On3 Football

2026 QB Impact Study: Notre Dame's CJ Carr

06/25/26

Welcome to the middle of summer – also known as Talking Season – when we again look over rosters, and again predict the schedule, and again talk the year out before a single snap is taken.

Power Rankings and Way-too-Early Lists aside, QB Talk always seems to rise above the noise and drive a good deal of narratives. And, I wanted to join to discussion.

Fresh off the annual QB Impact Study, where I chart the nation’s top returning passers against their hardest opponents, I wanted to shine some light on the ones who I expect to be among the most impactful in 2026. Metrics that matter, traits that translate versus worthwhile adversaries, or “good on good”– that kinda thing.

This piece will focus on Notre Dame’s CJ Carr, the latest golden boy helping lead the Golden Domers to prominence.

CJ Carr — Notre Dame, Impact QB No. 11

RS SO · 6’3 210 · 83.4 ESPN QBR

Trait Tags

Rotational thrower
Outside affinity
Dropback conductor
Hot potato M.O.
Progressive reader
High floor

Impact Study Grades

Style	Overall	Ceiling	Floor	Accuracy	Mobilty	Arm	Processing	Pressure Handle
Rhythm passer	B	B	A-	B-	C+	B	B	C

Skinny:

A clean conductor with a cool demeanor who’s keen on carving up opponents out-wide and underneath. Okay arm/accuracy but a high floor distributor that captured wonderful results. Dangerous in rhythm. Some awkwardness against pressure and not a noteworthy player in space.

CJ Carr’s Impact Study Pass Chart

Opponents (6): Miami (10-2), Texas A&M (11-1), Boise St. (9-4), NC St. (7-5), USC (9-3), and Pittsburgh (8-4)

Mechanics & Processing

In rhythm, Carr operates with textbook mechanics. He holds the ball by belly with a tight, centered rotational style. His dropback is balanced and he exhibits minimal lower body movement. When on the roll, he habitually keeps both hands on the ball. He has the “look” of a confident signal caller with relaxed body language throughout his operation. Also, it’s not too shabby for a first-year starter to post an overall 60.9% Accuracy (17/44) in our QB Impact Study.

But while his rotational style comes in handy from muddy pockets and throwing around obstacles, his feet tend to be rooted and aren’t always on-line with his target when mess manifests. Plus when things break down, unset bases — whether caught mid-stepup, extending, or rolling away from on-coming pressure — were more prevalent. The errancy soured further behind inconsistent balance on follow-throughs. His upper body can get ahead of his lower body. All of that contributed to his so-so placement stats.

Like a good amount of young passers, he’s more inclined to trust what he can see without obstacles in his line of sight. And the staff noticeably picked up on this, avoiding tactics where Carr would turn his back to coverages or cause a higher proclivity to dip his eyes.

A standard thought process to manage a freshman QB would be to gift him with loads of scheme and deception elements. But, screens, play actions, and RPOs composed less than a quarter of his throws against his hardest opponents. Conversely, Carr saw tons of practice working dropback patterns and displaying solid progression skills against basic coverages. Still, his aggression was controlled and calculated.

Carr’s slightly predictable, robotic vibe did not show high confidence consistently testing the teeth of the defense. Even with a few nice seam rips, only about 15% of his throws past the line of scrimmage hunted between the hashes. Plus, most of his buffers came when routes were swallowed and his keys were lost in that area of the field.

He showed much more affinity throwing toward the perimeter, where reads were clearer and he could carve folks up underneath. There, he displayed decisiveness and dependable decision-making. And again leaning into setting their QB up for success, the staff fed Carr a visible number of rollouts, to the point almost a fifth of his sample came outside the pocket.

Arm & Accuracy

Frankly, Carr lacks premier arm strength. Whether it’s flipping the field or seeing an option uncapped late deep, he lacks the desired juice to optimize those opportunities. His longest throw in his sample died out at 49 yards downfield on a middle of the field post. And while that’s far from a referendum on what his arm might be some day, that’s lukewarm amongst his peers. He’s not deserving of the “hard thrower” label. His vertical wins or instances when he managed to throw his guys open deep largely came on rhythm throws.

And to his credit, Carr was generally sound hitting the outside shoulder of his receivers on several occasions. But without a chooch, he routinely invited contests. Just under 30% of his sample qualified as such – the 4th-highest figure in the study.

A number of “soft toss” attempts mar his tape. Tossups were abundant. A decent amount of them were turnover-worthy. And, who’s to say what his results would have looked like without Notre Dame’s receivers creating completions. His Deep Completion% trumped his Accuracy% by 10 percent (36.7% v 26.7%). Additionally, 23% of those throws were altered by defenders.

Dull accuracy and inviting contests are not great long-term traits. Outside of his raw Accuracy%, all of his other overall placement stats (Adjusted Completion%, Interceptable%, Depth Adjusted Accuracy%, Adjusted Uncatchable%) finished below the Impact group average.

That language is a bit pointed. But I assure you, it wasn’t all bad. Carr was generally fine distributing the ball. After all, a lot of his breakouts wouldn’t be green if he was a total scrub. And despite some lackluster showings and interceptables, Carr’s midrange numbers finished the best in the Impact Study.

Perhaps a sign of only facing 3 top 35 SP+ defenses or having the group’s 3rd-lowest makeup (15.5%), but his 70.4% Completion, 74.1% Accuracy, and 11.1% Uncatchable were all tops. Again this could be a mirage due to a small, flimsy sample. But if you’re in his corner, these returns certainly are involved in his elevator pitch.

Mobility & Pressure

Carr has functional mobility. On rollouts, he’s smooth and throws tend to come out without a hitch. Though like many righties, he was far more comfortable and competent attacking his dominant side. But either way, he’s consistently on-target and has just enough giddy-up to do damage to open space.

Carr, however, is not a special open field athlete. He isn’t built to win many footraces. When outside of structure, his primary goal is often to find a dump off outlet. The Golden Domer can occasionally climb through the weeds and find daylight. Still, he’d much rather beat the heat with his arm and hot potato process. Tunnel vision isn’t out of the question and sometimes he can run into trouble. He did manage to rock a bang-average Dropback Sack Conversion Rate, but he only erased four sacks in his six game sample.

Though less effective off his mark or after dropping his eyes, Carr was one of the study’s best down-to-down performers when standing and throwing under pressure. Even with his half-cocked precision and boo boo throws to opponents, he was one-of-three Impacters to finish inside the group’s top8 in both Accuracy% and Success Rate. His 55.6% clip of the former earned the crop’s silver medal. Cool and tempered, Carr also showed the ability to take hits and pop back up.

Notre Dame sporadically used him as a designed rusher. Despite coming out of the gates strong with 11 against Miami, he only averaged 3 attempts/game. And in that context, he was no more electric than he was as a backyard baller. His 4.4 Y/A was quite mellow; especially knowing he only broke a single tackle across his 18 designed tries.

Passing Floor / In Structure

Carr’s sound down-to-down distribution skills give him a fairly lofty passing floor. In pure dropback situations, his sample relayed that he’s essentially three times more likely to capture an explosive completion than log an interceptable pass. He’s in his element unbothered in structure. He rarely presses or makes ill-advised plays.

Plus, Carr can vary speeds on throws; a must for a passer with suboptimal arm talent. And for a player his age, he appeared to have a great command of the offense and its on-field checks. Only two of his peers bested his 8.6 Adjusted Net Passing Yards/Attempt on pure dropbacks in our study.

His results and decision-making certainly have some people feeling pretty rosy about his future outlook. But, haters will continue to question his upside based on a colorless style of play as well as point to a placid process.

Hinted by his overall figures, Carr’s Accuracy%, Depth Adjusted Accuracy%, and Uncatchable% on unpressured attempts inside the pocket without screens, RPOs, or tap passes all finished in the back half of the group. Considering that breakout accounted for 53% of Carr’s sample – those mid figures shouldn’t be quickly dismissed. After all, eliminating and isolating volatile variables give a much better indication of what to expect from a passer in a vacuum than other breakouts.

By and large, backers will praise his precision for beating benchmarks as an underclassmen P4 starter. And, the odds are in their favor regarding a sophomore bump. But dissenters are well-positioned to be Doubting Thomases considering Carr’s capped vertical offerings, meh placement metrics and limited playmaking heroics.

_________________________________________________________________