The Skinny:

One of the most downfield-oriented QBs in football. Improved efficiency YOY. Volatile range of outcomes due to passing potency and tendency to throw INTAs and take sacks. Not a threat outside the pocket. Tested tight coverage plenty. Sometimes, it’s better to be lucky than good

The Fat:

Hartman won’t wow you physically. With average stature and hardly any twitch, he’s the type of QB that gets by exclusively by his arm – if that wasn’t apparent by the fact he’s tossed over 7,900 yards and 77 tuddys the last two seasons. His style of play – as risky and controversial as it is – has consistently generated big gainers that have impressed many. Others, however, credit the “Clawfense” and its unorthodox ways for being the primary catalyst for his production. Fair or not, the phrase “System Quarterback” is often thrown around when describing him even though he experienced a relatively low percentage of passes coming off scheme elements against his hardest opponents.

The seasoned vet often knew where to go with passes underneath and maximized his receivers’ route depth. Wake Forest commonly sent hitches, curls, and slants right at the sticks; so even when they played relatively conservative, conversions were still in play. No Impact QB had a larger makeup of attempts that traveled over ten yards downfield than the Golden Domer. While the longer patterns ballooned his ADOT, hurting his accuracy metrics in the process, Hartman saw a 10 point and 5 point percentage bump in Success Rate and 1D+TD Rate against the meat of his schedule year-over-year. Though he improved his pocket maneuverability and ability to find windows, he still can get jostled off his base. Lollipops and underthrows still show up occasionally. 

No passer rides the line of risk:reward quite like Hartman. Nearly 47% of his sample’s throws went outside the numbers, almost a third targeted tight windows, and over a third came versus pressure. That’s one scary Venn diagram of potentially harm attempts. Of course, the old school counting stats can tell us interceptions are a byproduct of Hartman’s game. But no other Impact QB came close to experiencing these combustible contexts in our study, incinerating a change of scenery might help curb some of his recklessness and hone in on what he does well. But either thanks to the verticality of Wake Forest’s offense, his inability to anticipate, or his moxy waiting to target his man until the last moment, he constantly held onto the ball too long and took sacks. Hartman has no qualms sniffing the line. His 2.56 average seconds to throw and 10.9% Sack Rate both placed inside the group’s 5-highest such figures. All of this should be major red flags despite his splendid result stats. Since any of these areas could force regression, Notre Dame backers are praying the luck of the Irish will continue to uplift his previous fortune. One way or another, Hartman will be impactful. 

Largest Strength: Downfield Aggressiveness 

Largest Area of Opportunity: Erasing Backbreaking Plays

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

Spray:

Overall:

Hartman’s maturity and savvy produced immense improvements in his situational acumen. Plus, The Clawfense optimally adjusted its route depending on down-and-distance in a proactive effort to always be ahead of the chains. Among Impact Power5-ers, his Success Rate and 1D+TD Rate were tops. And behind his aforementioned verticality, he boasted the highest ADOT, Deep Pass%, and Midrange Pass% in our study. Though sacks handcuffed his ANY/A from being anything too extraordinary, nearly an eighth of his attempts gained at least 20 yards. A hidden aspect that aided Hartman’s figures was that he suffered from a low amount of drops. Only Bo Nix’s targets were more sure-handed. And while steadying his overall stats, the consistent completions bled over into other various breakouts, impressive considering his slate was the group’s 5th-hardest. 

But, his aggressive style of play birthed terrible ball placement stats. Generally speaking, passes are harder to complete the further they are downfield. So it should be expected that Hartman didn’t sport strong accuracy. Of course, Captain Obvious and his traditional figures did want to chime in with the nugget his career Completion% is under 59%. But even when accounting for his added depth, Hartman logged a concerning number of uncatchable tries with a bang-average Depth Adjusted Accuracy% among his peers. Yes, his overall efficiency ticked up. But since only three other Impact QBs were less on-target on a down-to-down basis against the meat of their schedules, Notre Dame’s signal caller will have numerous skeptics.

Downfield:

Behind abundant attempts, no other Impact QB had a higher percentage of his completions come off throws over ten yards past the line of scrimmage. However, Hartman’s downfield exploits were strictly a volume game. His counting stats pop. But, his advanced metrics fizzle. Though he became a more dependable placer, tossups were still pretty visible on tape. Looking specifically at his sample’s deep throws, 79% targeted outside the numbers. Only three targeted between the hashes (0/3 1 INT). And on a per throw basis, he was Just A Guy (aka JAG) in the midrange as well. Ultimately, Over a third of his downfield throws were uncatchable and a sixth had turnover-potential. Misgauging proper depth and touch attacking the seam is a noticeable flaw.

Lacking ideal size, Hartman’s bravery to hang into pockets is undercut by his flimsy base. Mechanically fine, but there are numerous examples of his pocket pressing back into his personal space and altering throws; most thanks to contact with his lower body. Since downfield attempts are susceptible to angles, thrust, and timing with an enhanced degree of difficulty, the slightest nudge can nuke a play. The crafty Hartman managed to sport passable Deep and Midrange Completion% despite iffy accuracy. Still, his sturdiest is open to scrutiny in more ways than one ahead of this fall. 

Pressured:

Under the gun, Hartman projects poise that can snatch respectable results. Still his precision remains untrustworthy. He was just as likely to log an interceptable pass and an explosive completion when pressured, and only about a third of his attempts were deemed on-target. His tendency to hold the ball too long resulted in a 34.3% Dropback Pressure Rate, which heightened his already upped degree of difficulty. But when he didn’t give defenders opportunities to get him off the field, he posted some of the group’s best results. His 43.6% Success Rate in this context bested Quinn Ewers’ and Cam Ward’s respective overall clips in our study. Additionally, his 35.5% 1D+TD Rate topped overall clips from names like Drake Maye, JJ McCarthy, and Jayden Daniels. 

Though inconsistent situations with loads of variables, pressured passing is important to help measure a QB’s upside. Seeing one perform admirably is always more assuring than watching a kid shit the bed in these spots. And our guy certainly hasn’t looked too cooked when under the gun. Sure, his INTA% is horrific. But compared to others, his experience dealing rocky snaps and their randomness is desirable. Results and performance can vary year-to-year, month-to-month, and game-to-game. Case in point, Hartman’s 2021 profile under duress was a mirrored opposite (okay accuracy but bad payoffs). 

Outside the Pocket: 

Like his limited true play action usage, Hartman did field many opportunities to impress in this context. On a flimsy sample consisting of only 17 attempts, he again benefitted from zero drops and found solid results. However as you might have guessed, he wasn’t always the most on-target thrower when on the move. And despite his propensity to deliver dingers in structure, his Interceptable% doubled his Explosive Pass%. Outside of the occasional bootleg, Hartman should continue to see the vast bulk of the top of his drops fall between the bookends in South Bend. 

Contested/Tight Window:

Like Bruce Arians liked to say, “You don’t win the biscuit unless you risk it.” Quirky as hell, yes. But, that’s just a fun way to articulate playmaking by throwing the football. All passers can throw routes on air. And, throws to grass graced with lack of obstacles continue to lower the bar. Passers often separate themselves from the pack behind the zeal of their arm – for better or for worse. Hartman was one of those QBs to come up smelling like roses. Living on the wildside with a jolting 32.2% makeup, he championed the group’s best ANY/A, Success Rate, 1D+TD Rate, and Explosive Pass%. 

Though normally full of boo boos, he was relatively fine at preventing defenders from altering attempts. Outside of Quinn Ewers and Brennan Armstrong, no Impact QB had a lower Breakup% on contests. Potential backsteps on these throws are always a possibility; especially with smaller wideout drawing targets. Hartman might continue to ride and die on tight windows but don’t be shocked if his performance sours with less physical or sure-handed receivers. 

Dropback:

Only 16.1% of Hartman’s sample targeted a screen or an RPO, which was comfortably tucked away in the back-half of the group. And with a relatively small amount of his targets used in such a manner, his stats overly mirror his overall output. His robust Success Rate and 1D+TD Rate steadfastly led the rest of his peers. His lofty ADOT generated a double-digit Explosive PAss% and Interceptable with nearly a quarter of Hartman’s passes going uncatchable. His ball placement was mid. And thanks to his sack problem, his dropback ANY/A failed to crack the Impact top10. 

Slants, Curls and Spacing patterns padded Hartman’s bottomline. The looks combined for 31% of his dropback targets. Peppering available spots in the underbellies of coverages, these concepts pooled together for a mighty 70% Success Rate. Other favorites – with more vertical flare – fared less colorfully. On the equal number of targets, Vertical Shots (mostly 989/Divide), All Verts, Hoss, and Flood Variations only produced a 36.4% clip in comparison. Yes, the deep stuff was more challenging. But, his impressive showing of attacking foes with horizontal stretchers accentuates his value. 

Dropback Play Action:

Though a quarter of Hartman’s attempts flashed a form of action, only about a tenth of his throws came off a true play fake, which placed him among the group’s bottom5 in that department. Slow mesh or no, his potency roided up in these spots. He did only log 16 such attempts, but half went for at least 20 yards and ten went for either a conversion or a score. And with scheme elements helping isolate matchups, he was more on-target with his passes. Though his Interceptable% stayed in the dangerzone, only Bo Nix trumped his 21.1 ANY/A using dropback play action. 

“Floor” Passing:

The crafty Hartman has consistently found wins in the margins. But for the second straight year, his passing floor appears to be flimsy. In clean pockets without guises or deception tactics, he was decidedly muted and noticeably less potent. Once again, his Interceptable% trumped his Explosive Pass%, a clear and major red flag he often needs scheme elements in order to be his best self. Or in other words, he apparently was a clear cog within the Clawfense. Solace can be had with his dependable Success Rate without present adversity. But none of his placement metrics deserve praise; further hinting his prolific passing was probably a bit of an illusion.