Fantasy Football: Analytics strengths and weaknesses for the top ...
• Caleb Williams has all the makings of a first-overall pick: A strong college production profile combined with high-end playmaking upside gives him legitimate fantasy potential as well.
• Drake Maye has one of the most impressive profiles: During his two years as a college starter, Maye has compiled one of the strongest collection of passing metrics for the position in recent years.
• Draft and trade for yourself: Try PFF's Mock Draft Simulator — trade picks and players and mock for your favorite NFL team.
Estimated reading time: 11 minutes
Click here for more draft tools:2024 Mock Draft Simulator | 2024 Big Board | 2024 Draft Guide 2024 Player Profiles | 2024 Mock Drafts | NCAA Premium Stats
With the NFL draft right around the corner, there is almost always significant interest in the incoming rookie quarterbacks, both for NFL and fantasy purposes. This year is no different, as there are a number of exciting names to dive into to understand their strengths and weaknesses from an analytics standpoint and what that could mean for potential fantasy production in the NFL.
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 running back scored below the 50th percentile in that particular production category compared to the prospect pool since 2017. This article will be a spotlight on the top-five quarterbacks on the PFF big board. Caleb Williams, USC No. 1 ranked quarterback on the PFF big board PFF Mock Draft Simulator ADP: 1.1There is very little question remaining about Williams becoming the No. 1 overall pick in this 2024 draft for the Chicago Bears, and diving into his college data only helps his case. Williams has become known for his playmaking ability and a level of talent that allows him to create out of structure in order to make game-changing plays regularly, which is also represented in the data even when comparing against past quarterback prospects.
Williams' typical PFF numbers are already very good, but when getting into some of the more situation-specific marks, he’s arguably even better. This includes his PFF passing grade on throws beyond the sticks (95.5) that ranks among the 93rd percentile of all quarterback prospects since 2017. Williams has also benefited from an offense that utilizes a higher rate of play action, with 41.2% of his dropbacks incorporating play action — the highest among this year’s potential first-round quarterbacks by a significant margin. While play action can help make things easier for a passing offense, it didn’t matter for Williams as he earned a 91.1 career passing grade without play action which came in as the 93rd percentile historically and the second-best mark in this class.
Williams’ ability as a runner also stood out. Despite his rushing attempts per game (6.3) being just above average, it was within those runs that he put himself in the conversation as one of the elite runners among quarterback prospects. His 0.32 missed tackles forced per attempt ranks among the 97th percentile among all quarterback prospects since 2017 while his explosive run rate (24.6%) ranks 91st percentile and his yards after contact per attempt (3.54) his 87th percentile. This solidifies the upside that he has with his legs as well as what he can do as a passer to make him a high-upside fantasy option in the near future.
Williams' career college analytics strengths:Some of the weaknesses listed here are not major concerns for Williams, as they’re also very similar categories that Patrick Mahomes would have been listed in coming out of college — and a common high-end comparison for Williams. Both players were well below average in their air yards percentage and average time to throw while still coming up with high-end production in terms of yardage added with their legs as well as through the air.
Williams' college analytics weaknesses:The second-ranked quarterback on the PFF big board owns, arguably, the strongest analytical profile of this rookie class as well as one of the better ones historically as well. For the number of metrics that Maye dominated (see table below) while also taking into account that he had arguably the weakest supporting cast over the past two seasons, it makes these numbers all the more impressive.
Over the past two years, among all five (six if you include Washington’s Michael Penix Jr.) potential first-round quarterback’s teams, North Carolina ranked last of the group in PFF offensive grade (85.4), receiving grade (79.6) and pass-blocking grade (67.0).
Maye also adds a strong element of rushing to his repertoire, averaging 8.3 rush attempts per game and 8.4 fantasy points per game through his rushing alone (80th percentile). As a runner, he also performed among the top 70th percentile in a lot of those key rushing metrics as well (missed tackles forced per attempt, yards after contact per attempt, explosive run rate). Having that rushing threat as a part of his arsenal bodes well for his potential to be a fantasy starter in the NFL.
Maye’s career college analytics strengths:As far as weaknesses, the only real area that can be considered is his average time to throw, which is a forgivable time for a player who scrambles as often as he does. This should be considered to have a minimal effect on his overall profile with the large list of areas where he measured as elite.
Maye’s college analytics weaknesses:The top of this year’s quarterback class is loaded with playmakers, both as passers and runners, and the 2023 Heisman Trophy winner is no different, and likely the best in this class at making plays with his legs. Since 2017, no quarterback prospect has scrambled as many times as Daniels has in their college career (258), and it’s not particularly close, as the next closest player is Dorian Thompson-Robinson with 180. Daniels is electric with the ball in his hands, and that shines through in his rushing metrics, which include 95th percentile or above marks in missed tackles forced per attempt, yards after contact per attempt and explosive run rate.
Daniels has also appeared in a very high 55 college games across five seasons, though only the last two were at LSU. Over his five-year college career, he’s averaged 10.9 fantasy points per game as a runner alone (94th percentile). However, just looking at his time at LSU, that number increases to 13.8 fantasy points per game, which would be the second-highest mark behind only Lamar Jackson (20.8) since 2017.
Daniels isn’t just a great runner either, his passing game has improved significantly over the years, especially in 2023 when he posted a career-high 92.0 PFF passing grade. He also owns the lowest turnover-worthy-play rate (1.6%) among all quarterback prospects since 2017, which is incredibly impressive considering he did so on over 1,800 career dropbacks across five seasons and two different college programs.
Daniels’ career college analytics strengths:Daniels has a few more “weaknesses” in his data than the previous two quarterbacks mentioned. His overall career passing grade coming in just under the 50th percentile of quarterback prospects is the first one. This number can be slightly less concerning considering his elite 2023 season in that regard.
It’s also worth noting that Daniels had a well-below-average depth of target (9.1) and percentage of his passing yards coming through the air (51%). However, Daniels did show a willingness to throw the ball deep downfield, and when he did, he was incredibly accurate, earning an 88th percentile rank on catchable passes 20-plus yards downfield.
Daniels’ college analytics weaknesses:The 21-year-old national champion is gaining a lot more steam as a potential top-five pick in this year’s draft, and while his metrics aren’t as strong as the top-three quarterbacks mentioned above, there are some encouraging numbers to make an argument. Specifically, around his accuracy metrics, as he comes in ranked among the 99th percentile in overall catchable target rate while ranking 96th percentile in catchable target rate for throws both 10-plus and 20-plus yards downfield. McCarthy’s lower overall attempts (714) is a below-average number, so the sample size isn’t as significant as his peers, though it’s still encouraging for a player whose misses are often highlighted as well and isn’t always considered among the most accurate quarterbacks in this class.
He also owns a strong big-time-throw rate of 6.3% (76th percentile) while coming up with 60% of his production via air yards (84th percentile) paired with his 10.1-yard ADoT (65th percentile), which indicates that he isn’t afraid to take shots on those lower percentage throws when he is dropping back to pass.
McCarthy’s career college analytics strengths:McCarthy isn’t known for his rushing ability or upside in that regard, and his 3.7 fantasy points per game for his career as a rusher (43rd percentile) on 3.7 attempts per game would back that up. That being said, his actual rushing metrics (missed tackles forced per attempt, yards after contact per attempt, explosive run rate) are all well above average, indicating that he is at least capable when he does take off as a runner.
McCarthy’s college analytics weaknesses:Nix owns some of the best marks in this year’s class over the past two seasons in terms of PFF’s stable metrics, however, with a slower start to his college career, his overall numbers come in slightly lower. Nix certainly improved in a big way going from Auburn to Oregon, and that high level of recent play has put him in the conversation as a potential first-round pick in 2024.
One of Nix’s greatest strengths in recent seasons has been his ability to limit turnover-worthy plays, ultimately leading to an encouraging 2.5% turnover-worthy-play rate for his career. He’s also earned an identical catchable pass rate as Drake Maye (72.8%) for his career, doing so on a much larger sample size but also with a significantly lower average depth of target than Maye’s 10.7 for his career.
Nix’s career college analytics strengths:Part of Nix’s game when it comes to being able to limit those negative plays is that there aren’t as many high-risk throws relative to the rest of this class, as he has the lowest career average depth of target for the group (8.1). He also has the second-lowest career big-time-throw rate of the entire class (4.3%) and ranks among the seventh percentile of quarterback prospects since 2017 in percentage of his passing production coming through air yards (45.0%).
There is a path for Nix to deliver fantasy-relevant production should he maintain this specific playing style but it will depend heavily on his receiving weapons as well as if he can continue to be productive as a runner at the next level.
Nix’s college analytics weaknesses:
