Shedeur Sanders’ slide out of the first three rounds of the 2025 NFL Draft is a rare and dramatic fall for a quarterback with his pre-draft hype, college production, and name recognition. To contextualize, let’s compare his slide to notable quarterback draft slides in NFL history, focusing on why they fell, how far, and the outcomes. Below is a concise comparison with key examples, drawing on Sanders’ reported issues (arm strength concerns, pocket presence, limited pre-draft exposure, personality questions, and Deion Sanders’ influence) and available data as of April 26, 2025.
Shedeur Sanders (2025)
- Pre-Draft Expectation: Top-5 or top-10 pick, some mocks as high as No. 3 overall.
- Actual Draft Position: Undrafted through three rounds (102 picks), earliest possible selection in Round 4.
- Reasons for Slide:
- On-Field: Slightly above-average arm, slow processing (2.96-second time to throw, 110th in FBS), sacked 99 times in two years, questions about translatable skills outside Colorado’s offense with Travis Hunter.
- Off-Field: Skipped Combine workouts and Shrine Bowl, limited to one private workout, perceived entitlement, and concerns about Deion Sanders’ influence.
- Draft Context: Weak 2025 QB class (only five QBs taken through three rounds: Cam Ward, Jaxson Dart, Tyler Shough, Jalen Milroe, Dillon Gabriel). Teams like the Giants, Saints, and Browns passed for other QBs or positions.
- Impact: Estimated $37 million loss in contract value compared to a top-5 pick. Public shock, with Sanders calling it a “snub” and Trump urging teams to draft him.
- Comparable Trait: Like other slides, Sanders’ fall stems from a gap between college production (14,347 yards, 134 TDs) and NFL-ready skills, amplified by off-field concerns.
Will Levis (2023)
- Pre-Draft Expectation: Projected top-10 pick, some mocks as high as No. 4 overall.
- Actual Draft Position: Round 2, Pick 33 (Titans).
- Reasons for Slide:
- On-Field: Big arm but inconsistent accuracy (61.5% completion in 2022), reckless decision-making (23 TDs, 12 INTs at Kentucky), and concerns about processing speed.
- Off-Field: Polarizing personality, described as overly confident or “cocky” by scouts. Limited pre-draft buzz after a lackluster Senior Bowl.
- Draft Context: Four QBs went in the first round (Bryce Young, C.J. Stroud, Anthony Richardson, Hendon Hooker), but Levis was seen as a tier below due to rawness.
- Outcome: Levis became a Titans starter but has struggled (3,529 yards, 16 TDs, 13 INTs over two seasons). His slide was less severe than Sanders’ but similarly tied to questions about polish and intangibles.
- Comparison to Sanders: Both faced doubts about decision-making and personality, but Levis’ stronger arm and athleticism made his slide shorter. Sanders’ lack of pre-draft workouts mirrors Levis’ Senior Bowl struggles, but Sanders’ fall past Round 3 is unprecedented for his hype level.
Aaron Rodgers (2005)
- Pre-Draft Expectation: Potential No. 1 overall pick, competing with Alex Smith.
- Actual Draft Position: Round 1, Pick 24 (Packers).
- Reasons for Slide:
- On-Field: Concerns about his mechanics (unorthodox throwing motion from Jeff Tedford’s system at Cal) and perceived lack of elite arm strength compared to Smith.
- Off-Field: Seen as aloof or arrogant in interviews, turning off some teams. Questions about his fit outside a college system.
- Draft Context: Only two QBs went in the first round (Smith at No. 1 to 49ers, Rodgers at 24). Teams like the Dolphins, Browns, and Raiders passed for other positions, prioritizing immediate needs.
- Outcome: Rodgers sat behind Brett Favre for three years, then became a four-time MVP and Super Bowl champion. His slide was more about draft dynamics than major flaws.
- Comparison to Sanders: Rodgers’ slide was within the first round, far less severe than Sanders’ drop past Round 3. Both faced personality critiques, but Rodgers’ superior arm talent and mechanics made his fall less surprising. Sanders’ deeper slide reflects greater skepticism about his NFL readiness.
Teddy Bridgewater (2014)
- Pre-Draft Expectation: Top-10 pick, potentially No. 1 overall.
- Actual Draft Position: Round 1, Pick 32 (Vikings).
- Reasons for Slide:
- On-Field: Average arm strength, smaller frame (6’2”, 214 lbs), and a poor pro day performance (inconsistent throws without gloves) raised doubts about his ceiling.
- Off-Field: No major personality issues, but his pro day flop amplified concerns about his arm and readiness for cold-weather NFL environments.
- Draft Context: Three QBs went in the first round (Blake Bortles, Johnny Manziel, Bridgewater), but teams like the Browns (who took Manziel) and Texans passed early, prioritizing other needs.
- Outcome: Bridgewater had a solid but injury-plagued career (15,120 yards, 75 TDs over seven seasons). His slide was tied to technical concerns, not intangibles.
- Comparison to Sanders: Both faced arm strength critiques, and Sanders’ limited pre-draft workouts echo Bridgewater’s pro day struggles. However, Bridgewater stayed in Round 1, while Sanders’ fall past Round 3 suggests teams see more red flags, possibly due to pocket presence or Deion’s influence.
Geno Smith (2013)
- Pre-Draft Expectation: Late first-round or early second-round pick.
- Actual Draft Position: Round 2, Pick 39 (Jets).
- Reasons for Slide:
- On-Field: Inconsistent accuracy (66.5% completion in 2012), average arm strength, and questions about his ability to read defenses in West Virginia’s spread offense.
- Off-Field: Maturity concerns, including a reported poor team visit where he was distracted (e.g., on his phone), and scouts questioned his leadership.
- Draft Context: Only one QB went in the first round (EJ Manuel at No. 16). Teams like the Jets, Cardinals, and Bills passed early, wary of a weak QB class.
- Outcome: Smith struggled early with the Jets (13,566 yards, 74 TDs, 57 INTs over nine seasons) but later revived his career with the Seahawks, earning Pro Bowl nods in 2022-23.
- Comparison to Sanders: Both faced maturity and system-fit questions, and their slides reflect a weak QB class where teams hesitated. Sanders’ drop past Round 3 is far more extreme, likely due to greater concerns about his pocket presence and limited pre-draft exposure.
Brady Quinn (2007)
- Pre-Draft Expectation: Top-10 pick, potentially top-5.
- Actual Draft Position: Round 1, Pick 22 (Browns).
- Reasons for Slide:
- On-Field: Average arm strength, inconsistent deep-ball accuracy, and questions about his performance in Notre Dame’s pro-style offense against top defenses.
- Off-Field: No major red flags, but his high profile (media darling, “golden boy” image) led to overhype, and teams questioned his ceiling.
- Draft Context: Two QBs went in the first round (JaMarcus Russell at No. 1, Quinn at 22). Teams like the Dolphins and Vikings passed, prioritizing other positions.
- Outcome: Quinn flopped with the Browns (3,043 yards, 12 TDs, 17 INTs over three seasons), validating some concerns about his arm and decision-making.
- Comparison to Sanders: Quinn’s slide was less severe, staying in Round 1, and lacked the personality or family-influence concerns tied to Sanders. Both were hyped college stars whose NFL skills didn’t match expectations, but Sanders’ deeper fall suggests teams see him as a bigger risk.
Key Patterns and Sanders’ Uniqueness
- Common Themes in QB Slides:
- Talent Doubts: Arm strength (Sanders, Bridgewater, Smith, Quinn), processing speed (Levis, Sanders, Smith), or system fit (Rodgers, Smith, Sanders) often lower stock.
- Off-Field Issues: Personality concerns (Rodgers, Levis, Smith, Sanders) or poor pre-draft performances (Bridgewater, Sanders) amplify skepticism.
- Draft Dynamics: Weak QB classes (2013, 2025) or teams prioritizing other positions (2005, 2014, 2025) extend slides.
- Sanders’ Unique Slide:
- Depth of Fall: Dropping past Round 3 (102 picks) is unprecedented for a QB with Sanders’ hype (top-5 projections) and production (14,347 yards, 134 TDs). Levis and Smith fell to early Round 2, Bridgewater and Rodgers to late Round 1, and Quinn to mid-Round 1.
- Pre-Draft Choices: Sanders’ near-total absence from pre-draft events (no Combine workout, no Shrine Bowl, one private workout) is more extreme than Bridgewater’s pro day flop or Levis’ Senior Bowl struggles, leaving teams with too many unanswered questions.
- Family Factor: Deion Sanders’ influence is a unique variable, absent in other slides. Teams’ concerns about Deion’s involvement (real or perceived) add a layer not seen with Rodgers, Levis, or others.
- Cultural Context: X posts and public comments (e.g., Trump’s endorsement) suggest external factors like Sanders’ wealth or Deion’s media presence may amplify scrutiny, though this is speculative without direct evidence.
- Historical Rarity: Only one top-10 projected QB since 2000 fell past the third round: Jake Haener (2023, Round 4, Pick 127), but Haener’s hype was far lower than Sanders’. Sanders’ slide is closer to running back Leonard Fournette’s 2017 drop (No. 4 instead of top-3) than any QB, but even that was less dramatic.
Why Sanders’ Slide Stands Out
Sanders’ fall is the most severe among these examples due to:
- Expectation Gap: Projected as a top-5 pick, his drop past 102 picks dwarfs Rodgers’ (24 picks) or Levis’ (33 picks).
- Draft Position: No comparable QB with top-10 hype has fallen out of the top three rounds since the modern draft era began.
- Red Flags Combo: Sanders combines on-field concerns (arm, sacks, processing), off-field issues (limited workouts, personality), and a unique external factor (Deion’s shadow), making him a riskier bet than Rodgers, Bridgewater, or Levis.
- Financial Stakes: A top-5 pick earns ~$40 million over four years; a fourth-rounder earns ~$4-5 million. Sanders’ slide is costing him more than most due to his high initial projection.
What’s Next?
As Day 3 begins, Sanders is the biggest name on the board. Teams like the Browns, Raiders, or Saints, who passed earlier, may consider him in Round 4, but his slide suggests a collective NFL consensus that he’s not a franchise QB. Historically, sliders like Rodgers and Smith overcame doubts, while Quinn and early-career Levis validated concerns. Sanders’ outcome hinges on where he lands and how he addresses the critiques—on-field polish, pocket presence, and off-field perception—that fueled this historic fall.
Data reflects reports through April 25, 2025