Every April, the conversation around quarterbacks becomes a referendum on the eye test, arm talent, and leadership. Those things matter. But one question that helps separate good evaluations from great ones: What happens when the pocket breaks down?

We used the SIS DataHub Pro to find out — splitting every 2026 QB’s final college season into Clean Pocket and Under Pressure environments, then benchmarking them against 23 QBs selected in Rounds 1-5 from the last four draft classes. 

Starting with the expected No. 1 pick.

Fernando Mendoza: Elite Ceiling, Big Question Mark

There’s a version of Fernando Mendoza’s scouting profile that makes him look like the best quarterback prospect in years. From a clean pocket at Indiana, Mendoza generated a positive play (by Expected Points Added) on 66% of his snaps—the highest Positive Play Rate across all 29 QBs in our dataset. His clean pocket accuracy and productivity were both elite (3rd in On-Target% and 2nd in Independent Quarterback Rating, our adjusted Passer Rating that emphasizes factors within the passer’s control).

We’re talking about a clean pocket profile that belongs in the same conversation as Joe Burrow’s historic 2019 season:

Then the pocket collapses, and we see a different player.

Mendoza’s Positive Play Rate plummets from 66% to 33% under pressure—a 33 percentage point drop, the second-largest in the dataset. His Bust Rate (the percentage of plays losing at least one expected point) nearly quadrupled, jumping from 9% to 34%. His 20% Sack Rate under pressure ranked in the bottom third of all QBs studied.

His Catchable% under pressure is 85%—the best mark across all 29 quarterbacks in the dataset. The ball is still arriving in catchable locations. What degrades is timing and precise accuracy — his On-Target% drops 21 percentage points and his completion rate falls 29 percentage points, suggesting that throws are arriving late or in tighter windows rather than on the receiver in stride.

Fernando Mendoza

>> C=Clean; P=Pressure

The foundation is elite. The developmental questions are processing speed and poise under pressure. If an NFL staff can scheme quick-game answers to pressure, Mendoza’s clean pocket dominance could translate at a high level. If his pressure woes continue, the 33 percentage-point Positive% collapse becomes a weekly problem against NFL pass rushes.

Every metric here — the pressure splits, IQR, Positive% and On-Target% comparisons — was surfaced through SIS DataHub Pro.

2026 QB Class: What the Pressure Data Shows For The Other Prospects

We benchmarked the final college season for six 2026 QBs against 23 quarterbacks from the last four draft classes using SIS DataHub Pro. Here’s what the data says about each one.

Ty Simpson has a clean pocket profile that justifies his projection as the second QB off the board. His Total Points per Play from a clean pocket ranks 4th across all 29 QBs, and his 0.6% INT rate is the 4th-lowest — he protects the football in a clean environment as well as anyone. Under pressure, that profile inverts: his IQR collapses 52.3 points and his Points Earned turns negative.

Cade Klubnik is one of the most accurate clean pocket passers in the dataset—his 84% On-Target% ranks 4th across all 29 QBs, although he didn’t push it down the field much. He pairs that with the lowest INT+Sack rate under pressure (12.7%) of any QB studied, despite facing the heaviest pressure volume in the class. The ceiling wasn’t elite, but his performance under pressure makes him an intriguing Day 3 pick.

Garrett Nussmeier is the only 2026 QB whose Total Points per 100 plays actually improved under pressure (13 clean → 20 pressured), and his Positive Play Rate decline under pressure is the smallest measured across all 29 QBs. His clean pocket production, however, ranked near the bottom of the dataset—last among all 29 QBs in Boom% (17%) and TD% (4%). The performance under pressure was admirable. The question is whether the clean pocket baseline gives him enough to work with.

Carson Beck was a productive clean pocket passer—6th in Positive Play Rate (57%)—but his under-pressure numbers are a red flag. His 6% INT rate under pressure is the highest across five draft classes, and nearly 1 in 4 pressured plays ended in a sack or turnover.

Drew Allar posted a 96.9 IQR from a clean pocket—the lowest rate among the 29 QBs measured. His passing performance under pressure was also among the worst and he relied heavily on his legs to get him out of trouble. He scrambled on 20% of pressured dropbacks—the second-highest rate in the dataset behind Jayden Daniels.

This Analysis Only Exists in DataHub Pro

Generic stats tell you a quarterback completed 65% of his passes. The SIS DataHub Pro tells you his Positive Play Rate was 66% from a clean pocket and 33% under pressure — and that he was worth 17 fewer points per 100 plays as a passer when the pocket broke down.

• Clean Pocket vs. Pressure Filtering — isolate any QB’s performance by pocket environment.
• On-Target% and Catchable% — Accuracy metrics that go beyond box score numbers.
• Total Points — distributing EPA to individual players responsible.
• Boom% and Bust% — reveal trends beyond simple per-play averages using big-play creation and mistake rates.
• Historical Benchmarking — compare any prospect against players from the last decade in seconds.

Whether you’re constructing a draft board, building models, or publishing analysis, this gives you an edge.

NFL Draft Offer: 25% Off Your First Year or First Month

Use code DRAFT26 at checkout to save 25% on your first year or first month of College Football DataHub Pro or College Football + NFL DataHub Pro.

This offer expires May 6th.

Subscribe to SIS DataHub Pro →

For a full breakdown of 400+ prospects in the 2026 class, visit the SIS NFL Draft Site.

All research and analysis in this newsletter was conducted using SIS DataHub Pro.