2025 Projections: Rookie QBs – Williams’ Bounce Back, Daniels’ Ascent?

Greetings to NFL Projections, a comprehensive exploration of the key narratives of the 2025 season. Reflecting on our previous installments, we examined the Chiefs’ pursuit of a three-peat (ultimately unsuccessful), the performances of high-profile running backs in new environments (largely successful), and the potential decline of the 49ers (debatable, but their 2024 showing was underwhelming), among other topics. This year, we commence with an evaluation of the quarterbacks from the notable 2024 rookie cohort.

The 2024 quarterback class stood out for its exceptional talent and depth. Featuring Caleb Williams (No. 1, Bears) and Jayden Daniels (No. 2, Commanders), it boasted two recent Heisman Trophy recipients. With the addition of Drake Maye to the Patriots, it marked only the second time this millennium that quarterbacks were selected with each of the top three picks. The selections of Michael Penix Jr. at eighth to the Falcons and J.J. McCarthy at 10th to the Vikings signified a historic moment, with five quarterbacks chosen within the first 10 picks. Bo Nix’s selection at 12th to the Broncos capped off an extraordinary sequence.

Only once before had six quarterbacks been selected in the top dozen: the celebrated 1983 class, which produced Hall of Fame members John Elway, Jim Kelly, and Dan Marino.

While premature for Hall of Fame predictions or “bust” declarations, the 2024 rookie quarterbacks delivered a mix of successes and setbacks. All six enter 2025 with significant roles and intriguing prospects. Plausible arguments exist for each of their teams reaching the playoffs, yet substantial uncertainties persist. It’s a captivating group, with Williams potentially being the most compelling figure.

Caleb Williams: Mitigating negative plays, refining deep passes

New Bears head coach Ben Johnson sparked discussion at the NFL owners meetings when sharing his perspective on the metrics he employs to evaluate a productive passing offense.

“The EPA [expected points added] in the passing game is arguably the most pivotal determinant of wins and losses currently,” Johnson stated. “This emphasis has evolved over the past five years. Previously, I would have prioritized turnovers and takeaways. However, the passing game’s EPA has now taken precedence. The team with the higher passing game EPA at the conclusion of a game typically wins over 80 percent of the time. It’s a significant statistic.”

Statistics enthusiasts (including myself) are pleased!

“Expected points” considers factors such as down, distance, field position, time remaining, etc., assigning a point value a team is “expected” to achieve based on historical data. Scoring expectations are significantly higher on first and goal from the 1-yard line compared to third and 10 from one’s own 25-yard line.

In essence, play situations and outcomes are not equivalent, even if their box score representation appears similar. A completed 5-yard pass on fourth and 4 enhances expected points, as the team’s likelihood of scoring on that drive increases by securing a first down; conversely, a completed 5-yard pass on fourth and 10 diminishes expected points, as the team’s scoring opportunity is nullified.

In 2024, only Anthony Richardson and Will Levis recorded a worse expected points added than Williams. Sacks emerged as a critical issue, notably detrimental to EPA. Williams endured 68 sacks last year, surpassing all others by 16. The Bears forfeited an expected 108 points due to Williams’ sacks, marking the second-worst performance on record (since 2000), surpassed only by Bryce Young’s challenging 2023 rookie season.

Reviewing Williams’ sack challenges is unnecessary. They were visibly distressing and analytically concerning. While attention often focuses on red zone statistics, an area of emphasis lies just outside the red zone, between the 20-yard line and midfield. Upon reaching this zone, the objective is to achieve some points. Williams forfeited an estimated 52 points due to sacks within this area alone, the worst among all players since 2000.

An illustrative example of how one can become the worst quarterback ever in a statistical category: Week 3, with the Bears trailing the Texans 16-10 in the third quarter, facing third and 1 at the Texans’ 41-yard line. At this juncture, the Bears’ expected points value is 3.0: Historically, teams conclude the drive with the equivalent of a field goal. Williams is sacked by Will Anderson Jr. for a seven-yard loss. The Bears punt, failing to advance any further in an eventual 19-13 defeat. This single play costs the Bears an estimated 3.3 points, as they not only forgo a potential scoring opportunity, but they also relinquish possession to Houston.

These are the statistical insights. The film analysis reveals more concerning issues: The Bears’ protection scheme breaks down as left tackle Braxton Jones blocks down and tight end Cole Kmet, positioned across the formation, is left isolated. Predictably, this outcome is unfavorable: Kmet fails to make the block and raises his hands — indicative of a missed assignment, a poorly executed play, or both — and moments later, Williams is hit from his blindside.

While discussions about Williams’ timing issues are warranted, he had no opportunity here.

Enter Johnson, tasked with rectifying these issues. Jared Goff, possessing less athleticism than Williams, had the 13th-lowest sack rate in the NFL last year, with several sacks avoidable by an athlete of Williams’ caliber (and avoided as a rookie). Detroit rarely encountered poor pass protection schemes, and they boasted skilled players to execute them.

Johnson should provide the initial remedy. The Bears proactively addressed the second concern this offseason, acquiring Joe Thuney and Jonah Jackson via trade and signing Drew Dalman in free agency. These additions represent clear upgrades to the interior offensive line from 2024. Williams faced the highest frequency of quick pressures in the NFL last year, according to NFL Next Gen Stats.

While EPA penalizes sacks heavily, it also rewards significant plays. Securing an 80-yard touchdown substantially increases expected points, given the “expected” outcome based on field position.

Williams also underperformed in this area. He completed only 22 of 80 throws at least 20 yards downfield, with over 41% of such throws being off target, denying his teammate a chance to make a play. Only Mac Jones fared worse in this regard. Despite these struggles, the Bears persisted with deep throws, attempting the most in the NFL at 80.

Chicago was initially regarded as an ideal destination for Williams. However, it rapidly proved otherwise. The coaching staff’s schematic approach and fundamental instruction were deficient. Williams acknowledged that no one taught him how to analyze film. He was effectively thrust into a challenging situation without adequate preparation.

Williams never appeared comfortable. When prioritizing quick, on-time plays, he appeared mechanical, diminishing his improvisational abilities. When attempting to freelance excessively, he incurred disastrous sacks. Often, he lacked the opportunity to execute either strategy.

The expectation is that Williams will benefit from Johnson’s guidance and improved protection from the upgraded line. The scheme will be superior, but Williams must also execute within structure more effectively, improve his downfield accuracy, and reduce sack frequency.

Despite a disappointing debut, Williams displayed promising attributes. His highlight reel showcases his improvisation and arm talent. Furthermore, encouraging signs emerged on a fundamental level. Only two players had a lower turnover-worthy throw rate than Williams, remarkable considering the subpar play around him. He exhibited scrambling ability when navigating the pocket and identifying lanes.

Johnson’s initial objective is to acclimate Williams. However, Williams must demonstrate his ability to function as Johnson’s quarterback, executing plays on time and avoiding detrimental sacks that impede drives. Only then can they fully harness Williams’ inherent talent, which remains substantial. While the partnership may require time, the infrastructure is in place for Williams to regain his trajectory.

Jayden Daniels: Refinements following exceptional initial campaign

Daniels delivered one of the most impressive, if not the most impressive, rookie seasons ever seen from a quarterback. His composure was remarkable. His defensive reads resembled those of a seasoned veteran. His physical abilities matched the pre-draft hype, perhaps even exceeded it.

The following observations are not criticisms, but rather minor areas for refinement — possibly the distinction between a star, which he undoubtedly is, and a superstar, a perennial MVP contender.

First, we hope to witness Daniels enhance his accuracy from within the pocket. While generally accurate and exceptionally accurate outside the pocket, Daniels recorded an 11.2% off-target rate on throws within the pocket, ranking 25th among 36 qualifying quarterbacks. Though the misses were not egregious, Daniels left some open throws uncompleted when his mobility was not a factor.

This typically occurred in two scenarios: when the defense effectively contained him or during a brief period following Daniels’ rib injury. In the four weeks following Daniels’ injury against the Panthers, his scramble rate decreased to 9.5% of dropbacks, down from his season average of 12.5%. He did not record a single scramble against the Steelers. During those games, he experienced numerous misses from the pocket. Daniels’ poorest performance from the pocket occurred in his single half against the Cowboys in Week 18, where he intentionally remained primarily confined to the pocket for safety purposes, knowing he would only play one half. (The Commanders had already secured a playoff spot.)

Daniels recorded 75 scrambles last season, surpassing all other players by 25 and setting a record for the most in a single season (since 2000). While his scrambling ability is impressive, film analysis suggests he could have achieved even greater gains by keeping his eyes up for a fraction of a second longer.

Again, these are minor critiques. Daniels excelled. The Commanders strengthened both tackle positions with perennial Pro Bowler Laremy Tunsil and first-round pick Josh Conerly, reducing the likelihood of Daniels encountering difficult pockets. Kliff Kingsbury returns as offensive coordinator after declining potential job offers. Daniels is poised for a dominant second year.

Drake Maye: Improved decision-making, accuracy, and increased rushing

If the preceding description leads you to believe “this player lacks ball security and accuracy — he must be poor,” you are mistaken. Despite unfavorable surroundings, Maye displayed positive attributes, most notably the ability to remain competitive.

Maye achieved a 47.4% success rate, ranking 17th among 36 quarterbacks, mirroring Sam Darnold’s performance in Minnesota. Jacoby Brissett, operating in the same offense as Maye, recorded a 37.6% success rate, which would have been the worst among qualifying quarterbacks. Maye maintained the Patriots’ competitiveness. He executed impressive throws, and his rushing abilities are legitimate. Despite participating in only 13 games, Maye scrambled 45 times (tied for fourth-most in the NFL) for 407 yards (second-most), and his 9.0 yards per scramble also ranked second in the NFL.

We would like to see an increase in designed runs for Maye. He had only one non-sneak designed run all season, resulting in a 13-yard gain! Josh McDaniels spent significant time with Tom Brady, but also coached Cam Newton for a year, providing him with the knowledge to utilize a mobile quarterback.

As a passer, Maye experienced typical rookie fluctuations. He threw 10 interceptions and recorded a 12.1% off-target rate. His misses could be erratic. However, Maye possesses the arm talent to execute every type of throw, and while interceptions are never desirable, these were the types of interceptions that he can learn from: attempting throws into tight coverage, launching deep passes, etc.

Maye shares similarities with a young Josh Allen: a powerful athlete, strong arm, inconsistent results. However, the Patriots have made significant improvements around him, securing bookend tackles in Will Campbell and Morgan Moses, a new center in Garrett Bradbury, and a reliable receiver in Stefon Diggs. It is not flawless, but it is an improvement. Expect puzzling mistakes as Maye continues to develop, but also anticipate increased consistency and several encouraging moments.

Michael Penix Jr.: Enhanced control, improved play-action execution

Penix appeared in just five games (starting three), showcasing flashes of potential within that limited sample size. His statistics would appear even more impressive had Penix not been the victim of eight drops in his three starts, two of which led to interceptions.

Penix possesses a formidable left arm, but refining his control will be critical. Over 13% of his passes were off-target, the seventh-highest rate among 47 players who attempted at least 75 dropbacks. According to Next Gen Stats, Penix recorded a -11.2 completion percentage over expected in a pivotal game against the Commanders and -6.3 the following week against the Panthers. He needs to complete these throws, particularly given his proven ability to execute high-level throws. The misses against Washington were detrimental.

We are also interested in Penix’s development as a play-action passer. Atlanta utilized minimal play-action passing with Kirk Cousins limited following an Achilles tear. However, they experimented with it with Penix. While Penix is not a scrambler, he is a capable athlete, and one would assume offensive coordinator Zac Robinson, from the Sean McVay coaching tree, would aim to expand on that. Penix incorporated play action at Washington. We will observe what he and Robinson devise.

J.J. McCarthy: Targeting the middle of the field

Predicting McCarthy’s performance is challenging. He gained considerable starting experience at Michigan, benefiting from an exceptional offensive line, a strong running game, and one of the nation’s top defenses. Subsequently, he missed the entire previous season due to a torn meniscus.

We are certain of Kevin O’Connell’s expectations for McCarthy: precise play-action passing over the middle of the field, targeting Justin Jefferson and Jordan Addison on in-breaking routes, often from under center. The Vikings ranked sixth in play-action rate and third in under-center rate last year.

McCarthy excelled at throwing to this area of the field in college, completing nearly 79% of his passes with 9.7 yards per attempt between the numbers. He possesses the required velocity to target this area downfield. However, passing lanes close rapidly in the NFL.

We will also monitor whether and how O’Connell capitalizes on McCarthy’s athleticism, an underrated aspect of his game.

Bo Nix: Success on standard dropbacks

Nix emerged as a pleasant surprise as a rookie, throwing 29 touchdown passes against 12 interceptions. While his 6.7 yards per attempt ranked only 29th among 36 qualifiers, he was a more respectable 20th in EPA per dropback. A significant factor was Nix’s ability to avoid sacks: Only Josh Allen and Derek Carr recorded a lower negative play rate.

Still, a 20th-place ranking in EPA per dropback is not exceptional — placing him directly behind Aidan O’Connell, Kirk Cousins, and Joe Flacco — and Nix has room for improvement. The Broncos increasingly utilized play action as the season progressed, benefiting Nix significantly. Consider the following data:

Bo Nix Last Season	With Play Action	Without Play Action
EPA per dropback	0.11	0.00
Yards per attempt	7.1	6.5
Sack rate	1.8%	5.0%
Success rate	48.1%	43.5%
TD rate	8.4%	3.7%

Sean Payton may not intend to rely heavily on play action, but Nix struggled without it. Additionally, when the running game did not pose a threat or when Denver was trailing, play action offered minimal assistance. In the lopsided playoff defeat to the Bills, Denver executed only four play-action plays. When passing lanes were not immediately open for Nix and he was confined to the pocket, he had a tendency to take sacks while attempting to extend plays, an issue he largely avoided otherwise.

This was a major component of Nix’s pre-draft evaluation. He could succeed on-schedule but struggled when he could not release the ball quickly. However, perhaps we underestimated his rushing ability. Nix scrambled for 25 first downs, second in the NFL behind Daniels, and ranked seventh in EPA on scrambles.

Nix’s ceiling is limited, as he lacks a powerful arm and elite downfield accuracy. He will occasionally force throws that are not available, but he will also make spectacular throws — this completion to Marvin Mims Jr. was a highlight. His inclination to attempt these throws can lead to trouble. Nevertheless, Nix demonstrated remarkable poise and understanding in his debut season, intangibles that will serve him well.