Impact Study 2025: Taylen Green
TAYLEN GREEN
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 Arkansas' Taylen Green, a talented yet turbulent veteran.
IMPACT SLATE: Auburn, TAMU, Tennessee, Ole Miss, Texas, and Missouri.
The Skinny
Dangerous, volatile athlete keen on producing big plays and taking bad losses. Boom or bust dual-threat. Backyard baller developing as a pro-style passer. Encouraging returns but underlying issues with vision, anticipation, and mechanics within structure.
The Fat
Taylen Green is an extraterrestrial placed amongst us common folk who frequently wows onlookers with other-wordly athletic feats. He squarely fits the “toosly” QB archetype with a long frame, strong arm, and nifty wheels. He’s fluid and is a sound improviser. When looking at traits you want in a next-level signal caller, you certainly could do much worse.
T. Green | ATT | Y/A | ANY/A | ADOT | Success% | 1D+TD% | EXP% | INTA% | Adj Comp% |
OVERALL | 169 | 7.3 | 5.8 | 9.5 | 43.2% | 29.6% | 10.1% | 7.1% | 77.3% |
Impact AVR | 181 | 7.6 | 7.04 | 9.88 | 45.7% | 34.7% | 10.3% | 7.4% | 74.4% |
T. Green | Acc% | Depth Adj Acc% | *UNC% | Drop% | Pressure | Sack | Screen+RPO | Play Action | Outside Pocket |
OVERALL | 62.1% | 56.3% | 13.0% | 10.7% | 36.7% | 11.8% | 15.4% | 10.1% | 27.8% |
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)
Green’s sample was an adventure consisting of thrills, chills, drills, and spills. In other words, he’s decidedly volatile. The highs were ethereal and the lows were subterranean. From downfield dimes and impressive sack erasures to no-no throws and broken plays, anything is on the table down-to-down. And that’s been the case for the majority of his career.
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
|
T. Green |
20+ Comp% |
20+ Acc% |
20+ Unc% |
20+ INTA |
11-20 Comp |
11-20 Acc% |
11-20 Unc% |
11-20 INTA% |
|
Downfield |
33.3% |
45.8% |
25.0% |
25.0% |
47.1% |
61.8% |
23.5% |
11.8% |
|
Impact AVR |
36.4% |
31.3% |
35.8% |
17.4% |
53.6% |
49.7% |
24.8% |
11.5% |
|
T. Green |
10+ ADOT |
10+ Comp% |
10+ Acc% |
10+ UNC% |
10+ INTA% |
10+ DAA% |
10+ Adj Comp |
10+ ATT |
|
Downfield |
15.4 |
41.4% |
55.2% |
24.1% |
17.2% |
51.9% |
52.2% |
58 |
|
Impact AVR |
20.9 |
47.1% |
42.7% |
28.8% |
13.9% |
40.2% |
54.3% |
63.9 |
Much of these extremes are rooted in his wonky mechanics. No question, Green displayed improvement under Bobby Petrino’s tutelage at reducing these kinks and being a better “quarterback”. His overall Adjusted Completion%, Depth Adjusted Accuracy%, and Adjusted Uncatchable% were all at least 12 percentage points better than last year’s breakout. Plus, they all made the crop’s top8.
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
|
T. Green |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Contested |
46 |
6.2 |
3.7 |
16.1 |
32.6% |
28.3% |
13.0% |
|
T. Green |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
Depth Adj Acc% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
Makeup% |
|
Contested |
21.7% |
46.9% |
56.4% |
47.0% |
10.9% |
30.4% |
27.2% |
Green’s mighty arm stood out targeting tight windows, something he habitually did in a scheme without much guises. Only a handful of other Impact QBs were more prone to contests than his 27% makeup. Mirroring his overall figures, his placement metrics were sterling. No one boasted a better raw Accuracy% on closed quarters tries.
Yet, old habits are hard to break. Like in previous Impact Studies, Green overly rocks a down-and-around motion with a wide, low elbow on his release. And when he gets his hips involved, it can resemble a swinging gate. Even with an effort to be more “centralized” and develop a tempo to throw on time, odd bases and poor efforts transferring his weight pop up both in and outside of structure.
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
|
T. Green |
Makeup |
Y/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Outside Pocket |
27.8% |
6.8 |
11.4 |
34.0% |
21.3% |
8.5% |
|
Impact AVR |
16.5% |
5.98 |
10.5 |
38.8% |
31.8% |
6.9% |
|
T. Green |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
|
Outside Pocket |
4.3% |
78.9% |
48.9% |
55.1% |
36.2% |
6.4% |
|
Impact AVR |
6.9% |
68.4% |
47.9% |
43.9% |
33.1% |
8.2% |
Throws outside the pocket composed about 28% of his sample. Yes, some of that was by design. But, play out in space tends to include far more variables and randomness than stuff within structure, making it less dependable in comparison. Either way, one could argue that’s where Green is his most comfortable. He’s so relaxed at times that he can let defenders take his cookies. Fumbles need to be shored up. Still, he has a knack for being an agent of chaos and remaining calm under fire.
He’s palpably confident in his own abilities and bets on himself plenty. He routinely boogies out of trouble to find daylight, predominantly towards the perimeter rightward. Collapsing pockets and interior pressure prove to be more difficult for him to manage. However, throws still come out with plenty of emphasis and can cover ground in a hurry. His 48% Passing Success Rate on 3&9+ was the SEC's best clip across 2024. And, it’s assuring he’s learned to be okay with throwaways if designs get FUBAR.
His long strides and twitch inherently make him a hard man to contain. If you are able to keep up with him towards the edge, his size and strength make it challenging to bring him down solo. Few will hate on his captivating change of direction skills; especially at his size. Even including sacks, over 20% of his rush attempts gained at least 10 yards across 2024 – a mark only five SECers bested.
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
|
T. Green |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
INTA% |
|
Dropback |
138 |
7.4 |
5.6 |
11.7 |
42.0% |
30.4% |
12.3% |
8.7% |
|
Impact AVR |
129.7 |
8.1 |
7.4 |
12.45 |
46.5% |
36.8% |
11.7% |
8.6% |
|
T. Green |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
Dropback PRE |
Sack |
|
|
Dropback |
71.2% |
57.3% |
54.3% |
24.6% |
12.3% |
39.1% |
13.0% |
|
|
Impact AVR |
70.0% |
55.1% |
46.0% |
22.1% |
9.3% |
28.5% |
7.8% |
|
Taylen the Alien can grab your attention playing backyard ball, but dissenters will question whether his default style of play is sustainable considering the heat it tends to draw from opponents. Buffers, true hurries, failure to read defenses promptly, extensions, whatever – Green’s Pressure Rate has been at least 30% for three-straight studies. This year’s 36.7% clip is the worst yet and fell into the group’s bottom4. Again, Green is more than capable of holding his own in those spots. But from a process standpoint, that’s not an ideal way to play.
(STATS COLOR CODED BASED ON PERCENTILE AMONG 44 QBS IN 2025 IMPACT STUDY; TILT TABLE SIDEWAYS ON MOBILE)
T. Green | ATT | Y/A | ANY/A | ADOT | Success% | 1D+TD% | EXP% | INTA% |
All Pressured | 62 | 6.4 | 5.3 | 11.9 | 30.7% | 19.4% | 11.3% | 4.8% |
Impact AVR | 44.4 | 5.96 | 4.02 | 13.3 | 31.1% | 26.5% | 9.8% | 10.7% |
T. Green | Adj Comp% | Acc% | DAA% | UNC% | Drop% | DB PRE% | DB Sack% | DB PRE:Sack% |
All Pressured | 70.0% | 43.6% | 52.9% | 40.3% | 8.0% | 39.1% | 13.0% | 33.3% |
Impact AVR | 57.6% | 37.7% | 35.4% | 38.8% | 7.8% | 28.6% | 8.5% | 28.1% |
Speaking to these wide range of outcomes, Green was the only passer in this year’s study to have both a top8 Explosive% and INTA% with bottom8 First Down+TD and Sack Rates under the gun. Though he managed to drastically cut down on giveaway-worthy tosses, who’s to say he won’t revert to the dude who averaged a 15% Interceptable Pass Rate against his hardest opponents when pressured – especially with his aforementioned mechanical falterings and ball security concerns?
|
T. Green |
ATT |
Y/A |
ANY/A |
ADOT |
Success% |
1D+TD% |
EXP% |
|
Play Action |
16 |
5.5 |
4.9 |
7.8 |
43.8% |
25.0% |
6.3% |
|
Impact AVR |
29.3 |
10.4 |
10.1 |
15.2 |
50.3% |
42.3% |
19.0% |
|
T. Green |
INTA% |
Adj Comp% |
Acc% |
DAA% |
UNC% |
Drop% |
Sack |
|
Play Action |
0.0% |
90.0% |
56.3% |
69.8% |
31.3% |
12.5% |
12.5% |
|
Impact AVR |
7.3% |
70.4% |
54.2% |
46.5% |
24.0% |
8.2% |
7.8% |
The trends around Green’s “pass floor” reinforce his rocky resume. Though his down-to-down ball placement did improve and was overly the best he’s produced against heightened competition, his accuracy metrics are relatively mediocre. A fifth of his tosses qualified as a tossup.
T. Green | ATT | Y/A | ANY/A | ADOT | Success% | 1D+TD% | EXP% |
Pass “Floor" | 73 | 7.5 | 5.6 | 10.5 | 47.9% | 32.9% | 12.3% |
Impact AVR | 68 | 8.35 | 8.15 | 10.9 | 50.4% | 38.4% | 10.9% |
T. Green | INTA% | Adj Comp% | Acc% | DAA% | UNC% | Drop % | |
Pass “Floor" | 10.9% | 71.7% | 65.8% | 52.2% | 13.7% | 15.1% | |
Impact AVR | 8.5% | 74.9% | 62.3% | 50.6% | 14.2% | 10.4% |
Moreover, his tendency to be a splash play producer but a meh conversion merchant is codified. For whatever reason, Green has been responsible for a double-digit Interceptable Pass Rate in these spots 2/3 studies. It’s one thing to wildly press when playing hero ball or testing tight coverage; and it’s another thing entirely to force the issue from pristine conditions. Some folks won’t be able to get past that.
The reliance on extra plays and Green’s so-so showings within structure without guises create a flimsy outlook. Still, there’s immense value in being able to do things others can't; whether it’s winning the out on the edge, sprinting north thru traffic, whipping darts around rushers, launching dingers, or instilling confidence to the rest of your team. Green is a fun player. And if Petrino can hardwire better timing, vision, and mechanics operating his pro-style playcalls, he could be a dark horse to gallop up draft boards.
Bad Take Brooks Sees a
Josh Freeman type
Glossary
