Impact Study 2025: Fernando Mendoza
FERNANDO MENDOZA
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 Indiana transfer Fernando Mendoza, an up-and-comer known for sound decision-making.
IMPACT SLATE: Auburn, FSU, Miami, Pittsburgh, NC State, and Syracuse. The Skinny
A slinky slinger with strong ball placement skills. Focuses short but able to complete tries all over. Stood out hitting tight windows and targets under pressure. Downfield offerings are sour. Concerns exist regarding high-end potency. Lower body and processing remain areas to fix.
The Fat
Fernando Mendoza is a tall, slender distributor keen on capturing completions all over the field. He’s still overly a work in progress, but he has pure positives on his profile to sell you on his services. Some folks have been so bold to say he’s the QB1 ahead of this season due to some of his covetous traits.
In rhythm, he can dot passes sideline-to-sideline with zero strain. His down-to-down 68.1% Accuracy% was one of the top marks in our Impact Study. In fact, all of his overall placement stats beat the group average. And with so many on-target passes, his Success Rate was top5-worthy. His 58% clip from his sample in “clutch” situations to close halves would have led the SEC last year. Good stuff.
|
F. Mendoza |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
|
OVERALL |
207 |
7.7 |
6.6 |
7.8 |
48.8% |
34.3% |
8.7% |
6.3% |
75.7% |
|
Impact AVR |
181 |
7.6 |
7.04 |
9.88 |
45.7% |
34.7% |
10.3% |
7.4% |
74.4% |
|
F. Mendoza |
Acc% |
Depth Adj Acc% |
*UNC% |
Drop% |
Pressure |
Sack |
Screen+RPO |
Play Action |
Outside Pocket |
|
OVERALL |
68.1% |
52.8% |
15.0% |
7.3% |
25.6% |
12.1% |
25.1% |
18.4% |
23.2% |
|
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)
Mendoza had praiseworthy precision even on tight window targets. Just under a quarter of Mendoza’s attempts were contested. Yet despite the close confines, he managed to make the group’s top8 in Adjusted Completion% as well as rate of on-target throws.
|
F. Mendoza |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Contested |
50 |
4.4 |
2.1 |
13.7 |
28.0% |
22.0% |
8.0% |
|
F. Mendoza |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
Depth Adj Acc% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
Makeup% |
|
Contested |
22.0% |
39.5% |
44.0% |
29.9% |
22.0% |
12.0% |
24.2% |
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
However, he predominantly is a ¾ thrower and commonly rocks a low elbow. As a taller QB, dropping his release point isn’t as detrimental as shorties. Plus, it can aid him in giving his non-6’3+ pass catchers easier opportunities. Still, his motion keeps the door open for havoc to alter his throws; especially noticing the apparent stiffness in his back.
While that’s not a major hangup, his lower body often is. As hinted, poor bases show up all over his tape, both when stationary and on the move. A strong arm helps, but biffs and boo boos are bound to occur without auxiliary support from below. We aren’t looking for the next great, rangy shortstop. A balanced and controlled bedrock is crucial to become a consistent passer.
|
F. Mendoza |
20+ Comp% |
20+ Acc% |
20+ Unc% |
20+ INTA |
11-20 Comp |
11-20 Acc% |
11-20 Unc% |
11-20 INTA% |
|
Downfield |
38.1% |
28.6% |
38.1% |
19.1% |
52.5% |
50.0% |
32.5% |
7.5% |
|
Impact AVR |
36.4% |
31.3% |
35.8% |
17.4% |
53.6% |
49.7% |
24.8% |
11.5% |
|
F. Mendoza |
10+ ADOT |
10+ Comp% |
10+ Acc% |
10+ UNC% |
10+ INTA% |
10+ DAA% |
10+ Adj Comp |
10+ ATT |
|
Downfield |
18.9 |
47.5% |
42.6% |
34.4% |
11.5% |
39.1% |
50.9% |
61 |
|
Impact AVR |
20.9 |
47.1% |
42.7% |
28.8% |
13.9% |
40.2% |
54.3% |
63.9 |
|
F. Mendoza |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
INTA% |
|
Dropback |
134 |
7.9 |
6.5 |
9.7 |
49.3% |
38.1% |
9.7% |
8.2% |
|
Impact AVR |
129.7 |
8.1 |
7.4 |
12.45 |
46.5% |
36.8% |
11.7% |
8.6% |
|
F. Mendoza |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
Dropback PRE |
Sack |
|
|
Dropback |
70.9% |
64.9% |
50.7% |
19.4% |
8.2% |
30.6% |
14.9% |
|
|
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)
Though not a plus-athlete, he can have impressive moments. Behind deceptively long strides and nifty braking skills, he has what it takes to keep opponents honest with his legs. And, he’s coming off a season with high usage outside the pocket where he passed the ball with flying colors against his hardest opponents.
|
F. Mendoza |
Makeup |
Y/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Outside Pocket |
23.2% |
9.7 |
8.3 |
54.2% |
35.4% |
10.4% |
|
Impact AVR |
16.5% |
5.98 |
10.5 |
38.8% |
31.8% |
6.9% |
|
F. Mendoza |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
|
Outside Pocket |
2.1% |
72.1% |
64.5% |
57.9% |
20.8% |
2.1% |
|
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)
He was the only QB in our study to finish top3 in Accuracy% and Uncatchable% in these spots. His “throw-and-chase” technique is singularly fantastic for someone his size. Only Marcel Reed boasts a higher Yards/Attempt than Mendoza’s 9.7 clip. And highlighting his high usage, Taylen Green was the only other QB north of 6’2 to see over 23% of attempts occur outside the pocket.
Some of that very much was by design. As an inexperienced passer, Cal didn’t mind simplifying Medoza’s reads via bootlegs, RPOs, and rollouts. Half of his attempts essentially qualified as such, and they overly did their job helping boost his bottomline. But, Mendoza also broke rank by his own accord. Despite clear juice, there was a timidness trying opponents towards the middle of the field. And instead of risk the biscuit, he tended to press his luck on the perimeter. He showed better patience staying within structure as the year progressed. But in a totally new environment, it remains to be seen if he will revert to old habits.
|
F. Mendoza |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Play Action |
34 |
8.3 |
7.7 |
9.7 |
52.9% |
41.2% |
11.8% |
|
Impact AVR |
29.3 |
10.4 |
10.1 |
15.2 |
50.3% |
42.3% |
19.0% |
|
F. Mendoza |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
Sack |
|
Play Action |
5.9% |
67.7% |
58.8% |
46.2% |
17.7% |
2.9% |
8.8% |
|
Impact AVR |
7.3% |
70.4% |
54.2% |
46.5% |
24.0% |
8.2% |
7.8% |
His body language frequently showed discomfort when forced off his first read. Even with a couple of decent examples working a full-field progression, his mechanics looked rocky. Mendoza looked slow deciphering coverages and buffered plenty, which yielded way too many takedowns. Both his Sack Rate and Dropback Pressure:Sack Ratio were well in the red compared to his peers.
|
F. Mendoza |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
INTA% |
|
All Pressured |
53 |
5.3 |
3.0 |
8.5 |
33.9% |
30.2% |
9.4% |
5.6% |
|
Impact AVR |
44.4 |
5.96 |
4.02 |
13.3 |
31.1% |
26.5% |
9.8% |
10.7% |
|
F. Mendoza |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
DB PRE% |
DB Sack% |
DB PRE:Sack% |
|
All Pressured |
57.5% |
49.1% |
43.0% |
32.1% |
9.4% |
30.6% |
14.9% |
48.2% |
|
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)
Inviting pressures and negative plays is bad process. But, Mendoza can hold his own under the gun. His height and zesty release often are enough to guide him out of trouble. He was the only Impact QB to sit inside the class’s top10 in pressured Accuracy%, First Down+TD Rate, and Interceptable Pass Rate. A volatile breakout that’s all the more dubious thanks to his flimsy foundations, these figures can be considered fraudulent by haters, despite their promise.
More warning signs exist when analyzing attempts inside clean pockets without guises – a breakout that can be a strong indicator of down-to-down output. Though his chances still tend to be on the mark behind a conservative spray, he’s also more prone to turnover-worthy throws and posted a negative Explosive Pass:Interceptable Ratio. None of his results beat the Impact average.
|
F. Mendoza |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Pass “Floor" |
56 |
6.9 |
5.6 |
9.0 |
48.2% |
35.7% |
7.1% |
|
Impact AVR |
68 |
8.35 |
8.15 |
10.9 |
50.4% |
38.4% |
10.9% |
|
F. Mendoza |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop % |
|
|
Pass “Floor" |
10.7% |
71.4% |
69.6% |
55.8% |
14.3% |
10.7% |
|
|
Impact AVR |
8.5% |
74.9% |
62.3% |
50.6% |
14.2% |
10.4% |
|
Still, Mendoza’s build and accuracy are a rare combo that requires additional vetting.
Bad Take Brooks Sees a
Joe Flacco type
GLOSSARY
