Justin Fields feels like a create-a-player with his sturdy frame, top-tier arm strength and 4.4 speed. Physically, there’s a ton to love about the player — who has one of the highest ceilings of any player in the draft — but the best trait about his game is far and away his ultra-competitive play on the field. Being able to check all the boxes of the position is one thing, but at the quarterback position, you need someone willing to lay it all out for the team, refuse to go down without a fight and someone who ignites not only the locker room but an entire fanbase. Fields is that player.

Fields has phenomenal arm strength and shows flashes of excellence on his deep balls. Where he lapses with accuracy on them is when he is late to the read and tries to hit his receiver on a line instead of putting air on it and letting his receiver track it down. This correction will lead to a huge upgrade in success rate for Fields down the road.

He consistently hits big-time throws to the intermediate level of the fields. His willingness to stand tough in the pocket and test windows 10-20 yards downfield with precision is the best part of his game. He is a very physical presence in the pocket and tough to get down from there. While this serves him well plenty, his refusal to let a play die leads to mistakes and recklessness with the ball as a result.

The system he was asked to run was filled with half-field concepts that read the conflict defender and it makes the decision for you. When defenses were in zone, he was very efficient with these concepts and has shown the ability to make the correct read. When they were running more man, he is able to punish them as a runner with the numbers advantage. Projection comes in with the ability to run more complex concepts next level.

His game is not without faults, however. Fields post-snap processing is inconsistent. I’m not sure he’s consistently seeing the blitz and while he was able to use his athleticism to escape and make an explosive play on the ground, this ability to avoid pressure will be harder to come by at the next level.

Fields also has a tendency to be slow to move on from his first read in the progression. This results in a long time to throw and will lead to more sacks.

He has put too many messy, poor decision plays on film in this situation — very reminiscent of hero ball Josh Allen at Wyoming. If Fields doesn’t speed up his process and cut down on the negative plays, he will have a difficult time locking down a starting job long-term. If he cleans up this part of his game, however, Justin Fields has among the highest potential of any quarterback in this class.

Overall Average Throw Efficiency: 82.9% (rank: 5th of 5)

Turnover Worthy Throw Percentage: 5.28% (rank: 5th)

Cross-field throws: (opposite hash to outside the numbers, 10+ yards downfield):

  • 9.69% of attempts (rank: 3rd)
  • 77.3% efficiency (rank: 4th)
  • 0 turnover worthy throws, 0% of cross-field throws

Short Passing:

  • 33.0% of throws behind or within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. (rank: 4th)
  • Missed 12% of those throws (rank: 5th)

10-20 yard Range:

  • Overall throw efficiency: 82.3% (rank: 1st)
  • 27.3% of all throws
  • 12 touchdowns
  • 6 turnover worthy throws
  • 17 Blue Throws in this range

Deep Passing:

  • 16.3% of all throws were blue throws (rank: 3rd)
  • 64.9% success rate on those throws (rank: 4th)
  • 38.8 average air yards per successful blue throw (rank: t-3rd)
  • 12:3 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio

Third Down Stats:

  • Third down conversion percentage: 60.4% (rank: 4th)
  • Third down accuracy percentage: 72.9% (rank: 4th)
  • Average distance to go: 6.3 yards
  • 6:5 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio
  • Blue throws on third downs: 18.75% of all third-down conversions (rank: 5th)
  • Downfield successful shots on third downs: 4.2% of all third-down conversions (rank: 5th)

Fourth Down Efficiency:

  • Average distance to go: 2.4 yards
  • Conversions/Attempts: 3/5
  • Conversion percentage: 60% with 60% accuracy

Third and Fourth Down Red Zone Efficiency:

  • Conversions/Attempts: 11/16
  • Conversion percentage: 68.8% (rank: 3rd)
  • 6:2 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio

Red Zone Efficiency:

  • 37 Attempts
  • 73% Throw Efficiency (rank: 4th)
  • 18:3 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio
  • 24 end zone shots (passes delivered in the endzone)

“And Goal” Situational Efficiency:

  • 20 Attempts
  • 70% Throw Efficiency (rank: 5th)
  • 12:1 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio

Hit As Throwing Efficiency:

  • Missed 44.4% of HAT Attempts (rank: 3rd)
  • 2 turnover worthy throws (11.1%)

Off Platform Throwing:

  • 88.6% Throw Efficiency (rank: 2nd)
  • 3:3 blue throw to turnover worthy throw ratio
  • Roll Right: 80% of OP attempts
    • 85.7% efficiency
    • 3:2 blue throw : turnover worthy throw
    • Roll Left: 20% of OP attempts
    • 100% efficiency
    • 1:0 blue throw: turnover worthy throw

2-Minute Situations:

  • 81.5% Throw Efficiency (rank: 4th)
  • 3 Blue Throws
  • 4 Turnover worthy throws

Successful scoring drive on 50% of drive attempts (rank: 5th)