The Steelers are in desperate need of a new franchise quarterback. Now, just a couple of weeks out from the 2025 college football season, the BTSC readership has selected five quarterbacks to battle it out in one final round. Now, we’ll hold one final vote to determine which quarterback Steelers Nation most wants Pittsburgh to select in the 2026 Draft. Reminder: all responses from the “players” in this article are fictitious and stem from my analysis. As such, some of the answers will offer answers you
would never hear a media-trained quarterback say. If you complain about this feature in the comments, know that you’re a lint-licker.
If you’re looking for further explanation/context for this series, read our additional entries, including:
- The series primer
- Vol. 1 Mr. Fantastic, the Natural, and the Lonestar Kid
- Vol. 2 Superman, Mr. Cool, and the Untamed
- Vol. 3 Prince Charming, Casey Jones, and Slim
- Vol. 4 The Gunslinger, Mr. Duval, and the Flatliner
- Vol. 5 The Local, the Marksman, and the Replacement
“Welcome to the Steelers QB Dating Game! Anddddd here’s your host, Steely McBeam!”
Steely McBeam: How are Yinz doing tonight? Welcome back to the final round!
Steely McBeam: I’ve already interviewed each of these quarterbacks on previous episodes, so for today’s vote, we’ll be doing things a little differently. For starters, we won’t have the back and forth of our earlier episodes. Today, we will make the case for each quarterback, then move on to the next contestant.
Additionally, we will break down each passer’s profile into rankings of different traits: arm talent, frame, mobility, moxy, and pressure. These rankings will be scored 1-5, and are a product of my analysis. The rankings represent where I think they stand among their peers in this exercise, with a “1” meaning they are the best at any given trait, and so on.
A bit more about each trait:
- Arm talent — This will look at not only how far the quarterback can throw it, but it will also consider if they’re able to layer their passes against different coverage looks in different areas of the field, adjust their velocities appropriately, make throws off-platform, and generally, if they are able to make both the easy and difficult throws
- Frame — The NFL is a league where players of all shapes and sizes can find success. While there isn’t necessarily a right and wrong in this regard, we have enough data to know which body types are most likely to survive the grind of an NFL season. For our money, quarterbacks that stand 6’2-6’5 are the ideal height, while QBs weighing 220-plus pounds make us feel more secure about their ability to take a hit.
- Mobility — The days of the stiff pocket passing quarterback are numbered as the NFL waits for Joe Flacco’s eventual retirement. The NFL has never embraced the idea of the quarterback as a weapon in the run game as much as it does presently. Mobility, however, doesn’t only consider the quarterback as a downfield runner. While we’ll give more weight to creating as a runner, it’s important to consider a quarterback’s ability to move inside the pocket, as well as his ability to execute downfield throws when outside of the pocket, whether that’s improvised or on a designed rollout.
- Moxy — This is our most subjective and catch-all category. This is for traits that are difficult to represent by any one specific statistic or metric. Things like, how is his performance in big games? How does he respond to taking a big hit? Does he respond well after he turns the ball over, or does it take him a while to get back on track? How do his teammates respond to him? How in charge of the offense is he? How’s he late in close games? Have we seen him improve over time?
- Pressure — How is he with the pocket collapsing around him? To what degree does his accuracy suffer?
But that’s enough preamble. The stage is set. Let’s reintroduce ourselves to the five quarterbacks selected by the BTSC readership.
Cade Klubnik, Clemson
Total Votes: 155
Career starts: 28 (19-9)
Arm Talent: 2
Trying to contextualize arm talent is always a complicated endeavor, mostly because it means different things to different people. Some people favor a rocket arm, others a passer who can throw from crazy arm angles. Klubik doesn’t overwhelm you with arm strength, but he throws a nice deep ball, and he’s able to access each area on the field with touch and precision.
Look at this absolute dime against Georgia.
Or this shot he unleashed during his freshman year.
Klubnik has looked more comfortable and in command each season, showing improvement and consistency with his mechanics. He enters 2025 with just under 1,200 career dropbacks and has amassed 57 touchdowns against 18 interceptions, including just six in 2024.
Whether he’s throwing outside the numbers, attacking the middle of the field, or throwing on the move, Klubnik is a cool customer. That gets him high marks in arm talent from me.
Frame: 4
Clemson lists Klubnik at 6’2 and 210 pounds. Personally, 6’2 is my cutoff for QB height, as any shorter gives me the scouting “ick.” We’ve seen shorter quarterbacks find success in the NFL — Drew Brees and Russell Wilson come to mind — but it isn’t exactly common either, and a short quarterback will have their own set of limitations.
Likewise, a quarterback who is too slender brings concerns about their durability. Can they withstand the violent hits the NFL will throw at them again, and again, and again?
Klubnik clocks in near my own minimum thresholds. This will be an element to watch at the combine. Colleges often play cute with the listed measurements of their players, and if Klubnik skips measurements, it would give reason for pause. After all, you’d have to assume he was hiding something. However, if his listed height is legitimate and if he can put on a few more pounds leading up to the draft, my confidence in him would be cemented further.
Mobility: 3
Klubnik isn’t going to be mistaken for Lamar Jackson, but he has more than enough juice in the running game to be a useful weapon at the NFL level. I would expect him to test in the 4.5s-4.6s just based on the eyeball test. Klubnik’s mobility is perhaps best used on play-action bootlegs or plays that are designed to move the pocket, but he has demonstrated the ability to create big plays when used in the designed run game.
Moxy: 1
Klubnik had his skeptics after his first year as a starter. Clemson went 9-4, and his numbers were decent if unspectacular. In 2024, his increased comfort with the offense was apparent, and the production followed. Klubnik threw for 3,642 yards, 36 touchdowns, and just six interceptions, while adding 588 yards and seven touchdowns on the ground.
He led Clemson to a college football playoff appearance, where they had the misfortune of a first-round matchup with Texas, one of the better programs in 2024. Klubnik played well in the game, throwing for 336 yards and three touchdowns, but the Tigers fell 38-24.
I’d like to see Klubnik continue to play well in big games. It seems unlikely Clemson will face many ranked opponents this year with their ACC schedule, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be some big game opportunities, including games against two of our other finalists. Clemson opens up their season on August 30 against LSU and Garrett Nussmeier, and then will wrap up the regular season with the Palmetto Bowl, a rivalry game against South Carolina and LaNorris Sellers.
Another playoff appearance, especially with a deeper run, would put Klubnik in the running to be the first quarterback of the board.
Pressure: 2
Klubnik has come a long way in his processing and reaction to pressure, another positive from the amount of reps he’s gotten in his college career.
In 2023, his first year as the full-time starter, Klubnik struggled when the defense got to him. He faced pressure on 171 dropbacks, completing just 37.8% of his passes under pressure, totaling 574 yards and just four touchdowns against six interceptions, while averaging 4.5 yards per attempt.
Klubnik faced a similar amount of pressure (167 dropbacks) in 2024, but showed great strides in his development. His accuracy took a big jump (46.0%) while he showed increased playmaking ability (six touchdowns against three interceptions) and the ability to push the ball further downfield, totaling 894 yards and 7.2 yards per attempt.
Where the younger Klubnik often looked uncomfortable navigating a messy pocket and sometimes didn’t trust what he was seeing downfield, the 2024 version of Klubnik looked like a player who had leveled up.
Klubnik has a knack for avoiding sacks, which also boosts his ranking in this category. Clemson allowed 167 pressures on Klubnik dropbacks in 2024, but defenses only managed to sack Klubnik 25 times. That’s good for a 15% pressure-to-sack rate, which is among the best marks in our series.
Garrett Nussmeier, LSU
Total Votes: 147
Career Starts: 14 (10-4)
Arm Talent: 1
If you like quarterbacks who throw on time, can lead their receivers to a spot with anticipation, and do so with an array of arm angles, then Nussmeier is the quarterback for you.
Frame: 5
Nussmeier is one of the more exciting passers in college football, but his frame is one of the areas where I expect him to be most scrutinized come draft season. Listed at 6’1 and 205 pounds, that’s two red flags for my evaluation, especially if we come to find out those measurements are inflated.
However, perhaps the most concerning element of Nussmeier’s profile is the health of his knee. ESPN reported the LSU quarterback is already managing patellar tendinitis in one of his knees. He’s not expected to miss any time, but that is concerning, considering Nussmeier was visibly worn down by the end of last season. Will that continue to be a lingering injury? Can it hold up against NFL defenders, who, on average, will be bigger, run faster, and hit harder than NCAA defenders?
It’s a valid concern, and one NFL front offices are certain to ponder during the upcoming draft cycle.
Mobility: 5
Simply put, Nussmeier is not a runner. In his only season as a starter, he attempted just 25 rushes — of which 12 were scrambles — for 93 yards and three touchdowns. Whether it’s the health of his knee or just his downfield attacking mindset, Nussmeier just isn’t a dual-threat type of quarterback.
That isn’t to say he’s a statue, but Nussmeier falls into the Baker Mayfield or Matt Hasselbeck school of mobility: great at navigating the pocket and only scrambling when absolutely necessary.
Moxy: 2
Watching Nussmeier play, it’s clear he’s a student of the game. That makes even more sense when you discover he’s the son of an NFL coach: Saints’ offensive coordinator Doug Nussmeier.
Nussmeier’s first start came in bowl game action after Jayden Daniels opted out ot prepare for the draft. Nussmeier only had a short time to prepare with the starting offense for that game, but he balled out, leading the Tigers to a comeback victory, all while completing 68.9% of his passes for 395 yards, three touchdowns, and an interception.
And if we want a glimpse into the young man’s character, look no further than his first big interview in the spotlight.
LSU went 2-1 in games against ranked opponents last season. As members of the SEC, Nussmeier should get more opportunities to shine in big games this year, and a college football playoff run would go a long way towards cementing him as a high draft pick.
Pressure: 1
Another element to love about Nussmeier’s game is that he is typically nails against pressure. His completion percentage (50.4%) and 852 yards passing both finished as the second-best marks against pressure in our pool of 15 quarterbacks examined this series.
However, part of Nussmeier’s magic and appeal is that, to his core, he’s a gunslinger. It’s an exciting brand of football to watch, but any quarterback who makes his living that way is going to have his fair share of turnovers. That just goes with the territory. Last season, Nussmeier threw five touchdowns against four interceptions while under pressure.
You’ll live with that, though, if the highs consistently outnumber the lows.
But what really drives home why Nussmeier gets my top marks against pressure is his ability to avoid sacks. Despite facing 153 pressures a year ago, defenders only brought Nussmeier down for a sack 15 times. Only Arch Manning (7) and Jayden Maiava (5) in our series were sacked less, but neither of them played a full season of starts. And only Maiava (8.2%) had a lower pressure-to-sack rate than Nussmeier (9.8%).
LaNorris Sellers, South Carolina
Total Votes: 100
Career Starts: 12 (8-4)
Arm Talent: 4
Of all the rankings I’m handing out in this exercise, this one is the one I most expect I could regret in a year’s time. Sellers has a lot of fans in the draft community — and I’m one of them! — but Sellers finishing fourth in this category is more a reflection of where Sellers is at NOW, rather than where he could end up in the future. As things stand, I’m more frequently impressed by Sellers for his physicality, especially as a runner, than I am by his abilities as a passer.
Sellers has a strong arm, undoubtedly, but I want to see more from him on tape before I elevate him in these rankings. There will be instances where you see Sellers throw with touch that are encouraging; we’ll just be looking for more of it in 2025.
Frame: 1
Sellers is our clear winner in this category. At 6’3 and 240 pounds, the physical comparisons to Cam Newton (6’5, 245 pounds) and Josh Allen (6’5 and 237 pounds) are striking. Still just 20 years old, it’s unlikely but not impossible that Sellers might still have an inch or two more he can grow to match those esteemed passers.
Regardless, he already has a frame that should play in the NFL.
Mobility: 1
This is where Sellers shines and leaves your jaw hanging open.
Whether it’s on a designed run…
Or on a scramble…
Or breaking out of tackles that don’t seem humanly possible…
Sellers’ mobility is apparent and his most marketable trait. I gave him top marks in this stat for a reason.
But I would caution my fellow La-Z-Boy scouts that this trait can be a double-edged sword. Because Sellers’ rushing ability and tackle-breaking strength are so exceptional, I have concerns about him developing an overreliance on those traits. While those types of plays are certainly entertaining and a great trick to have up your sleeve, it’s a hard way to make a living.
I want to see more designed runs and opportunistic scrambles in 2025 as much as the next guy — but I’d also like to see some highlights where he is running the offense more efficiently, without the need to improvise.
Moxy: 3
Despite my desire to see Sellers develop more elements of his game, I’m still incredibly impressed by how he presents himself as a leader.
Sellers reportedly could have made millions of dollars in the transfer portal this winter, but instead opted to stick with the South Carolina coaching staff that invested in him when others wouldn’t. I don’t typically get up in arms about the state of college football and the transfer portal — I generally am for player freedom and flexibility in a sport where coaches are often among the highest-paid state employees and frequently ditch their commitments early for greener ($) pastures — but I’m still impressed by someone who values their relationships over a quick buck.
I also am impressed by the resiliency Sellers showed early in the season when it wasn’t certain he’d hold onto the starting job. Sellers didn’t play particularly well against Old Dominion in the season opener, needing to lead a late-game comeback against a team South Carolina should have defeated easily.
The offense continued to struggle as the Gamecocks started the year 3-3. However, Sellers continued to improve, and while there are no moral victories in football or any competitive endeavor, they played tough against quality opponents. South Carolina only lost to LSU and Alabama — two college football blue bloods — by a combined 5 points.
The grittiest game of Sellers’ 2024 season came against Clemson. The South Carolina offense struggled to get much going, despite Sellers’ best efforts. Still, he wasn’t going to be denied.
Pressure: 3
The playmaking ability we’ve detailed is a big reason why I’ve got Sellers third in our rankings against pressure. While many of his highlights in these situations come on the ground, don’t get it twisted. Sellers has it in him to stand tall and deliver while taking a hit.
To top it all off, Sellers finished with the best completion percentage (50.5%) under pressure out of all 15 of our quarterbacks examined.
Sellers still has room for growth, though, even if he often looks like a superhero on the field. Only three players in our series were sacked more often than Sellers (31), and he turned the ball over more often (five interceptions) than he threw for touchdowns (four).
Drew Allar, Penn State
Total Votes: 80
Career Starts: 29 (23-6)
Arm Talent: 5
That Allar finishes last in this category for us should only go to demonstrate just how thin the margins are and how talented this quarterback class could be. If you were to ask around the NFL Draft community, arm talent would be among the traits Allar would be most praised for.
Among our group of finalists, Allar has the most starting experience, meaning we have a lot of tape on him. And while I’m often critical of his play, it would be dishonest to suggest Allar doesn’t have some amazing plays on his resume.
But where Allar frustrates as a prospect is with his inconsistency. You may have heard the saying, “he makes the hard throws look easy, but the easy throws look hard.”
That’s Allar.
To my eye, he has trouble maintaining a steady rhythm on offense. He often feels just a beat late on throws, preferring to see his receiver break open before he throws. Of our finalists, only Sellers (3.30 seconds) averages a longer time to throw than Allar (2.89 seconds).
If you were to only look at the box score, Allar would seem like one of the most accurate passers in this series. Only two passers have a higher completion percentage than Allar (66.5%) and his turnover-worthy play rate (2.1%) is bested by Sam Leavitt among our field of quarterbacks.
But when you compare his completion percentage to different areas of the field against the rest of our finalists, you start to get a clearer picture.
- Throws behind the line of scrimmage: 88.7% (5th)
- Throws 0-9 yards: 77.6 (3rd)
- Throws 10-19 yards: 52.2% (4th)
- Throws 20+ yards: 48.9% (1st)
It’s a strange combination of results. Allar would at least seem to be the most accurate deep ball thrower, but even that stat needs more context. Allar posted that mark on 45 attempts in 2024, but it seems noteworthy that both Nussmeier (86 attempts, 36.0%) and Klubnik (78 attempts, 44.9%) nearly doubled him up on those types of throws. Would Allar’s percentage have fallen with more attempts? Is it even fair to judge him on that when Penn State was so lacking in outside weapons that they engineered their passing attack around a tight end in 2024?
If we look at PFF’s Big Time Throws stat, Allar (21) finishes behind Klubnik (28) and Nussmeier (26) as well. In two starts, Arch Manning averaged two Big Time Throws a game, which would extrapolate out to 32 if he had maintained that pace and started in 16 games like Allar did in 2024.
And to Allar’s credit, his accuracy numbers increased across the board in 2024, despite having less talent around, at least in terms of receivers.
But that’s another crux of the Allar mystery. If Allar was truly one of the elite arms in college football, you’d expect his passing totals to be more productive, even with questionable playmakers around him. While he threw 25 touchdowns against two interceptions during his first year as a full-time starter, he barely cracked 2,600 yards passing. In 2024, he managed 3,327 yards in 16 games (207.9 per game). His touchdown total decreased (24) despite playing three more games, and his interception total increased (8). The receiving room question is fair, but don’t you want to see your franchise quarterback elevate the talent around him?
Long story short, Allar has arm talent, but he doesn’t always maximize it, and is frequently a frustrating watch. If he can take another significant leap in 2025, that would go a long way towards quieting my concerns.
Frame: 2
Allar looks the part getting off the bus. At 6’5 and 236 pounds, Allar has a frame reminiscent of a younger Ben Roethlisberger. And with Penn State’s extended playoff run last season, we got to see Allar’s body hold up across 16 games, albeit nonconsecutive weeks.
Mobility: 4
Allar is an effective runner, but he’s not in the same class as Sellers, Klubnik, or Manning. Allar posted a respectable 419 yards on 81 carries (5.2 ypc) in 2024. Though he has frames similar to Josh Allen and Sellers, he doesn’t possess nearly the same amount of speed or wiggle. I’m just guessing, but from my years of following prospects in the draft, I would expect Allar to test somewhere in the 4.7-4.8s range in the 40-yard dash.
Where I do think Allar might be an effective rushing weapon is in the red zone, where he can use his size to his advantage while not needing to run as far. In two seasons, Allar has 10 rushing touchdowns, including six in 2024.
Moxy: 4
I did a lot of litgating of Allar already, so I’ll keep this section shorter. Allar is essentially a human Rorschach test as a prospect. Some have him as the outright favorite to be the first quarterback selected in the 2026 draft, while others think he shrinks in big games and has failed to live up to the lofty expectations that go with being one of the top recruits coming out of high school.
If we’re being fair to Allar, the truth probably lies somewhere between those two extremes. Allar has not played particularly well against Ohio State, failing to crack 200 yards passing in either of his two starts against the Buckeyes. Last year was especially putrid as he only managed 146 yards passing, no touchdowns, and an interception.
His best performance came in a gritty 45-37 loss to Oregon in the Big Ten title game. Allar threw three touchdowns in the game, and yet, even in that performance, he barely completed half of his passes (51.3%) and had two interceptions.
Penn State’s two playoff wins also lack luster when you consider the spending and recruiting power of the Nittany Lions compared to Boise State and Southern Methodist University. Allar failed to throw for more than 171 yards in Penn State’s three playoff games.
Again, Allar has an impressive resume at first glance, but it starts to dim when you examine it further.
Pressure: 4
Again, I don’t want to pile on Allar. He’s shown flashes. If he can unlock some consistency, I could totally see a world where he is the first quarterback selected.
Take that game against Oregon we mentioned earlier. This is an impressive rep against pressure.
That’s the type of hard-nosed play that can translate to Sundays. He just needs to do it more consistently. Allar does a decent job avoiding sacks, taking just 21 in 2024 against 143 pressures (14.7% pressure-to-sack rate). His 46.9% completion percentage was also fourth-best in our field of 15. He threw five touchdowns in these conditions, but also threw four interceptions, half of his season total.
As is, I’m only comfortable ranking him ahead of our final contestant in this category.
Arch Manning, Texas
Total Votes: 76
Career Starts: 2 (2-0)
Arm Talent: 3
Most of Manning’s rankings in this list are heavily tilted towards projection. The young man simply hasn’t put enough out on tape, having less than 100 career pass attempts thus far in his college career.
That said, what little he has done is enough for me to rank him third.
Manning has already shown he can layer his throws as needed against different coverage looks, and he’s able to throw his receivers open. I look forward to seeing him against a full SEC slate this year.
Frame: 3
The next Manning to enter the NFL certainly has his family’s genes in him. Listed as 6’4 and 220 pounds, Arch is closer to his uncle Eli (6’5 220 pounds) than his uncle Peyton (6’5, 230 pounds) at this stage, but his frame falls in line with the averages we expect in modern quarterbacks.
Mobility: 2
That Arch is ranked this high with such little tape is a tribute to how quickly he was able to demonstrate he is not going to be the same type of lead-footed quarterback as his Super Bowl-winning yet velocity-challenged uncles.
Manning doesn’t have quite the same combination of speed and power as Sellers, but he’s not an easy tackle, and he’s already shown enough to prove he can be a weapon on designed quarterback runs or scrambling if a play breaks down.
Moxy: 5
Simply put, we haven’t seen enough to properly rate Manning in this category, nor the next one, so Manning will round out his pre-2025 profile with the lowest rankings in both.
Working in Manning’s favor is his last name. The Mannings are not just football royalty, but they are highly respected for their work with young quarterbacks, including the Manning Passing Academy, a camp where the most talented quarterback recruits and prospects — and running backs, receivers, and tight ends for that matter — gather to work on their skills and gain exposure.
All that’s to say, Arch, as a Manning, has grown up around the sport and is also uniquely positioned to have a better understanding of all the different aspects of life that go into being a professional quarterback. After waiting behind Quinn Ewers, Manning wasted no time in showcasing all the potential that has the football world already so eager to see him on Sundays.
And for what it’s worth, his teammates seem to enjoy playing with him.
With limited play time, we haven’t gotten to see Manning face any rivals or ranked opponents yet to judge how he plays in big games. But we have seen how he responded to throwing an interception.
Pressure: 5
If there is one area for early concern, it’s how Manning will play against pressure. With the obvious caveat of it being an incredibly small sample size, Manning’s seven sacks against 26 total pressures gives him a pressure-to-sack rate of 26.9%, the worst rate among our 15 quarterbacks.
For now, I believe that is easily explained away by Manning’s relative greenness. If it persists across a full season of starts, we can reexamine. But for what it’s worth, Manning’s put on tape the toughness it takes to take a lick and deliver a dime.
*DISCLAIMER*
I pointed out during Arch’s initially QB Dating Game episode that I didn’t think it was likely the Mannings wanted him to come out in 2026. Sure enough, Archie Manning officially put that on the record a short time ago. The situation is fluid of course — a statement in August could see its tune change by February — but the odds are currently in favor of Arch returning to school next year. Factor that into your votes, however you will.
Final Vote
Steely McBeam: Alright, we’ve heard the case for each quarterback. All that’s left is for YOU to decide. We’ll be conducting the vote a little differently from our previous polls. We’re trying to get the best read we can on the BTSC readership’s quarterback preferences, so we’ll be going with ranked voting in this final round.
The idea is simple: rank the quarterbacks from one to five according to your preference. First-place votes will award a player five points, second-place four, and so on. We’ll total all the numbers and announce a winner on Friday, August 22, with a series wrap article.
Voting will close Monday, August 25 at 8 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
