When John Mateer, the Oklahoma quarterback who’s currently riding the Heisman buzz, was named the No. 1 overall pick by DraftSharks, the NFL‑world sat up straight. The projection puts Mateer heading to the New Orleans Saints on April 23, 2026 – a date that feels both inevitable and wildly speculative given the fluid nature of college football. The twist is that another leading outlet, Tankathon, has its eyes glued on Indiana’s towering signal‑caller Fernando Mendoza, who they slot at the very top of the board.
Why quarterbacks dominate the 2026 class
It’s not just a case of “QB‑rich” – the talent pool this year resembles a quarterback factory on overdrive. Six to eight QBs are projected to be taken within the first 32 picks, depending on which mock you trust. That depth stems from a confluence of factors: the NCAA’s recent rule tweaks that speed up offensive tempo, a wave of dual‑threat athletes who can thread passes and run for yards, and the fact that many elite pass‑catchers chose to stay for another collegiate season rather than chase early NFL money.
For instance, Mendoza’s numbers through five games are eye‑popping: 1,208 passing yards (241.6 per game), 16 touchdowns, a single interception, 73.0 % completion and a 197.8 passer rating. Those stats sit on par with the best NFL starters in 2022, and they’re backed by a 6‑foot‑5 frame that screams durability.
Mateer, by contrast, brings a Bo Nix‑style poise to the pocket with a strong arm and enough legs to turn a scramble into a 30‑yard gain on a whim. His 65 % completion rate on 3,139 yards and 29 touchdowns last season showed he can handle a pro‑level workload.
Top mock drafts and their projections
The most talked‑about mock from DraftSharks puts Mateer at No. 1, followed by a surprise edge‑rusher T.J. Parker (Clemson) to the New York Jets. Their rationale? The Jets need an immediate pass‑rush upgrade, and Parker’s blend of defensive‑tackle size with edge speed makes him a top‑five candidate.
Meanwhile, Tankathon flips the script: Mendoza goes first, Dante Moore (Oregon) is second, and the third spot belongs to defensive lineman Peter Woods (Clemson). The model also throws in a second‑round future trade that could bounce a quarterback back to the Cleveland Browns, who, according to ESPN’s Football Power Index (FPI) simulations, hold the top overall slot in a majority of runs.
ESPN’s own mock, crafted by Field Yates, admits, "A lot can and will change in the next eight months." He points to last year’s surprise when Carson Beck, once a first‑overall favorite, chose to stay at Miami after leaving Georgia. The takeaway? Mock drafts are guideposts, not crystal balls.
Team needs, trades, and the shifting draft board
Only 30 franchises have a first‑round pick this year because the Jacksonville Jaguars and Atlanta Falcons dealt theirs away in the 2025 draft. That scarcity fuels a flurry of trade chatter. The Browns, who already own the No. 1 slot in many FPI scenarios, could flip it to the New York Giants for a package that includes a future second‑rounder and a proven linebacker.
Speaking of the Giants, they’re eyeing offensive tackle Kadyn Proctor (Alabama). Proctor’s quick feet and raw power make him a blind‑side anchor in the eyes of many scouts, and a top‑three slot would lock him in for the next decade.
Down south, the Tennessee Titans appear set to snatch edge‑rusher Keldric Faulk (Auburn) with the fourth pick, creating a cluster of defensive‑front talent in the top five.
Statistical deep dive on the quarterback frontrunners
- Fernando Mendoza (Indiana): 241.6 yd/game, 3.20 TD/game, 0.20 INT/game, 73.0 % completions, 197.8 passer rating.
- Dante Moore (Oregon): 242.0 yd/game, 2.80 TD/game, 0.20 INT/game, 74.6 % completions, 183.5 passer rating.
- John Mateer (Oklahoma): 65 % completion on 3,139 yds, 29 TDs, 0 INTs (last season), dual‑threat upside with 340 scramble yards.
- LaNorris Sellers (South Carolina): heavier version of Jalen Milroe, 20 lb more, improved accuracy and ball placement; projected as a fantasy sleeper.
What these numbers tell us is that teams have a measurable trade‑off between pure pocket presence and dual‑threat versatility. The Saints, who have long chased a franchise QB, might favor Mateer’s poise, while the Browns could leap for the sheer athletic ceiling of Mendoza.
What could change before the April 23 draft?
Injuries are the biggest wild card. A single ankle sprain or a shoulder issue can tumble a top‑prospect from No. 1 to the second half of the round. Then there’s the transfer market – remember how Carson Beck’s surprise move shook the draft landscape? A similar headline‑grabbing switch from a Power‑5 school to a Group‑of‑Five program could either boost a player’s stock (by showing adaptability) or hurt it (by raising questions about competition level).
Coaching changes also matter. If a new offensive coordinator arrives at Oklahoma, Mateer’s supporting cast could look different, shifting his projected ceiling. Conversely, a defensive‑scheme shift at Clemson could push Parker up or down the edge‑rusher ladder.
Finally, the FPI simulations that ESPN relies on will be refreshed weekly as college games roll out. Those models factor in strength of schedule, win‑loss records, and even weather conditions – a sudden loss to an unranked opponent can shave points off a QB’s projected draft value.
Frequently Asked Questions
How likely is it that the top overall pick will be a quarterback?
Historical trends show a quarterback has gone No. 1 in 12 of the last 30 drafts. With six to eight QBs projected in the first round this year, analysts estimate roughly a 55 % chance that the top slot lands on a signal‑caller.
Which teams are most in need of a quarterback according to the mocks?
The Cleveland Browns, New Orleans Saints and the New York Giants are consistently cited as high‑priority QB destinations in every mock surveyed.
What could cause a major shift in the draft order before April?
Injury to a top prospect, a high‑profile transfer, or a surprise coaching change at a college program can all swing a player’s stock dramatically. The FPI model updates daily, so a single upset win or loss can re‑rank players by several slots.
Why are only 30 teams picking in the first round?
Both the Jacksonville Jaguars and the Atlanta Falcons traded away their 2026 Day 1 selections in the previous year’s draft, leaving the league with only 30 first‑round picks.
What impact could the mock drafts have on real‑world trade talks?
Front offices often use mock projections as negotiation tools. If a team believes a quarterback like Mendoza will be No. 1, they may package a future pick to move up, while a team with a surplus of defensive talent might demand extra picks to stay put.
Ellen Ross October 7, 2025
Listen, the draft frenzy is nothing short of a modern mythic quest, and yet everyone pretends they aren't watching the spectacle unfold. The way the media projects Mateer and Mendoza is like a circus of egos, and it's infuriating when fans act like they own the narrative. This obsession with the No.1 slot reveals our collective hunger for a hero, even if that hero is a college quarterback still in a padded jersey. If we stop idolizing the numbers and start questioning the motives behind every mock, maybe we’ll see the game for what it truly is – a business, not a gospel. The hype, the drama, the sheer volume of speculation is all just noise, and I’m over it.
Sarah Graham October 7, 2025
Totally get where you’re coming from, Ellen. It’s easy to get caught up in the hype, but at the end of the day it’s still a game that brings people together. Whether it’s Mateer or Mendoza, both have the talent to make an impact, and the conversations keep the community lively. Let’s try to enjoy the process and support the players as they develop.
Jauregui Genoveva October 7, 2025
Honestly, the whole quarterback arms race feels a bit overrated 😂. I mean, sure, we love a good dual‑threat, but sometimes the narrative gets bigger than the actual talent. It’s like we’re all glued to a screen hoping for the next big thing, and if it’s not a flash‑in‑the‑pan, we’re disappointed. Let’s keep it real and remember that football is a team sport, not just a one‑man show 🤷♀️.
Quinten Squires October 7, 2025
When you look at the data you see a pattern that repeats across cycles the top pick usually lands on a quarterback because teams value the positional premium the franchise quarterback brings to the locker room and the marketability they generate but the reality is that the draft is a fluid market where supply and demand intersect with player performance metrics and team needs The stats for Mendoza are impressive his completion percentage and passer rating place him in the upper echelon of prospects yet his size alone does not guarantee success the pocket must be protected and the offensive scheme must be tailored to his strengths similarly John Mateer brings a different skill set his dual‑threat ability adds a layer of complexity for defenses but it also introduces risk if the offensive line cannot accommodate his scramble runs the trade‑off between pure pocket presence and athletic upside is a constant theme in draft analysis teams like the Browns and Saints are weighing these factors while also considering future cap space and trade capital the mock drafts illustrate how different scouting departments prioritize these variables and why the No.1 slot can swing dramatically based on injuries or coaching changes the upcoming season will provide more data points the FPI models will adjust accordingly and we might see a shift in projections for both quarterbacks the key takeaway is that no single metric defines a top pick the blend of physical traits mental acuity and scheme fit determines the ultimate decision the conversation will continue as the season progresses
Tyler Manning October 7, 2025
It is with great disappointment that I observe the current discourse surrounding the 2026 draft’s top selections. The tendency to elevate quarterbacks to near‑mythical status betrays a lack of strategic foresight, and the undue emphasis on speculative mock drafts undermines the rigorous evaluation processes employed by professional scouting departments. While the data presented for Mendoza and Mateer is indeed noteworthy, one must not conflate statistical production with guaranteed professional success. The over‑reliance on offensive metrics fails to account for the defensive adjustments and the variable nature of collegiate offenses. In the interest of preserving the integrity of the draft, a more measured and analytically sound approach should be embraced by all stakeholders.
james patel October 7, 2025
From a scouting analytics perspective, the variable throughput of quarterback production in the current talent pool necessitates a multi‑dimensional assessment framework. Leveraging advanced metrics such as Expected Points Added (EPA) per attempt and Adjusted Net Yards per Attempt (ANYA) provides a granular view of player efficiency beyond raw yardage. Moreover, incorporating scheme fit indices-evaluating a prospect’s compatibility with a team’s offensive philosophy-yields a higher predictive validity for transition success. In practice, teams deploying a spread‑option scheme may prioritize dual‑threat quarterbacks, whereas pro‑style systems value pocket presence and quick release mechanics. Consequently, the divergence observed between DraftSharks and Tankathon's projections reflects inherent methodological differences rather than mere speculation.
Scarlett Mirage October 7, 2025
One must, undeniably, acknowledge the profound philosophical implications embedded within the discourse of quarterback valuation, for, as we contemplate the abstractions of talent versus potential, we are, in essence, engaged in a dialectic of destiny, and, whilst some may argue that statistical output holds primacy, it is, quite irrefutably, the narrative that underpins the athlete's mythos which ultimately dictates market value; thus, the dichotomy between Mateer’s poise and Mendoza’s raw athleticism is not merely a comparison of metrics, but a reflection of cultural archetypes, each vying for primacy within the collective consciousness of the sport, and, consequently, the ultimate decision rests upon this intricate interplay of perception and performance.
Ian Sepp October 7, 2025
In reviewing the various mock drafts, it is evident that the teams with the most pressing quarterback needs are employing a strategic approach that balances immediate impact with long‑term development potential. The Saints, for instance, have historically shown a preference for quarterbacks who can assimilate quickly into their offensive system, while the Browns appear to prioritize upside and ceiling. These considerations are reflected in the differing projections presented by DraftSharks and Tankathon.
Lois Parker October 7, 2025
Looks like another hype train.
Lerato Mamaila October 7, 2025
From a South African perspective, it’s fascinating to see how the American football community imbues its drafts with such cultural significance; the blend of athletic prowess and media narrative creates a unique sporting myth, one that resonates far beyond the borders of the USA, and it reminds us that sport can be a universal language, bridging continents and cultures.
Dennis Lohmann October 7, 2025
Hey folks! 😊 Remember that no matter who gets picked #1, the real winners are the fans who get to enjoy the drama 🤩. Let’s keep the vibes positive and celebrate the talent coming our way! 🙌
Jensen Santillan October 7, 2025
The analytical community must confront the stark reality that these mock drafts are, at best, sophisticated guessing games. While Tankathon highlights Mendoza’s athletic ceiling, DraftSharks emphasizes Mateer’s composure, yet both ignore the systemic variables such as coaching stability and offensive line upgrades. If the Saints secure a solid O‑line, Mateer’s development curve could steepen dramatically, whereas a volatile front office could diminish Mendoza’s elite upside. Moreover, the transactional dynamics-future picks, trade leverage-remain underappreciated in public discourse, leading to a superficial narrative that neglects the underlying calculus driving front‑office decisions. In short, the conversation must evolve beyond surface‑level hype to incorporate nuanced strategic considerations.