- Cam Ward will look to improve ball placement: While he isn’t outright inaccurate, his precision remains a concern, as he ranks ninth in on-frame accuracy and seventh in uncatchable inaccurate rate among the top quarterbacks in this class. If Ward is to succeed at the next level, improving his ball placement will be a crucial area of development.
- Shedeur Sanders must limit sacks taken: Sanders has taken an alarming number of sacks throughout his college career, partly due to playing behind a porous Colorado offensive line and partly because he holds onto the ball too long, trying to extend plays that aren’t there. While college quarterbacks can sometimes get away with taking sacks against lesser competition, they are often drive-killers in the NFL.
- 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: 6 minutes
Most analysts view this as a weak quarterback draft class, meaning it should be easy to pinpoint flaws in each prospect’s game. But is that truly the case?
Let’s break down a key weakness for each of the top 10 quarterbacks on the PFF Big Board and assess whether it could derail their success at the next level.
Cameron Ward, Miami (FL)
Kryptonite: Ball placement
Ward, the consensus top quarterback in the 2025 class, oozes the arm talent and athleticism teams covet at the position. The ball flies out of his hand with impressive velocity, but that often comes at the expense of accuracy. While he isn’t outright inaccurate, his precision remains a concern, as he ranks ninth in on-frame accuracy and seventh in uncatchable inaccurate rate among the top quarterbacks in this class. If Ward is to succeed at the next level, improving his ball placement will be a crucial area of development.
Shedeur Sanders, Colorado
Kryptonite: Taking too many sacks
Sanders has taken an alarming number of sacks throughout his college career, partly due to playing behind a porous Colorado offensive line and partly because he holds onto the ball too long, trying to extend plays that aren’t there. While college quarterbacks can sometimes get away with taking sacks against lesser competition, they are often drive-killers in the NFL.
It’s difficult to predict which quarterbacks can break this habit. Jayden Daniels took sacks on 26.6% of his pressured dropbacks at LSU but corrected the issue in his rookie NFL season. Conversely, Caleb Williams had a much lower sack rate at USC (17.9%) yet struggled with pressure at the next level. If Sanders can improve his pocket awareness and decision-making under pressure, he has all the tools to develop into a successful NFL quarterback.
Jalen Milroe, Alabama
Kryptonite: Accuracy
It’s probably no surprise to anyone who has watched Milroe throw the football that accuracy is a major issue. He ranks last in both on-frame accuracy and uncatchable inaccurate rate in this draft class—and not by a small margin. On throws between 5 and 25 yards downfield, his 48% accuracy rate is 5.5 percentage points worse than the next-lowest quarterback, while his 33.1% uncatchable rate is 3.8 percentage points worse than the next-closest passer. Across all levels of the field, his accuracy rate is 8.7 percentage points lower than the ninth-ranked quarterback.
If there’s a silver lining, it’s that Milroe’s overall accuracy numbers are similar to Lamar Jackson’s final season in college — actually about a percentage point better. However, the key difference is that Jackson was far more electric and efficient as a runner. While Milroe must improve his accuracy, he’ll also need to rely on his athleticism to buy time for his development in the NFL. The good news is that his throwing mechanics have some fixable issues, meaning there’s a path to improving his accuracy to an acceptable level.
Will Howard, Ohio State
Kryptonite: When forced out of rhythm
Quarterbacks generally struggle when forced out of rhythm—whether due to pressure, tight coverage eliminating their first read, or a combination of both. None of the quarterbacks in this class generated a positive EPA per dropback in these situations, and the highest-graded passer, Kyle McCord, managed just a 66.1 grade. Howard, however, had the lowest grade at 36.2 and failed to produce a single big-time throw.
Fortunately, he faced these situations the least among this year’s quarterbacks, as Ohio State’s offense helped him stay in rhythm. However, in the NFL, the playing field evens out, and Howard won’t have the same overwhelming talent advantage that the Buckeyes enjoyed in 2024.
Riley Leonard, Notre Dame
Kryptonite: Generating positively graded throws
Leonard provided Notre Dame with much-needed stability at quarterback and made several big plays with his legs. However, throughout his collegiate career, he recorded just 39 big-time throws and ranked in the second percentile among college quarterbacks in generating positively graded passes.
Notre Dame played to his strengths as a passer, utilizing him as a facilitator and a runner. Over four seasons between Duke and Notre Dame, he racked up 71 explosive runs. While Leonard possesses plus-athleticism for the position, he’ll need to develop as a playmaker with his arm to establish himself as a long-term starting quarterback.
Jaxson Dart, Ole Miss
Kryptonite: 2-minute drill
Dart has steadily improved in several areas during his time at Ole Miss, but the two-minute drill is one area where he continues to struggle. In 2022, he posted a poor 44.0 grade in such situations, followed by a 52.8 in 2023. He took a step forward in 2024 but still managed just a 67.7 grade, the seventh-best in this class.
For comparison, Shedeur Sanders’ two-minute drill grades were 89.7, 93.8 and 91.8 over the past three seasons, while Cam Ward earned an 86.9 in 2024. Dart’s numbers clearly fall short of the top quarterbacks in this draft class. While he has made some progress, it has been marginal, and he failed to produce a single big-time throw in the two-minute drill last season.
Dillon Gabriel, Oregon
Kryptonite: Size
There’s a lot to like about Gabriel when evaluating his film and data—he’s accurate, decisive and keeps the offense on schedule. However, his biggest concern is something completely out of his control: his size.
Gabriel measured 5-foot-10½ at the Senior Bowl before “growing” to 5-foot-11⅛ at the NFL Combine. Regardless, his measurements are on the smaller side for an NFL quarterback. His 29⅝-inch arms rank in the sixth percentile among quarterback prospects, even trailing Bryce Young in both arm length and wingspan by more than half an inch.
Size-related durability concerns will also follow him at the next level. Gabriel fractured his clavicle in 2021 while playing at UCF, and given his frame, injuries will always be a lingering factor in his NFL projection.
Quinn Ewers, Texas
Kryptonite: Pressure
Ewers showed promise as a junior, leading Texas to the College Football Playoff (before expansion), but failed to orchestrate a late-game comeback when the pressure was at its highest. That was a sign of things to come, as he had difficulty handling pressure throughout 2024, finishing with the lowest pressured-passing grade in the class at 41.6.
The Longhorns offense generated -0.509 EPA per pressured dropback and a 31.5% success rate under pressure, some of the lowest marks in the nation. History suggests that quarterbacks who struggle under pressure in college often face even greater challenges in the NFL, where the speed and athleticism of defenders are significantly better.
Ewers has talent and success at a high-profile program, but to become a viable NFL quarterback, he must improve his ability to perform under duress.
Kyle McCord, Syracuse
Kryptonite: Athleticism
After sitting behind C.J. Stroud for two seasons at Ohio State, McCord got his chance to lead the Buckeyes in 2023 before transferring to Syracuse in 2024. Following an up-and-down 2023 season, he took a significant step forward as a passer in 2024, ranking third in PFF WAA across all of college football.
The biggest weakness in McCord’s game is his lack of athleticism. He averaged just 3.9 yards per carry, forced only two missed tackles, and rarely had designed runs called for him. His athleticism percentile ranked at just 1.1%, making him one of the least mobile quarterbacks in the class.
That said, McCord has qualities that stand out. He remained poised under pressure, earning a 74.3 pressured-passing grade against Power Four competition, the best in this class. He also had the highest percentage of dropbacks in rhythm among his peers. However, he’ll need to be an A-plus processor to succeed at the next level, as his physical tools won’t allow him to create plays outside the pocket.
Tyler Shough, Louisville
Kryptonite: Pressure
Shough has gained traction in the draft community over the past two months, but several factors are working against him. He bounced around three different college programs in seven years before landing at Louisville, and he’ll be 26 years old as a rookie. While he has the physical tools of an NFL quarterback, there’s a reason it took him seven seasons to put together a strong year.
His biggest issue is his performance under pressure, where he struggles at an extreme level. His 27.3% success rate under pressure is the worst in this class. Shough is a streaky player capable of putting together impressive stretches of play, but his inability to handle pressure remains a major concern for his NFL potential.
© 2025 PFF - all rights reserved.