Category: NFL News

How this year’s class stacks up to past pass-rushing breakouts

[ad_1]

  • Past production says a lot about a player’s potential to shine early in the NFL: Players such as Aidan Hutchinson, Jared Verse, Chase Young and Laiatu Latu parlayed strong college production into impressive rookie seasons over the past five years.
  • How does the 2025 class compare? Penn State’s Abdul Carter and Marshall’s Mike Green are bringing notable college numbers to the pro ranks and project as early contributors.

Estimated Reading Time: 8 minutes

Quarterback is the most important position on a football field, but a great pass rush is the ultimate equalizer. Pressure disrupts timing, rhythm and accuracy, something only elite signal-callers can consistently overcome.

In recent years, there has been a trend of young pass rushers making more of an immediate impact in the NFL. Last season, Jared Verse of the Los Angeles Rams ranked in the top five among all pass rushers in total quarterback pressures and pass-rush win rate. The 19th overall pick in the 2024 NFL Draft ran away with the Defensive Rookie of the Year honors, garnering 36 out of a possible 49 first-place votes.

There tends to be a lot of debate this time of year when evaluating pass rushers in terms of what matters most: production at the college level or measurables from the NFL Combine/pro days. Using historical PFF data, we can draw conclusions about what matters most when projecting pass rushers.

For this piece, we’ll focus primarily on production and take a closer look at the top 10 NFL rookie edge rushers over the past five years and see how they performed in college. Following that, we’ll apply some of the context to this year’s edge class and examine who is most likely to do damage as a rookie.

These are the top 10 NFL rookie edge pass rushers in PFF pass-rush grade since the start of 2020:

Rank Player Team Year Pass-Rush Grade Pass-Rush Win Rate Total Pressures
1 Micah Parsons Cowboys 2021 93.0 21.5% 70
2 Jared Verse Rams 2024 85.5 19.7% 89
3 Chop Robinson Dolphins 2024 78.7 18.8% 56
4 Will Anderson Jr. Texans 2023 76.6 16.4% 68
5 Chase Young Commanders 2020 75.9 10.5% 42
6 Laiatu Latu Colts 2024 72.1 14.0% 38
7 Alex Highsmith Steelers 2020 71.4 15.0% 21
8 Kwity Paye Colts 2021 71.3 12.3% 39
9 Aidan Hutchinson Lions 2022 70.2 12.4% 53
10 Kayvon Thibodeaux Giants 2022 67.3 9.7% 45

Of the 10 players listed above, only Alex Highsmith (102nd overall pick) was not drafted in the first round. Only 13 of the 168 edge defenders who played at least one snap in their rookie season over the past five years rushed the passer 200-plus times and earned a 65.0-plus PFF pass-rush grade. This suggests early playing time can be hard to come by for edge rusher prospects, but those who do play tend to make an immediate impact.

Here are the same 10 players and their most productive season in college:

Rank Player Team Year Pass-Rush Grade Pass-Rush Win Rate Total Pressures
1 Chase Young Ohio State 2019 96.4 26.6% 56
2 Laiatu Latu UCLA 2023 94.3 26.2% 62
3 Aidan Hutchinson Michigan 2021 93.4 22.5% 74
4 Chop Robinson Penn State 2022 92.4 20.9% 48
5 Kayvon Thibodeaux Oregon 2021 91.5 20.2% 47
6 Alex Highsmith Charlotte 2019 91.4 19.5% 51
7 Jared Verse Florida State 2023 90.8 21.8% 62
8 Kwity Paye Michigan 2020* 87.1 21.9% 22
9 Micah Parsons Penn State 2019** 86.8 20.7% 26
10 Will Anderson Jr. Alabama 2022 85.8 16.4% 65

*Paye played just four games in 2020; **Parsons sat out the 2020 season due to COVID and played primarily LB in college

One thing is clear from the chart above: Edge pass rushers who made impacts as rookies in the NFL dominated in college.

With this in mind, let’s look at the top edge prospects in the 2025 NFL Draft and see who is most likely to be a difference-maker on passing downs early on in the NFL.

Abdul Carter, Penn State 

Carter is the 2025 NFL Draft’s clear top pass rusher and is widely viewed as an elite prospect, capable of making a Jared Verse-like impact as a rookie, regardless of which team drafts him. There are some obvious connections to All-Pro Micah Parsons, not only because they both went to Penn State and wore No. 11, but because of their freakish athletic abilities on the field.

In terms of production on the field, Carter was in a tier of his own. This past season was his first as a full-time edge rusher, and he dominated the competition, leading the FBS in PFF pass-rushing grade (92.4) and total pressures (66) while ranking in the top five in win rate (22.6%). There is no reason to believe Carter won’t be a plug-and-play pass-rushing star from day one in the NFL.

Try PFF’s mock draft simulator — trade picks and players and mock for your favorite NFL team.

Mike Green, Marshall

Green is one of the most intriguing prospects in this year’s draft, regardless of position. On one hand, he has only two years of starting experience and didn’t face the best competition at Marshall. On the other, his pass-rushing metrics were off the charts, ranking in the high 90th percentile in win rate.

Last season, Green led all FBS edge defenders with 17 sacks and ranked near the top in PFF pass-rushing grade (91.4) and total pressures (59). His draft stock soared when he dominated the Senior Bowl against some of the class’ best offensive tackle prospects. Green’s explosive first step combined with the violence and physicality of his moves should translate early to the NFL.

Donovan Ezeiruaku, Boston College

At 6-foot-2 and 247 pounds, Ezeiruaku is one of the smaller edge rushers in the draft, but he overcame that with a quick first step, nice bend and a high football IQ during his time at Boston College. He may not be the most explosive prospect, but there’s a smooth element to his game that allows him to consistently maximize leverage in one-on-one matchups.

What Ezeiruaku lacks in size, he more than makes up for in production. Last season, he led all FBS with 20 quarterback hits and ranked in the top five in sacks (14) and total pressures (60). His 90.5 PFF pass-rush grade also ranked in the top 10 at his respective position, and he finished his Boston College career with 140 pressures. Like Mike Green, Ezeiruaku has a strong chance to be a year-one pass-rushing contributor in the NFL.

James Pearce Jr., Tennessee

Pearce is another edge prospect who is unlikely to make it out of the first round due to his pass-rushing ability alone. His game is built on speed and anticipation, as he is quick off the ball and very twitchy in his movements.

If you look at Pearce’s 2023 and 2024 seasons, they are almost identical in terms of playing time and production. In 2023, he played 462 snaps and generated 52 pressures (91.9 PFF pass-rushing grade). And in 2024, he played 464 snaps and generated 55 pressures (89.4 PFF pass-rushing grade). His 22.4% pressure rate over the past two seasons ranks first among FBS edge defenders with at least 200 pass-rush snaps. At worst, he looks like a player who will excel as a situational rusher off the edge in the NFL.

Shemar Stewart, Texas A&M

No player improved their draft stock more at the NFL Combine than Shemar Stewart. Measuring in at 6-foot-5 and 267 pounds, the Texas A&M product had a Myles Garrett-like showing, running a 4.59-second 40-yard dash with a 40-inch vertical and a broad jump of 10 feet, 11 inches. These kinds of athletes don’t come along very often, so it’s no surprise he is getting a lot of attention leading up to the draft.

The knock on Stewart is his lack of production at the college level. His 67.1 PFF pass-rush grade in 2024 ranked 70th out of 231 draft-eligible edge defenders with at least 230 pass-rushing snaps, and his 12.4% pass-rush win rate was well below some of the other potential first-round edge prospects.

Additionally, Stewart never recorded more than 1.5 sacks in any season at Texas A&M. He has the build and athleticism of a future NFL star, but his lack of college productivity suggests he could be a work in progress as a rusher early on in his NFL career.

Try PFF’s mock draft simulator — trade picks and players and mock for your favorite NFL team.

Mykel Williams, Georgia

Physically, Williams has the look of an NFL-caliber edge player (6-foot-5 and 265 pounds). He is coming off three highly productive years at Georgia against the top competition in the nation. Currently the No. 24-ranked prospect on PFF’s big board, Williams brings a high floor in run defense but has a lot of room to grow as a pass rusher.

Last season, he earned a 61.0 PFF pass-rush grade on true pass sets and an 11.1% win rate, metrics that were significantly lower than some of his edge prospect peers in this draft. While there are concerns about his ceiling as a pass rusher, Williams is still worthy of a first-round selection and can impact the game in other ways early on in his NFL career.



[ad_2]

What’s changed over the years?

[ad_1]

  • Changing of the guard: Precise pocket passers like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning used to rule the NFL with their accuracy and processing from under center, but that is starting to change.
  • Dual-threat era: The rise of the athletic quarterback and the resurrection of option football have created an evolution in evaluating quarterback prospects.
  • 2025 NFL Draft season is here: Try PFF’s best-in-class Mock Draft Simulator and learn about 2025’s top prospects while trading and drafting for your favorite NFL team.

Estimated reading time: 9 minutes

Quarterback evaluation is arguably the most important part of building a championship-winning roster. As the game of football continuously evolves at the lower levels and in the NFL, so do the quarterback’s duties. The proliferation of mobile quarterbacks and the modern resurrection of option football have played a crucial role in these changes.

As we keep that offensive evolution in mind, we will take a closer look at how quarterback evaluation has changed over the past two decades, resulting in the current archetype of player that generally succeeds in today’s game.

Before getting into the schematics of it all, it’s worth noting that finding a long-term franchise quarterback is extremely difficult. First, we’ll take a look at each quarterback class that can be at least roughly quantified via PFF statistics to demonstrate how hard that task is.

Number of QBs in each class with 80.0 or higher career PFF grade (min. 1,000 snaps played)
2006 0
2007 0
2008 1
2009 1
2010 0
2011 2
2012 4
2013 1
2014 2
2015 0
2016 3
2017 2
2018 3
2019 1
2020 5
2021 0
2022 1
2023 1
2024 1

Seventeen of the 19 Super Bowls in the PFF era (since the 2006 season) have been won by quarterbacks with at least an 80.0 career PFF grade. Ten of those 17 were won by players who were drafted before 2006 – Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers. The only exceptions among the full group are Joe Flacco, who owns a 78.6 career PFF grade, and Nick Foles, who was starting in place of Carson Wentz, who owns an 81.2 career PFF grade.

These quarterbacks that compile an 80.0 or higher career grade are tough to find and often come in waves. In total, 27 such quarterbacks have been drafted with a minimum of 1,000 snaps played so far in their career across 19 draft classes, which averages out to less than 1.5 per class.

Using certain extraordinary classes as a reference point, we can divide up periods of dominant quarterbacks and find out what worked best as far as individual success for those players

2004: The golden era of pocket passers

The legendary 2004 quarterback class of Eli Manning, Philip Rivers and Ben Roethlisberger isn’t referenced above, but all three played the vast majority of their careers in the PFF era. All of them earned at least an 80.0 career PFF grade. Along with their contemporaries like Tom Brady and Peyton Manning, the 2004 class represented what every franchise was looking for at the time – an ultra-precise pocket passer.

Though they could make the occasional play outside the pocket, Roethlisberger being the best among them, these are the passers who excelled when they were protected and allowed to step up and stay in rhythm within the pocket.

Career passing grades

All six of these passers are likely to be headed to the Hall of Fame, but they certainly won’t be remembered for their exploits on the move. Lamar Jackson and Jayden Daniels recorded more rushing yards in 2024 alone than four of the six players above did in their entire careers.

Of course, this was before the read option and run-pass option were even thought of at the NFL level, so it makes sense that athleticism wasn’t as prioritized. Quarterbacks were expected to play within a dropback structure all the time. Teams also ran over 80% of their plays under center in 2006 as opposed to roughly only 30% of the time in 2024. The quarterbacks of that previous generation played a completely different game than today.

2011-2012: The experimental phase

The 2011 and 2012 draft classes saw six quarterbacks who have so far earned at least an 80.0 career PFF grade – Cam Newton, Andy Dalton, Andrew Luck, Ryan Tannehill, Russell Wilson and Kirk Cousins. That group doesn’t include 2012 second-overall pick Robert Griffin III, but his influence plays a part in this as well.

Start with Newton, whose dual-threat capabilities and read-option prowess lit the college football world on fire during his Heisman-winning season at Auburn in 2010. The eventual NFL MVP gave credence to the idea that a team could build its entire offense around its quarterback at the highest level as opposed to just the passing game. His 80.6 career PFF grade is built on the balance of his 77.4 passing grade and 73.9 rushing grade.

As for the others, Griffin was drafted second overall after a Heisman-winning campaign at Baylor with the idea that he could perform similarly to Newton as the dual-threat centerpiece. Dalton and Wilson were pocket passers with baseball backgrounds that allowed them to function well outside the pocket. Tannehill was a wide receiver at Texas A&M before switching to quarterback. Luck, the son of ex-NFL QB Oliver Luck, was an excellent athlete for his size as well.

While there were other passers who could improvise well, namely Ben Roethlisberger and Aaron Rodgers, a new era of dual-threat passers were ushered in with the rise of players from these two draft classes. An emphasis on athleticism and rushing was becoming a focus, particularly with regard to designed run plays.

Excluding sneaks and kneels, quarterbacks across the league compiled just 918 designed carries across five regular seasons from 2006 to 2010. That number more than doubled to 1,881 designed carries, again excluding sneaks and kneels, across the next five regular seasons. Teams were beginning to search for elite dual-threat players and were adjusting their playbooks accordingly.

2017-2020: Athletic freaks, improvisation and the rise of the RPO

Starting in 2017 with Patrick Mahomes and Deshaun Watson, some NFL teams began to tinker with the idea of an improvisational playmaker being among the most dangerous weapons in the NFL. Aaron Rodgers had made a career out of it by this point, but the league couldn’t yet find more players who could emulate that style.

Mahomes, in particular, changed that thinking, leading to that improvisational skill set becoming increasingly important in evaluating prospects. Once players like Josh Allen and Lamar Jackson were drafted in 2018 as well as mobile passers like Jordan Love, Jalen Hurts and even Joe Burrow were selected in 2020, it seemed as though athleticism and improvisational skills were suddenly required on the road to quarterback greatness.

That influence has continued into more recent draft classes. Twenty or more years ago, it’s more unlikely that players like Kyler Murray, Bryce Young and Caleb Williams would’ve been drafted first overall due to a perceived lack of size and recklessness.

Early draftees who are more stationary players, like Kenny Pickett or Mac Jones, are unable to keep up with the demands of modern offense. Two factors make this a credible point.

First, the increase in athleticism has led to a greater emphasis, as previously mentioned, and greater effectiveness for quarterbacks running the football. Prior to 2017, NFL quarterbacks hadn’t combined for a rushing grade of at least 70.0 in a single season. Most of the earlier seasons in PFF history saw abysmal rushing production from quarterbacks.

Turn the clock forward to the past five seasons and we see a completely different level of production.

League-wide QB rushing stats (Excluding Sneaks/Kneels)
Year Rushing Grade YCO/ATT MTF/ATT
2020 89.8 3.1 0.172
2021 88.4 3.3 0.159
2022 86.0 3.0 0.17
2023 89.6 3.2 0.212
2024 92.9 3.5 0.224

Quarterbacks are now legitimate weapons in the run game, and they continue to improve as a greater emphasis is put on them contributing to it. The 92.9 rushing grade in the above table is an all-time high for a single season for quarterbacks in the PFF era. The yards after contact and missed tackles forced per attempt figures put quarterbacks above the league average for running backs in both categories in 2024.

Not only have designed carries increased for quarterbacks in recent years, but the rise of the run-pass option (RPO) has allowed them to effectively tie all of their abilities together. Quarterbacks are now more familiar than ever with their pre-snap reads at the high school and college levels with the simplicity that RPO concepts provide.

Roughly 10% of plays in the NFL involve an RPO concept. Nearly 23% of plays at the FBS level in 2024 included an RPO concept. The rise of the RPO is unlikely to stop any time soon, and quarterbacks who can effectively execute it will continue to succeed at a high level. It should come as no surprise that Patrick Mahomes has run the most RPO plays in the NFL over the past five years. Right behind him are Josh Allen and Jalen Hurts.

Several of this year’s quarterback prospects and those in recent years have excelled in the RPO game. NFL stars like Jayden Daniels, Brock Purdy, and Trevor Lawrence ranked among the top-graded players in college football when executing RPO concepts in their final amateur season. It should come as no surprise that several quarterbacks in this year’s group, including Cameron Ward, Shedeur Sanders and Jaxson Dart, have put up similarly excellent RPO profiles.

Arm talent, accuracy and processing will always be the most important factors with regard to evaluating passers. However, the game has changed to a point where athleticism and the ability to execute option-style football have become essential components to the success of an NFL offense as opposed to ancillary pieces of it.

[ad_2]

Top 10 returning edge defenders for the 2025 season

[ad_1]

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

With the 2024 college football season in the books, it’s time to turn our attention to 2025 by ranking the top returning players at every position. 

Next up is edge defender. While there are plenty of talented edges departing college for the 2025 NFL Draft, this is still one of the most star-studded positions in college football. And for the first time in the five years of PFF’s collegiate positional rankings, there are two rising true sophomores at the top.

Below is a list of PFF’s top 10 returning edge defenders in college football in addition to an honorable mention nominee. Please note that NFL projection was not taken into account in these rankings.

Click below to view our other position rankings
QB | RB | WR | TE | OT | IOL | DI

1. Colin Simmons, Texas

Simmons entered college with a ton of hype as a top-15 overall recruit and has somehow already exceeded expectations. The Texas native was the sixth-most-valuable edge defender in the nation according to PFF’s wins above-average metric. He trailed only Abdul Carter, Jack Sawyer, Mike Green, Josaiah Stewart and JT Tuimoloau in that metric. Simmons ended up winning the Shaun Alexander Freshman of the Year Award, which is given to the best true freshman in America.

His 18.6% pressure rate was a top-15 mark in the nation, and he was no slouch as a run-defender either, posting a 73.4 run-defense grade. Simmons’ elite combination of bend and advanced pass-rushing moves is reminiscent of Von Miller. 

2. Dylan Stewart, South Carolina

Stewart is the freakiest athlete the Gamecocks have had at edge defender since Jadeveon Clowney was launching helmets over a decade ago. And like Clowney, he has the upside of becoming a No. 1 overall pick if he keeps up this trajectory.

The former five-star recruit earned a 91.4 pass-rush grade as just a true freshman, tied for sixth among all edges in America. His 51 pressures were tied for second among returning Power Four edge rushers as well. Stewart needs to get a bit stronger to set the edge better in the run game, but he’s already the most fearsome pass-rusher in college football thanks to his physical gifts.

3. T.J. Parker, Clemson

Between Parker and Peter Woods, the Tigers currently project to have the first edge defender and defensive tackle selected in the 2026 NFL Draft. His 12 sacks in 2024 led all returning Power Four edge rushers and he’s one of three in that same group who posted 80.0-plus grades both as a pass-rusher and as a run defender. 

Parker has a devastating bull rush thanks to his power at 6-foot-3, 265 pounds. He has all the makings of a top-10 selection next April if he can put together a similarly strong junior year.

4. Rueben Bain Jr., Miami (FL)

A calf injury kept Bain from taking a significant jump in his sophomore year like many were expecting, but he still deserves a spot in the top-five of this list for how good he’s been over his first couple of seasons. 

Bain’s 73 pressures since 2023 stand third among returning Power Four edge defenders while his 16.9% pass-rush win rate is fourth. His 82.7 run-defense grade this past season is also fourth in that same group. Bain can line up anywhere on the defensive line at 6-foot-3, 275 pounds and should remind many why he’s a first-round caliber talent now that he’s fully healthy.

5. Keldric Faulk, Auburn

Faulk has been one of Auburn’s starting edge defenders in each of his first two seasons and took a major step forward as a sophomore. His 83.8 PFF grade was more than 16 points better than what he posted as a freshman and is the fifth-best mark of any returning Power Four edge rusher. 

The former four-star recruit is at his best in the run game, tying for eighth among Power Four edges with 23 run-defense stops last year. Faulk is still developing moves as a pass rusher, but he did show improvement there with nine sacks and 45 pressures last year. Both those figures stood in the top 20 of the Power Four.

6. LT Overton, Alabama

Overton was a top-15 overall recruit in the 2022 class but failed to live up to the hype during his first two seasons at Texas A&M, posting a 61.5 PFF grade in that span.

A transfer to Alabama did wonders for his development, as he ended the year as one of the 15 most valuable edge defenders in America. Overton’s 18% pass-rush win rate was a top-30 mark in the nation while his 81.7 run-defense grade was 25th. He blurs the line between an edge rusher and defensive tackle at 283 pounds and can line up anywhere along the defensive line and succeed.

7. Tyreak Sapp, Florida

Sapp enjoyed a major breakout in his fourth season with the Gators. His 90.4 PFF grade placed 10th among all edge defenders in America and second among returning ones. 

The former defensive tackle is at his best in the run game, placing fourth among all FBS edges in run-defense grade (88.7) while tying for fourth among Power Four ones in tackles for loss/no-gain (13). Sapp is a more than capable pass-rusher as well, earning an 82.2 grade in that regard. He plays with natural pad level at 6-foot-2 with the strength to stack-and-shed blockers very well.

8. Mikail Kamara, Indiana

Kamara was one of many former James Madison Dukes to follow head coach Curt Cignetti to Indiana. While he leveled up in competition by going from the Sun Belt to the Big Ten, the fifth-year senior upped his game as well. In fact, he led all FBS edges with 67 pressures last year while his 28 combined sacks/hits were the third-most in the nation. 

While his length at 6-foot-1 will be an issue for his NFL outlook, Kamara has a stocky build at 265 pounds with a quick first step and good hand usage.

9. Dani Dennis-Sutton, Penn State

The Nittany Lions may have lost the best edge in the country in Abdul Carter, but they’re still in a very good place at that position thanks to the return of DDS. Dennis-Sutton is tied for the most valuable returning Power Four edge over the last two years according to our wins above average metric and his 75 pressures in that span trail only T.J. Parker in that same group.

The former five-star recruit has all of the traits you’d look for in an edge and could climb this list with further development.

10. Derrick Moore, Michigan

Moore was one of the most efficient pass-rushers in the country last year. His 23.1% pass-rush win rate was fourth among all FBS edges while his 86.5 pass-rush grade was sixth in the Big Ten.

Moore has very good bend and a bull rush that can knock back even the largest offensive tackles. With Mason Graham, Kenneth Grant and Josaiah Stewart off to the league, it’ll be up to him and top-10 defensive tackle Rayshaun Benny to lead the next era of dominant defensive linemen in Ann Arbor.

Honorable Mention: Joshua Josephs, Tennessee

Josephs was part of a deep rotation of Tennessee defensive linemen but he made the most of his 353 snaps. The junior led all edge defenders in the nation with a 91.4 run-defense grade in 2024 and was one of only three edges in America who earned 85-plus grades as both a run defender and as a pass rusher.

Like his former teammate, James Pearce Jr., Josephs has an explosive get-off that allows him to blow up blockers before they even know what hit them. And like Pearce, he can become a first-round pick if he can keep up this level of play under a heavier workload next season.



[ad_2]

Rookie running back prospect model

[ad_1]

2Y1N42K COLUMBUS, OH – SEPTEMBER 07: Ohio State Buckeyes running back Quinshon Judkins (1) rushes for a 23-yard touchdown in the first quarter during a college football game against the Western Michigan Broncos on September 07, 2024 at Ohio Stadium in Columbus, Ohio. (Photo by Joe Robbins/Icon Sportswire) (Icon Sportswire via AP Images)

[ad_2]

Pro day schedule and results tracker

[ad_1]

The 2025 NFL Draft pro day slate is here. While some college football teams have confirmed their pro day schedules, many schools have yet to announce plans (denoted by “TBD” below).

Below is a list of the upcoming pro days in chronological and alphabetical order, along with results from PFF’s top prospects. Check back frequently for updates.

Updated: March 21 @ 10:30 p.m.

Click here to jump to pro day results and PFF’s top prospects by school

Editor’s note: Dates are subject to change, and new teams are added daily

March 3

March 4

March 5

March 6

March 7

March 10

March 11

March 12

March 13

March 14

March 17

Big 12 Pro Day (March 18-21, exact dates TBD)

March 18

March 19

March 20

March 21

March 24

March 25

March 26

March 27

March 28

March 31

April 1

April 3

April 4

Editor’s note: Pro day results are unofficial

Abilene Christian Wildcats (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Air Force Falcons (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Akron Zips (March 19)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Alabama Crimson Tide (March 19)

Source: tuscaloosanews.com

Alabama A&M Bulldogs (March 19)

Source: @thaialifloyd

Alabama State Hornets (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Albany Great Danes (April 1)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Alcorn State Braves (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Appalachian State Mountaineers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Arizona Wildcats (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: @Schultz_Report, Zebra Technologies

Arizona State Sun Devils (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Arkansas Razorbacks (March 17)

Source: wholehogsports.com

Arkansas State Red Wolves (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Arkansas-Pine Bluff Golden Lions (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Army Black Knights (March 27)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Auburn Tigers (March 24)

Austin Peay Governors (March 10)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Ball State Cardinals (March 3)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Baylor Bears (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Bethune-Cookman Wildcats (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Boise State Broncos (March 26)

Boston College Eagles (March 24)

Bowling Green Falcons (March 24)

Brown Bears (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Bryant Bulldogs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Bucknell Bison (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Buffalo Bulls (March 13)

  • LB Shaun Dolac (PFF Big Board Rank: 300)
    • 40-yard dash: 4.55 seconds
    • Bench: 25 reps
    • Vertical jump: 35.5 inches
    • Three-cone: 6.94 seconds
    • Short shuttle: 4.21 seconds

Source: @coltonedwardsFB

Butler Bulldogs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

BYU Cougars (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Cal Poly Mustangs (TBD)

California Golden Bears (March 20)

Campbell Fighting Camels (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Central Arkansas Bears (March 18)

EDGE David Walker (PFF Big Board Rank: 100)

Central Connecticut State Blue Devils (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Central Michigan Chippewas (March 11)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Charleston Southern Buccaneers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Charlotte 49ers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Chattanooga Mocs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Cincinnati Bearcats (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Clemson Tigers (March 13)

Source: clemsontigers.com

Coastal Carolina Chanticleers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Colgate Raiders (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Colorado Buffaloes (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Colorado State Rams (March 13)

Columbia Lions (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Connecticut Huskies (March 25)

Cornell Big Red (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Dartmouth Big Green (March 25)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Davidson Wildcats (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Dayton Flyers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Delaware Fightin Blue Hens (March 14)

Drake Bulldogs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Duke Blue Devils (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Duquesne Dukes (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

East Carolina Pirates (March 24)

East Tennessee State Buccaneers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

East Texas A&M Lions (March 7)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Eastern Illinois Panthers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Eastern Kentucky Colonels (March 10)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Eastern Michigan Eagles (March 20)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Eastern Washington Eagles (March 7)

Elon Phoenix (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

FIU Panthers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Florida Gators (March 27)

Florida A&M Rattlers (March 20)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Florida Atlantic Owls (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Florida State Seminoles (March 21)

Fordham Rams (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Fresno State Bulldogs (March 13)

  • S Dean Clark (PFF Big Board Rank: 215)
    • 40-yard dash: 4.49 seconds
    • Bench: 19 reps
    • Vertical jump: 41 inches
    • Broad jump: 11 feet
    • Short shuttle: 4.13 seconds

Source: 247Sports.com

Furman Paladins (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Gardner-Webb Runnin’ Bulldogs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Georgetown Hoyas (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Georgia Bulldogs (March 12)

Sources: @EricGalko, @Jordan_Reid, @crissy_froyd

Georgia Southern Eagles (March 10)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Georgia State Panthers (March 11)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets (March 14)

Grambling State Tigers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Hampton Pirates (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Harvard Crimson (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Hawaii Rainbow Warriors (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Holy Cross Crusaders (March 27)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Houston Cougars (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Houston Christian Huskies (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Howard Bison (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Idaho Vandals (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Idaho State Bengals (March 19)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Illinois Fighting Illini (March 13)

Illinois State Redbirds (March 6)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Incarnate Word Cardinals (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Indiana Hoosiers (March 4)

Source: hoosierhuddle.com

Indiana State Sycamores (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Iowa Hawkeyes (March 24)

Iowa State Cyclones (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Jackson State Tigers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Jacksonville State Gamecocks (March 28)

James Madison Dukes (March 27)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Kansas Jayhawks (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Kansas State Wildcats (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Kennesaw State Owls (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Kent State Golden Flashes (March 19)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Kentucky Wildcats (March 11)

Source: fox56news.com

Lafayette Leopards (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Lamar Cardinals (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Lehigh Mountain Hawks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Liberty Flames (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Lindenwood Lions (TBD)

LIU Sharks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Louisiana Ragin’ Cajuns (March 24)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Louisiana Tech Bulldogs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Louisville Cardinals (March 25)

LSU Tigers (March 26)

Maine Black Bears (March 28)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Marist Red Foxes (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Marshall Thundering Herd (March 24)

Maryland Terrapins (March 28)

Massachusetts Minutemen (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

McNeese State Cowboys (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Memphis Tigers (March 18)

Mercer Bears (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Mercyhurst Lakers (March 25)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Merrimack Warriors (March 27)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Miami (FL) Hurricanes (March 24)

Miami (OH) RedHawks (March 3)

Michigan Wolverines (March 21)

Source: @Jordan_Reid

Michigan State Spartans (TBD)

Middle Tennessee Blue Raiders (March 20)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Minnesota Golden Gophers (March 19)

Source: @tlschwerz

Mississippi State Bulldogs (March 27)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Mississippi Valley State Delta Devils (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Missouri Tigers (March 21)

Source: mutigers.com

Missouri State Bears (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Monmouth Hawks (March 11)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Montana Grizzlies (April 3)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Montana State Bobcats (April 4)

Morehead State Eagles (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Morgan State Bears (March 27)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Murray State Racers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Navy Midshipmen (March 26)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Nebraska Cornhuskers (March 25)

Nevada Wolf Pack (April 1)

New Hampshire Wildcats (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

New Mexico Lobos (March 24)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

New Mexico State Aggies (March 24)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Nicholls State Colonels (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Norfolk State Spartans (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

North Alabama Lions (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

North Carolina A&T Aggies (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

North Carolina Central Eagles (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

North Carolina Tar Heels (March 24)

North Carolina State Wolfpack (March 25)

North Dakota Fighting Hawks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

North Dakota State Bison (March 27)

North Texas Mean Green (March 21)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Northern Arizona Lumberjacks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Northern Colorado Bears (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Northern Illinois Huskies (March 17)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Northern Iowa Panthers (March 24)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Northwestern Wildcats (March 18)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Notre Dame Fighting Irish (March 27)

Ohio Bobcats (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Ohio State Buckeyes (March 26)

Oklahoma Sooners (March 11)

Source: 247Sports.com

Oklahoma State Cowboys (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Old Dominion Monarchs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Ole Miss Rebels (March 28)

Oregon Ducks (March 18)

Oregon State Beavers (March 17)

Penn State Nittany Lions (March 28)

Penn Quakers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Pittsburgh Panthers (March 26)

Portland State Vikings (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Prairie View A&M Panthers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Presbyterian Blue Hose (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Princeton Tigers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Purdue Boilermakers (March 5)

Source: On3.com

Rhode Island Rams (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Rice Owls (March 25)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Richmond Spiders (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Robert Morris Colonials (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Rutgers Scarlet Knights (March 12)

Source: rutgers.rivals.com

Sacramento State Hornets (March 31)

Sacred Heart Pioneers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Sam Houston Bearkats (March 17)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Samford Bulldogs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

San Diego Toreros (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

San Diego State Aztecs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

San Jose State Spartans (March 19)

SMU Mustangs (March 24)

South Alabama Jaguars (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

South Carolina Gamecocks (March 18)

  • LB Demetrius Knight Jr. (PFF Big Board Rank: 33)
    • Height: 6-foot-2
    • Weight: 236 pounds
    • Arm: 32 5/8 inches
    • Hand: 10 inches
    • Wingspan: 81 3/8 inches
  • DI T.J. Sanders (PFF Big Board Rank: 36)
    • Height: 6-foot-4
    • Weight: 305 pounds
    • Arm: 33 1/4 inches
    • Hand: 10 1/8 inches
    • Wingspan: 79 3/4 inches
    • 40-yard dash: 4.99 seconds
  • S Nick Emmanwori (PFF Big Board Rank: 45)
    • Height: 6-foot-3
    • Weight: 22 pounds
    • Arm: 32 7/8 inches
    • Hand: 9 1/4 inches
    • Wingspan: 78 5/8 inches
  • EDGE Kyle Kennard (PFF Big Board Rank: 65)
    • Height: 6-foot-4
    • Weight: 262 pounds
    • Arm: 33 3/4 inches
    • Hand: 10 inches
    • Wingspan: 80 inches
    • 40-yard dash: 4.76 seconds
  • CB O’Donnell Fortune (PFF Big Board Rank: 169)
    • Height: 6-foot-1
    • Weight: 189 pounds
    • Arm: 31 3/4 inches
    • Hand: 9 1/4 inches
    • Wingspan: 74 3/4 inches
    • 40-yard dash: 4.58 seconds
    • Bench: 13 reps
    • Vertical jump: 33 1/2 inches
    • Broad jump: 9 feet, 10 inches
    • Three-cone: 7.40 seconds
    • Short shuttle: 4.47 seconds
  • DI Tonka Hemingway (PFF Big Board Rank: 185)
    • Height: 6-foot-3
    • Weight: 282 pounds
    • Arm: 33 3/8 inches
    • Hand: 9 inches
    • Wingspan: 80 1/4 inches
    • 40-yard dash: 5.01 seconds
  • RB Raheim Sanders (PFF Big Board Rank: 264)
    • Height: 6-foot
    • Weight: 217 pounds
    • Arm: 32 1/8 inches
    • Hand: 9 3/8 inches
    • Wingspan: 79 1/4 inches
    • Bench: 17 reps
    • Broad jump: 10 feet
    • Three-cone: 7.39 seconds
    • Short shuttle: 4.46 seconds
  • P Kai Kroeger (PFF Big Board Rank: 339)
    • Height: 6-foot-3
    • Weight: 213 pounds
    • Arm: 32 inches
    • Hand: 9 1/4 inches
    • Wingspan: 76 inches

Source: gamecocksonline.com

South Carolina State Bulldogs (TBD)

South Dakota Coyotes (March 26)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

South Dakota State Jackrabbits (March 26)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Southeast Missouri State Redhawks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Southeastern Louisiana Lions (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Southern Illinois Salukis (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Southern Miss Golden Eagles (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Southern Jaguars (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Southern Utah Thunderbirds (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

St. Francis (PA) Red Flash (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

St. Thomas Tommies (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Stanford Cardinal (March 19)

  • WR Elic Ayomanor (PFF Big Board Rank: 35)
    • Height: 6-foot-1
    • Weight: 207 pounds
    • Hand: 10 inches
    • Arm: 32 3/4 inches
    • Wingspan: 78 1/2 inches
    • Bench: 15 reps
  • LB Gaethan Bernadel (PFF Big Board Rank: 256)
    • Height: 5-foot-11
    • Weight: 230 pounds
    • Hand: 9 1/8 inches
    • Arm: 30 7/8 inches
    • Wingspan: 75 1/4 inches
    • Bench: 19 reps
    • Vertical jump: 28 1/2 inches
    • Broad jump: 9 feet, 3 inches
    • Three-cone: 7.53 seconds
    • Short shuttle: 4.53 seconds

Source: gostanford.com

Stephen F. Austin Lumberjacks (March 6)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Stetson Hatters (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Stonehill Skyhawks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Stony Brook Seawolves (March 26)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Syracuse Orange (March 17)

Source: cuse.com

Tarleton State Texans (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

TCU Horned Frogs (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Temple Owls (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Tennessee Volunteers (March 11)

Source: 247Sports.com

Tennessee State Tigers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Tennessee Tech Golden Eagles (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Tennessee-Martin Skyhawks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Texas Longhorns (March 25)

Texas A&M Aggies (March 27)

Texas Southern Tigers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Texas State Bobcats (March 26)

Texas Tech Red Raiders (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

The Citadel Bulldogs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Toledo Rockets (March 24)

Towson Tigers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Troy Trojans (March 24)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Tulane Green Wave (March 25)

Tulsa Golden Hurricane (March 12)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

UAB Blazers (March 27)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

UC Davis Aggies (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

UCF Knights (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

UCLA Bruins (March 17)

Source: ocregister.com

UNLV Rebels (March 24)

USC Trojans (March 12)

  • C Jonah Monheim (PFF Big Board Rank: 184)
    • Height: 6-foot-4
    • Weight: 303 pounds
    • Arm: 30 1/2 inches
    • Hand: 9 1/4 inches
    • Wingspan: 77 1/4 inches
  • S Akili Arnold (PFF Big Board Rank: 206)
    • Height: 5-foot-11
    • Weight: 196 pounds
    • Arm: 30 inches
    • Hand: 8 5/8 inches
    • Wingspan: 73 1/2 inches
    • 40-yard dash: 4.69
    • Bench: 19 reps
    • Vertical jump: 32.5 inches
    • Broad jump: 9 feet, 5 inches
    • Three-cone: 6.90 seconds
    • Short shuttle: 4.24 seconds
  • CB Jaylin Smith (PFF Big Board Rank: 208)
    • Height: 5-foot-11
    • Weight: 194 pounds
    • Arm: 30 3/8 inches
    • Hand: 9 1/4 inches
    • Wingspan: 75 inches
    • Bench: 15 reps
  • RB Woody Marks (PFF Big Board Rank: 239)
    • Height: 5-foot-10
    • Weight: 213 pounds
    • Arm: 29 3/4 inches
    • Hand: 9 inches
    • Wingspan: 71 3/4 inches
    • 40-yard dash: 4.52 seconds

Source: usctrojans.com

USF Bulls (March 26)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

UTEP Miners (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

UTSA Roadrunners (March 24)

Utah Utes (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Utah State Aggies (March 20)

Source: utahstateaggies.com

Utah Tech Trailblazers (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Valparaiso Beacons (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Vanderbilt Commodores (TBD)

Villanova Wildcats (March 27)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Virginia Cavaliers (March 18)

Virginia Tech Hokies (March 26)

Virginia Military Institute Keydets (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Wagner Seahawks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Wake Forest Demon Deacons (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Washington Huskies (March 10)

Source: @nicklemkaucfb

Washington State Cougars (March 7)

Sources: @CougfanCOM, @SydneyPBerger

Weber State Wildcats (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

West Georgia Wolves (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

West Virginia Mountaineers (March 18-21, Big 12 Pro Day)

Source: Zebra Technologies

Western Carolina Catamounts (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Western Illinois Leathernecks (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Western Kentucky Hilltoppers (March 26)

Western Michigan Broncos (March 10)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

William & Mary Tribe (March 20)

Wisconsin Badgers (March 7)

Source: badgerextra.com

Wofford Terriers (March 18)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Wyoming Cowboys (March 12)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Yale Bulldogs (TBD)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

Youngstown State Penguins (March 21)

No prospects on PFF’s big board

[ad_2]

Every team’s best trade asset ahead of the 2025 NFL Draft

[ad_1]

  • Could the Cowboys trade Micah Parsons? The edge defender market has ballooned this offseason, but Dallas seemingly hasn’t made any legitimate progress with its star.

Estimated Reading Time: 20 minutes

The 2025 NFL offseason has already featured some wildly unexpected trades, including Geno Smith, D.K. Metcalf and Laremy Tunsil. More will assuredly be on the way, especially as the 2025 NFL Draft nears.

The days leading up to the draft — and even the event itself — can serve as a natural incubator of player movement. In recent years, trades of Aaron Rodgers, A.J. Brown, Marquise Brown and John Franklin-Myers have occurred during the window of the draft itself.

With the highly anticipated event roughly a month away, let’s take stock of every squad’s best trade asset if a deal were to be completed in that span. Note that these players are at least plausible trade assets, meaning someone like Patrick Mahomes won’t be included.

JUMP TO A TEAM:

ARZ | ATL | BLT | BUF | CAR | CHI | CIN | CLE | DAL | DEN | DET | GB | HOU | IND | JAX | KC | LVR | LAC | LAR | MIA | MIN | NE | NO | NYG | NYJ | PHI | PIT | SF | SEA | TB | TEN | WSH

Arizona Cardinals: T Jonah Williams

The Cardinals possess several budding young stars, including Trey McBride and Marvin Harrison Jr. offensively along with top picks B.J. Ojulari and Darius Robinson on defense. But the team wouldn’t be overly likely to trade any of those four.

Instead, Williams could be on the move, given the right circumstances. The former first-round pick turned in a 73.3 PFF pass-blocking grade last year, although he played just 343 total snaps. Still only 27 but a free agent in 2026, Williams would probably garner interest around the league.

Atlanta Falcons: TE Kyle Pitts

The Falcons could attract suitors for Kirk Cousins, but his waning play (72.3 PFF passing grade) and contract ($40 million cap hit in 2025) might complicate the team’s potential trade return. Meanwhile, Pitts is still only 24 and teeming with potential.

Pitts came into the NFL as a fourth overall pick but, unfortunately, hasn’t lived up to the billing so far. His 70.1 PFF receiving grade over the past two years slots 17th out of 28 qualifying tight ends, and he hasn’t hit 1.50 yards per route run since 2022. As the Florida alumnus goes into a contract year, he could still be worth a Day 2 pick.

Baltimore Ravens: EDGE Odafe Oweh

Baltimore’s list of players going into a contract year is relatively steep, although many — Derrick Henry, Mark Andrews and Kyle Van Noy — are over 28. Oweh, though, is a name to keep an eye on in that group for trade purposes.

The former first-round pick has notched 109 pressures over the past two seasons on a 77.9 PFF pass-rushing grade, which ranks 21st among qualified edge defenders. While Oweh has been above average as both a pass rusher and a run defender, his play might not warrant a lucrative extension. The Ravens could face a crossroads with the 26-year-old heading into the draft.

Buffalo Bills: LB Matt Milano

The Bills have been busy locking down several key contributors who were set to hit the market, including Greg Rousseau and Khalil Shakir. James Cook and Christian Benford are still in limb, but both will seemingly be extended. Milano could be more uncertain.

Milano was one of the NFL’s standout linebackers during the 2022 season, recording a 77.1 PFF overall grade with an 83.2 PFF coverage mark. But injuries have taken a toll over the past two years, as Milano has played only 544 total snaps since 2023. After returning last season, he netted only a 53.3 PFF overall grade. Now 30, Milano hasn’t proven to be a reliable contributor and could be offered up on the market.

Subscribe to PFF+ to unlock the world’s most advanced football database!

Carolina Panthers: OG/C Cade Mays

Many of the Panthers’ building blocks seem untouchable, but Mays could get moved based on the team’s offseason transactions.

Carolina re-signed Austin Corbett and Brady Christensen, which means the team’s center situation doesn’t have a lot of clarity. Mays posted a terrific 74.9 PFF pass-blocking grade across 495 total snaps in 2024, but he’s amassed only 980 snaps in his three-year career. With experience playing both guard and center, the 2026 free agent could be a trade piece.

Chicago Bears: Dl Andrew Billings

Bears general manager Ryan Poles recognized that his defensive line was in inadequate shape going into this offseason, splurging on the likes of Dayo Odeyingbo and Grady Jarrett. With other pieces in place, Billings could be expendable.

Billings played only 297 snaps last season while battling a torn pec, but he was still productive in that stretch, producing a 78.6 PFF pass-rushing grade. Gervon Dexter Sr. is returning, Jarrett will presumably start and Chicago might draft another player inside, which means the 30-year-old Billings — in a contract year — could be an asset.

Cincinnati Bengals: EDGE Trey Hendrickson

The flames surrounding Hendrickson’s trade request have extinguished a bit in light of recent reports that Cincinnati is working to retain him. But with Ja’Marr Chase and Tee Higgins receiving nearly $70 million combined per year, the Bengals might need to get creative to keep their superstar.

Hendrickson was among the league’s best defensive players last season, ranking first in pass-rush win rate (20.0%), third in PFF pass-rushing grade (90.4), third in total pressures (83) and ninth in PFF overall grade (88.1) among qualified edge defenders. Cincinnati being late to reward Hendrickson means that he’d probably require at least $35 million per year unless the All-Pro is willing to take a discount.

Cleveland Browns: CB Greg Newsome II

Myles Garrett would easily have topped the Browns’ list of assets, but he’s now safely under contract for the immediate future. With Cleveland’s roster facing legitimate questions across the board throughout the next two years, Newsome’s fit is uncertain.

The Northwestern product was strong throughout his first three pro seasons but took a step back in 2024, posting only a 54.0 PFF coverage grade with a 120.7 passer rating allowed when targeted. Newsome has seemingly been a constant in trade discussions, and that could amplify with him going into the last year of his rookie deal.

Subscribe to PFF+ to unlock the world’s most advanced football database!

Dallas Cowboys: EDGE Micah Parsons

There’s no name on this list bigger than Parsons, whose contract situation has yet to be resolved despite players from the subsequent draft class already being extended. Over the past three seasons, Parsons trails only Myles Garrett in PFF overall grade (93.7) and PFF pass-rushing grade (94.3).

The Parsons trade discourse has cooled for now, but Dallas can’t delay this forever. We saw CeeDee Lamb hold out of camp and nearly force a trade to pressure an extension from Jerry Jones. If Dallas knows it can’t pay what Parsons desires as early as the draft, then all bets are off.

Denver Broncos: Dl John Franklin-Myers

The Broncos have been active spenders on defense this offseason, paying a combined $76.5 million to Talanoa Hufanga and Dre Greenlaw. Denver also has other pending free agents to handle, although Franklin-Myers probably won’t be among the group to be extended.

In his first year in Denver, Franklin-Myers just kept producing, leading the team with a 17.8% pass-rush win rate and an 82.9 PFF pass-rushing grade. But with Nik Bonitto also on an expiring deal and D.J. Jones getting a big payday, Franklin-Myers doesn’t seem to be a long-term piece on Sean Payton’s team.

Detroit Lions: CB Amik Robertson

The Lions addressed the loss of Carlton Davis III by signing D.J. Reed to a big-ticket deal, but the list of defensive players entering the last year of contracts is long. Robertson feels like one of the more likely players to be dealt.

In his first year in Detroit, Robertson churned out a 62.2 PFF coverage grade but a stellar 89.7 PFF run-defense grade. Given that the Lions drafted Ennis Rakestraw Jr. in the second round last year, the team should figure to get him additional reps this year — potentially by trading Robertson.

Green Bay Packers: WR Romeo Doubs

The Packers headed into the offseason with a bit of a logjam at wide receiver: Green Bay fields four solid young options in Doubs, Christian Watson, Jayden Reed and Dontayvion Wicks, but none is consistently stellar. Green Bay’s search for a clear-cut WR1 hasn’t yielded any answers yet, either.

Watson may have the most upside of the bunch, but a torn ACL suffered late in the year would reduce his trade value. At the same time, Doubs has been effective in the past two years, ranking second on the team with a 75.0 PFF receiving grade and leading the way with 83 first downs picked up. The bottom line is that Green Bay probably will not re-sign both Watson and Doubs next offseason, and the latter could net more capital right now.

Subscribe to PFF+ to unlock the world’s most advanced football database!

Houston Texans: S Jalen Pitre

The Texans’ foundational stars on both sides of the ball seem secure (although Laremy Tunsil defied that). But the team could look to make a deal for one of its safeties.

Houston traded for C.J. Gardner-Johnson this offseason, who registered a strong 77.7 PFF overall grade with the Eagles last year. On top of that, the team returns second-year piece Calen Bullock as well as veteran Jimmie Ward. Pitre (73.9 PFF overall grade) still feels like a key cog in Houston’s defense with his well-rounded skill set, but having one more year left on his contract could make a trade possible. After all, nothing can be ruled out with general manager Nick Caserio calling the shots.

Indianapolis Colts: WR Alec Pierce

Ordinarily, this could figure to be Anthony Richardson, who has underwhelmed and hardly played during his two pro seasons. But with the Colts publicly committing to a quarterback battle through at least July, Richardson probably won’t be traded yet. Instead, one of the team’s receivers could go.

The Colts have four legitimately viable wideouts in Michael Pittman Jr., Josh Downs, Pierce and A.D. Mitchell. Pierce is also the only one in a contract year, and his dynamic deep receiving skill (99.1 PFF receiving grade) would resonate with most teams. Indianapolis might keep all four in a pivotal year for its quarterback room, but Pierce would be the best bet to be traded.

Jacksonville Jaguars: RB Travis Etienne

Recently hired general manager James Gladstone has already done considerable work to cut ties with players under previous leadership, notably Christian Kirk and Evan Engram. Etienne might be next up.

The former Clemson star declined in 2024, netting a career-worst 62.8 PFF rushing grade with only 2.48 yards after contact per attempt. New head coach Liam Coen could want to maximize Etienne’s abilities, but he also just enjoyed a tremendous rookie year from fourth-round pick Bucky Irving in Tampa Bay. Considering that Etienne is also a 2026 free agent, it wouldn’t be a shock if the Jaguars dealt him.

Kansas City Chiefs: CB Jaylen Watson

The Chiefs are known for keeping their core starters in place, particularly on defense, but this offseason has been fraught with change. That includes at cornerback with the signing of Kristian Fulton, which might not leave a clear future for a player like Watson.

Watson’s 2024 season was limited by a broken leg, but he was a standout cover man with a 71.6 PFF coverage grade. However, Kansas City has several other young cornerbacks, including Chamarri Conner — who is more of a slot option — Joshua Williams and Nazeeh Johnson. All of Watson, Williams and Johnson will be 2026 free agents, but Watson would be the most valuable if traded.

Subscribe to PFF+ to unlock the world’s most advanced football database!

Las Vegas Raiders: TE Michael Mayer

Las Vegas’ offensive blueprint is slowly coming to fruition after the team traded for Geno Smith. The Raiders will definitely look to upgrade their skill-position talent in the draft, but Mayer might not be in those plans.

The Notre Dame product played just 461 snaps last year as he dealt with a personal issue. On top of that, through two pro seasons, he hasn’t even reached a 60.0 PFF overall grade. Yes, Pete Carroll could implement Mayer next to Brock Bowers in 12 personnel, but Mayer has reportedly been floated in trade talks. The 23-year-old could be sought after if offered.

Los Angeles Chargers: G Zion Johnson

The Chargers won’t be ready to part with Quentin Johnston just yet, although the former first-rounder might be on thin ice going into Year 3. That leaves Johnson as a different marquee player who might be close to an exit.

Los Angeles signed guard Mekhi Becton and center Andre James in free agency, while Bradley Bozeman and Trey Pipkins are each back in the fold. Johnson’s 62.5 PFF overall grade leads Chargers guards since 2023, but his fifth-year option will probably get declined — and a trade may ensue.

Los Angeles Rams: S Kam Curl

The Rams can’t afford to trot out the exact same personnel from a secondary that ranked 19th in PFF coverage grade in 2024. With other burgeoning options at safety, some of the team’s veterans could be on the trade block.

In his first season with the Rams, Curl registered a 63.7 PFF coverage grade and a 68.5 PFF run-defense grade. Yet, his PFF overall grade (68.4) trailed rookie Kamren Kinchens (71.5). It will be tough to keep Kinchens off the field in 2025, and Curl has just one year left on his contract.

Miami Dolphins: WR Tyreek Hill

The first element to address with the Dolphins is that the team doesn’t have many outstanding and realistic trade assets. And while Hill doesn’t appear outwardly likely to leave Miami, there could be some motivation to trade him.

Last year proved a tougher campaign for the star wideout, as his 77.3 PFF receiving grade and 1.75 yards per route run were the worst marks of his storied career. On top of that, Hill is under contract for only two more full years and is 31. The Dolphins probably won’t trade him, but among the team’s possible options, he would be the most intriguing.

Subscribe to PFF+ to unlock the world’s most advanced football database!

Minnesota Vikings: Dl Harrison Phillips

Minnesota overhauled its trenches as part of commendable free agency work, including on the interior defensive line with Jonathan Allen and Javon Hargrave. Neither is coming off a remarkable season, but it means someone like Phillips, now lower in the rotation, could be traded.

Phillips finished with sub-61.0 PFF grades as a pass rusher and a run defender last year, but he’s previously been stout against the run. From 2021 to 2023, his PFF run-defense grade sat in the 91st percentile and his run-stop rate placed in the 88th percentile. Teams could take a shot on the 29-year-old in the hopes of seeing a rebound.

New England Patriots: LB Ja’Whaun Bentley

Mike Vrabel set his sights on revamping his defense via free agency, and he’s been aggressive at linebacker with the additions of Robert Spillane and Jack Gibbens. Consequently, Bentley could be traded.

Bentley played only 61 snaps last year due to a torn pec but was solid the season before, registering a 65.8 overall PFF grade. Considering fellow linebacker Jahlani Tavai was extended but Bentley will be a free agent in 2026, it leaves the latter as a real trade candidate.

New Orleans Saints: LB Demario Davis

Derek Carr and Tyrann Mathieu were clear options to be on this list, but both appear in steady shape on the Saints’ roster heading into the 2025 season. Davis, though, has a little more uncertainty after his contract was restructured, leaving him on a one-year deal.

Despite playing his 13th season, Davis was still strong last year, earning an 80.2 PFF run-defense grade. More specifically, his 81.3 PFF overall grade from Weeks 11-18 ranked fifth among qualified linebackers. Still able to play at a high level, at least against the run, Davis could draw trade interest even at age 36.

New York Giants: EDGE Kayvon Thibodeaux

The Giants are in a strange place from a roster construction standpoint in that they either have untouchable young players or players who seemingly wouldn’t attract much interest. The one player who might fit into an alternate category is Thibodeaux.

The former fifth-overall pick displayed encouraging signs last season with a 72.0 PFF pass-rushing grade, but he saw time on only 593 snaps. Reports have indicated that Thibodeaux’s fifth-year option will be picked up, which would probably nix a trade, but it’s possible that general manager Joe Schoen could deal Thibodeaux, not worry about the option and draft someone instead — such as Penn State‘s Abdul Carter at third overall.

Subscribe to PFF+ to unlock the world’s most advanced football database!

New York Jets: G Alijah Vera-Tucker

The Jets are confronting a similar situation to what Seattle stared down this offseason: a slew of impressive players with expiring contracts. New general manager Darren Mougey is in an unenviable position, picking between extending young stars and moving on from others. The stud with the highest chance of being traded would probably be Vera-Tucker.

Vera-Tucker finally stayed healthy last year, and his play paid dividends with a 74.5 PFF grade in both pass blocking and run blocking. The two years before, though, Vera-Tucker didn’t even reach 450 snaps. It might seem unfathomable to move on from such a versatile 25-year-old offensive lineman, but the Jets can’t pay everyone — and Vera-Tucker would net a bigger return than someone like Breece Hall or Joe Tippmann.

Philadelphia Eagles: TE Dallas Goedert

Eagles general manager Howie Roseman might be the most forward-thinking executive in the sport, which is why it’s not surprising to see him reportedly engage in trade discussions for Goedert.

The 30-year-old tight end was productive yet again for Philadelphia last year, producing a 75.8 PFF receiving grade with 6.6 yards after the catch per reception. At the same time, he played in only 14 of 20 games due to a knee injury and will be a free agent in 2026. There’s a good chance the Eagles will trade Goedert before the draft and select a tight end on Day 2 or 3.

Pittsburgh Steelers: WR George Pickens

The Steelers checked a big-name receiver move off their bucket list when they traded for and extended D.K. Metcalf. There’s tremendous appeal in pairing him with Pickens, but the two are also very similar players, which leaves questions about the latter’s future.

Pickens rose to the occasion in 2024, earning a career-high 79.7 PFF receiving grade with 2.11 yards per route run. But drop issues (12.3% drop rate) and lingering concerns about maturity overshadow his on-field production. In an offseason with few signature perimeter receiver stars available, a team might get aggressive in trading for the pending free agent.

San Francisco 49ers: WR Brandon Aiyuk

San Francisco has retooled its roster going into 2025, moving on from Deebo Samuel, Charvarius Ward, Dre Greenlaw, Javon Hargrave and others. On the surface, it wouldn’t seem like the same applies to Aiyuk, but there’s more than meets the eye.

Aiyuk was involved in trade scenarios for nearly four months last summer before agreeing to a four-year, $120 million extension with the 49ers. Still, he turned in a career-low 74.1 PFF receiving grade before tearing his ACL in Week 7. Reports have resurfaced about the team wanting to trade Aiyuk, especially before $31 million is guaranteed on April 1. That gives credence to the idea that a swap could happen after nearly a year of build-up.

Subscribe to PFF+ to unlock the world’s most advanced football database!

Seattle Seahawks: EDGE Boye Mafe

The Seahawks’ stunning firesale has begun, and more top young players need contract clarity going into the summer. Mafe is the team’s top defender who has just one year left on his deal.

Over the past two years, Mafe slots in the 66th percentile in PFF pass-rushing grade and the 74th percentile in PFF run-defense grade while recording a solid 12.2% pass-rush win rate. His pass-rushing metrics dipped a bit last year, but his run defense improved significantly. Seattle invested $32.5 million in DeMarcus Lawrence and has other impressive pieces in Uchenna Nwosu and Derick Hall, which could make Mafe available if the team doesn’t want to extend him.

Tampa Bay Buccaneers: RB Rachaad White

The Buccaneers seem to retain their developed players at a higher rate than most teams, but general manager Jason Licht isn’t afraid to swing a trade every now and then. White feels like a player who meets those criteria.

Entering the 2024 season as the team’s primary running back, White posted a solid 73.7 PFF rushing grade, operating as the team’s pass-blocking back (69.2 PFF pass-blocking grade, sixth best among qualifiers). Yet, he was quickly overtaken by then-rookie Bucky Irving, whose 90.0 PFF rushing grade slotted seventh among rushers with 100 or more carries. As White heads into a contract season, Tampa Bay could find a replacement in the draft’s later rounds.

Tennessee Titans: S Amani Hooker

The Titans upgraded a roster devoid of much star power in free agency, but there still aren’t a ton of immediate or realistic trade assets. One player who might qualify as an underrated option is Hooker.

While playing 848 snaps — third on Tennessee — Hooker notched a solid 66.3 PFF coverage grade with just a 68.4 passer rating allowed when targeted. Plus, the Titans will return safety Quandre Diggs and signed Xavier Woods. The 26-year-old Hooker, on the books for just one more year, is a versatile chess piece who teams might go after.

Washington Commanders: RB Brian Robinson Jr.

The Commanders’ offseason has centered on upgrading the pieces around Jayden Daniels. In that sense, it might seem paradoxical to trade Robinson, but there would be good reasons to do so.

His PFF rushing grade has declined in all three seasons, and his 34 missed tackles forced in 2024 tied for 27th out of 31 qualified rushers. With Robinson only under contract for one more year and this draft class being rich at the position, trading him in favor of a rookie would be plausible.

[ad_2]

Why Cam Ward is my QB3 in the 2025 NFL Draft class

[ad_1]

  • Cam Ward’s physical tools stand out, but his data profile raises concerns: Ward has elite arm talent and mobility, but his struggles under pressure — especially against Power Four competition — put him behind Jaxson Dart and Shedeur Sanders in this quarterback class.
  • Ward’s success in the NFL will depend on key improvements: If Ward can speed up his processing, take easier reads and improve under pressure, he has the traits to thrive. However, his statistical profile suggests a higher risk than other top QB prospects.

Estimated Reading Time: 7 minutes

At the end of February, I wrote an article explaining why Jaxson Dart should be a top-15 prospect in this draft class. Since then, Mel Kiper and Daniel Jeremiah have both projected him as a first-round pick, with Kiper mocking him at No. 9 to the New Orleans Saints and Jeremiah slotting him at No. 21 to the Steelers.

Of course, that pales in comparison to my mock draft, which has him going at No. 3 overall to the Titans (after a trade).

A week later, I made the case for Shedeur Sanders as the top quarterback in this draft class. While Cam Ward remains the consensus QB1, Sanders remains a fixture in top-five projections, proving that evaluators see him as a legitimate franchise-caliber talent. He hasn’t surpassed Ward — yet — but as more analysts dig into his tape and production, perhaps this article will be the push that changes a few minds.

I have Cam Ward as QB3 in this class, even though most analysts rank him as the top quarterback prospect. That’s not to say I don’t like Ward; in my mock draft, I had the New York Giants trading up to take him No. 1 overall, and I wouldn’t argue with the logic if they made a similar move in reality.

Ward possesses excellent arm talent and good mobility, two uncoachable traits that make him worthy of a top-three selection. From a pure skillset perspective, I would even rank him above Drake Maye, who was taken No. 3 overall in the 2024 NFL Draft.

As I did with my breakdowns of Jaxson Dart and Shedeur Sanders, I’ll now turn my focus to Cam Ward. Evaluating quarterbacks isn’t just about raw stats — it requires a deep dive into both statistical production and film analysis to get the full picture, as I explained in previous articles:

I blend data and film to evaluate players. At quarterback, data can provide valuable insight, but if a player lacks the arm strength needed for the NFL, the numbers may not matter. Likewise, a quarterback might check every box on film—big arm, ideal size, good mobility—but if his grading profile and data are poor, he may be overrated due to certain biases.

Of course, there are outliers in both directions — Josh Allen had an extremely poor data profile, while Colt McCoy graded well but lacked the physical tools to succeed at the NFL level. The key is recognizing these outliers rather than “trying to find the next Josh Allen.”

Generally, successful NFL quarterbacks fit certain analytical criteria, and that’s what we aim to identify in this class.

Click here to check out PFF’s 2025 NFL Draft Big Board

The Case for Cam Ward to be QB3

PFF lead draft analyst Trevor Sikkema currently ranks Cam Ward 21st overall and as his QB1, while the consensus big board has Ward at No. 1 overall and the top quarterback prospect.

I’m not sure exactly how the consensus board compiles its rankings, but I assume mock draft positioning heavily influences the No. 1 overall designation. When looking solely at big boards, Ward has actually been ranked first overall by just four boards in the past month, while Travis Hunter and Abdul Carter dominate most of the others.

That said, we work with the information available until a more refined consensus board emerges closer to draft time.

As I did with Shedeur Sanders and Jaxson Dart, Cam Ward will be ranked against the top 10 quarterbacks on the PFF big board, which has remained unchanged since my breakdown of Sanders.

When evaluating quarterbacks, I prioritize sack avoidance, accuracy and performance under pressure, with extra emphasis on production against Power Four opponents. While overall grades and raw stats provide context, they carry slightly less weight in my assessments.

Over the 2024 season, Ward ranked second in passing grade, trailing only Dart. He finished sixth in accuracy rate on throws between 5 and 25 yards downfield and posted the fifth-highest success rate under pressure. His pressure-to-sack rate also ranked fifth-best in the class — the only category in which he outperformed both Dart and Sanders in 2024.

Cam Ward’s passing report

After adjusting for Power Four competition, Ward ranked first in passing grade, fifth in accuracy rate, seventh in success rate under pressure and fifth in pressure-to-sack rate. While he maintained an elite overall passing grade against tougher competition, his drop in performance under pressure is a concern.

From a statistical standpoint, Ward doesn’t measure up to the top quarterback prospects in this class. Dart consistently ranked in the top three across nearly every key metric I value, except for sack-to-pressure rate. Sanders also struggled in that area but still finished in the top four in most categories, including a fifth-place ranking in success rate under pressure against Power Four competition — a mark that, as I noted in his article, is comparable to some of the NFL’s top quarterbacks.

While Ward doesn’t have a perfect statistical profile, he stays within the necessary thresholds, except for his play under pressure against Power Four opponents. His success rate under pressure vs. all opponents is less than half a percentage point behind Sanders’, but his 34.8% mark against Power Four teams creeps into a range historically associated with more misses than hits when evaluating quarterback prospects.

Struggling more against better competition isn’t an outright red flag, but it does raise concerns about how well his game will translate at the next level.

Subscribe to PFF+ today!

Ward’s 34.8% success rate under pressure against Power Four competition places him just ahead of Mitchell Trubisky (34.9%) and in the same range as Brock Purdy (34.0%), Dak Prescott (34.0%) and Gardner Minshew (33.8%) in their final college seasons.

However, both Purdy and Prescott had past seasons where they handled pressure well—Purdy’s 2018 season (49.1%) ranks as the second-highest single-season mark in the PFF era, and Prescott posted a strong 40.8% success rate in 2014.

Ward, on the other hand, has consistently struggled under pressure in each of the past three seasons—two at Washington State and one at Miami. While his lone season at Miami was his career best, the trend remains concerning.

Of course, one metric alone doesn’t determine success, but it does raise legitimate concerns. If a quarterback struggles under pressure in college against lesser competition, it’s hard to expect them to suddenly excel in the NFL under even greater duress. It’s unlikely—but not impossible.

Ward is undeniably physically gifted. The ball comes out of his hand effortlessly with great velocity, and his athleticism and natural throwing ability are clear strengths. However, his game has flaws, including a tendency to hold onto the ball too long and pass up easy reads in favor of hero-ball plays. Fortunately, these are coachable aspects of his development.

If Ward can continue improving his play under pressure and learn to take the easy options, he has the tools to thrive in the NFL. However, his concerning data profile gives me hesitation in calling him the top quarterback in this class.

When comparing him to last year’s draft class, he’d fall into a similar tier as Drake Maye and Caleb Williams — quarterbacks with elite physical traits but worrisome data profiles. That said, I’d likely rank Ward above both of them.

[ad_2]

2025 NFL Draft: Best run-blocking offensive linemen

[ad_1]

  • West Virginia’s Wyatt Milum is among the 2025 NFL Draft class’ best run blockers: The No. 88 player on PFF’s big board, Milum earned an 89.2 PFF run-blocking grade last season.
  • Don’t sleep on the less-heralded prospects: Jacksonville State’s Clay Webb and UConn’s Chase Lundt excelled in the run game this past season.

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

If you asked a group of offensive linemen whether they prefer run blocking or pass blocking, most would probably say run blocking, as it allows them to be the aggressor.

We’re looking at the top 2025 NFL Draft prospects in this year’s class at run blocking, per PFF grading. Note that only players who appear on PFF’s big board are included.

1. OL Wyatt Milum, West Virginia (89.2)

Big Board Rank: 88

Even if we were to include players not on PFF’s big board, Milum still would come out on top among tackles in PFF run-blocking grade. He was at his best in zone blocking schemes, posting a 90.0 PFF run-blocking grade in 2024. While his gap blocking PFF grade is lower (78.7), it still ranks first among the players on this list.

T-2. G Willie Lampkin, North Carolina (87.6)

Big Board Rank: 127

The big thing keeping Willie Lampkin from being a top prospect is his size. At 5-foot-11 and 290 pounds, he’d be one of the smallest linemen in the league, prompting teams to consider him at center despite all of his 851 snaps in 2024 coming at right guard. Lampkin was still productive, posting the best PFF run-blocking grade among this class’ interior line prospects and the top zone blocking PFF grade (90.4) among all offensive linemen on PFF’s big board.

T-2. T Armand Membou, Missouri (87.6)

Big Board Rank: 11

Membou is having one of the best pre-draft processes of any prospect in this year’s class. He went from a possible first-round pick to being talked about as a potential top-five pick. Not only did he put together a stellar NFL Combine performance, but his tape backs it up. Like the others talked about so far on this list, Membou specialized in zone blocking, where he carried an 87.4 PFF grade.

Try PFF’s mock draft simulator — trade picks and players and mock for your favorite NFL team.

4. T Chase Lundt, UConn (87.1)

Big Board Rank: 135

Lundt started since his redshirt freshman season and improved his PFF grades across the board every year. He got off to a shaky start as a run blocker, posting an abysmal 45.1 PFF grade his first year before bettering that mark to 56.9 as a sophomore and catapulting to 78.3 as a junior. He peaked as a senior with an 87.1 PFF run-blocking grade, including five games with 80.0-plus figures.

5. T Trey Wedig, Indiana (85.1)

Big Board Rank: 280

After three years of inconsistent playing time at Wisconsin, Wedig transferred to Indiana, where he played almost as many snaps in one season as he had in the three years prior. He made the most of his increased role and significantly improved, particularly as a run blocker. His 85.1 figure in 2024 was a career high, powered by an 89.3 mark against FIU and an 88.2 mark against Washington.

6. T Hollin Pierce, Rutgers (83.5)

Big Board Rank: 228

Like Chase Lundt, Hollin Pierce was a four-year starter at the same program who saw every element of his grading profile improve each year. His previous best PFF run-blocking grade came during his junior season (70.3) and was a significant jump over his back-to-back sub-60.0 marks to open his college career. At 6-foot-8 and 344 pounds, Pierce will be among the largest players in the NFL from day one.

7. G Clay Webb, Jacksonville State (82.7)

Big Board Rank: 250

Webb’s PFF run-blocking grade is all the more impressive because Jacksonville State ran the ball a lot. Eight of the draft class’ top 11 players in run-blocking snaps played for service academies, while the other three played at Jacksonville State, including Webb, whose 533 run-blocking snaps comfortably top this list (next closest was Lundt with 448) and rank eighth overall. Webb was elite at both inside-zone (90.2 PFF run-blocking grade) and man (91.5) concepts.

8. T Logan Brown, Kansas (82.2)

Big Board Rank: 174

2024 was Brown’s first year as a full-time starter, and he did not disappoint. He posted an 82.2 PFF run-blocking grade on significantly more snaps than he’d played in his previous four years combined between Wisconsin and Kansas. Brown was particularly productive on outside-zone runs, which was Kansas’ most-frequented concept. He carried an 82.6 PFF grade on those runs, and 32 of his 83 positively graded run blocks came on those plays.

9. T Kelvin Banks Jr., Texas (81.0)

Big Board Rank: 20

A three-year starter at Texas, Banks is expected to be one of the first tackles selected in this year’s draft. While his pass protection is his bread and butter, he was also very strong as a run blocker with some run-concept versatility. Banks carried a PFF run-blocking grade in the 70s for outside zone (73.0), inside zone (74.2), man/gap (71.6) and counter (75.8).

Try PFF’s mock draft simulator — trade picks and players and mock for your favorite NFL team.

10. T Brandon Crenshaw-Dickson, Florida (78.3)

Big Board Rank: 124

After four years at San Diego State, where he was a regular starter for three seasons, Crenshaw-Dickson earned better PFF grades against stiffer competition in the SEC. He endured some shaky outings to open the season but got hot once SEC play began, posting at least a 74.0 PFF run-blocking grade in seven of his last 10 games.

[ad_2]

Fantasy Football IDP: Rookie linebacker prospect model

[ad_1]

  • Jihaad Campbell stands out as the clear top option in this class: Campbell’s prospect score and expected draft capital should make him the clear LB1 for IDP rookie drafts right now.
  • Red flags abound for Jalon Walker: The Georgia linebacker is a unique prospect coming out of college, and even with high-end expected draft capital, it doesn’t necessarily mean he’ll translate right away for IDP.
  • 2025 NFL Draft season is here: Try PFF’s best-in-class Mock Draft Simulator and learn about 2025’s top prospects while trading and drafting for your favorite NFL team.

Estimated reading time: 8 minutes

NFL draft season is in full swing, which naturally comes with a plethora of ways to evaluate how potential talent coming out of college will translate to the next level. This article series is no different, as we’ll add a fantasy football spin to the evaluation process to identify which incoming prospects have a shot to become fantasy-relevant early on in their NFL careers.

Next up is the linebacker position for IDP fantasy football, which has long been one of the trickier positions to find stable and quantifiable metrics worth trusting in prospect evaluation. After years of tinkering, I have identified a combination of metrics that have correlated best to IDP success at the next level, leading to this prospect model that takes into account those factors and metrics for each player to devise a prospect score, not unlike the edge position that was covered yesterday. Again, like any position, no one metric will tell us whether a college prospect will be good or not in the NFL, but the purpose of this model is to combine the metrics and factors that data has proven to be most relevant, providing weight to those that are more important than others.

For the linebacker position, in no particular order, we’re looking at career PFF grades, run-defense grades, coverage grades, draft capital, tackle efficiency, athleticism and level of competition faced. Underlying metrics were found to be much more reliable than overall production when accounting for all prospects. While production often comes with strong underlying metrics, one can exist without the other, and the underlying metrics have a better success rate than overall production alone. 

Keys
  • The prospect pool for this model consists of 377 linebacker prospects dating back to 2018.
  • 22 linebackers drafted since 2018 have become a top-12 IDP finisher for their position at least once (5.8%).
  • 33 linebackers drafted since 2018 have become top-24 IDP finishers for their position at least once (8.7%).
  • 49 linebackers drafted since 2018 have become top-36 IDP finishers for their position at least once (13.0%).
  • This is an important context when understanding hit rates as many more prospects will not become fantasy-relevant than most given such a large pool of players.
  • However, using this model, the higher the prospect score, the better the success rate will be for each prospect, as highlighted below.

With all this in mind, it’s time to look at this year’s linebacker prospects to identify our future IDP contributors. It should also be noted that these scores should not necessarily be used so much as your rankings as they should be more of a guide toward the quality of the player. Draft capital and landing spots can and will play a big part in the actual rankings.

2025 linebacker class

JALON WALKER, GEORGIA

  • Walker is expected to be the first linebacker drafted this year – though, because of his college prospect profile, he is arguably the most interesting name of this year’s class due to the red flags highlighted in this model.
  • Expected draft capital provides a nice enough boost to Walker’s prospect score that it isn’t impossible for him to find success in the NFL and for IDP, as that capital will more than likely create playing time, which matters more than anything else for IDP production.
  • However, he owns by far the lowest prospect score of any first-round prospect in this model dating back to 2018 due to his lack of experience playing that position.
  • Walker has just 439 total career snaps as an off-ball linebacker coming out of college due to splitting his time between playing edge and linebacker, and not thriving at either has hurt his overall score.
  • The concern for Walker will be that he isn’t ready to step into a true linebacker role for a while in the NFL due to his inexperience, which will likely lead to him being used as a situation-specific weapon, rushing the passer and spying the quarterback most likely, which does not translate to trustworthy IDP value.

JIHAAD CAMPBELL, ALABAMA

  • Campbell is the top-ranked linebacker for this 2025 class, according to this prospect model, and finds himself among the top 95th percentile of prospects since 2018, which gives him the best shot to return high-end IDP value from this class.
  • When breaking down that top 95th percentile into linebackers drafted in the first round, 11 of 19 received that Day 1 draft capital, six of which became top-12 IDP linebackers at least once so far (54.5%), a slight increase from the overall 50% top-12 hit rate indicated above.
  • Two young linebackers can be viewed as top-12 hopefuls since they’re quite early in their NFL careers, Jack Campbell and Edgerrin Cooper.
  • Campbell isn’t guaranteed to get first-round capital, but he should still be drafted highly among this year’s linebacker class, which will make him the most covetable IDP linebacker in this class and my personal rookie LB1 for 2025.

CARSON SCHWESINGER, UCLA

  • Schwesinger is in the running to be a second-round pick in 2025, which is the ideal range for a rookie linebacker to get drafted from an IDP lens in most years, and even in a class with two potential first-round linebackers, Schwesinger is in a good spot to be IDP-relevant based on his prospect profile.
  • One of the attributes that IDP gamers will fall in love with when it comes to Schwesinger’s profile is that he owns a 100th percentile tackle rate (18.8%) for his college career.
  • There are a few things to be aware of before investing too heavily in that metric alone though, especially when it comes to Schwesinger.
  • First, Schwesinger’s production and tackle rate is essentially the result of one year as a starter, as he barely even cracked 100 defensive snaps in his previous two college seasons. Therefore, this is a smaller sample compared to most prospects’ career numbers.
  • The other aspect of betting on tackle rate translating from college to the NFL is that, on its own, tackle rate is not a stable metric from college to the NFL or even season to season in the NFL.
  • Among 31 prospects since 2018 with a 90th percentile tackle rate or greater for their careers, four have gone on to finish as top-12 IDPs (12.9%), five have finished at least in the top 24 (16.1%), and seven have finished at least in the top 36 (22.6%).
  • Of the four top-12 finishers, three (Nick Bolton, Roquan Smith and Leighton Vander Esch) all finished with over 1,000 defensive snaps in their college careers.
  • The lone exception was Shaquille Leonard, who will be the hopeful comparison for Schwesinger as an inexperienced starter who was drafted on Day 2 in a class with multiple first-round linebackers ahead of him (2018).

DEMETRIUS KNIGHT JR., SOUTH CAROLINA

  • Knight appears set to be a third-round pick right now, according to most consensus draft boards, which is about right based on the average linebacker prospect scoring between the 85th and 95th percentile.
  • For Knight, he is in this really small group of linebacker prospects who own a 95th percentile career coverage grade and a 95th percentile tackle rate, joining Roquan Smith and Ben Burr-Kirven as one of just three linebacker prospects since 2018 to achieve both of those feats together.
  • Obviously, those are two very different outcomes for NFL career and IDP value between Smith – a perennial LB1 candidate, and Burr-Kirven, who was a fifth-round pick and played just 15 total defensive snaps in the NFL.
  • It’s also a good reminder of why we need a larger collection of metrics to evaluate all prospects instead of just focusing on one or two, and even then, the success rate, especially for linebackers, is not ideal.

BARRETT CARTER, CLEMSON

  • Carter is the last of the linebackers currently projected to go within the first two days of the NFL draft, and he scores well in this model all things considered.
  • IDP managers may not fully trust Clemson linebackers based on recent history, though Carter does boast a relatively positive profile to back up his potential.
  • A common theme among Clemson linebackers in the prospect pool (since 2018) is that they are all below-average tacklers for their college careers. Carter actually owns the worst career tackle rate of the bunch.
  • Again, tackle rate alone does not make or break an NFL prospect (Fred Warner had a 9.7% career college tackle rate), and part of this with Carter was his role in Clemson’s defense, as he spent more than 20% of his career snaps in the slot, which is well above average for the position (10.4%).
  • A good landing spot with Day 2 draft capital and a typical off-ball role would be significant for Carter’s IDP potential, as it would for any linebacker, but that becomes slightly more appealing considering the prospect score.

CHRIS PAUL JR., OLE MISS

  • Paul’s prospect score immediately makes him the most intriguing Day 3 linebacker in this class, and while he’s already the highest-ranked of this class according to consensus boards, the fact that he owns a better prospect score than some of those expected to go ahead of him in the draft is a bit more encouraging.
  • Paul spent three years at Arkansas before transferring to Ole Miss, where he really took off as a promising prospect, as he was able to build on his higher scores in this model coming out of this past season.
  • If Paul does end up getting drafted on Day 3 instead of the first three rounds, he’ll join a group of four prospects who were drafted in that range and also scored in the 90th percentile of prospects in this model. 
  • Among those four linebackers (Josey Jewell, Tyrice Knight, Cedric Gray and Troy Dye), only one (Jewell) has finished among the top 24 at his position for IDP, though Knight Gray and Dye have all had moments, and for Knight and Gray, specifically, there’s still hope as it’s early in their NFL careers.
  • This should have us feeling optimistic about Paul sticking around in the NFL and eventually getting a starting shot, even if not right away, making him worth a late-round flier in IDP rookie drafts.

DANNY STUTSMAN, OKLAHOMA

  • Stutsman is your typical early-down thumper looking at his college numbers, where the majority of his value comes from defending the run and tackling compared to what he can provide in coverage.
  • This isn’t to say that he won’t be valuable for IDP, but it does provide a little less hope around his potential success rates highlighted in the image above.
  • Among the 52 linebacker prospects within the top 85th percentile prospect scores, Stutsman owns, by far, the worst career coverage grade, ranking in the ninth percentile among all prospects since 2018.
  • To widen the scope, looking at the 85th percentile overall prospects, nine scored below the 50th percentile in career coverage grade.
  • Of those nine, two (Jordyn Brooks and Rashaan Evans) managed top-12 finishes, though both were first-round picks. Jerome Baker was the only other linebacker from that cohort to find lesser fantasy success (top 24) so far.
  • Combined with the draft capital, this doesn’t necessarily bode well for Stutsman finding IDP success in the NFL, which is important to keep in mind come rookie draft season.

SMAEL MONDON JR., GEORGIA

  • Mondon is the other Georgia linebacker in this year’s draft class, along with Jalon Walker, though aside from expected draft capital, Mondon at least owns some slightly better metrics for his college career.
  • For Mondon, that draft capital could ultimately be the killer even if a 70th percentile score isn’t bad. It’s still rare for a linebacker with that score who is drafted outside of the first two days of the NFL Draft to become relevant for IDP.
  • There have been six of a possible 44 linebackers that meet that criteria who delivered at least a top-36 IDP finish in a season (13.6%). Of those six, only three managed a top-24 finish (6.8%), and just one (T.J. Edwards, UDFA) finished top 12 so far.
  • Unfortunately, for Mondon, when adding that context, those success rates are significantly lower than the general success rates highlighted in the image above.

JEFFREY BASSA, OREGON

  • Bassa owns the worst prospect model score among the consensus top-10 linebackers for this year’s draft at the moment, which is a significant concern for his IDP potential.
  • Bassa may become an IDP starter at some point in his NFL career, as there have been players to do so who scored lower than him as prospects.
  • These names include Nate Landman, Azeez Al-Shaair, Tae Crowder, Tyrel Dodson, Kaden Elliss, Quincy Williams and Henry To’oTo’o, but that is still only seven names of a possible 176 eligible linebackers (4.0%), and only Williams and Elliss found top-12 success so far.
  • Bassa also owns the worst career run-defense grade of that group as well, which likely hurts his chances of being considered for even a rotational early-down role to start his career if he continues those struggles in the NFL.
  • Bassa is not worth a draft pick in IDP rookie drafts based on this score right now, though a combination of improved draft capital and landing spot could always help.

JACK KISER, NOTRE DAME

  • When it comes to Day 3 linebackers worth targeting as potential sleepers, Kiser stands out alongside Chris Paul Jr. as a linebacker that teams might be able to work with.
  • Kiser has experience, as he played 55 games for Notre Dame across six college seasons. However, he was only a full-time starter in that sixth season, which hurt his score a small amount.
  • That experience also means he’s on the older side for prospects, which IDP dynasty managers might not love, though age isn’t accounted for in this model.
  • What does matter is that Kiser has an ideal combination of strong grades across the board to go along with a strong tackle rate, and if not for the red flag of taking a long time to become a starter, he would have earned a higher score.
  • Age and starting experience earlier in his college career likely would have also helped his potential draft capital, making him a more desirable prospect.
  • That being said, Kiser compares to 12 other NFL linebackers who were drafted outside of the first two days of the NFL Draft and scored among the top 85th percentile.
  • Of those 12, three (25.0%) delivered at least a top-24 IDP finish so far, with an additional one added on who had a top-36 finish (33.3%) – none have achieved top-12 yet.
  • It’s a limited success ceiling for Kiser based on those numbers, but as always, a good landing spot would make him an intriguing sleeper candidate.

[ad_2]

Best fits for top defensive backs

[ad_1]

Estimated reading time: 11 minutes

Fantasy managers are regularly faced with difficult start-and-sit decisions at the wide receiver position. In-depth familiarity with each wide receiver’s primary coverage defender gives astute managers an edge in making these decisions, regardless of the scoring format.

The article below breaks down four cornerbacks from the 2025 NFL draft class and identifies their ideal landing spot. Should these pairings come to fruition, fantasy managers must think carefully as to how the rookie cornerbacks can negatively impact their fantasy-scoring results.

CB/WR Travis Hunter‘s best fits: Indianapolis Colts, Seattle Seahawks

Colorado cornerback and wide receiver Travis Hunter collected 11 honors and awards in his 2024 junior season, most notably earning the Heisman Trophy, the Chuck Bednarik Award and the Fred Biletnikoff Award. The latter two are awarded annually to college football’s best defensive player and most outstanding receiver, respectively. Hunter has made clear that he intends to play “100.0%” of both offensive and defensive snaps for whichever NFL team drafts him. While that rate is likely unattainable, Hunter can be deployed as a part-time offensive and defensive player for an NFL team that needs a speedy perimeter wide receiver and whose No. 1 cornerback shifts from the perimeter to the slot in nickel and dime formations. Both the Indianapolis Colts and Seattle Seahawks fit the bill. Hunter’s 86.3 PFF offense grade ranks third among 38 Power Five wide receivers with at least 700 offensive snaps. His 88.2 PFF defense grade ranks third among 33 Power Five cornerbacks with at least 750 defensive snaps.

In 2024, Hunter respectively tallied triple-digit offensive and defensive snap counts at perimeter wide receiver, perimeter cornerback and slot defensive back. He lined up as a slot receiver 36 times. In 2023, Hunter lined up 287 times as a slot receiver and just 176 times as a perimeter wide receiver. For this reason, his 2023 sophomore slot data is included in the sample below. 

The table below ranks in parentheses:

  • Hunter’s perimeter receiver data among 45 Power Five perimeter wide receivers with at least 320 perimeter receiving snaps in 2024.
  • Hunter’s slot receiver data among 94 Power Five slot receivers with at least 240 slot receiving snaps in 2023 and 2024.
  • Hunter’s perimeter cornerback data among 73 Power Five perimeter cornerbacks with at least 300 perimeter coverage snaps in 2024.
  • Hunter’s slot coverage data among 168 Power Five slot defensive backs with at least 70 slot coverage snaps in 2024.
Travis Hunter Perimeter WR Slot WR Perimeter CB Slot DB
Receiving/Coverage Snaps 508 (No. 2) 254 (T-No. 86) 319 No. 63) 76 (T-No. 155)
PFF Receiving Grade 87.3 (No. 4) 77.5 (T-No. 20) N/A N/A
Yards/Route Run 2.37 (No. 9) 2.12 (T-No. 24) N/A N/A
Deep-Target Rate 22.1% (No. 15) 13.5% (No. 63) N/A N/A
PFF Coverage Grade N/A N/A 90.6 (No. 1) 62.6 (No. 94)
Targeted Rate N/A N/A 9.1% (No. 1) 15.7% (No. 52)
Forced Incompletion Rate N/A N/A 21.4% (T-No. 6) 18.2% (T-No. 21)
Yards Allowed Per Coverage Snap N/A N/A 0.47 (T-No. 3) 1.00 (No. 54)

Hunter excels on the perimeter, both offensively and defensively. Although he can play efficiently as a slot receiver, he struggles to maintain high-level play as a slot defensive back. 

Both Indianapolis and Seattle lack difference-making, perimeter wide receivers who possess elite speed. 

Indianapolis invested second-round picks in wide receivers Alec Pierce (2022 NFL draft) and Adonai Mitchell (2024 NFL draft) to solve the issue. Neither player panned out. Pierce delivered unreliable results in his career-best 2024 season, averaging 1.82 yards per route run (YPRR) via a 22.8-yard average depth of target (aDot) while earning a 75.3 PFF receiving grade. Mitchell likewise averaged 1.51 YPRR via a 14.7-yard aDot while earning a 61.4 PFF receiving grade.

Seattle’s starting wide receiver duo now consists of two slot receivers, ascending superstar, Jaxon Smith-Njigba, who earned an 83.5 PFF receiving grade while averaging 1.81 YPRR via a 9.2-yard aDot last year, and the newly signed Cooper Kupp, who earned a 72.3 PFF receiving grade while averaging 1.88 YPRR via an 8.7-yard aDot with the Los Angeles Rams. 

Neither offense would be bereft of talent with Hunter sitting out for roughly 45.0% of snaps but his insertion into the lineup would create an unpredictable and explosive dynamic.

Indianapolis’ No. 1 cornerback Kenny Moore II and Seattle’s No. 1 cornerback Devon Witherspoon both line up on the perimeter in their team’s base defensive formation but kick inside to the slot in nickel and dime packages. Moore’s 68.2 PFF coverage grade ranks second among Indianapolis cornerbacks. Witherspoon’s 69.2 PFF coverage grade ranks second among Seattle cornerbacks. 

Indianapolis’ 2024 defense logged 372 base formation snaps, 758 nickel package snaps and 25 dime package snaps.

Moore totaled 1,013 defensive snaps in 2024, the second-most among Indianapolis cornerbacks.  In base formations, Moore logged a 71.4% pre-snap alignment perimeter rate (232 defensive snaps). In nickel packages, Moore logged an 83.3 % pre-snap alignment slot rate (545 defensive snaps). In dime packages, Moore logged a 69.6% pre-snap alignment slot rate (16 defensive snaps). 

Indianapolis’ free agent-signee, cornerback Charvarius Ward, is expected to man one of the two perimeter spots. His 58.2 PFF coverage grade from his age-28, 2024 season compares unfavorably to Moore but Ward’s family tragedy undoubtedly impacted his play. Ward earned an 86.5 PFF coverage grade in 2023.

Ward’s former San Francisco 49ers teammate, cornerback Samuel Womack III, continued building his quietly strong resume with Indianapolis last year, earning a 71.3 PFF coverage grade on 440 coverage snaps. Womack deserves a starting NFL role, but former fifth-round castoffs rarely fend off elite prospects. 

Seattle’s 2024 defense logged 219 base formation snaps, 792 nickel package snaps and 96 dime package snaps.

Witherspoon totaled 1,103 defensive snaps in 2024, the most among Seattle cornerbacks.  In base formations, Witherspoon logged a 76.8% pre-snap alignment perimeter rate (162 defensive snaps). In nickel packages, Witherspoon logged a 56.6% pre-snap alignment slot rate (441 defensive snaps). In dime packages, Witherspoon logged a 76.0% pre-snap alignment slot rate (73 defensive snaps). 

Seattle No. 2 cornerback Tariq Woolen earned a 69.5 PFF perimeter-coverage grade on a position group-high 772 perimeter defensive snaps.

Indianapolis’ 32.2% base formation snap rate and Seattle’s 19.4% base formation snap rate allow Hunter time to rest. 

Both Indianapolis (No. 14 overall pick) and Seattle (No. 18 overall pick) must trade up for the right to draft Hunter. Indianapolis, possessing only the standard seven NFL draft picks allotted to them, may have a more difficult time doing so. Seattle, conversely, possesses 10 picks, including five on Days 1 and 2. A trade into the top four is easily executed, if general manager John Schneider sets his mind to it.

Hunter brings elite offensive and defensive traits, particularly when lined up on the perimeter. He is a perfect fit for Indianapolis and Seattle.

CB Jahdae Barron‘s best fit: Chicago Bears

Former New Orleans Saints head coach and new Chicago Bears defensive coordinator Dennis Allen inherits a talented defense from former defensive-minded head coach Matt Eberflus. Chicago No. 1 cornerback Jaylon Johnson and tight end-coverage specialist, safety Jaquan Brisker, provide Allen with the mismatch opportunities his defense attempts to capitalize on via various personnel formations, yet the No. 2 perimeter cornerback spot remains a glaring deficiency. Texas cornerback Jahdae Barron is a perfect fit for the role. His 90.7 PFF defense grade ties for No. 1 overall among 33 Power Five cornerbacks with at least 750 defensive snaps. Johnson’s 74.2 PFF coverage grade ranks ninth among 32 NFL cornerbacks with at least 910 defensive snaps. Brisker’s 84.6 PFF coverage grade against opposing tight ends ranks first among Chicago safeties and linebackers. 

Chicago slot cornerback Kyler Gordon’s 83.9 PFF slot-coverage grade ties for third among 34 NFL slot defensive backs with at least 199 slot-coverage snaps.

Chicago’s No. 2 cornerback Tyrique Stevenson has failed to earn even a 60.0 PFF coverage grade through two NFL seasons. His 63.7 PFF run-defense grade is his career-best defensive PFF grade, falling well short of second-round draft capital expectations. Among 64 NFL perimeter cornerbacks with at least 515 perimeter-coverage snaps, Stevenson ranks third-worst in yards allowed per coverage snap (1.57) and dead last in targeted rate (21.0%). 

Barron offers pre-snap versatility, logging 693 defensive snaps on the perimeter (90.5 PFF coverage grade), 122 defensive snaps in the slot (72.4 PFF coverage grade) and 144 defensive snaps in the box (71.7 PFF coverage grade) in his final college season. His 541 coverage snaps rank No. 1 among Power Five cornerbacks.

Among 37 Power Five cornerbacks with at least 400 coverage snaps, Barron ranks 14th in forced incompletion rate (14.7%), 11th in targeted rate (13.1%) and ties for No. 1 overall in yards allowed per coverage snap (0.55). 

Barron’s addition would provide Allen with a uniquely versatile cornerback capable of manning No. 2 perimeter duties, or shifting inside, while Johnson shadows the opposition’s No. 1 wide receiver. Replacing Stevenson with Barron would make Chicago a very difficult matchup for opposing wide receivers.

Subscribe to PFF+ to unlock the world’s most advanced football database!

S Malaki Starks‘ best fit: Minnesota Vikings  

Georgia safety and slot defensive back Malaki Starks is a perfect fit for the Minnesota Vikings’ secondary. He profiles as a year-one slot- and box-coverage defender and part-time free safety who can eventually replace free safety Harrison Smith, who returns for his 14th and expectedly final NFL season. Starks’ drafting would allow cornerback Byron Murphy Jr. to abdicate part-time slot- and box-coverage duties in favor of a full-time perimeter role. Starks’ 78.3 PFF defense grade ranks 14th among 34 Power Five defensive backs with at least 820 defensive snaps. Smith’s 65.3 PFF coverage grade ranks 13th among 32 NFL safeties with at least 600 coverage snaps. Murphy earned an 83.6 PFF perimeter-coverage grade in 2024, handily besting his 57.8 PFF slot-coverage grade. 

Minnesota’s front office retained three of five 2024 secondary starters while signing stud perimeter cornerback Isaiah Rodgers and washed-up cornerback Jeff Okudah in free agency. Rodgers’ 73.4 PFF perimeter-coverage grade ranks 25th among 133 NFL perimeter cornerbacks with at least 45 perimeter-coverage snaps, while Okudah’s 34.6 PFF perimeter-coverage grade ranks 131. Okudah is best suited to a backup role behind both Murphy and Rodgers on the perimeter, while Starks mans the interior coverage spots.

Among 52 Power Five slot defensive backs with at least 275 slot-coverage snaps in 2023 and 2024, Starks ranks 15th in completion rate allowed (59.6%), ties for 14th in forced incompletions (eight) and ranks second in forced incompletion rate (15.4%). His 69.7 PFF slot-coverage grade ranks 22nd.

Starks earned a 70.6 PFF coverage grade on 89 box-coverage snaps in 2024. He earned between a 67.1 PFF coverage grade and a 68.2 PFF coverage grade across all three college seasons when lined up as a free safety. Starks also defends against the run well when lined up in the free safety spot, earning an 81.4 PFF run-defense grade and an 84.8 PFF run-defense grade, respectively, over the last two seasons. 

Starks boasts 11 career tackles for loss or no gain and five career quarterback pressures via 20 blitzes. Minnesota defensive coordinator Brian Flores notoriously wields the league’s second-highest defensive back blitz rate (19.4%). His secondary racked up 26 quarterback pressures via the blitz in the 2024 regular season, tying for fourth-most among NFL teams. 

Starks makes for a perfect slot- and box-coverage defender for Minnesota in Year 1, who can eventually replace Smith at free safety.

CB Trey Amos‘ best fit: Denver Broncos

Ole Miss cornerback Trey Amos is the solution to the Denver Broncos’ two-year search for their No. 2 perimeter cornerback role. He makes a strong case for being the 2025 NFL draft class’ premier ballhawk, maintaining elite disruptive play despite playing in three different defensive systems and gaining experience in both zone and man coverage. His 85.6 PFF defense grade ranks fourth among 33 Power Five cornerbacks with at least 750 defensive snap

Amos’ five-year college career includes stops at Louisiana Lafayette (2020-2022), Alabama (2023) and Ole Miss (2024). He tallied 899 zone coverage snaps and 390 man coverage snaps during that span, notably earning a career-best 75.4 PFF man coverage grade via a career-high 183 man coverage snaps in 2024. 

Denver’s 2024 regular season defense logged 721 defensive snaps in zone, the 20th-most among NFL teams, and 383 defensive snaps in man, the sixth-most among NFL teams.

Amos logged 2,263 defensive snaps lined up on the perimeter but offers box-coverage versatility thanks to his 6-foot-1, 195-pound frame. He totaled 180 defensive snaps as a box defender.

Amos maintained elite all-around coverage defense over the last three seasons at the Group of Five and Power Five levels. Among 109 Group of Five cornerbacks with at least 288 coverage snaps, Amos ranks second in forced incompletion rate (28.3%). Among 40 Power Five cornerbacks with at least 675 coverage snaps from 2023-2024, Amos ranks No. 1 overall in both forced incompletion rate (21.9%) and yards allowed per coverage snap (0.56).

Amos punctuated his elite three-year stretch with a top-tier 2024 season, manning Ole Miss’ perimeter. 

Among 35 Power Five perimeter cornerbacks with at least 350 perimeter-coverage snaps, Amos ranks 12th in targeted rate (13.5%), seventh in interceptions per coverage target (5.0%), fourth in forced incompletion rate (21.7%) and third in yards allowed per coverage snap (0.61). His 85.4 PFF perimeter-coverage grade ranks fourth. 

Denver desperately needs a play-making counterpart for No. 1 cornerback Pat Surtain II, whose 85.0 PFF perimeter-coverage grade ranks No. 1 overall among 32 NFL cornerbacks with at least 460 perimeter-coverage snaps. Amos possesses the ball-hawking skills to capitalize on passes thrown to the opposition’s No. 2 perimeter wide receiver. 

[ad_2]