The Skinny:

Risk averse, west coast style operator who loves attacking unoccupied space. Great offensive executive making underneath choices. Though his legs raise his bar, he can hold the ball too long. A scary number of sacks. Can be timid to throw downfield. Must increase passing potency

The Fat: 

Daniels is a complicated prospect. No doubt, he exceeded expectations last year helping the Bayou Bengals champion over the SEC West. But, there are unavoidable hangups on his profile he must address before he can be taken entirely seriously. 

LSU’s play calling fit his conservative modus operandi well presenting him pre-defined outlets with relatively low degrees of difficulty. Amongst returning SECers, his cumulative 54.1% Success Rate, 39.2% First Down+TD Rate, and 64.4% Accuracy% rank 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, respectively, ahead of this fall within the conference. Fueled by short designs and rudimentary reads, Daniels also captured a career-high Completion%. Aged and somewhat self-assured, he’s now a dependable distributor in structure capable of enhanced efficiency. 

But his hesitation to let it rip, has been unequivocally frustrating. Yes, his cumulative Interceptable% was one of the lowest within the SEC in recent memory. And, Daniels can certainly be categorized as ‘safe’. Still, he leaves way too many plays on the field. His anticipation must improve. Either due to his lack of bravery, confidence, or vision from the pocket, he routinely passes up open men. Among our Impact QBs in our study, only three of his peers logged a lower Deep Pass Rate than Daniels’ 7.9% clip. Plus, only four were less accurate on a per throw basis when targeting beyond ten yards downfield against his hardest opponents. There’s a clear reason why LSU lacked explosiveness and had to rely on double-digit drives.

Though gun-shy, Daniels still found ways to produce big gainers; with his legs. He posted a team-best 35.7% Broken Tackle Rate, 57.1% Success Rate, and 23.8% Explosive Run Rate across the entire schedule. In case you were curious, all of those figures are good enough to crack the top3 amongst returning SEC rushers. Simply, he’s a vital cog to LSU’s ground game; particularly gashing on zone read keepers – as you can see – to great effect. 

Yet, Daniels’ timidness has birthed boatloads of broken plays. Holding onto the ball for too many extra beats, he’s noticeably prone to takedowns behind the line of scrimmage. Despite his skill for making men miss on designed runs, his small frame fails to muster much might to consistently erase sacks. There’s little question on his scrambling ability to gobble up undefended real estate. But folks at the next level will discount his game if he continues to be puny rather than proactive against pressure. And when looking at his returns against his hardest opponents, it’s not a hot take that some have already labeled him as a lost cause and nothing more than fool’s gold.  

All else considered, Daniels’ stock is in a healthy place entering 2023. Though already on many’s shortlist for pre-season honors, rumors of increased verticality this summer have boosted his popularity to be a Heisman dark horse. LSU itself is reportedly exploring ways to be more bang-for-buck to better suit their QB’s style. Either way, his floor is penthouse-adjacent. But until he consistently carves up good defenses or shows more aggressiveness downfield, his ceiling and upside cannot be considered sexy or desirable. After all, it’s not like his play against the meat of his schedule was overly inspiring. 

Largest Strength: Risk-Aversion, WCO Decision-Maker 

Largest Area of Opportunity: Downfield Production, Potency

The Stats: color-coded to reflect percentile standing within impact class (green = great, white = mid, red = bad)

Spray:

Overall:

LSU’s offense was active but it typically aimed to stress opponents horizontally. Outside of RPO slides, flats, tunnels, and slants, the Tigers’ pass offense fed on a healthy portion of Sticks, Spots, and Smashes. Weakside Flood Cross was also very visible. But as aforementioned, Daniels had trouble finding big gainers. Already a passer with affinity for the short stuff, his receivers collective yards after the catch average flirted with placing near the bottom of the SEC. So when you see his paltry 4.4% Explosive Pass% represented the Impact group’s cellar, you can at least know why. Thanks to his modest approach, he still threw a relatively catchable ball. And while the SEC West is one of the harder slates, his accuracy metrics were just okay. Considering he faced the group’s 4th-lowest Pressure Rate despite facing those formidable foes, that middling placement is all the more deflating. 

Daniels still brought value thanks to his trusty decisions. Almost an eighth of his sample’s throws were dropped. Yet, he did an admirable job dinking and dunking to keep LSU ahead of the chains. And let’s not forget, he played keepaway better than any other Power5-er in our study. His miserly 3.3% Interceptable% was more than half the group average. Again high floor, but Daniels’ ceiling is difficult to calibrate. 

Downfield:

Outside of fellow SECer Will Rogers and Washington State’s Cam Ward, no other Impact QB favored targeting short more than Daniels against their hardest opponents. Less than 26% of his throws topped ten yards downfield. When peeping at his performance, his aversion to these attempts makes a whole lotta sense. Though he was much more serviceable across the entire season, the biggies held him to a bottom8 Completion%, Accuracy%, and Uncatchable% in our study. No bueno, Bayou Bengals. As you might suspect, Daniels’ deplorable deep offerings were the primary culprit. Judging by the beat red hue on his stat square,  one can easily visualize how his imprecision handcuffed LSU’s offense. His accuracy on a per opportunity basis was fine in the midrange game. But still, far too many tries were biffed to feel good about this part of his game. 

Pressured:

Again, LSU’s front five did a wonderful job maintaining pockets and limiting duress for Daniels to deal. But on those seldom occasions where a rusher won, the Tigers’ QB was flummoxed and foiled. Sharing the worst Y/A in our study, only battered Brennan Armstrong recorded a worse Pressure:Sack Ratio. Well over half of his experienced havocs resulted in a takedown. For someone with a reputation as a scrambler, that’s abhorrent. These consistent backsteps firmly fizzle his ceiling in this context. 

When Daniels managed to get the ball out, however, he was justifiably fine in a number of areas. His Interceptable% actually decreased (if you needed any more evidence he played conservatively) in these spots and the rest of his ball placement stats tracked to be above-average. All the while, a large chunk of drops kept his results muted (are you tired of me saying that about him yet?). Assuming he can remain somewhat sturdy with his accuracy and LSU’s receivers can start hauling in these chances, his steady stock could become more bully. 

Outside the Pocket:

Behind bootlegs, extended RPO tries, and backyard rollouts, a sizable chunk of Daniels’ attempts came outside the pocket. However, he wasn’t too spectacular when on the move. Sometimes getting a little too front loaded on offerings with positive inertia, all of his placement stats skewed below standards. And with blah offerings, his Y/A and Success Rate placed inside the group’s bottom8. And based on his previous impotent passing, I’m sure you deduced Daniels’ again failed to capture explosive completions in this context. In fact, he didn’t log a single one against his hardest opponents. 

Contested/Tight Windows:

The risk-averse Daniels naturally didn’t like threading the needle too often. Only about a fifth of his attempts against his heightened slate were contested. And when he did, he was pretty forgettable. His Accuracy% was bang-average as was his ANY/A. But despite being a low-key performer, he recorded okay results. He beat the group standard in Success Rate, First Down+TD Rate, and Adjusted Completion%. Though it should be fairly clear Daniels isn’t built to live and die targeting tight windows, he’ll be asked to complete some if LSU wants to remain relevant and he wants to continue playing football beyond this fall. At least, some solace can be had since he delivers decent value from time-to-time.

Dropback: 

Since a small number of attempts were dedicated to screens and RPOs, Daniels’ dropback returns generally mirror his overall figures. He lacked potency, honed in on short and medium passes, and kept the ball out of harm’s way. His placement metrics remained relatively mellow as well as his receivers logging a high Drop Rate. Sure a down-to-down dumper isn’t flashy. But, let’s say LSU’s butterfingers are cut in half. His Success Rate, even with the miscues, tracks to be respectable. With less drops, his game gains some teeth. Plus, Daniels is more than capable of carving up his more questionable opponents. But even Drew Brees took shots before his dead arm kicked in! Daniels feasting on the underbellies of coverages is fine. However, he needs a more rounded diet pushing the pill around unless he’s fine remaining stale. 

Dropback Play Action:

LSU didn’t feature much true play action against Daniels’ hardest opponents. Typically, game situations never called for it; but Denbrock’s scheme didn’t favor the tactic regardless. He only logged 11 (!!) true play fake attempts across a six game sample. So these numbers are mostly meaningless. But, it’s a little alarming Daniels biffed over half of these throws.  

“Floor” Passing:

Again, since Daniels’ bottomline was decimated by drops, conceptualizing what his profile would look like with less of them is nebulous. But within clean pockets without guises, our guy projects a high floor thanks to his knack for slicing secondaries sideline-to-sideline short. His placed 6th within the group in Success Rate, 7th in Adjusted Completion%, and 8th in First Down+TD Rate despite the boo boos from his targets. He is keen on where to go with the ball and can be a sound pre-snap processor. Additionally, he’ll be one of the most efficient designed rushers returning to college football’s best conference. He’s just got to open his game up when he’s presented a look he wasn’t expecting. Both by finding guys outside of his rhythm (and potentially normal progression) and busting thru rushers when a design breaks down. Folks should feel just fine about his reaffirmed floor. But will it be enough to elevate LSU to where it wants to go; especially with gung-ho Field-stretcher Fred waiting in the wings?