Impact Study 2025: Josh Hoover
JOSH HOOVER
Ahh summertime: A lovely time in our college football schedule driven by hot-taking, list-making and sidewalk baking. Affectionally known as Talking Season, this is also when blowhards and engagement farmers tend to dictate the conversations, with not much else is going on in the sports world. And as most can attest, everyone loves a good quarterback debate.
Fresh off wrapping up my annual QB Impact Study, where I chart the top 40-50 returning passers against their most challenging opponents, this analyst is ready to join the fray and guide you towards a more fulfilling discussion. I ground through tape to find traits that translate and metrics that matter — far more illuminating than citing counting stats or scanning box scores. Plus, this exercise has a great track record for singling out the nation’s top signal callers.
This piece will focus on TCU's Josh Hoover -- a pinpoint, prolific passer.
IMPACT SLATE: SMU, Kansas, Houston, Utah, Baylor, and Louisiana.
The Skinny
High-floor surgical pocket passer with cutting accuracy. Impressive progression skills. Substantial year-over-year improvement hitting targets deep and when pressured. Minimized negative plays. Flinty arm but questions about top-end verticality. Not a creator outside of structure
The Fat
The game might be moving on from pocket passers; especially undersized ones. But, Josh Hoover has assassin accuracy, dependable decision-making, and respectable sack avoidance skills. He operates with crisp confidence and is capable of defeating a bevy of defensive looks. And unlike some other shorties, all levels are accessible to him thanks to his zesty arm.
Hoover has a clean, yet snappy operation in structure. Carving and cutting, his M.O. is often surgical. Holding the ball by his sternum and releasing it in an out-up motion, there’s no wasted movements. Throws travel from point A to point B with haste. And again, they tend to be on the money.
Though he’s not immune from being sporadically tricked by coverages, he’s trusty with the football. Hoover was 1/5 Impact QBs to crack the crop’s top10 in both raw Accuracy% and Interceptable Pass Rate.
|
J. Hoover |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
|
OVERALL |
224 |
8.2 |
7.8 |
8.3 |
50.0% |
39.3% |
12.9% |
5.4% |
77.3% |
|
Impact AVR |
181 |
7.6 |
7.04 |
9.88 |
45.7% |
34.7% |
10.3% |
7.4% |
74.4% |
|
J. Hoover |
Acc% |
Depth Adj Acc% |
*UNC% |
Drop% |
Pressure |
Sack |
Screen+RPO |
Play Action |
Outside Pocket |
|
OVERALL |
65.6% |
61.2% |
16.5% |
8.0% |
26.3% |
2.7% |
22.7% |
19.6% |
13.4% |
|
Impact AVR |
59.1% |
46.4% |
20.0% |
8.7% |
25.4% |
7.0% |
19.0% |
20.5% |
16.5% |
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
But thanks to marvelous year-over-year improvement throwing deep, no passer in our Impact Study beat his 61.2% Depth Adjusted Accuracy%. And on a per throw basis, 56.9% of his downfield (+10) throws were perfectly placed; a mark that also earned the group’s gold medal. FYI: Hoover’s Deep Accuracy% more than doubled and he almost cut his such Uncatchable% in half.
|
J. Hoover |
20+ Comp% |
20+ Acc% |
20+ Unc% |
20+ INTA |
11-20 Comp |
11-20 Acc% |
11-20 Unc% |
11-20 INTA% |
|
Downfield |
44.0% |
52.0% |
24.0% |
20.0% |
55.3% |
59.6% |
27.7% |
8.5% |
|
Impact AVR |
36.4% |
31.3% |
35.8% |
17.4% |
53.6% |
49.7% |
24.8% |
11.5% |
|
J. Hoover |
10+ ADOT |
10+ Comp% |
10+ Acc% |
10+ UNC% |
10+ INTA% |
10+ DAA% |
10+ Adj Comp |
10+ ATT |
|
Downfield |
20.0 |
51.4% |
56.9% |
26.4% |
12.5% |
55.9% |
60.7% |
72 |
|
Impact AVR |
20.9 |
47.1% |
42.7% |
28.8% |
13.9% |
40.2% |
54.3% |
63.9 |
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
But since TCU’s offense preferred to pepper opponents underneath, it’s fair to ask if this was a result of simply fixing what ailed him or the product of selection bias in his offerings. Or in other words: Did Hoover only try chances he knew he could complete and pass up questionable targets?
Even with the drastic aboutface, haters will keep side-eying his arm strength until he displays consistent verticality. Though terrific 22 yards-and-in, Hoover just doesn’t have many field-stretching wins. His longest toss in his sample was respectable compared to his peers (47 depth of target, 54 real distance). But taking the top off of backends hasn’t been a priority of his to this point.
Moreover, he can show some strain when adding mustard to fastballs. Though normally a well-balanced conductor, Hoover has instances of scrunching, hunching, and driving his shoulders over his torso on some of his extra attempts. Passes mostly arrive with authority, but it gives dissenters more ammo.
Noting he had a few now-professionals at his disposal also raises questions on whether or not his newfound success is sustainable. And while we are at it, TCU did benefit from a relatively easy slate for a P4 team. Hoover only faced 2 top35 defensive opponents in 2024.
Well, consider me a believer. First, he can dot the donut. Though he targeted tight windows less often than is 2023, Hoover captured his second-consecutive +44% Accuracy%, sub-16% Interceptable Pass Rate, and Success Rate in the 30’s against enhanced competition. This year, only one of his peers bested his 46.9% Adjusted Completion% on contests.
|
J. Hoover |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Contested |
38 |
4.2 |
2.8 |
10.1 |
31.6% |
26.3% |
7.9% |
|
J. Hoover |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
Depth Adj Acc% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
Makeup% |
|
Contested |
13.2% |
46.9% |
44.7% |
37.8% |
23.7% |
13.2% |
16.9% |
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
Despite his diminutive size, he can manage pockets well. He can slip through mess with smooth, silky body language while maintaining his balance and keeping his eyes up. Speaking of those dreamy eyes, Hoover’s vision and anticipation are superb. His swift pre-to-post snap processing skills let him play hot potato in rhythm and strike defenses before they knew what hit them.
J. Hoover | ATT | Y/A | ANY/A | ADOT | Success% | 1D+TD% | EXP% | INTA% |
Dropback | 154 | 8.9 | 8.2 | 10.4 | 48.1% | 40.9% | 13.6% | 5.2% |
Impact AVR | 129.7 | 8.1 | 7.4 | 12.45 | 46.5% | 36.8% | 11.7% | 8.6% |
J. Hoover | Adj Comp% | Acc% | DAA% | UNC% | Drop% | Dropback PRE | Sack | |
Dropback | 74.4% | 64.3% | 61.2% | 20.8% | 9.4% | 30.5% | 5.2% | |
Impact AVR | 70.0% | 55.1% | 46.0% | 22.1% | 9.3% | 28.5% | 7.8% |
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
|
J. Hoover |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Play Action |
30 |
11 |
11.7 |
10.0 |
56.7% |
46.7% |
20.0% |
|
Impact AVR |
29.3 |
10.4 |
10.1 |
15.2 |
50.3% |
42.3% |
19.0% |
|
J. Hoover |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
Sack |
|
Play Action |
3.3% |
80.0% |
63.3% |
68.3% |
20.0% |
10.0% |
3.3% |
|
Impact AVR |
7.3% |
70.4% |
54.2% |
46.5% |
24.0% |
8.2% |
7.8% |
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
Hoover’s cerebral approach also comes in handy when pressured. Since he’s not a serious creator or backyard baller, he tends to beat the heat with his arm and processing power. Over the last two Impact Studies, his Sack Rate and Sack:Pressure Ratio each beat the group average and came in under 4% and 17%, respectively. That said, he isn’t a total statue or leadfoot. He erased more takedowns than he suffered against his hardest opponents (12 vs 7).
|
J. Hoover |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
INTA% |
|
All Pressured |
59 |
7.3 |
7.6 |
11.4 |
38.9% |
35.6% |
8.5% |
3.4% |
|
Impact AVR |
44.4 |
5.96 |
4.02 |
13.3 |
31.1% |
26.5% |
9.8% |
10.7% |
|
J. Hoover |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
DB PRE% |
DB Sack% |
DB PRE:Sack% |
|
All Pressured |
68.2% |
47.5% |
49.2% |
33.9% |
8.5% |
30.5% |
5.2% |
17.0% |
|
Impact AVR |
57.6% |
37.7% |
35.4% |
38.8% |
7.8% |
28.6% |
8.5% |
28.1% |
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
And when the ball came out, his numbers were nice. Along with the top Adjusted Net Passing Yards/Attempt, he placed inside the top10 in pressured Uncatchable%, Adjusted Completion%, and Interceptable%. Skeptics will call out the fact that pressured passing can be volatile year-in and year-out. And, that’s fair; especially circling back to highlight his less-than-challenging schedule.
|
J. Hoover |
Makeup |
Y/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Outside Pocket |
13.4% |
3.7 |
6.7 |
33.3% |
23.3% |
6.7% |
|
Impact AVR |
16.5% |
5.98 |
10.5 |
38.8% |
31.8% |
6.9% |
|
J. Hoover |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
|
Outside Pocket |
3.3% |
72.7% |
46.7% |
31.0% |
33.3% |
10.0% |
|
Impact AVR |
6.9% |
68.4% |
47.9% |
43.9% |
33.1% |
8.2% |
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
But as a high floor passer, Hoover is often his best self taking care of business in structure. On dropbacks from clean pockets without guises, the majority of his stats experienced bumps; including his already impressive accuracy figures. However, for the second-straight Impact Study, Hoover experienced heightened Interceptable and Uncatchable Pass Rates… not exactly the kinds of things you want to see from your QB when not facing adversity.
|
J. Hoover |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Pass “Floor" |
80 |
8.2 |
7.9 |
9.8 |
53.8% |
45.0% |
15.0% |
|
Impact AVR |
68 |
8.35 |
8.15 |
10.9 |
50.4% |
38.4% |
10.9% |
|
J. Hoover |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop % |
|
|
Pass “Floor" |
7.5% |
75.9% |
72.5% |
64.4% |
17.5% |
8.8% |
|
|
Impact AVR |
8.5% |
74.9% |
62.3% |
50.6% |
14.2% |
10.4% |
|
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
A decent amount of those duds, however, were due to batted balls and havoc hands; a commonality among shorter QBs. The presence of big body interiors will continuously be a disadvantage. And it remains to be seen if he’ll be able to handle this shortcoming in the long term. That said, the rest of his rosy resume should overly convince you there’s real substance here.
Bad Take Brooks Sees a
Devin Leary type
GLOSSARY