Series Roadmap
Part 0: Inside the Evaluation
Part I: Game Grades
Part II: True Passer Rating
You are here ➡️ Part III: On-Target Rate
Part IV: 2024 → 2025 Growth, Coming April 1st
Part V: 2025 In Conclusion, Coming April 5th
What is On Target Rate, and why is it important?
Pro Football Reference defines on target throws simply as “throws that would have hit the intended receiving target.”
It’s vague, but it captures the spirit of the metric.
I like to expand on that a bit for clarity in my own words: on target throws are only counted on aimed passes. Throwaways
and spikes are removed from the equation, while drops are still counted as on target. In essence, these are throws that would have hit the intended receiver, factoring in both coverage and ball placement.
That might muddy things slightly, and I’ll admit on target throwing carries some subjectivity. But in my estimation, it’s the single most important individual metric when evaluating quarterback play. Of all the “accuracy” stats, completion percentage, adjusted completion percentage, and CPOE (completion percentage over expected), on target rate does the best job of showing how often a quarterback delivers a truly catchable ball on aimed throws.
Does that make it perfect? Of course not. No metric is. On target rate, like many stats, can be influenced by context. And to be clear, when I say it can be “gamed,” I don’t mean quarterbacks are intentionally inflating their numbers. Offensive scheme, scheme complexity, depth of target, and other factors all play a role in shaping these results.
One of the biggest drawbacks with the on target metric on Pro Football Reference is that it’s presented as a bulk number without any depth-based breakdown. There’s no added nuance.
That’s why I took it upon myself this season to track on target throwing across all levels of the field: behind the line of scrimmage, short (1–9 yards), intermediate (10–19 yards), and deep (20+ yards). I also tracked on target performance on play-action, influenced in part by Ben Johnson and his heavy use of it.
For the seven quarterbacks I graded during the 2025 season, that gives us a much more detailed view of on target performance. For the rest of the league, we’ll be working off the standard on target data from Pro Football Reference.
So, a brief summary on On Target Throwing:
Pros
- In my opinion, on target rate is the best single indicator of quarterback accuracy. It focuses on whether the ball is actually catchable, rather than just whether it was completed.
- When broken down by throwing levels, on target rate gives a much clearer picture of a quarterback’s accuracy profile. It helps separate easy, short throws from the more difficult intermediate and deep attempts.
- On target rate avoids unfairly penalizing quarterbacks for throwaways and spikes. By removing those from the equation, it keeps the focus strictly on aimed passes.
Cons
- On target throwing isn’t fully objective, as it depends on judgment calls about ball placement, coverage, and catchability. That can lead to inconsistencies depending on who’s doing the charting.
- As a bulk metric, on target rate lacks depth-based breakdowns, which removes important context. Short throws are easier to hit, so without splits, the number can misrepresent true accuracy.
- On target rate is heavily shaped by offensive scheme, route concepts, and depth of target. Quarterbacks in short, quick-game systems may see inflated numbers compared to those in more aggressive offenses. (Like, for example the Bears offense, which was predicated on explosives.)
One quick note before we dive into the splits: play-action on target rate is not included in the overall split calculations, as it would effectively double count those throws.
With that clarified, we can now move into the quarterly splits of the breakdown, where we can track how on target performance evolved over the course of the season.
1st Quarter Split (Weeks 1-5)
Worst Week: Week 1, vs. Minnesota | 41.7% OnTar%
Best Week: Week 3, vs. Dallas | 65.5% OnTar%
Split OnTar%: 79/138, 57.2%
It was a rough opening split for Caleb Williams, highlighted by a particularly tough Week 1 where he posted just a 41.7% OnTar%. While things looked in sync on the opening drive, his accuracy fell off from there, especially in the short and deep areas, where he combined to go just 9/24 (37.5%) on target.
He finished Week 1 a brutal -24.9% below the average mark for graded quarterbacks, and an even more jarring -34.0% below the league average of 75.7%.
It’s important to note the context here. This was his first real game action in a new offensive system, and he was asked to operate under center far more than he had previously. In fact, 26.9% of his attempts in this split (35/130) came off play-action, already a 10% jump from his 2024 rate.
Williams did show improvement over the next three weeks. While he still trailed league average by at least 9.5% in each of those games, he climbed enough to surpass the average OnTar% of the seven graded quarterbacks by 2.2% in Week 3. That game also marked his split-high at 65.5%, once again coming against the struggling Dallas Cowboys defense.
The deep ball told a similar story of progression. After opening the season just 3/13 on deep throws, Williams closed the split going 5/7, bringing his overall deep OnTar% up to a respectable 40.0% after starting at 23.1%.
While the overall numbers in this split still fall well below average, the upward trajectory is encouraging, and gives some optimism that the trend continues into the next split of the season.
2nd Quarter Split (Weeks 6-9)
Worst Week: Week 7, vs. New Orleans | 59.3% OnTar%
Best Week: Week 9, @ Cincinnati | 78.6% OnTar%
Split OnTar%: 84/124, 67.7%
The second split of the season did indeed see Caleb Williams continue to improve as an on target thrower. Despite a dip in Week 7 against the New Orleans Saints, he finished the split 10.5% higher than his 57.2% mark from the first split. It also included his first game above league-average OnTar%, coming in Week 9 on the road against the Cincinnati Bengals.
Interestingly, this was his worst split throwing deep (6/18, 33.3%), but he showed improvement across every other level. The biggest jump came on play-action, where his on target rate increased by nearly 26%. He was especially effective in that area, missing just one play-action throw per game over the split, as the offensive identity under Ben Johnson continued to take hold. In total, 29.1% of his attempts (37/127) came off play-action during this stretch, as Johnson slowly began to filter in more throws from play-action as the season progressed.
Every other level saw nearly a 10% increase from the first split to the second, highlighted by a strong jump in the intermediate range, climbing from 43.4% to 57.1%. The Bears offense would be one predicated on taking advantage of intermediate to deep level dig and in routes, and this was the split that really began to take off.
He also outperformed the other graded quarterbacks across the split, peaking in Week 9 where he finished 16.9% above the group average, his best mark of the season in that regard. All of this continues to mirror a clear upward trend in accuracy, pointing to growing comfort within the scheme and the mechanics required to execute it.
From Week 7 onward, Williams posted an on target rate above his season average in every remaining regular season game, further solidifying the steady upward trajectory in his accuracy.
3rd Quarter Split (Weeks 10-13)
Worst Week: Week 10, vs. New York | 66.7%
Best Week: Week 12, vs. Pittsburgh | 71.0%
Split OnTar%: 83/121, 68.6%
The third split continued the upward trend in Caleb Williams’ accuracy. While the jump wasn’t as dramatic as what we saw from split one to two, it reinforces a level of consistency over a sample that now stretches beyond half the season.
For example, his lowest mark of the split came against the New York Giants, where he still posted a 66.7% OnTar%. That figure would have actually been his high mark in the first split by 1.2%.
Play-action usage remained relatively steady from split two to split three at 27.3% (38/139), though his on target rate in those situations dipped by nearly 22%. However, that was offset by a significant jump in his deep ball accuracy, which improved by 26.0%.
He also continued a positive trend in short-area accuracy, with his on target rate climbing nearly 17% from the first split. That suggests he was getting more comfortable taking what the defense gave him underneath, while still pushing the ball downfield at his most efficient rate to this point, hitting 56.3% on deep throws. The highlight came in Week 10 against the Giants, where he went 5/8 (62.5%) on deep attempts, his best deep on target performance of the season.
He remained one of the most accurate passers among the graded quarterbacks throughout the split, beating the group average every week except for Week 13 on the road against the Philadelphia Eagles.
4th Quarter Split (Weeks 14-18)
Worst Week: Week 16, vs. Green Bay | 70.4%
Best Week: Week 15, vs. Cleveland | 84.0%
Split OnTar%: 89/115, 77.4%
It feels like I’ve said this over and over, but the end of the season, just as Ben Johnson prophesized, is where Caleb Williams played his best football.
On target rates jumped across the board, as he closed the split at 77.4% on target. Williams posted season highs at every level outside of play-action, which still saw a modest increase of 1.2% from split three to split four.
His top performance of both the split and the year came against a strong Cleveland Browns defense, where he was on target for 84.0% of his aimed throws, missing the mark on just five passes the entire game.
His lowest on target mark of the split came in Week 16 against the Green Bay Packers, a brutally cold and windy game. Even then, his struggles were largely isolated to the intermediate level, where he finished at 50.0% on target.
Overall, he was especially effective in the intermediate and deep areas during this split, combining for a 64.9% on target rate, including an outstanding 78.6% deep. He missed no more than one deep throw per game across the five-game stretch, highlighted by a perfect 4-for-4 performance in the road shootout loss against the San Francisco 49ers.
He also set a season high with 31.3% of his attempts coming off play-action, as the evolving offense under Ben Johnson fully hit its stride through the air.
By the end of the split, Williams was outperforming both the graded quarterback average by 3.3% and the league-wide average by 5.1%, capping off a season-long trend of steady growth into, and ultimately above, league-average accuracy.
The Full Picture: Season Profile & Peer Context
The theme of the season for Caleb Williams was steady, consistent growth.
The year opened on a rough note, with back-to-back games below 60% OnTar%, but from that point forward, Williams showed clear, incremental improvement as the season progressed. By the end of the year, he had finished above the graded quarterback average in 9 of his final 15 games, a strong indicator of both development and growing comfort within the offense.
That steady climb translated into solid placement across the board when compared to the seven graded quarterbacks. Williams finished no worse than 4th at any level outside of one, while posting top-tier marks in some key areas. He ranked 2nd in both play-action OnTar% (74.2%) and deep accuracy (50.7%), while finishing 4th at the line of scrimmage (83.2%), short level (73.5%), and overall OnTar% (67.6%).
The one outlier came in the intermediate area, where he finished last at 51.8%. Some of that can be traced back to dips in the second and fourth splits, but the larger takeaway is that intermediate consistency remains a clear area for growth, especially within the structure of Ben Johnson’s offense, where that level of the field plays a critical role.
Outside of that, the trend lines are overwhelmingly positive. Williams improved at every level over the course of the season, and that progression showed up most clearly down the stretch. He cleared a 75.0% OnTar% in four of his final five games, and each of those performances came in above league-average territory.
Taken as a whole, the season paints the picture of a quarterback who not only improved week-to-week, but one who began to translate that growth into consistently high-level accuracy by the time the year came to a close.
These trends are also apparent on a league-wide basis. When we zoom out and compare his weekly OnTar% to the league average, a very clear upward trajectory takes shape. Early in the season, the deficits are steep, bottoming out at -34.0% in Week 1, but what stands out is how quickly those gaps begin to close.
From there, we see a gradual climb toward league average, with the negative margins shrinking week over week. By Week 9 against Cincinnati, he not only erases that gap but flips it into positive territory for the first time, a meaningful inflection point in his season.
There are, as expected, some standard deviation dips mixed in, but importantly, they don’t form any kind of sustained downward trend. Even the stretch from Week 9 through Week 11, where he dips back below average, feels more like a temporary correction than regression. Each dip is followed by a rebound, and more often than not, those rebounds push him to new highs.
Down the stretch, the consistency really begins to show. Positive marks become more frequent, and the peaks get higher, culminating in multiple weeks where he is outperforming league average by a meaningful margin. The trendline itself tells the story, steadily rising throughout the season, reinforcing what we’ve seen in the split data.
Taken together, this chart does a great job of illustrating not just improvement, but stabilization. What started as volatile, below-average accuracy early in the year gradually transitions into consistent, above-average performance, which is exactly what you want to see from a second-year quarterback developing within a new system.
From -34.0% below league average in Week 1 to consistently beating it down the stretch, the growth here isn’t subtle, it’s significant.
So I’ll leave it here: do you think this the start of something real for the young quarterback, or just a really strong finish to the season?
Gary Baugher Jr. is a rookie contributor to WCG, bringing football insight backed by over 16 years of experience in organized football and more than 30 years as a passionate fan of the game. You can follow him on Twitter at @iamcogs.
