Quantifying Quarterbacks: Connor Cook Hangs On To Beat Michigan

The Quantifying Quarterbacks series has developed into a pseudo “yes/no” list for the 2016 crop of quarterbacks. To this point, only two of the highlighted passers show quality promise. Michigan State’s Connor Cook does not raise that count.

By: Derrik Klassen

Key:

• ADJ = Adjustment
• DE = Drop w/ effort or defended pass
• DB = Dropped blatantly
• TD = Touchdown
• TO = Turnover (Interception)

Total: 16/37 (43.24%) (“jet/touch” passes are not counted)

Rush Breakdown:

• 3 Man Rush: 2 Times, 1 Pressure (1/2)
• 4 Man Rush: 14 Times, 2 Pressures (7/14, 6 DE, 1 DB, 1 ADJ, 1 TD)

• 5 Man Rush: 19 TImes, 4 Pressures (8/19, 5 DE, 2 DB, 2 ADJ)
• 6 Man Rush: 2 Times, 2 Pressures (0/2, 1 Throwaway)

Passing When Pressured: 2/9 (3 DE, 1 DB, 1 ADJ, 1 Throwaway)

Play Action: 4/6

Rollouts:

• Roll to Field:2/4
• Roll to Boundary: 0/0

3rd Downs: 2/9 (5 DE, 1 Throwaway)

Red Zone: 0/0

Route Break Key:

• S = Screen, Shoot, Swing
• O = Out-breaking
• I = In-breaking
• V = Vertical
• C = Crossing

Target Distribution:

Connor Cook can not escape being mediocre. Though Michigan State came away with a miraculous win over their big brother Michigan, Cook did little to put points on the board for the Spartans. A handful of the throws he made down the field were well needed explosive plays, but Cook’s placement at other levels of the field was cumbersome to the offense. Drives were halted one after another because Cook failed to cleanly get the ball to his receivers, especially on 3rd downs. Cook was able to convert just two of his nine passing attempts on 3rd down, leaving Michigan State to call on their punting team more often than they should have. Michigan’s defense gave Cook his biggest challenge of the year and it was obvious.

What may not be so obvious is that Cook is not a first round quarterback talent. The illusion with Cook is that he does not look bad in comparison to most of the other quarterbacks in the class. Cook’s arm, size, adequate intelligence and splash plays give him a collection of positives that most of the others in this class lack, at least to some degree. That is no excuse to rate him highly, though. Cook is a better option than most every other draft eligible quarterback, but that does not make him a better NFL prospect than he would be in a vacuum.

There are a handful of other sub-traits and functions expected out of a quarterback, but ultimately, the quarterback’s job is as simple as pitch-and-catch. Cook struggled to get the ball to his receivers versus Michigan. Michigan was playing outstanding defense and that fact may give Cook a little bit of flak protection, but he should have at least been able to put the ball in a place where his receiver had a decent shot at the ball and he failed to do that. By the end of the game, Cook had thrown far more 50/50 balls than anyone ever should, and many of them were not because the coverage forced it. Michigan’s coverage was routinely adequate, though it was Cook’s inability to throw his receivers open that wrecked his completion percentage.

11 of Cook’s 37 attempts were incomplete due to either poor ball placement that forced a drop or a defender got a piece of the ball (denoted by DE). That is a large portion of Cook’s attempts, not to mention the four receptions that required adjustments from the receiver. Some of these were ill-advised throws into coverage, while others can be blamed on Cook’s accuracy- or lack thereof. Regardless, Cook too often tips the catch point to the defense’s favor because of his flaws.

Most of Cook’s ill-advised throws do not come directly from overconfidence, though he is not free of those throws either. Rather, Cook tends to throw into coverage if he has to move off of his immediate read. Cook is not dumb, but the level in which he can read the field is limited. To this point, Cook has only solidified his intelligence when reading about a quarter of the field in front of him. Concepts like “Stick” and “Spacing” should be a big part of the playbook with Cook behind center. Conversely, concepts like “Smash” or “Dagger”, plays that will ask Cook to read every layer of the field and keep his feet moving, may not be best suited for him. Cook needs to get the ball out quickly and cleanly. If he is put in an environment to do so, he may breed great success. Though, nowhere in the NFL provides such an environment because defenses are talented and aggressive and will compromise offenses regardless.

The NFL’s heightened aggression will get to Cook. Michigan barely put pressure on Cook and he still failed miserably against pressure. In the NFL, with rushers getting to him quicker, Cook is going to make countless mistakes in the face of pressure (see: Michigan State vs Baylor – 2014). He needs to be able to process the field faster and understand that he must get the ball out before the pocket has a chance to crumble. If Cook does not work on this part of his game, defenses will send even more rushers to scare him and he will always be a turnover machine. Considering prospects seldom develop traits as natural as fear handling, Cook’s future interception percentage could look ugly.

In the same way the Cook’s tendency to panic throw can not really be fixed, Cook’s accuracy is likely going to stagnate as well. There are more factors involved here, though. Cook’s inaccuracies largely root from mechanical failures. He fails to reset quickly, he shows a short step in his base when operating out of the shotgun and his release point fluctuates. This may sound nitpicky, but Cook is a player that requires technical refinement for success and does not yet have that refinement. More than likely, he will never have the refinement he needs. Part of this is because players generally do not develop weak traits as well as we theorize, but a redshirt senior who will be 23 years old by draft day does not have much room left to grow. By this time, Cook is more than likely going to be who he is from a process standpoint.

Of course, Cook is not all bad. While his accuracy is more than often average, Cook has a handful of throws per game, including the Michigan game, in which he looks like a legitimate NFL passer. Out of nowhere, Cook will fire a stunning seam throw or deep out that makes you want to believe he is more than pre-Hue Jackson Andy Dalton. Alas, until Cook strings together more of these throws with some consistency, it will be tough to view those plays as anything more than a flash in the pan.

Oddly enough, Michigan made Cook look like a Michigan State alum: Brian Hoyer. Cook is not the same player as Hoyer, though they may be dynamically similar. In Cleveland, Hoyer had success because he made enough of the short throws for his (very) fortunate passing down field to pay off. Cook’s performance vs Michigan was a microcosm of that play dynamic. Cook will show this inefficient, boom-or-bust dynamic, at least for the earlier part of his career. Cook’s only real development is going to come through X-and-O’s, so he may be able to turn into a more low-risk player, though it is tough to see him becoming a threatening player. Size, school and perceived arm strength will still get Cook drafted high, though it is unlikely that he plays up to his draft slot expectations.