The Trevor Lawrence evaluation is a tricky one. At first glance, it should be a cut-and-dry evaluation. He’s been the consensus No. 1 overall pick since his freshman year at Clemson. Analysts have crowned him as a “generational” talent; best quarterback prospect since (insert Hall of Fame quarterback here). But when digging into the film, alongside the high-end talent is a variety of flaws and uninspiring schematics that may suggest he’s not as pro-ready as advertised. Below we will look at what makes Lawrence the best prospect in the class and dive into the areas he still has room to develop.

Lawrence is an excellent athlete for the position and is able to contribute not only as an off-script runner but also in designed quarterback runs. His mobility helps him extend plays and he’s able to throw with accuracy and power off platform with equal success rolling to the left or right.

Possessing a smooth mechanical process, he is able to deliver throws to all areas of the field with a very natural delivery when given time- an effortless thrower. Under pressure his slightly elongated delivery messes him up and leads to off-target throws, big step, the ball comes way up, lacking the twitchy throwing motion.

With some concepts he flashes high recognition of the defenses and sees his progressions through, in many of his negative plays, he shows small field vision and appears to only be reading half of the field. It feels like he is throwing to his primary most of the time and more than a few interceptions have come because he just simply doesn’t see the defender he’s so locked into his read.

While it’s not the biggest of concerns because of the physical tools to make up for it, he’s not a great anticipatory thrower. With arm strength of that caliber, he can see them open and rip it in there as he learns to develop anticipation. At times, this overconfidence in his arm will get him into trouble as he will test windows that are closed before the ball arrives. I believe this aggressive mindset is extremely valuable for his transition next level, however, as many young quarterbacks struggle with adapting to throwing to “NFL open” as opposed to the wide-open windows commonly seen in the college game.

He has excellent physical tools and traits paired with the football IQ to work with, similar to Justin Herbert in last year’s class. Teams should take comfort in his incredible poise and leadership he has exuded in his three years at Clemson on the brightest stages. So while his film left more to be desired, his major draw isn’t that he’s a readymade, generational player; it’s that he has the tools to be an elite quarterback and with fewer concerns than most every other quarterback we’ve seen in recent years, he feels like a high-floor, completely safe pick.

Overall Average Throw Efficiency: 85.9% (rank: 3rd of 5)

Turnover Worthy Throw%: 3.13% (rank: 4th)

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

  •  7.5% of attempts (rank: 4th)
  • 70.8% efficiency (rank 5th)
  • 1 turnover worthy throw, 4.2% of cross-field throws


Short Passing:

  • 46.0% of throws behind or within 5 yards of the line of scrimmage. (rank: 1st)
  • Missed 6.8% of those throws (rank: 3rd)


10-20 yard Range:

  • Overall throw efficiency: 70.1% (rank: 5th)
  • 24.1% of all throws
  • 11 touchdowns
  • 3 turnover worthy throws
  • 21 Blue Throws in this range

Deep Passing:

  • 13.8% of all throws were blue throws (rank: 5th)
  • 63.6% success rate on those throws (rank: 5th)
  • 8 average air yards per successful blue throw (rank: T-3rd)
  • 13:4 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio

Third Down Stats:

  • Third down conversion percentage: 66% (rank: 2nd)
  • Third down accuracy percentage: 75.4% (rank: 3rd)
  • Average distance to go: 8.6 yards
  • 6:2 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio
  • Blue throws on third downs: 23.1% of all third-down conversions (rank: 3rd)
  • Downfield successful shots on third downs: 8.9% of all third-down conversions (rank: 4th)

Fourth Down Efficiency:

  • Average distance to go: 3 yards
  • Conversions/Attempts: 1/3
  • Conversion percentage: 33% with 33% accuracy

Third and Fourth Down Red Zone Efficiency:

  • Conversions/Attempts: 3/7
  • Conversion percentage: 42% (rank: 5th)
  • 3:1 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio

Red Zone Efficiency:

  • 23 Attempts
  • 65% Throw Efficiency (rank: 5th)
  • 13:1 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio
  • 15 end zone shots (passes delivered in the endzone)

“And Goal” Situational Efficiency:

  • 10 Attempts
  • 80% Throw Efficiency (rank: 3rd)
  • 7:1 touchdown to turnover worthy throw ratio

Hit As Throwing Efficiency:

  • Missed 46% of HAT Attempts (rank: 4th)
  • 2 turnover worthy throws (7.7%)

Off Platform Throwing:

  • 85.7% Throw Efficiency (rank: 3rg)
  • 5:0 blue throw to turnover worthy throw ratio
  • Roll Right: 75% of OP attempts
    • 85.7% efficiency
    • 2:0 blue throw:turnover worthy throw
  • Roll Left: 25% of OP attempts
    • 85.7% efficiency
    • 5:0 blue throw:turnover worthy throw

2-Minute Situations:

  • 82.8% Throw Efficiency (rank: 2nd)
  • 3 Blue Throws
  • 0 Turnover worthy throws

Successful scoring drive on 62.5% of drive attempts (rank: 3rd)