- Shedeur Sanders offers the best data profile of the class: While Cameron Ward is the consensus first overall pick, Sanders clears him in nearly every analytical metric.
- Jaxson Dart separates himself from the rest of the quarterbacks in this class: Dart’s passing metrics offer strengths that are few and far between with the rest of this class.
- 2025 NFL Draft season is here: Try PFF's best-in-class Mock Draft Simulator and learn about 2025's top prospects while trading and drafting for your favorite NFL team.
Estimated reading time: 9 minutes
The 2025 NFL Draft‘s quarterback class is polarizing despite one quarterback being the clear favorite to go first overall. Even with that being the case, this class can’t necessarily have their values copied and pasted into what past rookie quarterbacks provided for fantasy. That’s why diving into each quarterback’s production numbers from college and evaluating their analytical profiles should help us sort those values as we head into the NFL draft.
- Overall percentile rank references a pool of 122 past quarterback prospects dating back to 2017.
- Strengths are considered production data points where a particular quarterback scored the highest in comparison to the prospect pool dating back to 2017.
- Weaknesses are the areas where a particular quarterback scored below the 50th percentile in that particular production category compared to the prospect pool since 2017.
- This article will spotlight the top five quarterbacks on consensus big boards.
Click here for more draft tools:
NFL Draft Big Board | Mock Draft Simulator | NCAA Premium Stats
2025 PFF Draft Guide | Mock Draft Hub | Prospect Data Profiles
Draft Position Rankings
CAMERON WARD, MIAMI (FL)
- No. 1 ranked quarterback on the PFF big board
- No. 1 ranked quarterback on consensus big boards
Ward’s career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among QB prospects since 2017 |
| Adjusted completion rate | 75.8% | 74th percentile |
| First-down-plus-touchdown rushing rate | 40.0% | 90th percentile |
| Explosive run rate | 24.1% | 90th percentile |
Ward is set to be the first overall pick in this year’s draft, though he is not necessarily on the same level as first overall pick quarterbacks in past years. As a passer, Ward's best metric is his adjusted completion rate, but there isn’t much else. For the most part, Ward’s greatest strengths come from his running ability, which he doesn’t do at a high rate, averaging just 4.7 attempts per game. For context, Bo Nix – an above-average rusher – averaged 6.2 rush attempts per game, so Ward is not the high-level dual-threat quarterback fantasy managers will hope for either.
Ward’s career college analytics weaknesses:
| Metric | Value | Rank among TE prospects since 2017 |
| Career PFF passing grade | 78.1 | 32nd percentile |
| Big-time-throw rate | 4.2% | 11th percentile |
| Turnover-worthy-play rate | 3.4% | 39th percentile |
| Sack rate | 6.2% | 30th percentile |
| Accuracy on 20-plus ADoT throws | 30.9% | 12th percentile |
As a passer, there are some red flags in Ward’s data, including just a 32nd percentile passing grade for his career while playing across three different teams in five seasons. This is reflected in his very low big-time-throw rate, higher turnover-worthy-play rate, and lack of accuracy on deep passes. Even avoiding sacks, which tends to translate to the next level more often than not, is a significant red flag when he isn’t adding all that much with his legs either.
Since 2017, there have been 37 past quarterback prospects with a career passing grade below 80.0, and only two have delivered fantasy-relevant production (5.4%). The two quarterbacks who overcame that low-end passing ability coming out of college were Lamar Jackson and Josh Allen – both of whom were elite runners for the position and could overcome any shortcomings as passers early in their careers.
SHEDEUR SANDERS, COLORADO
- No. 2 ranked quarterback on the PFF big board
- No. 2 ranked quarterback on consensus big boards
Sanders’ career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among QB prospects since 2017 |
| Career PFF passing grade | 91.8 | 92nd percentile |
| Turnover-worthy-play rate | 1.6% | 99th percentile |
| Adjusted completion rate | 80.0% | 99th percentile |
| Passing grade beyond the sticks | 96.3 | 95th percentile |
| Accuracy on 20-plus ADoT throws | 47.5% | 90th percentile |
Sanders’ passing data is significantly better than Ward’s for his career, including elite marks in PFF passing grade and one of the best turnover-worthy-play rates in recent years. Sanders’ 1.6% turnover-worthy-play rate is identical to Jayden Daniels’ coming out of college, and it was an area where Daniels led the league last year with the best mark as well. On top of the encouraging passing numbers, Sanders’ data, as a whole, should be viewed as encouraging for a team willing to take a shot on him, and his chance to outperform Ward shouldn’t be overlooked.
Sanders’ career college analytics weaknesses:
| Metric | Value | Rank among TE prospects since 2017 |
| Big-time-throw rate | 4.6% | 27th percentile |
| First-down-plus-touchdown rushing rate | 27.9% | 22nd percentile |
| Average time-to-throw | 2.89s | 18th percentile |
| Sack rate | 6.9% | 16th percentile |
Another area that compares similarly to Jayden Daniels is the lower big-time-throw rate due to a lower career average depth of target (8.5). Sanders’ career ADoT is slightly lower than Daniels (9.1 yards), and that’s led to both players lacking in that big-play-throw territory. It wasn’t an area where Daniels thrived in the NFL last season either, yet he still had a rookie of the year season. This is not meant to aggressively compare Sanders to Daniels because Daniels was still the better prospect, but to a lesser extent relative to this year’s class, there are some similarities. Their sack rates were nearly identical as well, and their average time-to-throw was exactly the same (2.89 seconds) coming out.
JAXSON DART, OLE MISS
- No. 6 ranked quarterback on the PFF big board
- No. 3 ranked quarterback on consensus big boards
Dart’s career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among QB prospects since 2017 |
| Career PFF passing grade | 90.7 | 84th percentile |
| Turnover-worthy-play rate | 2.7% | 72nd percentile |
| Explosive run rate | 23.2% | 82nd percentile |
| Passing grade beyond the sticks | 93.8 | 82nd percentile |
Dart has slowly crept up draft boards to the point where he now has a real chance to go in the first round, currently sitting as the 32nd overall pick on consensus mock drafts. As a passer, Dart outshines Ward, though Dart’s offense at Ole Miss was significantly different from most college and NFL offenses. Over the past two seasons, Dart’s Rebels ranked top five in the Power-Five conferences in deep throw rate (20.9%), nearly double the average of NFL offenses (11.4%). On the plus side, Dart’s ability to limit turnover-worthy plays despite the high rate of low percentage passes is a good sign, though he still makes for a difficult NFL projection coming from an offense that is far from what we typically see from NFL passing offenses.
Dart’s career college analytics weaknesses:
| Metric | Value | Rank among TE prospects since 2017 |
| Accuracy on 20-plus ADoT throws | 33.8% | 31st percentile |
| First-down-plus-touchdown rushing rate | 32.4% | 46th percentile |
Considering the high rate of deep passes, Dart’s accuracy on such passes coming out as one of his lower-ranked categories is concerning. He, of course, had more attempts than most, though that accuracy would, ideally, be closer to average than below. It’s also more motivation for him to tone down the deep attempts at the next level, which will also just happen naturally.
JALEN MILROE, ALABAMA
- No. 3 ranked quarterback on the PFF big board
- No. 4 ranked quarterback on consensus big boards
Milroe’s career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among QB prospects since 2017 |
| Big-time-throw rate | 6.7% | 88th percentile |
| First-down-plus-touchdown rushing rate | 37.1% | 77th percentile |
| Explosive run rate | 24.6% | 92nd percentile |
| Yards after contact per rush attempt | 3.24 | 82nd percentile |
Milroe’s thrives as a runner, as the majority of his top marks come in rushing categories. Milroe averaged 8.7 rush attempts per game, leading to over 2,000 career rushing yards and 33 rushing touchdowns for his career. The one area where Milroe did stand out as a passer was in his big-time throw rate, although that number dropped off significantly in 2024 after he hit the second-best big-time throw rate in the FBS in 2023 (9.1%). He dipped down to just 5.2% in 2024, which was closer to average for the position.
Milroe’s career college analytics weaknesses:
| Metric | Value | Rank among TE prospects since 2017 |
| Sack rate | 8.9% | 3rd percentile |
| Career PFF passing grade | 75.2 | 17th percentile |
| Turnover-worthy-play rate | 3.4% | 42nd percentile |
| Average time-to-throw | 3.17 | 2nd percentile |
| Adjusted completion rate | 72.2% | 31st percentile |
Milroe’s tendency to take sacks is also a concern, coming in with one of the highest sack rates of recent years that is on par with past non-first-round picks Sam Howell, Will Levis and Malik Willis. The larger concern will come down to poor overall accuracy and turnover-worthy play rate while taking a very long time to get the ball out of his hands. These are all significant red flags that will need time to fix if he’s going to be successful in the NFL.
WILL HOWARD, OHIO STATE
- No. 5 ranked quarterback on the PFF big board
- No. 4 ranked quarterback on consensus big boards
Howard’s career college analytics strengths:
| Metric | Value | Rank among QB prospects since 2017 |
| Sack rate | 3.7% | 87th percentile |
| Accuracy on 20-plus ADoT throws | 42.5% | 74th percentile |
Howard is set to go Day 2, though he offers a similar lack of translatable strengths in his college production profile. The two areas that qualify as strengths are his ability to avoid sacks, which is valuable at the next level. The other area is his accuracy on deep passes, although he ranks closer to the bottom of the class in actual deep attempts (139) – only five other quarterbacks (out of 19) are behind him in that regard.
Howard’s career college analytics weaknesses:
| Metric | Value | Rank among TE prospects since 2017 |
| Career PFF passing grade | 76.3 | 22nd percentile |
| Big-time-throw rate | 4.7% | 31st percentile |
| Turnover-worthy-play rate | 4.0% | 13th percentile |
| Passing grade without play-action | 68.2 | 13th percentile |
Low career passing grades are a common theme for this draft class and speak to why, as a whole, the 2025 quarterbacks aren’t touted as highly as in past years. Howard is no exception, coming in well below average in career passing grade. Howard also struggled to reduce turnover-worthy plays. Howard also had one of the bigger drop-offs in passing grade with and without play-action, ranking top-five in career passing grade with play-action (88.6) and bottom-five in the class without it.
© 2025 PFF - all rights reserved.