QB Corner: A final look at Jaxson Dart's Weighted On-Target Percentage profile

Let's talk about Jaxson Dart's accuracy profile and the one big hang-up about it.

The 2025 NFL Draft standing of Ole Miss quarterback Jaxson Dart has been all over the map as we near the NFL Scouting Combine.

While Dart was up-and-down at the Reese’s Senior Bowl, some left thinking he was the best quarterback in Mobile while others thought he left a ton on the bone. The Ole Miss quarterback legitimately remains one of the biggest mysteries of the draft class where he will land.

Box score stats, completion percentage, and analytical metrics like EPA and CPOE do not paint a complete picture.

That’s why Weighted On-Target Percentage is such a standard-setting bar for me to use to evaluate these quarterbacks against years past. Dart’s accuracy profile is second-highest in the class, slightly above average.

Given the nature of the quarterback class, which has been discussed ad nauseam, it is vital to compare it to the historical trends of the other quarterbacks drafted over the last three seasons.

So let’s dive in and talk about Dart’s accuracy profile.

Looking closely at the charting profile of Jaxson Dart

Let’s start with the deep ball.

Dart throws the third-most accurate deep ball in the class, behind just Colorado’s Shedeur Sanders (who has the highest Weighted On-Target Percentage in the class by a large margin) and Ohio State’s Will Howard. It falls on-target at a 51.67 percent clip.

Dart’s deep ball falls within the same percentage point as Alabama’s Jalen Milroe, but about two percent below average over the last three years. Looking at other quarterbacks over that timeframe with a similarly accurate deep ball, Indianapolis Colts’ quarterback Anthony Richardson was on target at a one percent better clip, Bo Nix’s deep ball sat at average and two percent better, and Michael Penix’s deep ball was three percent better coming out of Washington.

Minnesota’s J.J. McCarthy is the only quarterback with a below-average deep ball to be drafted in the first round over the last three years. Miami’s Cam Ward (41.86 percent) very likely joins that list as well.

Dart’s on-target percentage along the boundary at 66.67 percent sits slightly above average and identical to Howard’s this season at Ohio State. Compared to the other top quarterbacks in the class, Sanders was on-target on boundary throws on 75 percent of his looks while Ward sits below average at 64 percent.

Throwing over the middle and in the short game (this shouldn’t be too big of a surprise in an RPO-laden offense) is where Dart’s Weighted On-Target Percentage gets most of its juice. Over the middle, Dart is the best in the class, connecting at a 78 percent clip; a whopping eight percent over average.

Dart also operates the short game at an above-average on-target clip, hitting the mark on 89 percent of his looks with an average sitting at 86.5 percent.

There is a snag in Dart’s accuracy profile

Where Dart’s profile gets interesting and splits from a similar prospect Howard is where the meat of their body of work came from. Howard’s Weighted On-Target Percentage and charting profile came exclusively against the top-ranked teams (plus Michigan) that Ohio State played in the regular season and during the College Football Playoffs.

Much of Dart’s profile is lifted up by a torrid statline that he ripped against an FCS team, Group of Five teams, and a decimated Wake Forest program during Ole Miss’ non-conference schedule. If you parse out Dart’s Weighted On-Target Percentage from those first four games versus his body of work against SEC opponents (even including the bowl game against an opt-out-laden Duke team!) it tells a clearer picture.

Dart’s Weighted On-Target Percentage in that four-game sample size to start the season was a blazing 83.76 percent. He connected on 13-of-15 deep balls, threw along the boundary at a 75 percent clip, and threaded the football over the middle at an 89 percent clip.

His body of work against SEC opponents plus the bowl game where Dart even lit up the Blue Devils? 59.28 percent. In this span, Dart was just 18-of-46 on deep balls, 65 percent outside the numbers (below average), and 73 percent over the middle of the field (below average).

Just to remove any bias that may be interpreted, Sanders’ Weighted On-Target Percentage was split between conference plus the bowl game and non-conference. In his non-conference schedule against North Dakota State, Nebraska, and Colorado State, Sanders’ Weighted On-Target Percentage came out to 76.09 percent. In conference plus his bowl game against BYU, Sanders’ Weighted On-Target Percentage was still 73.26 percent.

Part of me wonders what the perception of Dart would be if his EPA and other analytical metrics were not inflated against the likes of Furman, Middle Tennessee State, Georgia Southern, and Wake Forest.

What quarterbacks closely align from a WOT% perspective?

This Weighted On-Target Percentage that Dart put together, largely due to his body of work throwing the ball over the middle of the field at a well above-average clip, comes out slightly above-average on the year. This is despite a below-average deep ball and average clip throwing along the boundaries at the NFL level.

His Weighted On-Target Percentage is one percent lower, but his draft stock and comparable prospects in that time frame are Jake Haener from Fresno State in 2023 and Michael Pratt from Tulane a year ago. Haener was a fifth round pick while Pratt was a seventh round pick.

From this class, Howard’s aligns most closely with Dart’s, slightly below. The difference as discussed, however, is that the majority of the body of work shown from Howard was in the College Football Playoffs and against top teams, while Dart’s inflation comes from an early season slaughterhouse of FCS teams, a depleted Wake Forest program, and a Duke team full of opt-outs.

I’d anticipate that Dart may go Day 2 given the lack of quality quarterbacks in the class, but Day 3 should firmly be where his draft stock lies entering the 2025 NFL Draft.

Let’s wrap it up

Average at operating the short game and a below-average deep ball thrower and along the boundary, Dart lives over the middle of the field. At the NFL level the middle of the field gets condensed due to narrower hashes and numbers. Is that success going to continue?

While Dart has the second-highest Weighted On-Target Percentage in the class behind only Sanders, that is an indictment of the class as a whole. His number is just slightly above average in terms of ball placement and accuracy charted over the last three years.

Given his performance in an extremely juvenile offense that compromises complexity for speed and how frequently he was late and lacked anticipatory throws, it makes me question his ability to pick up an NFL playbook efficiently or effectively.

Mix that with just ordinary arm talent and above-average athleticism, and finding ways to buy into the quarterback as a whole is limited. Even over a quarterback with a similar accuracy profile and tools in Will Howard, who played in an offense far more diverse in NFL passing concepts and line of scrimmage protection and check work.

Some have told me Dart’s draft stock likely fits around picks No. 100-150, other intel indicating that his grades seem to fall in the Day 3 range consistently.

His accuracy and ball placement sit slightly above average, which is lacking in the class, but there are loads of questions elsewhere for Dart. Please do not interpret this as Jaxson Dart being the second-best quarterback in the class. Do not force a quarterback in a bad class; we don’t have to do that.