The transfer portal is as insane as ever, with thousands of players already entered. As of January 9th, some have found new homes, while others are still searching for landing spots. As always, quarterback is the premium position, and this cycle did not disappoint in landing spots. Below, I’ll cover a few of the favorites for college fantasy in 2025, looking at both ends of the production spectrum.
John Mateer, Oklahoma (Prev: Washington State)
The Bull Case: The bull case is essentially repeating 2024 – and many factors tell us it’s possible. Mateer reunites with offensive coordinator Ben Arbuckle at Oklahoma, looking to build on a wildly productive first season as a starter, amassing 44 total touchdowns and nearly 4,000 total yards. Compared to most quarterbacks in the portal, Mateer has the benefit of familiarity with Arbuckle’s system. It’s clear he can run what is being asked by Arbuckle and brings a level of dynamism the Sooners lacked this season. Repeating his 2024 output is a tall ask, as, by all measures, he finished as a top-three fantasy option; however, coming close would be more than good enough.
The Bear Case: The SEC ain’t the Mountain West (or PAC-2). The production was undeniable, but what happens when it’s not New Mexico? Or Wyoming? Or San Diego State? Or Utah State? Or Hawai’i…OR…well, you get the point. More than half (seven) of Mateer’s 12 opponents finished 90th or worse in adjusted EPA/play in 2024. The one matchup against a team in the top 40 was Washington, a game they won, but Mateer averaged 3.9 yards per rush and 50% completion percentage.
The sample size against even average defenses is non-existent. We don’t know how Mateer will fare when he faces Texas, South Carolina, and Ole Miss back-to-back-to-back. The rushing floor is excellent, and his athleticism is a real difference-maker at the Group of 5 level. It would be foolish to assume there isn’t some adjustment needed, given the sheer caliber of athletes he’ll be going against.
None of the above even begins to account for Oklahoma’s situation. This was a bad offensive line in 2024 and a receiver room that was cleaned out via the portal. The offensive line ranked 108th in pass blocking and 100th in run blocking per PFF. They added tackles Derek Simmons from Western Carolina and Luke Baklenko from Stanford to improve. Neither are true difference makers and should be considered depth more than bonafide SEC tackles; in fact, Baklenko was one of Stanford’s worst linemen in both 2023 and 2024. Simmons has size and produced well for the Catamounts, allowing one sack in 947 career snaps and only five career pressures in true pass sets. The offensive line probably can’t be worse than 2024’s iteration.
A fully healthy Deion Burks is an asset for this team, and they added a field stretcher, Javonnie Gibson from Arkansas-Pine Bluff from the portal, a personal favorite. Gibson is a dynamic playmaker who can be used in any role offensively but likely lines up outside to provide a downfield option to compliment Burks. Additionally, they bring in Keontez Lewis from Southern Illinois, Josiah Martin from Cal, and Isaiah Sategna from Arkansas. Zion Kearney also had a strong bowl game and factors in here. The room added a lot, but there isn’t a ton of FBS experience here. However, it does project better than 2024’s group assuming health.
Fernando Mendoza, Indiana (Prev: Cal)
The Bull Case: Indiana replaces Kurtis Rourke with semi-breakout star Fernando Mendoza. Mendoza is built like your prototypical quarterback—an athletic, 6’5”, 225lb frame with a plus arm and more-than-adequate mobility. Indiana’s offense under Mike Shanahan ranked ninth in adjusted EPA/play and saw Rouke throw for 3,042 yards and 29 touchdowns with only five interceptions. Indiana scored over 41 points in seven games and showed ample willingness to run up the score where they could. Head coach Curt Cignetti was indeed all gas, no brakes. Mendoza is stepping into an offense that can and will score points.
Mendoza took steps forward in 2024 in his second season as a starter. He cut down on his interceptions, throwing one fewer in over double the pass attempts. He also saw his adjusted completion percentage jump nearly five percent to 75.5% from 70.8%. He’s a passer who takes what the defense gives him, and that likely works for Shanahan and Indiana in 2025.
The Bear Case: The 2024 Indiana Hoosiers caught the perfect storm. A relatively easy schedule (for Big Ten purposes), a great coach in Cignetti, and a bunch of hits in the transfer portal. Indiana can’t expect to go 11-1 this year, but can they repeat some of the magic offensively?
Let’s start with the player himself, Mendoza. His 2024 was solid; as mentioned above, he took what was given to him. His adjusted accuracy ranked 23rd of 112 eligible quarterbacks, above Carson Beck, Kyle McCord, and other high-end quarterbacks. But he wasn’t a difference-maker. Per PFF, his big-time-throw rate ranked 103rd in the same group of players. It is consistent, but it isn’t true high-level quarterback play. For reference, Rourke ranked 17th in the same category. Mendoza didn’t push the ball downfield, evidenced by his 8.5 average depth of target, while Rourke’s was two yards higher. Part of this is scheme-related, but when watching Mendoza, one can see he is unwilling to let it loose.
The other concern with Mendoza is his consistent sack problem. It was an area that Rourke struggled with as well; both ranked top-eight in the pressure-to-sack rate, at over 26%. Cal’s offensive line struggled in pass protection (ranked 100th), but Mendoza consistently took bad sacks he should have avoided. Thankfully, Indiana returns key contributors on the offensive line, including anchor tackle Carter Smith. It’s important to note that Rourke’s limited mobility made this unit look slightly worse than it truly is.
The skill positions see more turnover but return leading receivers Elijah Sarrat and Cooper Omar Cooper Jr highlight returnees. However, Myles Price, Ke’Shawn Williams, and Miles Cross all depart. Sarrat transitioned well to the Big Ten from James Madison, following his head coach Curt Cignett, and will lead the team again. Omar Cooper carved out a nice role as WR2 in this offense, but the depth is essentially all new here. Tyler Morris comes in from an unproductive Michigan offense, and Makai Jackson joins from Appalachian State after a productive second year for the Mountaineers. There’s a lot to like here, especially at the top, but depth is a concern, and a few injuries could neuter this passing offense.
Miller Moss, Louisville (Prev: USC)
The Bull Case: Miller Moss took over for Caleb Williams in the 2024 season before ultimately losing the job to transfer UNLV Jayden Maiava late in the year. Moss started out hot in a debut against LSU but never quite found the same success as the season progressed. However, he is not in the Bluegrass State, teaming up with Jeff Brohm’s Louisville Cardinals. I could probably stop there, right? Brohm has schemed up quarterback success for years now. Over the last five seasons, Brohm quarterbacks have averaged 288 yards and 2.1 touchdowns per game. That paces for nearly 3,500 yards and 25 touchdowns a year. There’s more nuance to this, including game scripts and the quality of said quarterback, but it’s still incredibly impressive.
Moss joins the Cardinals with starting experience and consistency. He rarely puts the ball in bad situations (Washington game excluded), as evidenced by his 2.8% turnover-worthy play rate on PFF. He also sports one of the lowest pressure-to-sack ratios in the country, ranking fifth. Moss is a player who is unlikely to cost you games, and that is enough to succeed in Brohm’s schemed-up offense.
The Bear Case: When Moss was benched in 2024, it was because he wasn’t giving enough to a USC offense that needed to hit explosive plays and had largely failed. Moss averaged 7.0 yards per dropback while sporting a 7.7 average depth of target. The biggest question here is, given that the depth of target was near the bottom in the country, was it a product of the offense/personnel or Moss’ limitations? If the latter, there’s a genuine concern that his upside is limited. He isn’t going from a bad offensive coordinator to a phenom in Jeff Brohm; he was in Lincoln Riley’s offense. He should have been more productive than he was, given the history.
To buy the bear case on Moss, you’re essentially buying the Jeff Brohm QB, not the player per se. Statistically, it’s not a bad bet to make. Brohm has produced quality quarterback play over the entirety of the last decade. However, this is one of the weaker supporting casts that he’s had. The offense loses Ja’Corey Brooks to the NFL. Brooks accounted for 29.5% of all receiving yards for the passing game. The offense does return 700-yard receiver Chris Bell. After Bell, no other returning pass catcher had more than 200 yards last season. The biggest question facing the Cards will be if Caullin Lacy returns to health and can be a difference-maker. The South Alabama transfer struggled with injuries in the 2024 season and will be heavily relied on to produce in 2025.
Moss will have a good run game between Duke Watson and Isaac Brown, but the offensive line must replace at least two starters in 2025. The unit was largely average last season. Moss is not significantly worse under pressure, having his adjusted completion percent drop only 4% while maintaining an 8% Pressure-to-Sack ratio, among the best in the country. However, if the offensive line does take a step back, there’s reason for skepticism.
Jackson Arnold, Auburn (Prev: Oklahoma)
The Bull Case: Former five-star recruit Jackson Arnold teams up with Hugh Freeze and the Auburn Tigers in 2025. A highly sought-after prospect, Arnold struggled at Oklahoma, eventually being benched for true freshman Michael Hawkins. However, Arnold was dealt one of the worst hands imaginable: horrendous offensive line play and a receiver room with everyone asking, “Who?” Now, Arnold steps into a situation with stud receiver Cam Coleman leading the way, number one receiving transfer Eric Singleton joining, and two promising young receivers in Malcolm Simmons and Perry Thompson. The weapons are night and day from Arnold’s Oklahoma tenure.
The key to keeping Arnold productive is limiting pressure. Last year, among quarterbacks with 100 dropbacks under pressure, Arnold ranked 72nd of 73 in PFF grade, and his adjusted completion percentage fell 13%. Arnold was under pressure on 40% of his dropbacks in 2024, which also ranked 66th of 73. It was a bad situation for the second-year signal caller. Auburn’s primary quarterback in 2024, Payton Thorne, ranked 16th in the same category. Expect another good performance for the Tiger’s offensive line as the unit brings in Virginia Tech tackle Xavier Chaplin and returns the four other starters from last year’s team. This is a tremendous boon for Arnold, even if Auburn is slightly above average.
An underrated part of Arnold’s game is his legs. Freeze, who has thrived with mobile quarterbacks, will almost certainly scheme up Arnold with designed rushes. Arnold ran for 653 non-sack yards at Oklahoma, with a 24% breakaway rush rate. He can scoot. This is one situation where the scheme and player mesh perfectly, and the willingness of the Tigers to spend in the portal makes Arnold a prime breakout in 2025.
The Bear Case: What if there isn’t another step for Jackson Arnold? His play under pressure, which was a big reason for his benching, is a problem, but it wasn’t rainbows and sunshine while kept clean, either.
Arnold did not push the ball downfield, averaging only 7.0 average depth of target (65th of 73) while clean, and his big-time-throw rate was an abysmal 2.1% (70th of 73). Now, his receivers are partially to blame, as Oklahoma needed to scheme stuff close to the line of scrimmage, and few could get separation deep and intermediate. That answers part of the ADoT question, but does it account for the lack of difference-making? The answer is likely circuitous, but ranking near the bottom of the category is hard to explain.
The other concern that pops up is when Arnold has time to throw (2.91 average seconds), he still leads the country in pressure-to-sack rate, as shown above. There isn’t a correlation between TtT and P2S%, but with more time, a good quarterback makes quicker decisions. Arnold hasn’t shown that thus far. The upper quartile of the chart above is the worst place to be. These are quarterbacks who, despite having above-average time to throw, are above average in pressure-to-sack rate. Arnold’s combination of these two is mostly closely aligned with quarterbacks like Anthony Colandrea, Hank Bachmeier, Evan Svboda, and Nico Iamaleava. There’s enough here to think that, maybe, there isn’t another level to Arnold’s game.
