The Name's Bond
The Name's Bond
We've got all the time in the world today to discuss 007's latest destination--Austin, TX.
The name’s Bond. James Bond.
- James Bond, international man of mystery
The subject of today’s article— Isaiah ‘007’ Bond, is not only a stud football player, but also boasts (an apparently well-earned) reputation as a serial womanizer. Of course, this shouldn’t come as a surprise, given that he’s the long lost descendant of his relative from across the pond— James.
Bond that is, who himself embodied the term ‘volume pig’ in his romantic dealings across the globe. However, he is not the only old head that Isaiah shares a commonality with. Like his head coach, Steve Sarkisian, Bond recently made the trip west by way of Tuscaloosa, sticking the proverbial middle finger up to the Crimson Tide faithful in the process. As Alabama football fans are renowned for, they reacted to Bond’s transfer with kindness and understanding, wishing him well on his way out.
But Texas fans weren't the only ones who rejoiced when Bond made his move. Upon the news, the CFF community began circling like sharks, drafting Bond as the first Texas WR off the board in bestball drafts starting in February. Indeed, according to Campus2Canton’s ADP calculator, Bond has the highest ADP of any Texas WR (114).
But should he be drafted as the number one Texas receiver? And if so, how high is appropriate for a player like this? To answer these questions, we will start where we usually do: what do the pig farming patterns say?
Coaching & System: Two WR Weapons Usually
WR1 PPG: 15.2 — WR2 PPG: 11.51
Both of Texas’ primary play callers—Steve Sarkisian (head coach) and Kyle Flood (offensive coordinator)—joined the program in 2021 by way of Alabama football. Sark served as the OC at ‘Bama from 2019-20 (his second stint with the program), where his offences went absolutely apeshit (more on this soon), after spending two seasons in the same role in the NFL with the Atlanta Falcons (2017-18).
Sark’s first stint with ‘Bama came in 2016, where he was an offensive analyst who was later promoted to interim OC late in the year. Despite the late career fireworks, he is perhaps best known from his time out west. He was the head coach of USC from 2014-15 and Washington from 2009-13.
The body of work that got him those head coaching positions was his time in the mid 2000s on those dominant USC teams (QBs coach 2005-06, AHC/OC/QBs 2007-08).
Flood on the other hand is an East Coast guy. Originally from Queens, NY, he has been with Sark since day one at Texas and served with him at Alabama as the OL coach, and in Atlanta with the Falcons as the assistant OL coach.
Before becoming attached at the hip with Sark, Flood coached at Rutgers in various different capacities from 2005 to 2015. Like I said, he’s an East Coast guy.
He began his time at Rutgers coaching the offensive line and was promoted to OC in 2009, which he served in until 2011 when he was promoted to head coach. Even though he probably didn’t have much say in the play calling or rotations of personnel, it should be noted that Flood’s OL blocked for one of the fattest volume pigs to ever lace ‘em up— RB Ray Rice, who wreaked absolute havoc on CFB in the mid 2000s.
But we’re interested in the WR position today, so that’s what we’ll focus on. Luckily, via one of my subscribers, we have some nice data from a recent sample size of seasons (2018-2023) to provide some colour to our analysis.
Over the last five seasons or so, Sark’s QB1s have averaged around 31 passes per game, which is not great, but not terrible either; it’s sort of just average. The offence as a whole skews run, with a 47/53 pass-to-run ratio.
What is nice is his WR target share. Sark’s WR1 averaged around 25%, while Flood is at 26% (he wasn’t a play caller at Alabama and this is what causes the difference in numbers).
Given that we don’t know if Bond is going to be WR1, it’s probably useful to look at the averages for the WR2 and WR3 as well. Sark’s second leading target receives on average about a 20% share of the pie, while Flood’s is a bit lower at 18%. WR3 percentages are still pretty solid at 11 and 10, respectively.
In terms of CFF output, Sark’s WR1 —between 2018 and 2023—averaged 15.2 points (0.5 PPR), his WR2 averaged 11.5, and his WR3 averaged 6.4. So clearly if you want value here, it outta be through the one or two target man. The WR3 might pop off once or twice in the year, but is probably not rosterable in almost every format.
Looking at specifics, UT has only had one 1000-yard receiver since Sark took over, which happened this past season as Xavier Worthy caught 75 passes for 1014 yards and five scores (14.8 PPG in 1PPR formats). You’ll have to forgive me for jumping around the PPR formats here. I’m going to quote things in full PPR going forward unless stated otherwise.
Worthy, despite finally going over 1000-yards receiving, actually had his worst season from a CFF perspective, as 2023 was his lowest PPG output (compared to 15 in 2022, and 19.5 in 2021). It was UGA transfer AD Mitchell who was to blame for this drop in PPG, as he soaked up 11 TD scores on the year (~ 14.7 PPG).
Notably, as the UT WR1, Worthy went over 100 targets in each season. That’s important to keep in mind. He dealt with constant injuries during his career, and this likely limited his CFF output.
Sark had a similar player during his time at Alabama. Louisiana native DeVonta Smith went absolutely nuclear in 2020, catching 117 passes for 1856 yards and 23(!) scores in 13 games (~34 PPG), leading ‘Bama to a natty and winning a Heisman trophy along the way for good measure.
The previous season (2019), there were two notable WRs at Alabama. Smith had a strong season with 68 receptions, 1256 yards receiving and 14 scores in 13 games (~21 PPG), and Jerry Jeudy caught 77 passes for 1163 yards and 10 scores (~19.5 PPG).
Below is a graphic produced by PFF, charting Sark’s WR snap distribution over his last six seasons as a play caller.
The point the graphic is making is that Sark’s top three guys stay on the field a lot, with an occasional WR4 appearing to spell them.
We could go further in our analysis of the system but I think the recent data here is the most pertinent. There is value in the WR room, but it is likely going to be restricted to the top two WRs.
Isaiah Bond (5’10, 170)
2023 STATS: 46-668-4 (10.1 PPG)
The former four star out of Georgia is entering his third and likely last year of college football. Originally a commit to Dan Mullen’s Florida Gators—as so many Buford products have done over the years—Bond spurned the in-state Dawgs again after he decommitted from Florida, flipping his pledge to Alabama instead.
He was a track star in high school, and his best quality as a WR is his downfield speed. It’s probably a toss up between him and Johntay Cook for who’s the fastest on the team, and that should shed some insight as to who will be filling Xavier Worthy’s shoes this fall. Indeed, there is some momentum building for Cook right now among practice reports, and amongst the CFF community.
Coming back to Bond, he finished this past season with over 600 yards receiving and four scores, including an epic one over Auburn in the Iron Bowl. The aggregate numbers won’t blow you away, but keep in mind the QB he played with was more of a run-first commodity in 2023.
Not that his QB in 2024 is much better, Quinn Ewers—despite his lofty high school pedigree—has yet to live up to expectations in college. He repeatedly missed Worthy on deep shots last year, and that affected the former speedster’s output dramatically. That’s a concern for Bond or Cook (whoever takes over Worthy’s role).
As far as Bond’s profile coming out of high school, here is 247 Sports’ Cooper Petagna on the Buford playmaker:
Adequate size for his position. Possesses growth potential to add additional weight to frame. Displays good athleticism in all three phases of the game. Smooth strider.
Shows the ability to accelerate to top-end speed quickly. Possesses excellent play speed before and after the catch. Exhibits good short-area quickness and change-of-direction ability. Will need to develop his route tree as a short-to-intermediate route-runner.
Has the ability to consistently stretch the field vertically. Flashes some natural pass catching ability and ability to adjust. Excellent run-after-catch threat. Shows the ability to create for himself. More of a one-cut runner but has the wiggle to make the first defender miss. Plays fast in all three phases.
Plays with a physicality and decisiveness on defense and special teams. Has a “football player” temperament with the physical traits to go with it. Dynamic speed player that can add value in multiple phases of the game. Has the ability to be highly utilized in the vertical and horizontal passing game. Possesses the speed and return ability to contribute immediately at the next level.
Next part of his development will be becoming a dependable option in the middle of the field that can create after the catch. Projects to a high-level multi-year starter at the next level with the tools to garner early NFL Draft consideration.
Closing
I typically don’t like to use this reasoning, as it’s a slippery slope in CFB: but given that Bond is a high profile transfer, I think he will be at worst the WR2 option on this team. I know there are other transfers brought in, notably Silas Bolden by way of Oregon State, and Matthew Golden from Houston, but Bond feels the most well-positioned to make a mark in 2024.
Golden has apparently been running with the second team in early spring practices, and Bolden doesn’t arrive until the summer. Another name I mentioned earlier was second year player Johntay Cook, by way of Desoto high school, a powerhouse program in the Dallas metroplex.
Cook, like Bond, is known as a speedster. He also competed in track and field in high school, which 247 Sports noted in their eval a few years ago:
Lean, sinewy build with height in the 6-foot range that accompanies versatile play style outside or in the slot. Will need to add mass and strength to combat bigger, stronger corners in press and in cluttered contested situations.
Elite feel for the position with ahead-of-his-age technical acumen. Great ball-tracking ability. Adjusts to the ball in the air as well as just about any receiver in his class. Displays outstanding body control and mid-air adjustment skill. Acrobat in single coverage or traffic.
Dangerous run-after-catch threat with very good functional athleticism and field speed. Shows top-tier foot quickness with virtually limitless potential as a route runner. Highly productive across three varsity seasons with almost 2,900 receiving yards and nearly 50 TD catches.
Possesses a strong athletic profile that includes encouraging track and field data in the long jump and triple jump categories. Also a member of a Texas 6A regional-qualifying 4x200 relay team.
Has occasional concentration lapses that can produce surprising drops considering generally sticky strong-handedness and trapeze artist-like difficult-catch flare. Again, needs some time in the weight row to continue developing physically.
It’s possible that both Cook and Bond end up in the top three WR rotation as either player can play the boundary or slot receiver roles.
I still think Bond is the one worth reaching for first, just due to the floor with his profile. Even if he’s not WR1, it feels safer that he’ll be at least WR2. Whereas with Cook, he very well could be WR1, but it feels like his floor is a lot lower, and he could find himself outside of the main rotation altogether. I know technically the same applies to Bond, but I—living by the sword and dying by the sword—am making an assumption based on the fact that he’s a high profile transfer who’s likely on a big NIL deal(s) for the 2024 season.
Bond’s ADP currently is 114 according to C2C, and Cook is at 207. Cook’s ADP will probably rise over time. Bond being taken in the mid ninth feels like solid value to me. The system historically is elite; my main concern is the play of the QB, who looks like his development has been frozen in time from his 10th grade year at Southlake Carroll. ◾
If you enjoyed this content, I encourage you to join the Pig Pen (subscribing). Have questions? Find out what people are saying about VolumePigs here.
This data is derived from one of the subscribers’ models: Joe Arpasi. The sample selects data from 2018-2013, and is half PPR.