jewhawk wrote:The whole idea of a sophomore slump is overblown and based on a players' performance compared to the perceived expectation of what he should do. A rookie is expected to play at a C level but actually plays at a B level, generating a ton of hype about how great he was. Then everyone assumes he will progress and play at an A level in his second year, but instead he plays at a B+ level so he is considered a disappointment despite being better than he was as a rookie.
Consider these two QBs:
Player A: 6.24 ANY/A, 7.8 Y/A, 0.16 EPA/P, 84.5 Rating, 3.3 INT%, 404 DYAR, 0.8% DVOA; 706 rush yards, 5.6 rush Y/A
Player B: 6.65 ANY/A, 8.0 Y/A, 0.21 EPA/P, 86.2 Rating, 2.5 INT%, 422 DYAR, 2.0% DVOA; 741 rush yards, 5.8 rush Y/A
Player A is rookie Cam Newton; Player B is second year Cam Newton. He is the most recent poster child of sophomore slumps despite being better in his second year than in his rookie year.
It's possible that Wilson will be worse in his second year than he was as a rookie, but it's unlikely. Most players are better in their second years than they were as rookies.
Cam is a bad example.
Player A: 134-235; 57.0%; 1902 yards; 6 TDs; 8 INTs; 77.7 QB rating; 347 rushing yards; 4 rushing TDs; 8 fumbles (3 lost)
Player B: 146-250; 58.4%; 1967 yards; 13 TDs; 4 INTs; 94.2 QB rating; 394 rushing yards; 4 rushing TDs; 2 fumbles (0 lost)
That's Cam Newton for the first 8 and last 8 games last year.
Newton was going through a very real sophomore slump last year, and although I've split it into two even 8 game sections, really it only lasted 9 games before he realised he had to keep working at it and hadn't "made it" already.