Quantifying Quarterbacks: Trevone Boykin Puts up Gaudy Stat Line vs. Texas Tech

Much like last season, TCU’s matchup with Texas Tech came down to the wire this weekend. Trevone Boykin threw a miracle, tipped touchdown pass to seal the game away with less than one minute to go. Though Boykin played fine and stressed the Texas Tech defense with more than just his arm, the real star was his teammate Josh Doctson, who was targeted 21 times by Boykin.

This week’s installment of Quantifying Quarterbacks tells a story of a quarterback who plays favorites, and it pays off.

Key:

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

Total: 35/54 (64.81%)

Rush Breakdown:

• 3 Man Rush: 16 Times, 3 Pressures – 10/16 (3 DE, 1 ADJ, 1 TD)

• 4 Man Rush: 29 Times, 5 Pressures – 20/29 (4 DE, 2 ADJ/TD, 1 TD)

• 5 Man Rush: 8 Times, 6 Pressures – 4/8 (2 Throwaways)

• 6 Man Rush: 1 Time, 1 Pressure – 0/1 (1 DE)

Passing When Pressured: 6/14 (3 DE, 1 ADJ/TD)

Play Action: 4/9 (2 DE, 1 TD)

3rd Downs: 6/10 (1 DE, ADJ, 1 ADJ/TD, TD)

Red Zone: 5/9 (2 DE, 2 TD, 1 ADJ/TD)

Route Break Key:

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

Target Distribution:

Not too far into the season, Trevone Boykin has already earned himself some Heisman consideration. His athleticism and live arm coupled with the nature of TCU’s offense has created a highly productive machine out of Boykin. For the most part, TCU’s offense is the same offense that Derek Carr ran at Fresno State. TCU does a bit more with the quarterback as a running threat, but generally, the offenses are identical. The offense runs a core of plays, mostly screens, ten yard curls, four verticals and inside zone, some of them being grouped together in packaged plays. These packaged plays group a run play with a pass play and allow the quarterback to choose at the line of scrimmage depending on what he sees. The decision is not the part of the process in which Boykin struggles.

From odd platforms, Boykin struggles mightily getting the ball where it needs to be. This cost Boykin a handful of throws, many of which were ten yard curl routes that Boykin couldn’t throw to cleanly. Boykin tended to see the pressure, shy away and throw from a weak base or without one entirely, leading him to overthrow this precision route more often than he should have. Not being able to complete throws in less than ideal conditions is what held Boykin back from having a truly special performance.

What may have been more embarrassing was how many screen throws Boykin did not complete. On 11 screen attempts, four of them fell to the ground. To miss one screen pass every now and again is understandable, but to miss four in a single game is pitiful. Boykin has to be able to settle his arm and complete these throws. Most of the screens Boykin missed were to a player moving laterally out of the backfield, so the throw was a bit tougher, though what Boykin did was inexcusable. Granted, Boykin was able to feed his most dynamic receiver throughout the game to make up for missing some routine plays.

Boykin abused the TTU defense through Josh Doctson, who seemingly dominates every defensive back that he faces. Of Boykin’s 54 total attempts, 21 of them were throwing at Doctson. Doctson caught a stunning 18 of those targets for three touchdowns and more than 250+ yards. A majority of the routes Doctson ran were either a vertical route or an intermediate inward breaking route. Regardless of the route, Boykin often trusted Doctson to win the play, so he targeted him as often as he could. Doctson may have been pulling more of the weight in this relationship, but at the very least, Boykin deserves credit for taking advantage of his most destructive weapon.

A key part to the dynamic is not necessarily that Doctson was always open (granted, he was), but that Boykin’s default is to turn to Doctson. If Boykin saw even just a glimpse of room for Doctson to work with, he forced a throw in. This almost turned out to be an easy interception on one play, but considering all the good that came from Boykin’s aggression toward Doctson, that singular foul up is forgivable. Boykin made it a priority to get the ball to his best play maker and it worked out just as he intended.

Though, contrary to the perception of him, Boykin did not make it a priority to run that often. There were still a handful of plays he gave up because he chose to run prematurely, but this was not his worst game in that regard by any stretch. If Boykin plans on getting drafted high, he is going to have to prove that he can settle down and throw when he should throw. Now, that is not to say athlete’s should not use their athleticism. It is to say that athleticism must be used as more of a maximizer than an outright tool. Even then, the issue versus Texas Tech was less about Boykin running and more about his movement in the pocket.

Boykin is still as jittery as ever in the pocket. As soon as any defender breaks the pocket, he takes a random step to try to get out of the way. Often times, this is a backwards step which either leads to a poor back foot throw or forces him to lose ground if he decides to bail out and run. This antsy behavior will lead to a bad play either way. As seen through his sub-50% completion rating when pressured, Boykin may not be up to handle the intensity NFL quarterbacks face.

The best comparison for Trevone Boykin is imagining what Robert Griffin III looked like in high school. Quick, live arm and a rail thin frame- that is what Boykin is right now. His decision making vs TTU was more than adequate, though he struggled when the chips were down on a given play. In fairness, calmness near the end of the game enabled TCU to march down the field and win the game. Boykin did not play poorly by any stretch. In fact, he played quite well, but in regards to projectable ability, Boykin fell a bit short in a lot of critical areas.