and much more. Quantifying Quarterbacks charts the entirety of a quarterback's final college season, as well as a smaller sample (four games) from their previous season. All of this charting is done manually by me during and after the college football season. For a more in-depth look at what exactly Quantifying Quarterbacks is, here is a link to last year's final product: 2019 Quantifying Quarterbacks.
|Distance (Usage Rate)||Left Outside||Left Middle||Right Middle||Right Outside||Total|
|20+ (16.77%)||8/20 (2 TD)||1/4 (1 TD)||6/12 (3 TD)||7/20 (5 TD, 1 INT)||22/56 (11 TD, 1 INT)|
|16-20 (7.19%)||2/3||8/9 (1 INT)||5/9 (1 TD, 1 INT)||1/3 (1 INT)||16/24 (1 TD, 3 INT)|
|11-15 (8.98%)||6/11 (1 TD, 1 INT)||7/10||4/6||0/3||17/30 (1 TD, 1 INT)|
|6-10 (12.28%)||6/9||8/9||15/20 (3 TD)||1/3||30/41 (3 TD)|
|1-5 (36.83%)||16/18 (1 TD)||32/38 (1 INT)||45/53 (1 TD)||12/14 (1 INT)||105/123 (2 TD, 2 INT)|
|0 (16.47%)||7/7||16/17||17/18 (1 TD)||12/13 (1 TD)||52/55 (2 TD)|
|Total (334 plays)||45/68 (4 TD, 1 INT)||72/87 (1 TD, 2 INT)||92/118 (9 TD, 1 INT)||33/56 (6 TD, 3 INT)||242/329 (21 TD, 7 INT)|
Games Charted: Entire 2019 season (except for Stanford game, could not find)
Blatant Drops: 20
Forced Adjustments: 14 (4.26%)
Contested Drops: 14
Passes Defended: 21
Explosive: 36 (10.78%)
Though obviously a lesser prospect, Jacob Eason’s pass distribution looks similar to Joe Burrow’s. Like Burrow, Eason does not have that many passes at or behind the line of scrimmage, but more than one-third of his attempts came in the 1-5 yard area. That’s still a ton of quick passing, but even throwing to the 1-5 yard area that often is a lot more encouraging to me than if a quarterback throws a ton of passes behind the line of scrimmage.
Eason’s pass distribution also makes for interesting circumstances with respect to how he arrived at his accuracy score. On the surface, Eason is a strong-armed quarterback with an aggressive nature over the middle. However, Eason crushed the 0-10 yard areas and threw there relentlessly, perhaps scoring better than any player in the class, yet managed just an average accuracy rate from 11-20 yards and an atrocious accuracy rate beyond 20 yards. In fact, Eason’s 39.29% hit rate beyond 20 yards is the second-worst in the class (so far), beating out only Jake Fromm. Not exactly the profile except for a project QB whose defining trait is arm strength.
The number of drops is a clear standout here as well. Over a 334-play sample, 20 drops comes out to 5.99% of the time — at least once per game, if not more. And that does not even consider some of the contested drops in which Washington’s receiver had the inside track and should have reeled the ball in, even if the look wasn’t clean enough to be considered a blatant drop. While Eason is far from perfect, his pass-catchers failed him time and time again.
ACCURACY AND ENVIRONMENT
Adjusted Accuracy: 73.28%
Outside the Pocket Percentage: 9.28%
Adjusted Accuracy Outside the Pocket: 53.23%
Under Pressure Percentage: 16.77%
Adjusted Accuracy Under Pressure: 36.07%
Most Common Personnel Package: 11 personnel (44.61%)
Shotgun Percentage: 83.53%
Empty Formations Frequency: 15.57%
Play-Action Percentage: 33.53%
Play-Action Adjusted Accuracy: 79.82%
Designed Rollout Frequency: 3.59%
Eason comes in right around average, if not slightly above, in adjusted accuracy. He completed just fewer than 60% of his passes in college, but considering how regularly Washington’s skill players dropped the ball, it makes some sense that Eason’s accuracy numbers are far better than his completion numbers. That being said, Eason’s accuracy numbers are massively skewed by his excellence in the 1-5 yard area, which generally means a clean pocket and an easy throw, and play-action passing, which is generally easier for any quarterback to operate in as opposed to true drop back.
Putting up stellar numbers in the 1-5 yard area and on play-action is not a problem in and of itself, but in the case of Eason, they so clearly buoy his overall adjusted accuracy score to make up for massive deficiencies outside the pocket, under pressure, and down the field. Not only does Eason have the second-lowest deep accuracy percentage thus far, he also has the worst adjusted accuracy under pressure by a wide margin and has one of the worst adjusted accuracy scores outside the pocket. When Eason is forced to do anything but clean-pocket passing to an early read, his game falls apart entirely.
The out-of-pocket number is particularly interesting to me. Eason isn’t just poor outside the pocket, he also doesn’t throw from there very often. Thus far, only Fromm, who we all know to be a stationary passer, has posted a lower percentage of passes outside the pocket than Eason. What’s troubling is that athleticism isn’t the issue for Eason the way it is for Fromm. Eason is a plenty capable athlete who can flip his shoulders and bail the pocket in an instant, if need be. He can dash to 10, 15, 20 yard gains if left unattended for a moment. The issue, rather, is Eason is almost entirely unwilling to embrace those situations and seldom shows off the creativity to succeed once he does finally break the pocket. Again, everything needs to be going smoothly for Eason to operate.
Avg. Number of Pass Rushers: 4.28
Three or Fewer Pass Rushers Frequency: 12.87%
Four Pass Rushers Frequency: 54.79%
Five Pass Rushers Frequency: 24.55%
Six or More Pass Rushers Frequency: 7.78%
Not much to see here, unfortunately. Eason saw a handful of different defenses throughout the year, from BYU’s drop-eight coverages to Utah’s aggressive and pressure-heavy front-seven, and the pass-rush numbers evened themselves out over the course of the season. Eason’s pass-rush opposition profile is about as standard as it gets.
3rd/4th Down Adjusted Accuracy: 70.85%
3rd/4th Down Conversion Rate: 44.68%
4th Quarter/Overtime Adjusted Accuracy: 65.69%
Red Zone Adjusted Accuracy: 74.71%
Eason is bold in the face of situational pressure. As far as 3rd/4th down and the red zone goes, Eason is above average with respect to his ball placement. Whether or not he is aggressive enough in these situations is a different discussion, but it's tough to argue that Eason is not giving his guys chances in these must-convert situations.
Where Eason does falter a bit, however, is in the fourth quarter. In 2019, Washington ended up even or behind in a lot of fourth quarters (in part because Eason struggled to get them out to comfortable leads vs good teams), which forced the passing offense to go into overdrive to attempt to save the game. While Eason was fearless in attacking all over the field to try to salvage these games, Eason too often misfired. Considering Eason's pressure rate in the fourth quarter was 24.62%, which is well over his standard pressure rate, I suspect the added pass-rush pressure got to Eason and he was not able to consistently combat it.