Quantifying Quarterbacks: Matt Johnson Shows Inefficiency vs. Western Michigan

The Quantifying Quarterbacks series is rounding out its relevant passers for the 2016 Draft, but not before highlighting Bowling Green’s Matt Johnson.

By: Derrick Klassen

Key:

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

Total: 23/41 (56.10%)

Rush Breakdown:

• 2 Man Rush: 1 Time, 0 Pressures (1/1)

• 3 Man Rush: 4 Times, 2 Pressures (2/4, 1 Throwaway)

• 4 Man Rush: 13 Times, 2 Pressures (6/13, 3 DE, 1 DB, 1 ADJ)

• 5 Man Rush: 20 Times, 8 Pressures (13/20, 3 DE, 1 ADJ)
• 6 Man Rush: 2 Times, 1 Pressure (1/2)

Passing When Pressured: 6/13 (3 DE, 1 Throwaway)

Play Action: 9/15 (1 DE, 1 ADJ)

Rollouts:

• Roll to Field: 0/1
• Roll to Boundary: 0/0

3rd Downs: 5/6 (1 Throwaway)

Route Break Key:

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

Target Distribution:

As each year passes, there is more and more talk of quarterbacks being system dependent when they come from an offense that is some variation of the spread. There are a handful of passers who have transcended this notion and developed well regardless of their collegiate system, but it is generally acceptable to admit that time was lost by playing in a variation of the spread offense. The condensed version of the most common complaint is that these players are task-oriented, a term coined by Eric Stoner in his analysis of Marcus Mariota. Matt Johnson fits the mold- to a large fault.

In the case of Mariota, there was an obvious element of being task-oriented in which he displayed a sense of uncertainty if the structure of the play crumbled. Though, to his credit, Mariota was asked to do a lot more in his system than many other “spread” quarterbacks do, and exponentially more so than Johnson has had to do at Bowling Green. Furthermore, Mariota executed the offense with near perfection.

Johnson, on the other hand, may run the simplest offense in college football, and does not render any semblance of Mariota’s results. Bowling Green’s offense is structurally similar to TCU and Fresno State (when Derek Carr was there), but there seem to be fewer drop steps and fewer reads. In large part, Johnson is taking one step, looking at his first man (likely for a few seconds, if the route concept is anything but a screen) and firing.

The idea is that the constant stressing of the underneath area of the field will force the defense to cheat up and get beat over the top. Bruce Arians, among plenty of others, has made a career out of this idea. Against Western Michigan, surprise, surprise: it worked! Well, sort of. Bowling Green’s receivers were getting the isolated coverage they wanted on a lot of plays, but Johnson failed to convert like he should have, often launching the ball five or so yards over his receiver’s head. Of his 12 vertical attempts, only 3 of them were completed, and that is even less impressive when considering one of them required an adjustment to the ball. This puts Johnson at 25% of completion, at best, on what should be his “money” plays. 25% is a pitiful success rate no matter how it’s spun.

The issue, more than anything else, is that Johnson is “spot throwing”. Instead of doing his best to put the ball on a line to where his target will be, his is heaving the ball up and hoping that his receiver tracks it.  This can work for some passers, like Ben Roethlisberger and Joe Flacco, but it is largely frowned upon and generally riskier. Being a spot thrower still requires the passer to leave the ball in an advantageous spot for the receiver to go up and grab it, yet Johnson seldom gives his receivers that courtesy. Granted, spot throwing quarterbacks typically have athletic receivers and Bowling Green has not provided that for Johnson, though that is no excuse as it is on Johnson to get the ball there no matter what. Though, Johnson did well enough with the throws designed to set up the deep throws to somewhat mitigate his inability to capitalize.

If Johnson’s Vertical and Screen throws are taken off the record (that isn’t how this works, but bear with me), he finds himself having a more “typical” completion percentage of just under 65%. This is nothing to shout from the rooftops over, but it may suggest that what Bowling Green is doing on offense is not ideal for Johnson. His accuracy on film, as his percentage would suggest, is not special either, but again, it seems as if Johnson would be more fit in a system that does not force him to go vertical but still holds true to its one-read nature. Johnson is much better suited hitting moving targets than he is gauging depth, even though what he is asked to do is entirely opposite of that claim.

Evaluations like this are always more frustrating because there is an assumption that his role would have to change in the NFL. For comparisons sake, the offense Carson Wentz ran at North Dakota State would have likely been a quality fit for Johnson at the collegiate level, as it allowed routes to develop while still keeping reads to a minimum. In the NFL, he would need to be helped along with a lot of comfortable concepts, like Mariota has been granted, or a top notch quarterback teacher, like Johnny Manziel has been blessed with this year.

To that note, there is legitimate concern about how much of the offense Johnson can be trusted to handle. So much of Bowling Green’s offense is predetermined- certainly to a fault, as the intercepted screen throw would infer- and Johnson would encounter a daunting learning curve in the NFL, a curve so steep that, considering he does not have any elite traits, will likely be impossible to overcome or mitigate. The arm isn’t there to make up for pause like it is for Cam Newton; the anticipation and accuracy isn’t there to make up for an average arm like it is for, say, Philip Rivers; and so on and so forth.

Matt Johnson is not a bad quarterback, 56% of completion be damned. He is a “yes man” quarterback who is going to make the designed throw and, unless it is a vertical shot, will throw it well enough to not sink the offense. Though, Johnson does not win with mental prowess and does not have any sort of physical trump card, leaving him to be more of a dime-a-dozen type passer than a raw player who may have a redeemable tool. Johnson may get a call following the draft, but do not expect a replaceable player like him to be drafted.