Why history doesn't like the statistical profile of new Colts QB Anthony Richarson

There is a lot to like about Colts first-round pick Anthony Richardson. He's the most athletic quarterback to test at the combine. He's got a rocket for an arm. It's not hard to find reasons to like him.

History, however, does not like Richardson. Here are 4 things to know about his statistical profile:

Anthony Richardson is not an accurate passer

Richardson completed 54.7% of his passes. Yes, the situation at Florida was not good from his receivers to coaching changes to drops. But that was 13th out of 14 starting SEC quarterbacks.

I looked at the top 100 in passing yards in NFL history and you have to go back to Drew Bledsoe in 1992 -- 54.3% -- to find a successful quarterback who completed fewer of his college passes. (Mark Brunell competed 52.0% of his college passes and was also drafted in 1992.) Thirty years is a lifetime in football.

There have been other top 100 quarterbacks who were close to Richardson's mark: Jeff Garcia (55.1%, 1993), Steve McNair (55.8%, 1994), Jake Plummer (55.4%, 1996), Matt Hasselbeck (55.6%, 1997) and Michael Vick (56.0%, 2000).

So we're still going back 20 years to find a quarterback who has succeed with that level of inaccuracy.

Anthony Richardson is not an accurate passer, Part II

The biggest flaw in the study above is it doesn't pull in all the most recent data. So here are all the quarterbacks drafted in the first-round since 2000 who had a lower completion percentage in college than Richardson:

Jake Locker (.540), Kyle Boller (.478) and Joey Harrington (.512).

Not a good list. But, again, there's nothing magical about Richardson's .547 completion percentage. Let's open it up to anyone below .590:

Josh Allen (.562), Lamar Jackson (.570), Matt Stafford (.571), Brady Quinn (.580), Jay Cutler (57.2), J.P. Losman (57.8), Michael Vick (.560).

Now we have something to work with. Allen, Jackson and Vick are also double threat quarterbacks, so while history doesn't like Richardson's profile, it's not completely dismissing him either.

Anthony Richardson is really inexperienced

Richardson threw 393 passes at Florida. There have been roughly 450 college quarterbacks since 2000 that have thrown between 250 and 500 passes. Two were successful NFL quarterbacks: Cam Newton and Michael Vick.

There are two reasons why experience matters. One, obviously the more you play, the more you're exposed to and the more you can learn. Two, it means you were the best quarterback on your team.

There' no shame in Richardson not being able to beat out Kyle Trask as a freshman. But he also couldn't beat out Emory Jones in 2021. Jones is a solid starting college quarterback but no one is projecting him as a first-round pick.

But, we can add Newton to the list of comps.

How does Anthony Richardson stack up against his comps?

First, it's important to note that Allen and Jackson are, effectively, contemporaries of Richardson. There's reason to believe the NFL has changed to allow less accurate college quarterbacks a better chance to make it in the NFL. But let's look deeper at the comparisons:

Anthony Richardson: 393 attempts, 54.7%, 3,105 yards, 7.9 yards per attempt, 25 TDs, 15 interceptions, 1,116 rushing yards and 12 touchdowns on 161 attempts; team was 6-6.

Lamar Jackson: 1,086 attempts, 57.0%, 9,043 yards, 8.3 yards per attempt, 69 touchdowns, 27 interceptions, 4,132 rushing yards and 50 TDs on 655 attempts; team was 25-14.

Cam Newton: 292 attempts, 65.4%, 2,908 yards, 10.0 yards per attempt, 30 TDs, 7 interceptions, 1,586 rushing yards and 24 TDs on 285 attempts; team was 14-0.

Michael Vick: 343 attempts, 56.0%, 3,299 yards, 7.7 yards per attempt, 21 touchdowns, 11 interceptions, 1,299 rushing yards and 17 TDs on 235 carries; his team was 21-1.

Josh Allen 649 attempts, 56.2%, 5,066 yards, 7.8 yards per attempt, 44 TDs, 21 interceptions, 767 rushing yards, 12 touchdowns on 237 attempts; team was 15-9.

There is a lot of noise in college statistics. Only Newton played against comparable competition, for instance. Richardson was a better college quarterback than Allen. He's the best runner of this group (no small feat). But it's hard to see his college career as particularly comparable to Jackson, Newton or Vick. His experience level is similar to Newton and Vick but their teams were far more successful (and Newton was a far more accurate passer). Jackson played far more, getting better with each season.

Conclusion

I hope Richardson is successful. At a minimum, he'll be fascinating to watch. History is not on his side but the present is a little more on his side.

You can definitely talk yourself into Richardson even with this statistical look at his college career. But there's no doubt the Colts are placing a big bet on him.

This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Colt: Why history doesn't like the profile of Anthony Richardson