Last year's class had one transcendent name at the top and a steep drop-off below him. The 2026 quarterback class is built differently — broader at the top, with five prospects who can legitimately be debated as first-round talents. Drew Allar leads the group on the Upside Index board, but the tier behind him is denser and more interesting than it gets credit for.
Drew Allar: The Most Complete Pocket Passer in the Class
Allar is the most polished quarterback in this class and the one who most closely resembles a finished product coming out. At Penn State in the Big Ten — one of the more physically demanding conference environments in college football — he demonstrated excellent processing speed, clean footwork, and a natural release that NFL coaches covet. His ability to go through multiple progressions before pressure arrives separates him from most quarterbacks at this level.
The UI Score of 94.9 puts him in a tier where historical comparisons trend toward quarterbacks who contribute meaningfully in their first two NFL seasons. That is not a guarantee, but it reflects production quality and athletic consistency that holds up under scrutiny. For teams with a clear quarterback need picking in the first round, Allar is the clean top-of-board name. He is not a boom-or-bust profile. He is a high-floor, high-upside prospect that evaluators can build a case for with confidence.
Fernando Mendoza: The Biggest Riser in the Country
No quarterback in this class made a larger leap in 2025 than Mendoza at Indiana. He transferred from Cal and immediately became the most efficient signal-caller in the Big Ten under head coach Curt Cignetti's offense. The numbers weren't just good — they were consistently good, across different game contexts, against varied competition. The Hoosiers had one of the most surprising offensive seasons in recent program history, and Mendoza was the engine.
A UI Score of 88.5 reflects a prospect who showed up where it mattered most: in the box score, on third down, and when games were on the line. Mendoza's size (listed at 6'5") gives him natural pocket presence, and his release timing has been refined from his Cal years. The question evaluators will ask is whether the Indiana environment inflated some numbers. The answer from the model is: not significantly. The efficiency held against top competition. He is a legitimate Day 1 or early Day 2 name and arguably the most undervalued QB in the class by current market metrics.
Carson Beck: Polarizing by Profile, Clear by the Numbers
Beck's career arc is unusual — elite production at Georgia, followed by a transfer to Miami that came with both opportunity and scrutiny. The Georgia seasons generated some of the best efficiency numbers in SEC history during his time under center. The turnover questions that followed him are real and worth weighing, but the model accounts for them in the scoring methodology.
His UI Score of 91.1 reflects the strength of his actual production profile when normalized against competition quality. The arm talent is genuinely NFL-caliber — he can drive the ball down the field with timing and he processes well in clean pockets. He is a better fit for teams that can protect him and build a West Coast or vertical timing-based scheme around him than for teams asking their QB to improvise and extend plays. That context matters more for Beck than for most prospects at this position.
Cade Klubnik: The Dual-Threat Argument Understates the Passing Profile
Klubnik gets characterized as a dual-threat quarterback, which is accurate but incomplete. His feet are an asset, not the foundation. His best plays in 2025 came from the pocket — precise intermediate routes, accurate back-shoulder throws, and a quick trigger that minimizes sack exposure. The mobility adds a dimension, but teams drafting Klubnik should be drafting him for what he does from the pocket first.
At 81.5 on the Upside Index, he sits in the Above Average tier — a designation that translates historically to quarterbacks who develop into capable NFL starters when given the right system and coaching. He is likely a Day 2 prospect by market consensus, but the floor is meaningfully higher than that ADP suggests. Teams with dual-threat offensive identities (spread options, zone-read principles, RPO-heavy schemes) should value him above the current consensus.
Ty Simpson: Alabama Pedigree Meets Limited Sample
Simpson spent most of his Alabama career as a backup, which limits the statistical basis for his evaluation but also means he enters the 2026 draft cycle with significant development ceiling upside that hasn't been fully stress-tested. The athleticism is real — he runs like a legitimate dual-threat QB and not a gadget player. The arm is live. What scouts are asking is whether the decision-making and processing translate when facing NFL-caliber defensive schemes for a full season.
A UI Score of 78.1 is an honest assessment of a prospect with genuine tools and genuine unknowns. He is a project in the best sense of the word: a player whose physical profile exceeds his current college resume, with development potential that a patient franchise could harvest at the right price point. Day 2 or early Day 3, depending on how the rest of the board falls.
Deeper in the Class: Nussmeier, King, and the Rest
Garrett Nussmeier at LSU (UI: 74.1) leads the next tier. He has the arm to make every throw and played in a spread system at LSU that accelerated his decision-making. The consistency concerns — some scatter in his accuracy profile — are the main drag on his score. He is a legitimate NFL prospect, not just a name. Haynes King at Georgia Tech (UI: 75.6) brings mobility and a surprising efficiency improvement over the past two seasons under Paul Johnson's successor scheme. He has been the most underreported success story in the ACC.
Below that, there is a legitimate depth chart of developmental prospects — Taylen Green at Arkansas, Trinidad Chambliss at Ole Miss — who provide genuine late-round value. This class is not thin below the top five in the way that last year's class was. Teams picking in rounds 4 through 6 with quarterback needs are not being asked to reach. There are real options in this range.
How This Class Compares to 2025
The 2025 class was defined by one elite name and a clear cascade below him. This class is built more evenly — the gap between Allar and Mendoza is smaller than the gap between the top name and everyone else was in 2025. That means the first QB off the board will likely be picked earlier by market timing than by unanimous consensus. It also means teams picking 10 through 20 who need a quarterback have legitimate options rather than being asked to rationalize reaching.
On the Upside Index board, five quarterbacks sit above an 80 UI Score. That is a deeper class than the market has priced. The value is real, and the conversation should be louder than it currently is heading into the spring evaluation period.