IMPACT STATE: Colorado, BYU, Iowa State, TCU, Houston, and LSU. 

Robertson’s length is apparent in his entire operation. To that point, his lower-half is awfully inconsistent. In addition to going all-arm at times, he can demonstrably swing his long back leg or rock a high knee on his follow-thru; particularly when aiming left. Plus, he can shuffle his feet when processing coverages. This leads to constant balance issues that affect his down-to-down catchability. For instance, he can miss high when attempting to layer passes over the middle; or waste too many deep balls; or miss his mark on a dump off. 

 Robertson’s long legs, however, do him plenty of favors on the move. His strides can be deceiving for open field defenders to track. And the Bear has serviceable acceleration to win the edge, offering substance as a play extender. Obviously, this did him well when scrambling (7.0 Y/A, 56% Success) but it also helped him reduce clutter and scan the field more efficiently. 

While his mechanics when stationary had the aforementioned kinks, Robertson’s gawkiness morphed into gallantry when he broke rank. Numerous throw-and-chase darts pop on tape. Even if rollouts and operating outside of structure wasn’t an emphasis from Baylor, he was the Impact Study’s most successful and accurate passer in these spots. 

 Regrettably, the results were not the same when Robertson faced pressure. His erraticism worsened. Despite holding his own curtailing takedowns, his play in this context remains a glaring wart on his profile. Including throwaways, over half of his duressed dropbacks weren’t catchable. Plus, he was 4x more likely to toss a turnover-worthy throw as log and explosive completion. Lucky for him (and his bottomline), however, Baylor’s OL was elite at handling havoc. So, he wasn’t under the gun as much as his contemporaries. But, this flaw remains a massive area of opportunity to address. 

 Robertson could also stand to develop some patience. His blockers were too good to act as anxiously as he did at times. Instead of playing out his progression, he would look to run a beat too soon and strive to get to his “safe space" beyond the bookends where he felt more comfortable. 

Robertson is often his best self when his pre and post-snap pictures match. He’s under more control and displays better overall placement. And as a passer that overly lives outside the numbers, his vertical anticipation is sharp. He can quickly identify winning matchups and knows how to leverage space. Backshoulders were strikingly effective tools in his arsenal. If his first read is shut down, Robertson’s progression eyes aren’t entirely terrible. But he got burned a few times by backside  “blind reads” – or when his arm was ahead of his eyes and he released the ball before he could confirm an opening. 

 That notion can be partially explained by his disappointing tight window numbers. Whether it was generally poor precision, an extended windup triggering defenders, or arm hubris, Robertson’s contested attempts fudged his figures at large; accounting for nearly a quarter of his throws. The majority of his metrics noticeably finished in the red. 

 Pathetic play under pressure, questionable post-snap processing, and unsettling stats on contests are all red flags in of themselves. But, Robertson’s flimsy passing floor might be his biggest pothole. Like many, the plurality of his attempts came from clean dropbacks from inside the pocket without guises. But when asked to deal in structure without the aid of screens, RPOs, or play actions, he unequivocally struggled, despite no threat of pressure altering his operation. 

With the exception of his 9.5% Interceptable Pass Rate – that comfortably fell into the dangerzone – every single of his placements stats in this context finished dead last in our Impact Study. A seventh of these throws were altered by defenders! Behind high errancy typically driven by his mercurial mechanics, his results stunk. His 4.9 ANY/A was the group’s 4th-worst clip. 

 Since “passing floor” snaps make up such a large chunk of a passer’s profile, they often can be good reflections of a QB’s down-to-down output. But in Robertson’s case, this breakout implies he is fool’s gold. Toosly and talented, he can certainly still right the ship. But it's practical to ask: How far can he go with all those holes in his resume?

Bad Take Brooks Sees a

Ryan Mallett type

GLOSSARY