- Cam Ward’s physical tools stand out, but his data profile raises concerns: Ward has elite arm talent and mobility, but his struggles under pressure — especially against Power Four competition — put him behind Jaxson Dart and Shedeur Sanders in this quarterback class.
- Ward’s success in the NFL will depend on key improvements: If Ward can speed up his processing, take easier reads and improve under pressure, he has the traits to thrive. However, his statistical profile suggests a higher risk than other top QB prospects.
- 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: 7 minutes
At the end of February, I wrote an article explaining why Jaxson Dart should be a top-15 prospect in this draft class. Since then, Mel Kiper and Daniel Jeremiah have both projected him as a first-round pick, with Kiper mocking him at No. 9 to the New Orleans Saints and Jeremiah slotting him at No. 21 to the Steelers.
Of course, that pales in comparison to my mock draft, which has him going at No. 3 overall to the Titans (after a trade).
A week later, I made the case for Shedeur Sanders as the top quarterback in this draft class. While Cam Ward remains the consensus QB1, Sanders remains a fixture in top-five projections, proving that evaluators see him as a legitimate franchise-caliber talent. He hasn’t surpassed Ward — yet — but as more analysts dig into his tape and production, perhaps this article will be the push that changes a few minds.
I have Cam Ward as QB3 in this class, even though most analysts rank him as the top quarterback prospect. That’s not to say I don’t like Ward; in my mock draft, I had the New York Giants trading up to take him No. 1 overall, and I wouldn’t argue with the logic if they made a similar move in reality.
Ward possesses excellent arm talent and good mobility, two uncoachable traits that make him worthy of a top-three selection. From a pure skillset perspective, I would even rank him above Drake Maye, who was taken No. 3 overall in the 2024 NFL Draft.
As I did with my breakdowns of Jaxson Dart and Shedeur Sanders, I’ll now turn my focus to Cam Ward. Evaluating quarterbacks isn’t just about raw stats — it requires a deep dive into both statistical production and film analysis to get the full picture, as I explained in previous articles:
I blend data and film to evaluate players. At quarterback, data can provide valuable insight, but if a player lacks the arm strength needed for the NFL, the numbers may not matter. Likewise, a quarterback might check every box on film—big arm, ideal size, good mobility—but if his grading profile and data are poor, he may be overrated due to certain biases.
Of course, there are outliers in both directions — Josh Allen had an extremely poor data profile, while Colt McCoy graded well but lacked the physical tools to succeed at the NFL level. The key is recognizing these outliers rather than “trying to find the next Josh Allen.”
Generally, successful NFL quarterbacks fit certain analytical criteria, and that’s what we aim to identify in this class.
The Case for Cam Ward to be QB3
PFF lead draft analyst Trevor Sikkema currently ranks Cam Ward 21st overall and as his QB1, while the consensus big board has Ward at No. 1 overall and the top quarterback prospect.
I’m not sure exactly how the consensus board compiles its rankings, but I assume mock draft positioning heavily influences the No. 1 overall designation. When looking solely at big boards, Ward has actually been ranked first overall by just four boards in the past month, while Travis Hunter and Abdul Carter dominate most of the others.
That said, we work with the information available until a more refined consensus board emerges closer to draft time.
As I did with Shedeur Sanders and Jaxson Dart, Cam Ward will be ranked against the top 10 quarterbacks on the PFF big board, which has remained unchanged since my breakdown of Sanders.
When evaluating quarterbacks, I prioritize sack avoidance, accuracy and performance under pressure, with extra emphasis on production against Power Four opponents. While overall grades and raw stats provide context, they carry slightly less weight in my assessments.
Over the 2024 season, Ward ranked second in passing grade, trailing only Dart. He finished sixth in accuracy rate on throws between 5 and 25 yards downfield and posted the fifth-highest success rate under pressure. His pressure-to-sack rate also ranked fifth-best in the class — the only category in which he outperformed both Dart and Sanders in 2024.
After adjusting for Power Four competition, Ward ranked first in passing grade, fifth in accuracy rate, seventh in success rate under pressure and fifth in pressure-to-sack rate. While he maintained an elite overall passing grade against tougher competition, his drop in performance under pressure is a concern.
From a statistical standpoint, Ward doesn’t measure up to the top quarterback prospects in this class. Dart consistently ranked in the top three across nearly every key metric I value, except for sack-to-pressure rate. Sanders also struggled in that area but still finished in the top four in most categories, including a fifth-place ranking in success rate under pressure against Power Four competition — a mark that, as I noted in his article, is comparable to some of the NFL’s top quarterbacks.
While Ward doesn’t have a perfect statistical profile, he stays within the necessary thresholds, except for his play under pressure against Power Four opponents. His success rate under pressure vs. all opponents is less than half a percentage point behind Sanders', but his 34.8% mark against Power Four teams creeps into a range historically associated with more misses than hits when evaluating quarterback prospects.
Struggling more against better competition isn’t an outright red flag, but it does raise concerns about how well his game will translate at the next level.
Ward’s 34.8% success rate under pressure against Power Four competition places him just ahead of Mitchell Trubisky (34.9%) and in the same range as Brock Purdy (34.0%), Dak Prescott (34.0%) and Gardner Minshew (33.8%) in their final college seasons.
However, both Purdy and Prescott had past seasons where they handled pressure well—Purdy’s 2018 season (49.1%) ranks as the second-highest single-season mark in the PFF era, and Prescott posted a strong 40.8% success rate in 2014.
Ward, on the other hand, has consistently struggled under pressure in each of the past three seasons—two at Washington State and one at Miami. While his lone season at Miami was his career best, the trend remains concerning.
Of course, one metric alone doesn’t determine success, but it does raise legitimate concerns. If a quarterback struggles under pressure in college against lesser competition, it’s hard to expect them to suddenly excel in the NFL under even greater duress. It’s unlikely—but not impossible.
Ward is undeniably physically gifted. The ball comes out of his hand effortlessly with great velocity, and his athleticism and natural throwing ability are clear strengths. However, his game has flaws, including a tendency to hold onto the ball too long and pass up easy reads in favor of hero-ball plays. Fortunately, these are coachable aspects of his development.
If Ward can continue improving his play under pressure and learn to take the easy options, he has the tools to thrive in the NFL. However, his concerning data profile gives me hesitation in calling him the top quarterback in this class.
When comparing him to last year’s draft class, he’d fall into a similar tier as Drake Maye and Caleb Williams — quarterbacks with elite physical traits but worrisome data profiles. That said, I’d likely rank Ward above both of them.
© 2025 PFF - all rights reserved.