IMPACT STUDY SUPERLATIVE CLASSES

Early June isn’t quite Talking Season. But, the buzz coming out of spring ball has undeniably started conversations, debates, and viral takes. 

And like every year, QB play is often driving discussions. But with the varying quality of opponents across this great game, basic box score stats just cannot tell the whole story and false narratives can arise. 

Just in time to enjoy the summer sun and enter the chat, I have emerged from my dark charting cocoon to further enlighten college football fans regarding their favorite passers via the Impact Study. 

Cutting out the fat and only charting QBs against their best defensive opponents just carries more weight and holds more value than snaps against Crap College or teams ranked in the triple-digits statistically. Increased adversity allows both the metrics and tape to provide more insight into how a passer operates, what they were asked to do, and when they found the most success. After all, when trying to find guys that can do things others can’t, watching dudes beat up defenses most can knock out is an overly worthless exercise. 

I’ve learned the hard way that fans don’t care much for numbers, charts, or overly detailed breakdowns. TL;DR, amirte? So to distill all the enriching information found across this year’s Impact Study, our crop has been placed into varying superlative categories that highlight their styles and statistical profiles. 

“High Volume” Impact Qualifications (38 passers)

+88 Pre-Season On3 Impact Grade

+125 pass attempts in 5/6/7 game sample

+2 games vs Top50 SP+ AND EPA/Pass DEF

Key Terms:

Accuracy% - percentage of perfectly placed, on-target passes that don’t require unnecessary adjustments

Uncatchable% - percentage of passes that had no chance of being completed due to off-target placement

Depth Adjusted Accuracy - weighted Accuracy% that gives more risk/reward based on distance of target

ADOT - average depth of target, or how far a receiver is when thrown the ball on average

“Floor” Passing - clean, non-Screen/Play Action/RPO attempts inside the pocket

Dropback - non-screen/RPO attempts

Downfield - targets over 10 yards past the line of scrimmage

Deep - targets over 20 yards past the line of scrimmage

Explosive Pass Rate - a pass that nets 20 yards or more

Interceptable Pass Rate - a pass with potential to be picked off due to bad timing, vision, ball placement

ANY/A - adjusted net passing yards per attempt

Play Action Aces: Guys who are the most dangerous passers using deception tactics

1. Carson Beck: Georgia

Already the study’s most efficient passer, Beck’s bottomline was boosted bigtime on play actions. On a dazzling 14.6 Y/A, none of his peers bested his 66% Success Rate, 63% 1D+TD Rate, or 81.3% Adjusted Completion%. With defined reads and next-level arm talent, few chances were wasted. His 14.3% Uncatchable Pass Rate was top3-worthy. And with plenty of playable passes, Beck delivered a ridiculous 40% Explosive Pass Rate – no other Impacter came within 5 percentage points of that sizzling stat. He increased aggression using this tactic as his Interceptable Pass Rate topped 11%. But his 59% Depth Adjusted Accuracy, good for the group’s top4 in this context, vouch his process is basically as golden as his results. 

2. Kaidon Salter: Liberty

Like Beck, Salter’s already outstanding stats were further amplified when using deception. His 17.6 ANY/A earned the group’s gold medal and his 58% 1D+TD Rate and 64% Depth Adjusted Accuracy each placed inside the top2. Additionally, over a third of these throws netted a completion of at least 20 yards without a single interceptable being logged. 

3. Will Howard: Ohio State

Relative to other Impacters, Howard didn’t benefit from a whole lot of scheme help. But when Collin Klein was obliged to use deception, the former Kansas Stater showed up laudable ability. Like Salter, he posted an Explosive Pass Rate north of 34% without a single interceptable. Likewise, both his Y/A and ANY/A cracked 12.0 despite a 10% Drop Rate muting his performance. And while he wasn’t immune from completely missing his targets on occasion, he was decidedly precise posting the study’s 3rd-best raw Accuracy% with the best Depth-Adjusted Accuracy figure. 

4. Jalon Daniels: Kansas

It's easy to forget about the 2023 Big12 Preseason Offensive Player of the year after roughly a month’s worth of action last fall. But in a wide-open scheme full of razzmatazz, Daniels is undeniably effective off play fakes and deception tactics. Throwing out his stuff from last season as a courtesy, he carved folks up – particularly in the intermediate areas – logging the group’s 4th-best ANY/A with a 5-1 Explosive:Interceptable pass ratio.

5. Jaxson Dart: Ole Miss

Dart produced an SEC-high 1,852 yards on play fakes last fall. He had abundant chances in Lane Kiffen’s action-heavy offense to shred opponents. Against the meat of his schedule, his 31.3% PA Rate was top5 in our study. He occasionally telegraphed and forced things. About 10% of his play action attempts in his sample could’ve been picked off. Still, Dart was a heatseaker who nabbed explosives. Matching Carson Beck’s 81.3% Adjusted Completion%, he gave his targets great chances to produce big gainers. Just under 30% of his throws netted a gain of at least 20 yards. 

HM: Anthony Colandrea, Jayden Maiva, Nico Iamaleava

Deception Duds: Guys who cannot maximize their opportunities using play fakes

1. Thomas Castellanos: Boston College

Already a passer who struggled to place throws consistently, the Golden Eagle even failed to soar statistically with the aid of play fakes. Frankly, he wasted far too many tries and displayed horrific accuracy. He posted a group-worst Uncatchable Pass Rate, Adjusted Completion%, and Success Rate. Only Hudson Card’s 3.1 ANY/A was worse than TC from BC. But his passes weren’t just off-target or destined to land out of bounds, nearly 22% were interceptable – a figure only outdone by Diego Pavia. 

2. Rocco Becht: Iowa State

Iowa State didn’t turn to schemey elements too much when facing their upper-level adversaries. Matt Campbell and Co. preferred to speed up Becht’s time to throw. The sooner the ball got to a receiver, the better. And, our guy was pretty comfortable executing that role. On play fakes, however, he hardly looked comfortable and didn’t stretch the field much. While a tactic that generally draws out potency, Becht’s overall Explosive Pass Rate dwindled from 7.5% to 3.9% on play action, which was the 2nd-worst in our study. On the flip side, his INTA% ballooned to nearly 12%. That anchored his ANY/A inside the group’s bottom3. But no one put up a worse traditional Yards/Attempt than his 3.8 clip. 

3. Sheduer Sanders: Colorado

Colorado did not have a dedicated dropback play action offense. Less than 16% of Sanders’ Impact study attempts used that tactic. And when the Buffs did, Prime’s Child hardly made an effort to sell the defense with the fake – a stunning development considering his dad’s pitchman persona. That aside, his play action results simply stunk. Matching Rocco Becht with a lousy 3.6 ANY/A, Sanders didn’t have a single explosive pass and posted a bottom5 Depth Adjusted Accuracy%. But it wasn’t just dingers that he failed to produce. Key completions in general were overtly lacking as no Impacter’s First Down+TD Rate was worse than his 16.1% mark in this context. 

HM: Diego Pavia, Hudson Card

Penthouse Passers: Guys with high “pass floors”

1. Carson Beck: Georgia

When breaking out Beck’s stats in a number of categories, he is consistently among the top performers in the class. That’s exactly what you want to see from the QB1 front runner. And to further rev up his resume, his numbers when clean within structure mirror his wonderful upside. He was perfect on over two-thirds of these tries, which ended in Beck being the group’s silver medal holder in both Y/A and ANY/A. His placement was okay. His Depth Adjusted Accuracy did sneak into the top10. And, his 15% Uncatchable Pass Rate was fairly mediocre. But he just had a knack for manufacturing key completions. His 52.5% First Down+TD Rate was a group-high by over 3 percentage points. 

2. Cam Ward: Miami (FL)

Ward’s down-to-down accuracy paired with his physical tools absolutely give him one of the highest passing floors in the crop ahead of 2024. His 65% Depth Adjusted Accuracy% made the top5. But unlike the four Impacters ahead of him, he was the only one with an above-average ADOT when clean within structure without guises. Following that up with a top10 Uncatchable Pass Rate, he snagged a fair share of downfield gains; and then some. His 17.5% Explosive Pass Rate was the study’s 2nd-best, and both his ANY/A and Y/A were top4-worthy. Plus, the rest of his result metrics solidly beat the standard. That said, one major red flag stood out among his process metrics: a double-digit Interceptable Pass Rate. Even with his awesome accuracy returns, no one can have sustained success with that level of recklessness within structure. 

3. Sheduer Sanders: Colorado

If last year was any indication, Sanders again will be set up to succeed within structure. In this context, you definitely can see why he’s getting first-round hype. He consistently kept his offense ahead of the chains with surefire throws. Both his 62.5% Success Rate and 87.5% Adjusted Completion% topped the next Impacter in line by over 2.5 percentage points. His pre-snap skills clearly shined by those returns. But it is important to note his buffered attempts – that tended to invite pressure –  are naturally excluded from this breakout, which presents a rosier depiction of Sanders. Still, all of his result and process metrics finished on the good side of the Impact standard - a feat only matched by Carson Beck and Noah Fifita. 

4. Dillon Gabriel: Oklahoma

Oklahoma’s non-RPO/non-play action passing offense wasn’t entirely incendiary. But thanks to Gabriel’s point guard attitude and excellent downfield placement, gobs of good gains still occurred. Both his 67.8% Depth Adjusted Accuracy and 7.3% Uncatchable Pass Rate earned the study’s gold medal. And Gabriel’s money passes yielded a 60% Success Rate, which got the silver. His ANY/A made the top6 despite a single-digit Explosive Pass Rate. Though changing schemes can alter a passer’s floor, Oklahoma and Oregon’s approach are quite comparable. And, Gabriel’s familiarity and upgrade in weapons will make his floor all the more lofty. 

5. Jalen Milroe: Alabama

When he’s not taking sacks, Milroe showed he can be a passer with a very high floor. Even without play action shots puffing up his verticality – within structure –  he aimed to target downfield and showed off his playmaking. Capturing chunk plays were commonly his M.O. as he had a top4 Explosive Pass Rate on the 6th-highest ADOT in this context. His raw and weighted accuracy figures remain concerning. But despite pushing the ball downfield more, his 17% Uncatchable was relatively average. The aggression paired with giving his dudes opportunities tended to break the Tide’s way last year. No Impacter’s sample bested his 11.7 ANY/A or 11.1 Y/A. All the while, his Interceptable Pass Rate came in under 4%. 

HM: Jaxson Dart, Noah Fifita, Nico Iamaleava

Cellar Dwellers: Guys with low “pass floors” and flimsy operations (high scheme help)

1. Hudson Card: Purdue

Card is an overly fine QB above the shoulders. He has good eyes and fairly good pocket instincts. But when isolating him without scheme elements within structure he presents to be a problematic passer. Noted, his results would’ve been better without a double-digit Drop Rate. But his precision was entirely mid. Ordinarily a finesse passer driven by nervous energy, a challenging slate and cold weather noticeably got under his skin. And since he didn’t optimally seek downfield completions, he presents a poor bang-for-buck in this context. Not that his interceptability was awful, but it’s never a good look when it dwarfs one’s Explosive Pass Rate. While accurate on two-thirds of his tries, these tosses were mostly for not. This was further highlighted by a below-average Depth Adjusted Accuracy. Moreover, no Impacted sported a lower Y/A than his 6.0. In structure, his conservatism wasn’t efficient but rather an underlying liability. 

2. Quinn Ewers: Texas

Despite flashing brilliance, Ewers has recorded bothersome ball placement metrics in back-to-back Impact studies in structure without guises. All of his location metrics (raw Accuracy, Depth-Adjusted Accuracy, Adjusted Completion%, Uncatchable Pass Rate, and Interceptable Pass Rate) have fallen on the bad side of the group standard in that time. And, some are trending the wrong way. While his DAA% held steady at 45.2% year-over-year, Ewers’ raw Accuracy% and UNC% soured by 11 and 5 percentage points, respectively. But even more damning, his already alarming 10.9% INTA from 2022 bumped up to 11.5% last year. The Longhorn’s results were still pretty good. And for now, that’s enough to stay somewhat optimistic he can get it together. But judging him from his process, he appears to be a product of his environment who might be a mirage. 

3. KJ Jefferson: UCF

Transitioning from the QB-friendly super spread scheme of Kendall Briles to the not-so-nice Dan Enos offense made Jefferson morph from a budding superstar into a broken man. Murphy’s law permeated throughout the Razorbacks’ season and unfortunately brought our guy down to rock bottom. From 2021-22, Jefferson’s result metrics beat the standard. But his slide in his accuracy metrics hinted at this year’s collapse. Two years back, both his raw and depth-adjusted accuracy figures finished 8 percentage points under par. And with a worsened environment, added pressure, and poor plan of attack, Jefferson’s stats fell in tow. Less than half of his throws in structure without guises were on-target; a feat only matched by Garrett Greene. And despite the group’s lowest Drop Rate, all of his metrics fell into the back half of the study. A change in scenery could see KJJ recapture some old magic, but the underlying accuracy issues make me a tad cynical he can get it done through the air. 

HM: Garrett Greene

Sack Erasures: Guys with high sack avoidance

1. Kaidon Salter: Liberty

Salter is one of the most fluid playmakers in the country. A next-level athlete pulverizing his Group of Six slate in numerous ways, his sack erasing is arguably his best trait. His Dropback Sack Conversion Ratio – a mouthful of a metric and a stat that measures taken sacks against true dropback attempts (ie no scrambles, screens, or RPO snaps) – was the 2nd-best mark in the group at 5.9%. In terms of volume, no Impacter negated more takedowns than his 23. Ultimately, his hardest foes saw Salter slink, burst, and finagle his way out of trouble to the point he was 4.5x more likely to erase a sack than log one. Plus when pressured, he averaged college football’s 5th-highest average time to throw at 4.4 seconds. He was quite good at buying himself extra time. And across the entire 2023 season, his PFF Pressure-to-Sack Ratio earned the crop’s bronze medal. 

2. Taylen Green: Arkansas

Green might be an inconsistent passer entering this fall, but he’s undeniably full of playmaking pizazz. His north-south burst with the ball in his hands is hard to ignore. Moreover, that trait gives him a reasonably high threshold. The odds of him impressing as a designed rusher is all but a certainty. Additionally, the 6’6 Razorback is among the hardest QBs to pin in and wrestle down on dropbacks. In 2022’s Impact Study, one of his biggest drawbacks was that he tended to buffer and invite pressure. Still, no one bested his sub-2% Sack Rate and Conversion Ratio on dropback snaps. In 2023, he only erased 10 sacks in his sample. But was 3x more likely to negate than log one. Plus, his DBSCR and Sack Rate again were single-digit figures. Additionally, his PFF Pressure-to-Sack Ratio across the entire season also finished in that range – further highlighting his inspiring about-face and overall dynamism.  

3. Garrett Greene: West Virginia

Greene shines as a backyard baller. Undersized yet wiry, he is quite good at extending plays, working outside the pocket, and testing secondaries vertically. No one posted a lower PFF Pressure-to-Sack Ratio across last year than his 4.8% clip. He’s simply a nuisance and has terrific acceleration both winning the edge and dusting defenders past the line of scrimmage. Since he was a little more prone to floating outside the pocket, he only erased 8 sacks against his hardest opponents (that were relatively easy compared to his Core4 peers). Still, his quick trigger and quick twitch instincts saw less than an eighth of his pressured dropbacks to result in a sack. 

4. Diego Pavia: Vanderbilt

Along with helping his poise when passing under pressure, Pavia’s wrestling background was on full display as a sack eraser. With a low center of gravity, meaty legs, and zeal, his 17 negated takedowns were the 3rd-most in our study. His Dropback Sack Ratio and PFF Pressure-to-Sack Ratio were both middling thanks to the copious stress he faced, but he was still more than twice as likely to log an erasure than a sack. 

5. Riley Leonard: Notre Dame

Deceptively long strides, timely vision, and tremendous balance allows Leonard to round out this list. Despite being hobbled last fall, he still logged more erasures than sacks and beat the national average in PFF Pressure-to-Sack Ratio. His recent meh showings shouldn’t entirely be dismissed, but maintaining optimism that he’ll look more like his 2022 self is recommended. In that year’s Impact Study, the former Blue Devil boasted a top5 Conversion Ratio and Sack Rate on pure dropbacks. 

HM: Dequan Finn, Jalon Daniels, Drew Allar, Jayden Maiava, Conner Weigman

Sack Lunches: Guys with low sack avoidance

1. KJ Jefferson: UCF

Jefferson is a hoss but he couldn’t overcome the target on his back in 2023. He produced 25 sacks versus 129 sample attempts. A deplorable three-fourths of pressures in his sample resulted in a takedown. To reiterate, his degree of difficulty was well-beyond Heisman mode last year. But, few QBs can withstand that level of a beating and still be effective. KJJ was among our study’s worst under pressure. But, his sack-taking wasn’t just a one-year phenomenon. His overall Dropback Sack Conversion Ratio has been a problem no matter who the former Hog faced for three seasons. Both his Impact clip from 2022 and his overall figure from the 2021 season flirted with a figure around 50%. Yikes. 

2. Jalen Milroe: Alabama

Milroe will not meet his potential as a passer unless he learns to play a beat faster and not buffer so much. His playmaking is hardly arguable, but he’s tracking to barely be net-positive due to his tendency to take sacks. Only Jefferson sported a worse PFF Pressure-to-Sack Ratio across last season amongst our Impacters than his gaudy 32.4% mark. In the study, only one of his peers accumulated more than his 30 takedowns by volume with nearly 70% of his suffered pressures getting home. General inaccuracy concerns remain on if he has the capability to slice up foes underneath or in the quick game. But Alabama’s staff must explore speeding up his clock and ensure he doesn’t hold onto the ball so long. 

3. Sheduer Sanders: Colorado

When Sanders liked what he saw pre-snap, he often took care of business. When his picture changed or was deceived, he often was schooled by opponents. His natural boogie did see him erase 16 sacks. But his buffering and below-average backyard ball skills begat twice as many takedowns behind the line. He was 1/4 Impacters with over half of his dropback pressures ending in a sack. Plus, he rocked the group’s 4th-worst PFF Pressure-to-Sack Ratio across his whole slate. Bound to be voluminous once more, scouts will still hold reservations if his internal clock and comfortability dealing with shifting coverages fails to enhance. 

HM: Byrum Brown, Quinn Ewers

High Catchability: Generally on-target guys who didn’t suffer from poor drop rates

1. Carson Beck: Georgia

 Relaxed and ready to rock, college football’s preeminent passer capitalized on his situation by having one of the most efficient profiles around. Despite amassing the SEC’s 3rd-most “drop yards” last fall, he was one of 5 SECers to see over 200 yards created by receivers going above and beyond to complete catches. But when honing in on his Impact slate, both Beck and his Bulldogs were sure-handed and trusty. On the group’s 2nd-lowest Uncatchable Pass Rate, he was the only one of his peers to experience a Drop Rate under 6%.

2. Noah Fifita: Arizona

Boasting the study’s top raw Accuracy% and Uncatchable Pass Rate, Arizona’s targets were blessed with abundant dots. And the Wildcats' wonderful receivers came through and helped Fifita flaunt the 2nd-lowest Drop Rate. Naturally with on-target balls and few miscues, his 83.1% Adjusted Completion% was tops amongst his peers. Though his precision was slightly less sound in pure dropback situations, his standing compared to his peers remained firm and around the best in the class.

3. Jalon Daniels: Kansas

Again using his 2022 Impact profile to show off his potential, Daniels’ arm overly gave his dudes chances to gain chunks. Full of eye candy and explosive patterns, the scheme presented wins and awesome opportunities to put up great numbers. Though his toughest foes tended to bring on more contested targets, less than 17% of his Impact throws from 2022 were uncatchable. That along with his 7.1% Drop Rate both earned the class’s respective bronze medals. In fact, the Jayhawks only logged 82 “drop yards” against the meat of their schedule that season. And as expected from one of the top offensive players in the Big 12, his 9.2 ANY/A was top4-worthy. Kansas’ set ‘em up, knock ‘em down operation should get back up and running with him back healthy this fall. 

4. Shedeur Sanders: Colorado

Sanders sports a high passing floor because he tends to gun for surefire targets and limit backbreaking blunders. And the Buff’s three-headed monster at wideout consisting of Jimmy Horn, Xavier Weaver, and Travis Hunter were collectively dependable per a 7.1% team Drop Rate against their hardest foes last year. Though dropping back more than any Impacter saw Sanders rack up nearly 300 yards on drops, his strong rate of throwing on-target passes with sound down-to-down pass catching helped generate our study’s 2nd-best Adjusted Completion%. 

5. Jaxson Dart: Ole Miss

Dart’s feathery passing operation results in tons of catchable passes. But unfortunately, defenders often see a decent number of chances as well per his 7.8% Interceptable Pass Rate. Still, less than a fifth of his targets were wasted last year against his hardest opponents and his 7.2% Drop Rate cracked the group’s top7. And across 2023, his weapons created the most receiving yards in the SEC. Over 300 yards came off these plays where his guys went above and beyond to finish plays, outdoing the next-closest passer by over 50 yards. He was the only conference QB to gain more yards off creations than lose them from drops. While the credit belongs to his pass catchers, Dart still did his part by providing them viable opportunities. 

HM: Quinn Ewers, Graham Mertz, Will Rogers

Butterfinger Brucies: Guys with resumes ruined by poor pass catching

1. Diego Pavia: Vanderbilt

No Impacter was undercut more by butterfingers than Pavia. On a per-target basis, just under 15% of his passes were dropped. Across his 6-game slate, he lost more yards to drops than SECers KJ Jefferson, Brady Cook, or Graham Mertz did the entire 2023 season. And Pavia wasn’t just spraying passes. Only two of his peers posted a better Uncatchable Pass Rate than his 15.5% clip. Plus, nearly 65% of his attempts were perfectly placed. On pure dropbacks, the miscues were more frequent occurring on every sixth pass on average. Additionally, most of his passing floor figures were obliterated thanks to an abhorrent 24.3% Drop Rate. 

2. Joey Aguilar: App State

Despite throwing a very catchable ball, the App Stater’s results were pretty blaise. Nearly a quarter of his sample’s throws qualified as tossups (inaccurate, contested but catchable attempts). And his pass catchers found trouble constantly having to adjust to his throws. Every eighth pass was dropped on average even though only 17% were wasted by sour placement. Across his 5-game slate, he racked up 257 yards off drops. Quick math, that’s over 50 yards/game lost. As a result, his 7.0 ANY/A was the most bang-average figure in the group. 

3. Kyron Drones: Virginia Tech

On a dink-and-chunk operation that attempted to maximize bang-for-buck, value was just hard to come by thanks to Hokie receiver mistakes. Only Pavia suffered from a worse clip in our study than his 14.3% mark overall. Regardless of the context, drops destroyed Drone’s Impact profile. About 237 yards were lost due to butterfingers when facing his best competition. All the while, his weapons did him no favors creating catches for themselves; they only totaled 20 such yards in our sample– the lowest amount amongst his peers by a significant margin. 

HM: Haynes King, Kaidon Salters, Donovan Smith

Hot Rods: Guys with the best rushing metrics against their hardest competition

1. Riley Leonard: Notre Dame

Despite some bad breaks, Leonard was our study’s best rusher. No Impacter averaged more per carry on designed runs than his mighty 8.0 mark. At the time of his initial injury, he had the best Y/A among all college QBs. And accentuating why he was such a pain in the ass to bring down, he averaged 6 yards after contact and owned the group’s gold medal in Broken Tackle Rate at 37%. Further showcasing his knack as a ball carrier, Leonard was hit behind the line of scrimmage 9x but only logged 1 TFL. No Impacter with at least 5 reps posted a better aGumption Rate. Plus, that sturdy balance, lanky legs with burst, and smooth boogie translated to a 25.9% Explosive Run Rate (+10) with nearly 56% ending in situational success.

2. Taylen Green: Arkansas

Among PFF’s highest graded rushers at the position, Green solidified his standing as an elite performer in our study. With his physical tools, both his YAC average and Broken Tackle Rate cracked the group’s top3. Moreover, only Anthony Colandrea generated a better Explosive Run Rate than his 29.6% clip. But Green wasn’t just a big play guy. His Success Rate  just missed eclipsing the 60% threshold and placed inside the top5. The same is true for his 46% First Down+TD Rate. Plus, he erased 5/8 potential TFLs while seeing less than a quarter of his tries get stuffed for gains under 2 yards. 

3. Kyron Drones: Virginia Tech

Drones’ rushing ability makes him a very trending pick as a QB that will take a leap this fall. Against his hardest opponents, he averaged over 7 Y/A on both designed runs and scrambles. Just looking at his tries within structure, he nabbed 13 carries that topped ten yards – the most among any Impacter. More of a breakaway guy, his Broken Tackle Rate was just okay but his 3.9 YAC average was 3rd-best and still among the elites at the RB position across 2023. Additionally, Drones’ efficiency was reflected by his Success and First Down+TD Rates placing inside the study’s top5. 

4. Kaidon Salter: Liberty

To reiterate, Salter wounded most of his 2023 opponents both with his arm and his legs. On Impact designed carries specifically, he kept checking boxes. He averaged just under 7.0 yards per carry, saw well over half of his tries work, and generated an explosive carry a fifth of the time. Speaking to his incendiary M.O., nearly a tenth of these runs netted at least 20 yards. Across the year, forced more missed tackles than any other QB nationally per PFF. In our study on a per run basis, only Leonard was better at shedding guys. Plus, he rocked the 4th-best First Down+TD Rate. Still, erasing TFLs remains to be an area of opportunity. Only 6/18 gumption reps resulted in negating a loss. 

5. Byrum Brown: USF

There’s no denying Brown is a work in progress. But since he might possess that Je ne sais quoi – or “IT Factor”, folks will keep sniffing around to see if he breaks through. Though his arm is halfcoked, his legs are fully loaded. Across 2023, only Salter forced more missed tackles by volume and Brown’s 4.3 YAC average was the 3rd-best among college QBs. That zeal produced 31 explosives, which was the 6th-most. But as you’d expect, he was a tad more muted against the meat of his schedule. Totalling only 6 explosives in 5 games, he ended with a modest 5.8 Y/A. But he did deliver desired consistency with a top7 First Down+TD Rate and top6 Success Rate in our study. 

HM: Anthony Colandrea, Jaxson Dart, Garrett Greene, Dillon Gabriel, Thomas Castellanos

Not Rods: Guys who are not threats to run

1. Cam Ward: Miami (FL)

Ward’s backyard ball heroics are fairly impressive (In our sample he took the 4th-most sacks but had the 2nd-most erasures). But he was a total dud on designed carries. Needing chaos and lucky breaks, he just could not deliver value on designs. Across his 21 attempts in our study, he only netted 37 yards. Excluding QB Sneak-centric rushers, no one turned in a lower Y/A. Over 47% of his tries were stuffed and only a third found situational success. He logged as many TFLs as broken tackles (3) and only logged a single carry that gained at least 10 yards. Perhaps he’ll be more opportunistic and able to use his traits for better in Coral Gables, but it’s hard to drum up too much optimism based on last year’s showings. 

2. Hudson Card: Purdue

Card plays with nervous energy can often press as a ball carrier. Across his 19 attempts in our study, less than a third found success and only about a quarter resulted in either a conversion or a score. Often on bad read keepers, he logged his fair share of tackles for loss. In fact, over a fifth of his designs accomplished that. Commonly hit behind the line, the Boilermaker struggled to build up momentum to threaten. Only a third of his sample’s potential losses were negated. And unsurprisingly, Card only turned in one explosive carry. 

3. Cade Klubnik: Clemson

Considering how often Clemson asks him to carry the rock, Klubnik rounds out this section. Averaging about 4 designs a game against his hardest opponents, the Tiger spat out a pathetic 2.4 Y/A. And while he was overly set up to succeed (no Impacter had a lower yards-to-gain figure average than his 5.3 mark), he posted a dismissible 43.5% Success Rate and 26.1% First Down+TD Rate. Blunders were far too commonplace. Klubnik tallied 10 TFLs, which comprised about 21% of his attempts. Plus, he added a pair of fumbles. This former five-star might get his act together as a rusher. But there’s a legit argument to fade this part of his game in 2024. 

HM: Josh Hoover, Alan Bowman, Quinn Ewers