Does Chris Simms know his quarterbacks?

A six-year look back at his draft projections

As a self-described “non-tape watching” guy, I generally rely on the aggregated opinions of people with lots of “tape watching” experience – scouts, former scouts, and former coaches and players – to form most of my own talent evaluation opinions leading up the NFL draft. One analyst I’ve found to be among the more reliable, particularly when it comes to quarterback projections into the NFL is former Buccaneers’ QB Chris Simms.

Each year, for at least the better part of the last decade, Simms drops rankings for players at each position in the lead up to the draft. Earlier this week, he dropped his QB rankings…..and all hell broke loose:

The Drake Maye minions immediately swarmed every incarnation of this list on social media, and swiftly proceeded to assail cherry-picked elements of Simms’ past rankings – some of which were just a bit off.

So that got me thinking, how has Simms compared to other draft analysts in terms of projecting college QBs to the NFL? I’ve decided to compare him against two draft luminaries: Mel Kiper (who has been one of the best NFL analysts at predicting draft performance outcomes) and Lance Zierlein, of NFL.com, who isn’t far behind.

Below, I’ll go year by year, since 2018, looking at how the predictions of each has faired in retrospect:

2018

1. Lamar Jackson, Louisville

2. Josh Allen, Wyoming

3. Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma

4. Sam Darnold, USC

5. Josh Rosen, UCLA

Kiper:

1. Josh Allen, Wyoming

2. Sam Darnold, USC

3. Josh Rosen, UCLA

4. Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma

5. Lamar Jackson, Louisville

Zierlein:

1. Sam Darnold, USC

2. Josh Rosen, UCLA

3. Lamar Jackson, Louisville

4. Baker Mayfield, Oklahoma

5. Josh Allen, Wyoming

Summary:

Simms absolutely crushed the projections here, as well as Kiper and – particularly – Zierlein. Simms hit the top three, in order, whereas both Kiper and Zierlein had two of the top three in their 4 and 5 slots. Completely blowing the top two, Zierlein failed this draft, we can give Kiper a “D”, and Simms gets a clear “A.”

2019

1. Kyler Murray, Oklahoma

2. Drew Lock, Missouri

3. Dwayne Haskins, Ohio State

4. Ryan Finley, NC State

5. Jarrett Stidham, Auburn

6. Daniel Jones, Duke

7. Clayton Thorson, Northwestern

8. Will Grier, West Virginia

Kiper:

1. Kyler Murray, Oklahoma

2. Dwayne Haskins, Ohio State

3. Drew Lock, Missouri

4. Daniel Jones, Duke

5. Will Grier, West Virginia

Zierlein:

1. Kyler Murray, Oklahoma

2. Dwayne Haskins, Ohio State

3. Daniel Jones, Duke

4. Drew Lock, Missouri

Summary:

In a class where Kyler Murray ended up being just about the only good QB, all three men got that one right. Zierlein was a bit higher on #2 – Daniel Jones – than the other two, but practically, that’s the only thing that separates them. Zierlein gets “B,” Kiper gets a “B-,” and Simms gets a “C+.”

2020

1. Joe Burrow, LSU

2. Justin Herbert, Oregon

3. Jordan Love, Utah State

4. Tua Tagovailoa, Alabama

5. Jacob Eason, Washington

Kiper:

1. Joe Burrow, LSU

2. Tua Tagovailoa, Alabama

3. Justin Herbert, Oregon

4. Jordan Love, Utah State

5. Jacob Eason, Washington

6. Jalen Hurts, Oklahoma

Zierlein:

1. Joe Burrow, LSU

2. Tua Tagovailoa, Alabama

3. Justin Herbert, Oregon

4. Jordan Love, Utah State

Summary:

All of these guys basically nailed this draft and, in retrospect, it turned out to be a great QB draft. Too bad Washington selected an over-hyped EDGE number two overall. The grading differences essentially come down to whether you think Jordan Love is better than Tua at this point in their careers. I’ll give them all “A”s for this one, however.

2021

1. Zach Wilson, BYU

2. Trevor Lawrence, Clemson

3. Mac Jones, Alabama

4. Kellen Mond, Texas A&M

5. Justin Fields, Ohio State

6. Trey Lance, North Dakota State

Kiper:

1. Trevor Lawrence, Clemson

2. Justin Fields, Ohio State

3. Zach Wilson, BYU

4. Mac Jones, Alabama

5. Trey Lance, North Dakota State

Zierlein:

1. Trevor Lawrence, Clemson

2. Zach Wilson, BYU

3. Mac Jones, Alabama

4. Trey Lance, North Dakota State

5. Justin Fields, Ohio State

Summary:

This is the draft where Simms may have gotten a bit high on his own supply. Going Wilson over Lawrence, when people had Lawrence going #1 overall for two years beforehand was a bold – and, it turns out, totally bonkers – call. That said, both Kiper and Zierlein overestimated the boy wonder from BYU as well. All three analysts nailed the fact that Trey Lance was badly overdrafted by the 49ers.

Simms fails this one, if only for missing so badly on Lawrence. The other two receive “C”s.

2022

1. Matt Corral, Ole Miss

2. Kenny Pickett, Pitt

3. Malik Willis, Liberty

4. Sam Howell, UNC

5. Desmond Ridder, Cincinnati

Kiper:

1. Malik Willis, Liberty

2. Kenny Pickett, Pitt

3. Matt Corral, Ole Miss

4. Desmond Ridder, Cincinnati

5. Sam Howell, UNC

Zierlein:

1. Malik Willis, Liberty

2. Kenny Pickett, Pitt

Summary:

Woof. This class looked so bad from the outset that these three analysts – wisely – only had one or two QBs going in the first round. All got their top pick wrong, and all of them picked Pickett, who was the best of a rotten crop, second. “C”s all around for this group.

2023

1. C.J. Stroud, Ohio State

2. Bryce Young, Alabama

3. Hendon Hooker, Tennessee

4. Anthony Richardson, Florida

T-5. Dorian Thompson-Robinson, UCLA

T-5. Will Levis, Kentucky

Kiper:

1. Bryce Young, Alabama

2. Will Levis, Kentucky

3. C.J. Stroud, Ohio State

4. Anthony Richardson, Florida

5. Hendon Hooker, Tennessee

Zierlein:

1. Bryce Young, Alabama

2. Will Levis, Kentucky

3. C.J. Stroud, Ohio State

4. Anthony Richardson, Florida

Summary:

It’s still a bit early on this one, but a single year in, Simms seems to be the fairly clear winner, having nailed the selection of CJ Stroud. Richardson, who may end up as second overall, was 4th in all the rankings. Hooker has yet to take a snap. Simms gets an “A-” for nailing the top pick, the other two, who both went Young/Levis, get “D”s that could evolve into “F”s over time.

Conclusion

Each of the three analysts had good years and bad years. Below are the grades (and final GPA) for each:

Simms – A, C+, A, F, C, A- = 2.67 (B-)

Kiper – D, B-, A, C, C, D = 2.28 (C+)

Zierlein – F, B, A, C, C, D = 2 (C)

Some may characterize my grading scheme as arbitrary, and it is a bit subjective, however, even when Simms has “missed” on the best QB in the draft (2021 & 2022), he was only off by one position (i.e., he had #1 ranked #2). In other words, in all six years examined, the best QB was one of Simms’ top two.

Importantly, that was the case for neither Kiper nor Zierlein. Kiper completely missed in one season (2023) and Zierlein whiffed in two (2018 & 2023). Simms has also nailed 1 and 2 in at least two of these drafts (2018 and 2020), and he could very well end up being right on a third (2023). Arguably, neither of the other two ever did that in this timeframe.

This draft is very QB talent rich, probably not that dissimilar from 2018 in some respects, and that draft evaluation may have been Simms’ magnum opus. Based on that track record, and Washington’s draft position, I think a strong case can be made for grabbing Daniels at #2.

I’ll be curious to hear what you think.