Jaxson Dart’s rookie passing evaluated through advanced metrics, with sharp questions behind the athletic noise

New York’s 2025 rookie quarterback, Jaxson Dart, was already known for the athletic impact that can change a game even when the pocket collapses. What advanced analysis adds is a clearer accounting of when the rookie was functioning as a net positive passer, and when he was creating problems for himself, especially through how pressures arrived. A new look tied to Pro Football Focus’ 2026 QB Annual and a Giants-focused analytics breakdown points to a passing profile that is neither disaster nor ready-made elite, but one with defined areas to fix as Dart enters his second season.

On the athletic side, Dart’s production on the move is treated as an enormous asset. In the 2025 season, he ranked among the league’s leading rushing quarterbacks, including fourth in rushing yards, third in rushing touchdowns, and first in designed rushing yards. The same review also placed him high in contact and big-play creation, listing seventh in yards after contact and second in breakaway runs. Those numbers help explain why the Giants’ offense could remain dangerous even with growing pains in the passing game.

The passing evaluation, however, is where the surprises and the questions appear. The advanced breakdown reports that, in Pro Football Focus’ QB passing grade for 2025, Dart finished 33rd with a grade of 64.2. The review characterizes this as a very average mark and places it slightly below the league’s upper tier of young quarterbacks, while still not aligning with a “below replacement” narrative. The more telling part for process, according to the same analysis, is Dart’s efficiency on a per-dropback basis.

Using expected points added (EPA) per dropback as a guide, the report notes Dart posted a +0.04 EPA on throws, compared with a league average of +0.05. In other words, his overall passing value sat close to the baseline, not far from where many teams would accept “average” production as they develop a rookie. The same framework further breaks down pass grading outcomes: it states that 15.6% of Dart’s throws were graded bad, while 21.9% were graded positively. That split leads the analysis to a net-plus conclusion as a passer, even while his grade remains unimpressive.

The most pointed concern, though, is how Dart’s play translated into pressure on him. The review says Dart led the NFL during the regular season in the number of pressures PFF judged were his own fault. It describes pressure as a key issue not because pressures exist in the NFL, but because “self-caused” pressure can reduce the margin for error for every subsequent decision. The same breakdown begins mapping where those pressures came from, including a claim that Dart alone was responsible for almost two-thirds of those pressures, setting up the central development question for the Giants: can Dart reduce avoidable pressure while keeping the run-pass balance that makes him hard to game-plan against.

This is not just a debate over raw passing. For the Giants, the roster-building and play-calling implications are immediate. A quarterback who can win as a runner can survive rougher early downs, but a quarterback who also limits self-inflicted pressure can extend drives, stabilize third downs, and increase the offense’s reliability as defenses adjust. That means the second season is likely to be less about proving athleticism, and more about whether Dart’s passing grade can rise without sacrificing the mobility that inflates the offense’s ceiling.

What to watch next is how the Giants and their coaching staff attack the “pressure responsibility” problem, and whether Dart’s efficiency shifts from close-to-average EPA into clearly above-average territory. If the passing grade improves in the same PFF-style evaluation while the pressure profile becomes less self-caused, the advanced numbers would align with the intuitive storyline: a rookie transition that converts athletic creation into repeatable passing value.

confidence: medium

needsReview: true