As the New York Jets begin exploring the possibility of drafting a quarterback in 2025, it is paramount to consider the potential scheme fit of each prospect.
At Jets X-Factor, we have already conducted multiple analyses of what the Jets’ offense could look like under new offensive coordinator Tanner Engstrand. While Engstrand’s precise plans are unknown, we can use his three years as the Detroit Lions’ passing game coordinator to get a decent idea of the philosophies he might carry over to New York.
Without further ado, let’s analyze how some of the top QB prospects in the 2025 NFL draft would fit various aspects of Engstrand’s projected offensive scheme.
We will be analyzing the top nine QB prospects on NFL Mock Draft Database’s consensus big board:
- Cam Ward, Miami (#1 overall)
- Shedeur Sanders, Colorado (#4)
- Jaxson Dart, Mississippi (#40)
- Jalen Milroe, Alabama (#41)
- Quinn Ewers, Texas (#66)
- Will Howard, Ohio State (#79)
- Dillon Gabriel, Oregon (#85)
- Kyle McCord, Syracuse (#136)
- Riley Leonard, Notre Dame (#144)
Throwing over the middle
In 2024, the Lions targeted an in-breaking route on 36.7% of their pass attempts, the second-highest rate in the NFL behind only the 49ers.
Most of these attempts were in the short-to-intermediate range (under 20 air yards). Detroit led the NFL with 180 pass attempts (10.6 per game) that targeted the middle third of the field and traveled 0-19 yards past the line of scrimmage.
With that in mind, let’s take a look at each prospect’s 2024 efficiency when targeting these exact passes. Here are their numbers when throwing to the middle third of the field from 0-19 air yards.
| QB | Rating | Adj. Comp% | ADOT | Y/A | TD | INT | Freq% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C. Ward | 123.4 | 80.4% | 7.8 | 10.0 | 16 | 5 | 42.1% |
| S. Sanders | 105.4 | 86.0% | 6.8 | 9.2 | 9 | 7 | 36.4% |
| J. Dart | 137.6 | 86.7% | 8.7 | 12.2 | 9 | 1 | 34.0% |
| J. Milroe | 94.5 | 80.0% | 7.6 | 10.0 | 2 | 4 | 33.0% |
| Q. Ewers | 112.4 | 80.1% | 8.0 | 9.9 | 8 | 3 | 32.6% |
| W. Howard | 113.7 | 78.1% | 7.0 | 9.2 | 13 | 6 | 39.8% |
| D. Gabriel | 114.0 | 82.2% | 6.0 | 8.3 | 11 | 2 | 42.3% |
| K. McCord | 99.3 | 75.9% | 7.1 | 8.2 | 9 | 5 | 42.0% |
| R. Leonard | 106.0 | 79.7% | 6.7 | 7.8 | 9 | 3 | 42.6% |
- Adjusted completion percentage: Adjusts for drops
- ADOT: Average depth of target
- Frequency: Percentage of total pass attempts in this part of the field
Cam Ward stands out as a fantastic fit in this regard. Not only did he lead the group in touchdown passes (16) while placing second in yards per attempt (10.0) and passer rating (123.4), but he targeted this part of the field at the third-highest rate, with 42.1% of his total pass attempts coming in this area. That last category is key, as it indicates the prospect would feel comfortable joining an NFL offense that heavily targets the middle of the field.
We expect Ward to stand out in most categories since he is the No. 1 prospect in the class, but the main purpose of this study is to identify potential steals the Jets can acquire with the seventh overall pick or later in the draft. Jaxson Dart jumps off the page as an early favorite.
Dart led the group in passer rating (137.6), adjusted completion percentage (86.7%), yards per attempt (12.2), and touchdown-to-interception ratio (9.0) when targeting this area of the field. His frequency was relatively low at just 34% of his total pass attempts, so it may be an adjustment curve for him to rely on these throws at a higher rate. The hope is that his elite efficiency could be maximized in an offense that places a greater emphasis on this part of his game.
On the opposite end, Jalen Milroe stands out as a poor fit in this area. While Milroe was explosive (10.0 yards per attempt), he had the worst touchdown-to-interception ratio (0.5), lowest passer rating (94.5), fourth-lowest adjusted completion percentage (80.0%), and second-lowest frequency (33.0%).
Play action
The Lions used play action on an NFL-high 36.8% of their passing plays in 2024. If this holds under Engstrand, New York needs a quarterback who can operate effectively after executing a play fake.
Here are each prospect’s numbers when using play action in 2024.
| QB | Rating | Adj. Comp% | ADOT | Y/A | TD | INT | Sack% | Freq% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C. Ward | 132.7 | 83.3% | 7.1 | 8.7 | 13 | 0 | 1.3% | 29.4% |
| S. Sanders | 118.9 | 86.7% | 3.8 | 7.2 | 12 | 2 | 6.9% | 28.4% |
| J. Dart | 134.3 | 79.0% | 12.7 | 12.1 | 18 | 3 | 3.6% | 53.2% |
| J. Milroe | 112.2 | 82.4% | 5.4 | 8.4 | 4 | 1 | 3.7% | 22.1% |
| Q. Ewers | 108.2 | 80.3% | 7.6 | 8.7 | 12 | 4 | 5.2% | 42.1% |
| W. Howard | 140.8 | 85.4% | 8.4 | 11.5 | 18 | 4 | 2.3% | 38.2% |
| D. Gabriel | 107.8 | 83.5% | 5.2 | 9.0 | 8 | 3 | 1.5% | 40.0% |
| K. McCord | 125.6 | 71.4% | 10.9 | 9.9 | 15 | 2 | 2.6% | 24.4% |
| R. Leonard | 123.0 | 75.0% | 9.2 | 7.8 | 8 | 1 | 3.8% | 16.8% |
Once again, Ward pops, boasting the lowest sack rate (1.3%) and third-best passer rating (132.7) while being the only QB with zero interceptions.
Dart joins Ward as a repeat star, further strengthening his case as an excellent fit for Engstrand’s offense. He led the group in yards per attempt (12.1) and touchdown passes (18) while placing second in passer rating (134.3). Most notably, he used play action at the highest rate (53.2% of his dropbacks).
The breakout prospect in this area is Ohio State’s Will Howard, who led the group in passer rating (140.8) while placing second in adjusted completion percentage (85.4%) and third in sack rate (2.3%), all while using play action at a 38.2% rate – the closest mark to Detroit’s 36.7% rate of any prospect on this list.
Milroe again stands out as a potentially poor fit. He used play action at the second-lowest frequency (22.2%) while ranking third-worst in passer rating (112.2) and yards per attempt (8.4). It is also worth noting that Riley Leonard used play action at an incredibly low rate compared to the rest of the group (16.8%) and had the second-lowest adjusted completion percentage (75.0%).
Quick passing
While quick passing is not necessarily the bread and butter of Detroit’s offense (as it was for the Jets’ offense in 2024), it is still an important part of it.
As we know, the Lions called plenty of play action concepts, which tend to take longer to develop. So, much of the time, they needed quality pass protection from the offensive line and a quarterback who could succeed on a longer-developing play. Over the past three seasons, Detroit ranked third in the NFL with 547 play action dropbacks, while they ranked 13th-highest with an average of 3.15 seconds to throw on play action dropbacks.
However, when the Lions do not call play action, they like to get the ball out quickly. The Lions averaged only 2.58 seconds to throw on non-play action dropbacks over the past three seasons, ranking seventh-lowest.
Thus, quick passing is a factor that must be considered. Here are each prospect’s numbers when releasing the ball in under 2.5 seconds in 2024.
| QB | Rating | Adj. Comp% | ADOT | Y/A | TD | INT | Freq% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C. Ward | 127.3 | 80.4% | 5.9 | 8.4 | 23 | 2 | 48.3% |
| S. Sanders | 117.7 | 91.7% | 3.4 | 7.5 | 20 | 4 | 45.2% |
| J. Dart | 127.2 | 87.0% | 6.8 | 9.5 | 15 | 1 | 46.3% |
| J. Milroe | 107.1 | 84.1% | 4.0 | 8.4 | 6 | 3 | 37.8% |
| Q. Ewers | 111.1 | 78.2% | 6.0 | 8.0 | 19 | 6 | 47.3% |
| W. Howard | 116.3 | 82.3% | 5.3 | 8.2 | 16 | 5 | 46.5% |
| D. Gabriel | 119.9 | 90.5% | 2.5 | 7.5 | 15 | 0 | 46.7% |
| K. McCord | 106.2 | 77.8% | 7.2 | 7.9 | 24 | 7 | 65.8% |
| R. Leonard | 113.8 | 87.0% | 4.5 | 7.1 | 13 | 1 | 47.0% |
Yet again, it’s Ward and Dart leading the pack. They are the top two members of the group in terms of both passer rating and yards per attempt, while combining for a 38-to-3 touchdown-to-interception ratio.
Numbers aren’t everything; a thorough review of the film must always accompany the data to provide a full picture. Based on the metrics we analyzed today, though, do not be surprised if the Jets are linked to Ward and Dart throughout the draft process. They have shown the ability to be efficient in multiple specific areas that are vital to the offensive scheme that Tanner Engstrand projects to install with the Jets.
It may be difficult for New York to acquire Ward without making an aggressive trade-up offer. However, Dart is currently pegged as the No. 40 overall prospect on the consensus big board. If Dart improves his stock over the next two months between the combine, his pro day, and interviews, perhaps the Jets (led by former Broncos assistant GM Darren Mougey) would consider making him this year’s version of Bo Nix – a surprising first-round pick made based on conviction and fit even if popular opinion deems it a reach.
