CADE KLUBNIK

Ahh summertime: A lovely time in our college football schedule driven by hot-taking, list-making and sidewalk baking. Affectionally known as Talking Season, this is also when blowhards and engagement farmers tend to dictate the conversations, with not much else is going on in the sports world. And as most can attest, everyone loves a good quarterback debate.

Fresh off wrapping up my annual QB Impact Study, where I chart the top 40-50 returning passers against their most challenging opponents, this analyst is ready to join the fray and guide you towards a more fulfilling discussion. I ground through tape to find traits that translate and metrics that matter — far more illuminating than citing counting stats or scanning box scores. Plus, this exercise has a great track record for singling out the nation’s top signal callers.

This piece will focus on Clemson’s Cade Klubnik, a blue chipper with first-round aspirations.

IMPACT SLATE: Georgia, Louisville, Virginia Tech, S. Carolina, SMU, and Texas

The Skinny

Average-sized with compact, tight mechanics. Peppers underneath with a lot of short concepts and favors outside the numbers downfield. Throws a very catchable ball but operation routinely invites contests. Hurt by drops. Adequate tools but not much of a threat outside of structure.

The Fat

Cade Klubnik showed signs of growth last fall. Even as someone who will openly admit to not fancying him as much as other QBs at this point in time, there’s little denying he flashed first-round traits and possibly had the best half of football of any amatuer QB in 2024. Executing Clemson’s scheme that favors short passing game staples, he displayed impressive processing skills and squeaky-clean mechanics distributing the football. 

(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)

His release is well-oiled with no strain. Throws often come out in a timely fashion from various speeds with minimal lower-body movement. And most importantly, he is often on target. Both his raw Accuracy and Depth Adjusted Accuracy clips beat the Impact Study average. Those alone are fine testaments to Klubnik’s placement skills. But when omitting throwaways, only 13% of his sample attempts were uncatchable. And when focusing on throws over ten yards downfield, his such clip cracked the crop’s top5.

(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)

Unlike a good deal of his contemporaries, Klubnik wasn’t spoon fed a high degree of scheme elements. Only three Impact QBs had a lower percentage of passes come off a screen, RPO, or play action than his 27.2% makeup. In other words, gimmes were scarce. However, that M.O. ought to highlight how prompt and effective his processing power is on true dropbacks. 

(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)

His useful fastball was visible across his tape as he looked fairly competent attacking all levels of the field. After all, Klubnik’s Deep Pass Rate ticked up year-over-year. While a zippy arm is obviously a nice thing to see a QB possess and utilize, Clemson’s congested patterns and receivers’ meh separation skills make that tool a necessity to carve out completions. Across the last two Impact Studies, about 28% of his targets were deemed contested. For context, that’s good to normally finish among the SEC’s most-thirsty throwers in any given year. Klub’s great “catchability” remained on these attempts. But naturally, his receivers found holding onto the football to be much more challenging on tight window targets. All in all, he accumulated 320 “drop yards” in his Impact games. Unsurprisingly, his results took a hit. 

(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)

Moreover, consistently propelling passes toward nearby defenders isn’t a good process for avoiding risk. Already known for serving up lollipops, a seventh of Klubnik’s sample’s throws were altered by defenders. With so many disruptions and takeaway chances, his overall INTA% trumped his Explosive Pass Rate for the second-straight Impact Study. The bang-for-buck is lacking. And when honing in on his downfield (10+) targets, only Joey Aguilar, Zach Calzada, and Jayden Maiava posted a worse Interceptable Pass Rate than his 18.3% figure, which is a potential dealbreaker.

(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)

Like many, Klubnik had boo boos when under the gun. He’s not immune from throwing off his back foot on occasion or controlling his offerings from muddy pockets. That said, most of his interceptables came when clean. And when focusing on the positives from his pressured passing profile, there’s a lot to like. His hot-potato style often beat the heat before he got burned. And behind his refined delivery, he was 1/2 Impact QBs to place inside the crop’s top5 in both Accuracy% and Uncatchable% when pressured. Additionally, Klubnik isn’t too fearful of hits and is fine staring down a late pressure in the face. Though a volatile breakout, seeing a top8 Success Rate also adds clout to his capabilities under duress. 

(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)

Still even with some positive plays, Klubnik is not a standout outside of structure. His play routinely sours when operating off-platform and when driven beyond the bookends. This isn’t to say he’s a subpar athlete; because he’s no slouch in that department. He’s moderately slithery working through traffic and finding daylight when plays break down. Not to mention, he sports decent burst to win the edge. 

(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)

However, he still took more sacks than he negated and posted a higher Negative Run Rate than Explosive Run Rate as a designed rusher against his hardest opponents. If his instincts cannot guide him out of trouble, he’s shown to be a lousy tackle breaker. Plus, none of his Impact peers produced a worse Adjusted Completion% outside the pocket. The NFL’s craving for creative playmakers isn’t going to be satisfied anytime soon; probably never if we’re being honest. So, improving his improv skills and performance off-schedule is a big area of opportunity. 

There’s little questioning Klubnik’s fluidity, poise, and general catchability. Those are all very important traits; not only to be a top tier collegiate QB, but also to be a premier next-level prospect. But in addition to testing tight windows, inviting interceptables, and showing a so-so aptitude erasing sacks, haters and hold-outs will want to see firmer down-to-down accuracy. Now, that might sound silly considering Klub isn’t an errant thrower and is among the crop’s best at avoiding botched attempts. Still, yards are left on the field thanks to suboptimal precision that force his boss catchers to make unnecessary adjustments.

(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)

Perhaps not apparent from his overall metrics, but his downfield and “pass floor” breakouts raise some questions. Granted, one could do worse than being a just okay passer in those spots. It’s not like this is a total red flag. But as a first-round hopeful, there’s a higher standard and elevated expectation. Theoretically, shouldn’t a major prospect present to be at least an above-average placer of the football in controlled environments and targeting worthwhile routes? This analyst thinks so. 

Bad Take Brooks Sees a

Andy Dalton type

GLOSSARY