There’s no doubt the 2026 NFL Draft will have better quarterback talent than the ’25 version. What the actual board looks like — and exactly how much talent it’ll have — will remain cloudy well into winter.
The old days are officially over, and college football players now have serious financial opportunities that can make delaying the draft much more enticing. Much has been made about whether Texas junior Arch Manning will declare in 2026 or wait for 2027, but we could have similar conversations with many of the top QB prospects for next season.
How have those prospects fared early in the season? Let’s take a look.
Arch Manning, Texas (Jr.)
Stats through two games: 36-for-60 passing for 465 yards, five TDs, two INTs, 15.0 percent off-target rate
Upon further review, many of Manning’s issues against Ohio State were the result of nerves and a well-coached, talented, fired-up Buckeye defense. In his first game as a true starter, on the road against the defending champs, Manning was off on nearly everything for the first 40 or so minutes.
But as hard as the bad moments from that game were to ignore, Manning’s final stretch was worth noting. He made some big-time throws late in an effort to get Texas back in it, including a ridiculous sideline shot into an incredibly tight window — a throw several NFL starters would hesitate to rip.
It’s no surprise Manning delivered a much cleaner stat line in Week 2 against San Jose State — 19 of 30 for 312 yards, a career-high four touchdowns and one pick plus a rushing TD. Manning certainly played with much more confidence against a lesser foe, hitting several tight-window throws.
However, he still needs to be more consistent. Even in Saturday’s win, he was guilty of rushed footwork and sticky processing, both of which have impacted his accuracy. Little things are popping up that we didn’t see in limited action a year ago.
The sky is not falling the way some media narratives claim, but Manning also looked like a first-year starter in each game so far. We’ll see if that levels off.
LaNorris Sellers, South Carolina (Jr.)
Stats through two games: 23-for-38 passing for 337 yards, two TDs, zero INTs, 15.8 percent off-target rate
A bit of squinting is still required, but it’s not hard to see why scouts love everything about what Sellers could become. The 6-foot-3, 240-pound junior completed 12 of 19 passes for 209 yards and a touchdown, with 12 carries for 55 yards and another TD, in a season-opening win over Virginia Tech. He then went 11 of 19 for 128 yards and a score in a romp over South Carolina State.
Sellers has played with happy feet in both starts, which has led to some trouble, and he’s still an inconsistent processor — best evidenced in 2025 by the safety he took after freezing on a quick read against the Hokies. He also has work to do in the pocket. He flashes good footwork and an ability to play in rhythm, but it’s not consistent enough yet, and it’s impacting his ball placement.
There have been sparkling examples of Sellers’ special talent, though. When he throws in rhythm with proper footwork, he can put the ball anywhere on the field.
He’s also the hardest quarterback in this class to tackle. And though he still needs to work on keeping his eyes up when he leaves the pocket, he’s a legitimate run threat with athletic traits who can remind one of Josh Allen.
Garrett Nussmeier, LSU (fifth-year Sr.)
Stats through two games: 54-for-79 passing for 469 yards, two TDs, one INT, 6.3 percent off-target rate
Nussmeier did a terrific job in Week 1 at Clemson of throwing on time and on target. He’s had more impressive games statistically, sure. But for a guy who’s had trouble with YOLO throws and overaggressive play in the past, Nussmeier’s patience and efficiency were what scouts wanted to see in a big spot.
The matchup with Clemson gave us a glimpse of what Nussmeier can be in the NFL when he’s on point with his footwork and not trying to do too much.
It’s also why his opening stretch in Week 2 against Louisiana Tech was frustrating. Unlike the opener, Nussmeier was sloppy with his feet early and got in trouble because of it. He badly underthrew an open sideline shot, which was tipped and intercepted in the first quarter, and spent too much time aiming throws instead of working in rhythm. He did still connect on big throws, and overall, he’s been one of the country’s most accurate starters through two weeks.
No one should be doubting Nussmeier’s potential as a first-round QB at this point. However, we need to see him play every game with the type of wire-to-wire focus and intensity he showed against Clemson.
Drew Allar, Penn State (Sr.)
Stats through two games: 41-for-59 passing for 417 yards, three TDs, zero INTs, 8.5 percent off-target rate
The good news here: On a majority of Allar’s 59 attempts this season, he’s shown improved footwork and a more consistent throwing process from the pocket than in past years. He was particularly good in Week 1 against Nevada, going 22 of 26 for 217 yards and a score. He was on time with most everything, and though there were gripes to be had with a few throws while facing pressure, he generally was very good.
Week 2 versus Florida International was a bit more of an adventure and reminiscent of some past Allar performances. As is the case with Nussmeier and Indiana’s Fernando Mendoza, when Allen’s footwork is rushed or sloppy, the ball can really sail on him — that will get him into trouble against better teams as the year wears on.
The best news, though? We’re nitpicking. Allar hasn’t made any critical errors through two weeks, and he hasn’t been late over the middle or careless. He can play much better than this, but he’s already been pretty good.
Fernando Mendoza, Indiana (redshirt Jr.)
Stats through two games: 36-for-58 passing for 438 yards, 4 TDs, 0 INTs, 12.5 off-target rate
Mendoza’s first start at Indiana, a Week 1 win over Old Dominion, was sloppy. His feet were inconsistent for most of the game — he played with flat feet way too much and generally spent the afternoon throwing off an awkward base. That continued during the first quarter of a Week 2 win over Kennesaw State, but Mendoza was able to settle down and play good football for the final three quarters of a 56-0 win.
At least part of the early hiccups were due to Mendoza having had only two games in Curt Cignetti’s system. He got better throughout the course of both starts and seemed very comfortable for most of Saturday’s action. His arm talent is undeniable, as is his confidence in that arm talent. When Mendoza’s footwork is off, however, the velocity he puts on the ball tends to make it sail.
Still, except Mendoza to continue to grow — and remember he can return for 2026, if he’d like.
Cade Klubnik, Clemson (Sr.)
Stats through two games: 37-for-62 passing for 426 yards, two TDs, two INTs, 8.1 percent off-target rate
Klubnik is definitely a fighter. The Clemson standout had one of the toughest tasks anywhere in Week 1 against LSU. He was hardly perfect (19 of 38 for 230 yards and a pick in a loss), but he battled the whole night without his best receiver (Antonio Williams) or any type of run game to help him.
Things did not start well in Week 2 against Troy. Klubnik alternated between having happy feet and flat feet in the pocket early, then had a tipped pass turn into a 4-yard pick-six in the first half, as the Tigers fell into a 16-0 hole.
But Klubnik kept fighting. He led Clemson on a scoring drive immediately after the tipped pick, sparking a 27-0 run for a comeback win. Along the way, he also ripped a few classic Cade Klubnik shots — including this crazy 34-yard touchdown heave to Bryant Wesco Jr. in the fourth quarter:
Klubnik has to play better against pressure early in games, and against teams with better talent. There’s plenty to prove this season, but we’ve already seen some of Klubnik’s competitive character. That should continue to serve him well.
Sam Leavitt, Arizona State (Jr.)
Stats through two games: 35-for-61 passing for 339 yards, three TDs, three INTs, 16.7 percent off-target rate
It’s been a wobbly start for Leavitt. After a solid day in the opener against Northern Arizona (24 of 38, 257 yards, two touchdowns, one interception), Leavitt threw for just 82 yards (with two picks and a TD) on 10 of 22 passes at Mississippi State. Leavitt was more calm than chaotic in the opener, but it was pretty much the opposite against the Bulldogs — he made far too many poor decisions with the football, including a careless interception in the first half.
Leavitt has been guilty both of trying to do too much and playing too fast. He’s fading in the face of pressure, and — though some of his runs this season have been spectacular (including a 52-yard touchdown against Northern Arizona) — he’s leaving the pocket with his eyes down far too much. The risky throws and rushed play have really impacted his accuracy, as Leavitt’s off-target rate is a whopping five points above the national average so far this season.
Even as he’s struggling, though, Leavitt can still do things to remind you how talented he is.
Leavitt, a true junior, is still young — he won’t turn 21 until late December. We’ll see if he can be less of a roller coaster when Arizona State visits Baylor later this month.
John Mateer, Oklahoma (redshirt Jr.)
Stats through two games: 51-for-71 passing for 662 yards, four TDs, two INTs, 11.3 percent off-target rate
The Mateer era at Oklahoma is off to a sizzling start. After completing 30 of 37 passes for 389 yards, three touchdowns and an interception against Illinois State, Mateer posted 344 total yards (270 passing, 74 rushing) and three touchdowns against a very talented Michigan defense Saturday night. He made some seriously explosive plays with his feet and his arm, showing great mobility in the pocket and arm talent from an array of angles.
He also got away with quite a bit, as Michigan tipped a few dangerous attempts over the middle that could’ve been intercepted. Though he’s generally accurate with his ball placement, Mateer will miss when he plays too fast or doesn’t properly step into a throw. He was overaggressive against Illinois State, too, but Michigan’s defense probably should’ve had more than one interception.
That said, Mateer’s presence as a legit dual-threat option remains intriguing. He’s big enough (225 pounds) to run in space. And though 19 rushing attempts is a lot for one game, keep in mind Mateer forced 53 missed tackles last season and already has four in 2025.
He throws and moves like a shortstop — sometimes it’s messy; sometimes it’s awesome. If Mateer evens out, he could be an interesting evaluation this spring.
Other notables
Carson Beck, Miami: 42-for-55 passing for 472 yards, four TDs, zero INTs, 9.4 percent off-target rage
Taylen Green, Arkansas: 41-for-54 passing for 561 yards, 10 TDs, two INTs, 10.5 percent off-target rate
Nico Iamaleava, UCLA: 40-for-63 passing for 391 yards, two TDs, two INTs, 14.3 percent off-target rate
Aidan Chiles, Michigan State: 36-for-52 passing for 386 yards, five TDs, zero INTs, 17.3 percent off-target rate
Miller Moss, Louisville: 30-for-48 passing for 374 yards, two TDs, two INTs, 6.4 percent off-target rate.
(Top photo of Arch Manning: Tim Warner / Getty Images)