With Cam Ward virtually a lock to go No. 1 to the Tennessee Titans, Shedeur Sanders is QB2 in the 2025 NFL Draft class almost by default.
Whereas the 2024 class had a litany of options outside of the elite talents, there’s nobody beyond Ward contesting Sanders in that top tier this cycle. Players such as Jaxson Dart, Jalen Milroe and Tyler Shough are all Day 2 options, at best. The only reason they have earned any first-round steam — if they have — is because there were so many QB-needy teams to open the offseason. It’s more likely than not they all will be drafted on Friday or Saturday, leaving Sanders as the lone first-round quarterback after Ward.
The question with Sanders, then, is whether he’s earned the QB2 spot because he’s the closest thing to Ward or the furthest thing from the rest of the pack. Maybe it’s a trivial distinction, but it is useful for understanding the caliber of prospect Sanders really is.
Before we dive into the charting numbers, I’ll be honest: I struggle with Sanders on film. His arm is just okay, and he is not a dynamic athlete. Size isn’t a plus for him, either. Sanders’ game is built more on ball placement and decision-making (which we’ll get into), rather than overwhelming physical traits. There aren’t many first-round picks like that in recent history, and even fewer who have worked out.
This isn’t a film review, however, so we’ll let the charting numbers spell out the good, bad, and ugly of Sanders’ profile.
Accuracy is the obvious starting point. Be it film or data, that’s where most people point first when making the case for Sanders. Per my charting, Sanders was accurate on 73.8 percent of his throws in 2024. (That’s a hair better than Ward, who scored 73 flat.) The goal for most prospects is to clear the 70 percent mark, and Sanders did so quite comfortably.
The charting also suggests Sanders doesn’t put the easy ones in the dirt. He checked in at a 84.9 percent accuracy rate when throwing into open windows in 2024, again edging Ward out by about a percentage point. That’s a boring trait, sure, but it’s a good way to keep a job in the NFL — simply not getting in the way of the offense goes a long way.
Sanders is a smooth thrower outside the pocket, too. It’s my favorite part of his game. He isn’t as dynamic or creative outside the pocket as the league’s best passers, but he’s comfortable throwing on the move. Sanders’ 61.4 percent accuracy rate outside the pocket is plenty good enough to suggest that will be part of his game moving forward. It may need to be coaxed out of him with some designed rollouts, but plenty of teams around the league build their offenses with that already in mind.
More critically, Sanders passed the “under pressure” test. Quarterbacks at least need to clear the 50 percent accuracy mark when pressured — at 53.2 percent, Sanders did that.
There’s a case to be made that those numbers are skewed because Sanders took so many sacks, and therefore did not risk incompletions, but that’s probably a bit disingenuous. Sanders legitimately improved his pocket comfort (and bravery) from the start of the 2023 season to the end of 2024, even if he could still use some work on his pocket movement and knowing when to pull the ripcord.
On the flip side, there are a few areas in Sanders’ charting numbers that are either concerning or misleading, compared to the rest of his profile.
Sanders’ overall accuracy numbers, for instance, are kind of cheesed. Sanders isn’t exactly to any particular area of the field, but his accuracy rate is boosted by an absurd amount of screens and other throws behind the line of scrimmage. Just over 27 percent of Sanders’ charted throws were behind the line of scrimmage; Ward, by contrast, came in at 21.3 percent — still relatively high, but not astronomically so.
Some of the nitty-gritty distinctions within Sanders’ accuracy numbers are alarming, as well. For example, 11.2 percent of Sanders’ throws required an unnecessary adjustment by the wide receiver in order to be caught. (Anywhere between 4-7 percent is a “normal” range when looking at my data from previous draft classes, while 8-9 percent tends to be at the high end of the spectrum; it’s incredibly rare to see anything above 10 percent).
What that says is that Sanders can be directionally accurate, but not pinpoint accurate. That tracks with what my eyes see on film.
Sanders gives his guys chances on a regular basis and doesn’t put open throws in the stands, but he too often asks his receivers to do more of the heavy lifting to finish a play. Maybe that doesn’t matter with the right receiving corps (it certainly wouldn’t in a place like Cincinnati.) For most teams, however, that’s inevitably going to leave yards on the field and limit YAC opportunities.
Similarly, Sanders struggled a bit on throws where quarterbacks can really flex their precision. His 41.7 percent accuracy into tight windows is firmly average. The first three picks in last year’s class all cleared him by at least 4 percent, as did Ward (48.4).
Sanders also posted a paltry 59.7 percent success rate versus man coverage. That can be a wide receiver stat in some cases, but it’s not for Sanders — Travis Hunter alone squashes that possibility. Will Sheppard probably will find his way onto an NFL roster as a UDFA, and LaJohntay Wester was a perfectly capable Power 4 receiver. Say what you will about its offensive line, but Colorado had some quality pass catchers.
In totality, Sanders’ charting profile mostly puts him in the clear. The high adjusted catch rate and mediocre ball placement into difficult throwing windows are alarm bells, but there’s enough good throughout the rest of the profile to not immediately let those two factors sink Sanders.
A good-not-great profile isn’t convincing enough, however, for a prospect who doesn’t have any special athletic traits on which to hang their hat. It’s enough to tell us he’s probably better than the rest of the options in this class after Ward, but not enough to tell us he should be considered the same caliber of prospect as Ward.
Sanders would have needed a profile close to perfect to convince me of that.
Realistically, Sanders is a quarterback prospect who can execute an offense but not elevate one. There’s nothing wrong with that. Plenty of quarterbacks spend a decade in the NFL with that kind of skill set, ranging from fringe cases, such as Jacoby Brissett, to long-term starters, such as Kirk Cousins.
But that’s also not typically the caliber of quarterback that goes in the first round. Quarterbacks like that are saved for picks 33-100 — and therein lies the rub with Sanders in a weak class and dire quarterback landscape.
How teams choose to weigh Sanders’ realistic limitations and potential outcomes versus their own desperation will determine whether he’s one of the first few players off the board, or if he has to wait a while to hear his name called in Green Bay.
This article originally appeared in The Athletic.
