The Skinny:

Terrific offensive executive who projects to be one of the nation's top midrange producers. Average-size with capped verticality and erasure skills but can produce big plays in structure. Effective designed rusher. Knows how to operate within his limits. Feasted vs a G5 schedule.

The Fat:

Pratt is arguably the Group of Five’s best passer ahead of this fall. He’s a silky thrower in rhythm; particularly on inside stuff. At 6’2, 210 – his mid frame is hardly physically imposing. And, Pratt appears to be well-aware of what his limitations are. He’s well-coached at maximizing prudence and knowing when not to do too much. To counterbalance those deficiencies, he rode a crafty, sturdy approach that saw him hardly press yet bring about good efficiency. Truth be told, his longer horizontal passes tended to lose steam, and Pratt wasn’t eager to show off his deep ball. Still, his fantastic intermediate showings make him an appealing option off the beaten path. 

His shortcomings, however, unquestionably lower his ceiling. Despite averaging 7.3 Yards/Carry on a 59% Success Rate with 8 explosive carries across his 34 designed attempts vs. his hardest foes, he failed to show an aptitude to extend broken plays or threaten outside of structure. He took 14 sacks compared to his 5 erasures in our study. Moreover, as a passer who didn’t want his tries to travel too far, only four other Impact QBs dedicated a lower makeup of attempts outside the numbers than 37.6% clip. But without a towering stature, Pratt also avoided the middle of the field. His 12.1% makeup targeting between the hashes was our study’s 3rd-lowest. He was his best self working breadbaskets up the seam and in the flank, where he liked to concentrate his targets. 

Since opponents adjusted to his lacking verticality, Pratt saw his fair share of loaded boxes. Yet, he showed he can occasionally win against tight windows and beat contested coverage, an imperative if he continues to avoid stretching the field. And when he’s clean, Pratt is a surgeon. Even without the most-gifted arm, his slicing decision-making and precision projects a passing floor worthy of some attention. Though dampened when his base is altered or forced out of his comfort zone, Pratt consistency and dependability are bound to make him more popular over the coming months.

Spray:

Overall:

Even though Pratt didn’t aim to wow with his arm, only one other Impact QB recorded a preferable Y/A, and only five of his peers bested his ANY/A. On the 4th-best Adjusted Completion%, Pratt topped all except Jordan Travis in Explosive Pass%. Again, he wasn’t a gunslinger or heatseeker. Only two others in our study were less prone targeting beyond 20 yards downfield. Still, no one favored the midrange like him. Additionally, both of his makeups on short and behind-the-line attempts fell under the group’s mean; reflecting his affinity for intermediate completions. Throwing at tires in the backyard, Pratt used these attempts to snatch the group’s 2nd-best Depth Adjusted Accuracy. Plus, on a per throw basis, both his Accuracy% and Uncatchable% topped the Impact average. 

Half of Pratt’s tries featured either a screen, RPO, or dropback playation design, hammering home his label as an offensive executive. He gets plenty of help and tends to deal from clean pockets. But in terms of drops, he was by far the least lucky passer in our study. His monstrous 16.9% clip was over 2 points more than the next Impact QB. With these backbreaking butterfingers, much of his breakouts were soured. 

Downfield:

With his concentration of midrange passes, some of Pratt’s downfield figures were glossy. For one, his average depth of target on a throw over ten yards was 18.1, a group-low. He placed inside the Impact top10 in downfield Completion%, Accuracy%, and Uncatchable. And when accounting for the many, many drops he logged, no one topped his 64.4% Adjusted Completion%. Yet when breaking off his intermediate chances, we notice he was a pretty middling midrange thrower. Though he threw a catchable ball, defenders apparently had plenty of stabs at these tries as well. His such 18.4% Interceptable% was the group’s 2nd-worst. For what it’s worth, throws towards the middle of the field were the most susceptible to these boo boos. Admirable considering his volume; but no doubt, one of his best attributes has potential to be fraudulent. 

Orchestrated shot plays and RPO fades occasionally goaded a deep try out of Pratt. His tiny sample doesn’t carry much weight. But his vertical style is all or nothing. He serves up his passes on a low-trajectory. Timing is a massive part of his operation since these relative line drives give his receiver much less leeway to adjust to targets. And when they’re covered, it’s often a wrap. Pratt was just as likely to complete a deep ball as botch one. This could be another sign of his awareness of his lacking arm talent or residue of conservative coaching to avoid offering lollipops. 

Pressure:

Pratt has moxy. There were numerous examples hanging tough as a rusher was about to thwap him. About 69% of his sample’s pressure-ridden throws came inside the pocket. His poise helped birth the group’s 3rd-best pressured Depth Adjusted Accuracy%. But his patience wasn’t too kind of a virtue in this context. Yes, half of his duressed throws traveled over ten yards downfield. But threats noticeably created sails, dives, and a subpar rate of catchable passes. His relative accuracy was still fine. But behind his normal, debilitating drops, none of his result stats excite. That said, some solace can be had in the fact pressure did little to draw out bad decisions. Though bang-average, his Explosive Pass% topped his Interceptable%.  

Outside the Pocket:

Pratt is by no means a stiff. Again, he was a serviceable and successful designed rusher against his toughest foes. And even though his ability erasing sacks remains to be an area to work on, his useful mobility helped him nab key throws. Of his ten such completions outside the pocket, 8 were either scores or conversions. All in all, Half of Pratt’s throws were on-target. And, his weighted figure stayed among the group’s upper tier. Certainly not his happy place, Pratt not throwing a single interceptable is both laudable and relieving. Since Tulane likes to feature bootlegs, this is all the more reassuring. A small subset so volatility can come into play; but his low-key athleticism instills a slight shimmer of untapped upside. 

Contested/Tight Window:

Pratt’s profile attacking tight windows is mixed. On one hand, his rhythmic release begat a high degree of accurate throws. Over half of his throws were on-target. Only three of his peers trumped his 51.4% such clip. With his strong Depth Adjusted Accuracy%, those process stats should be inspiring. Like most of his metrics, his down-to-down efficiencies were hurt by his targets’ miscoordinations. Off his 33 sample tries, 11 were dropped. That said, he had his own blunders. He was ordinary at preventing defenders from altering his passes and wasn’t the best at avoiding turnovers. Of the 4 INTs he tossed, 3 came on contests. All in all, 9 of these passes were interceptable. With over a quarter of his tries being deemed turnover-worthy, it’s a safe takeaway this could be a problem and a reason why no one will take a chance on him at the next level. G5 open space is different from P5 open space which is different from NFL open space. Pratt’s misjudgements and mistimings must be fixed for his long term stock. 

Dropback:

Other than some weakside flood patterns (Cross and play action bootlegs), Tulane’s dropback game was up-and-down – as in verts, curls, and slants featured prominently. Interesting call sheet for an objectively mesokentrikí distributor. But, our guy carved out some respectable results. Buoyed by his zippy strikes, Pratt’s 57.4% Depth Adjusted Accuracy% was our study’s best in this context. His per-throw Accuracy% cracked the group’s top5 as did his Explosive Pass%. And, thanks to an ADOT on the lower side, he curbed his number of uncatchables. Still, his First Down+TD Rate beat the standard. No to bad considering – yet you guessed it – the drops. 

With less gimmes diluting his profile, Pratt turned to more tight windows, which we’ve discussed ballooned his turnover-worthy plays. While not a total dealbreaker, it's a clear stain that could distort his reputation. What happens if foes hold onto 4-5 more of these this fall? His knack for capturing big gainers is also challengeable due to how they’re acquired. Still, his backers will be quick to point out Pratt seems to be way more prone recording explosives than interceptables in the dropback game. 

Dropback Play Action:

Behind deception and refined reads, play action provided Pratt with extra potency. Creating more open receivers, he saw his Accuracy%, Success Rate, and First Down+TD Rate all increase. His average attempt was 3 yards further downfield yet only one Impacter turned in a lower Uncatchable%. These sometimes longer developing plays were a rotten source for sacks. That said, both Pratt’s process and results were firm in these spots. Since about a quarter of his throws used this tactic, one could make a great case he can replicate these returns. Still since play action designs inflate Pratt’s numbers, his floor comes into question. 

"Floor” Passing:

However, even when stripping away play fakes from Pratt’s sample, his performance within structure looks stocky. Only KJ Jefferson tracked to have a preferable Y/A and his ANY/A was top5-worthy. Merlin-type stuff against a 15% Drop Rate. Being a total dimer obviously didn’t hurt the equation. His three main accuracy metrics all improved compared to his overall figures – a tremendous sign his precious precision is legit and bankable. Still thanks to his need to target tight windows in order to squeeze out some of his highlights, interceptables are a clear flaw here. Almost an eighth of his floor throws were turnover-worthy; only a few of his peers were worse. Though a mostly good profile, that proclivity is a major turnoff paired with Pratt’s low ADOT. For some, it’s enough to pull the chord right now.