Commentary: What if Fernando Mendoza is just good?

Las Vegas Raiders quarterback Fernando Mendoza has generated plenty of hype and been bestowed with countless accolades through an undefeated national championship campaign in which he won the Heisman Trophy. His praises have been adequately sung to the point many Raiders fans are simply deciding which of his many future Super Bowl appearances they'd most like to attend. There is good reason. He's incredibly accurate and is brilliant on making the right pre-snap reads and identifying where the ball needs to go. His character and work ethic are unquestioned. There is a lot to like. But what if he's not the greatest quarterback of this generation? What if he's just OK? There are plenty of analysts willing to at least try to throw up a caution flag on the race to crown Mendoza as an all-time great before he even takes his first snap under center. While his lack of elite arm strength and lack of experience in a pro-style offense seem to be a bit overblown, most of the concern centers on his struggles with pressure and diminishing level of play outside the pocket or out of structure. And that goes for more than just ESPN personality and former NFL quarterback Dan Orlovsky, who shares an agency with Ty Simpson and has been pitching him as the better prospect. Former Raiders defensive back Bucky Brooks, who still does media for the team, actually took to social media last month to back up some of what Orlovsky has been saying on television. "Time will tell which one is better, but it's possible the football world might be too high on Mendoza as a No.1 overall pick and too low on Simpson as QB2 (2nd round)," he wrote. "The truth lies somewhere in the middle with each QB. "Mendoza doesn't have a lot of 'take over the game' contests on his resume, but he does have a collection of franchise QB moments. He also played for a play designer who routinely scripted 'winners' utilizing creative concepts. His IQ, toughness and 'clutch' genes stand out as strengths, but he is more managerial than transcendent in his play, which is OK. It's just not typical of someone viewed as QB1 or the No.1 player in the class." It's hardly scathing, but something to consider when setting expectations. Same goes for the data released this week by Sports Info Solutions, which backs up the assertion made by some analysts that there are legitimate questions about Mendoza once a play breaks down. SIS pointed out his clean pocket numbers are similar to those of the historic Joe Burrow season of 2019 as he generated positive plays on 66% of his dropbacks and was on target a fantastic 84% of his throws. But those numbers dropped a troubling degree when there was any sort of pressure as the positive play rate fell to 33% and his bust rate, in which at least one expected point is lost, rose from 9 to 34%. In a sampling of the 23 quarterbacks drafted in the first five rounds of the last four drafts and the top six prospects in this draft, Mendoza's clean pocket numbers were among the best. But his pressure numbers represented the second-largest dropoff of any of the 29 quarterbacks in the set and his rate of 20% of pressures turning into sacks was in the bottom third. Those concerns were very evident in Bob McGinn's draft preview. He is in his 42nd season of producing a newsletter that samples scouts and league personnel on draft prospects, trends and storylines. McGinn switched to an all-anonymous format a decade ago because it allowed for sources to speak more freely. While there were some positive thoughts on Mendoza, the overall sentiment could best be described as skeptical. "There's not a real difference-maker (in this draft)," one scout who graded all the quarterbacks told McGinn in comparing Mendoza's level to C.J. Stroud and Joe Flacco. "There's no bona-fide, can't-miss quarterback." To be fair, Flacco and Stroud are fine players. Flacco even won a Super Bowl, but Raiders fans still may not love the comparison. Another scout lauded his feel for the game and believes he will be good, but not "transformational." "When he gets in rhythm he's really, really good," the scout said. "But when he gets sped up things don't work out too well for him. He's got enough movement, but if he has to quickly move in the pocket to get out of trouble he struggles because he's so big and his feet aren't super quick. We've seen him play great in big moments but he's had a lot of average games. Even the national championship game, you're not looking at him saying, 'This is the first pick in the draft.' But here we are." Another said he has to be viewed as a level behind recent success stories like Jayden Daniels, Caleb Williams and Drake Maye because of his lack of mobility and its importance in the modern game. "It'd scare me to pick him in the first round," yet another scout added to McGinn. "You don't see enough (ability to create). You don't see enough driving the ball down the field. Goody two-shoes personality. It's going to be different in that pro locker room. The difference between college and the pros is not the size and speed. It's the people you're with. I just have this suspicion he's going to rub people the wrong way the way he talks and acts." To be fair, the personality question will only arise if the Raiders continue to lose consistently. Of course, these are all just narratives that counter the prevailing opinion that Mendoza can be an elite quarterback in the NFL. He was, after all, able to overcome any perceived deficiencies to go undefeated and win the Heisman Trophy. None of the scouting reports will matter when he's actually on the field and in coach Klint Kubiak's system. Even numbers can often tell whatever story one would like them to tell. Consider the study done by Zachary Krueger of NBC Sports where he concluded that of the 70 draftable quarterback prospects of the last decade with negative play rates over 7.5%, only five have been successful in the NFL. Mendoza finished his collegiate career with an 8.4% negative play rate, which seems damning on the surface. But the ones who were successful were all first-round picks, meaning they were all high-end talents like Mendoza that made enough positive plays to balance the mistakes. Scouting and even data analysis can be very relative. Mendoza is likely to be a very good player at the next level, but there are dissenting opinions on just how good. That will be settled on the field, not the internet.