2026 NFL Draft: College offenses that best translate to the NFL

PFF Mock Draft Simulator and learn about 2026's top prospects while trading and drafting for your favorite NFL team.

Not all college production is created equal, and during the NFL draft cycle, understanding the context behind that production gives evaluators an edge in separating what will translate from what won’t.

At the college level, systems are often built to maximize specific strengths — sometimes at the expense of developing a complete skill set. That can inflate production in ways that don’t always translate cleanly to the NFL, where responsibilities are broader and less forgiving.

For example, an offensive lineman coming from a system that relies heavily on RPOs may face a steep adjustment in a more balanced offense that asks him to hold blocks longer and operate in true pass sets. The same is true for quarterbacks who rarely turn their backs to the defense on play action, limiting their exposure to quick, post-snap processing. It also applies to wide receivers who have not been asked to consistently block in the run game, which can be a requirement for earning snaps at the next level.

So, evaluating offensive environments across the college landscape offers deeper insight into which draft prospects may be most pro-ready, regardless of which NFL team selects them.

What does the average NFL offense look like?

To begin, we must define the “average” NFL offense. Obviously, there will be some variance present. For example, the Los Angeles Rams took 789 snaps under center last year compared to the Commanders’ 135. Still, in general, there are far fewer discrepancies among just 32 NFL teams than in the ever-growing FBS. 

Below are some league-wide averages across various metrics that are fairly emblematic of a modern NFL offense. These numbers give us a baseline for what a “typical” NFL offense looks like.

Metric2025 NFL Average11-personnel %58.1%Under center %34.2%Empty formation %7.3%Shift/motion %64.0%Tempo play %6.3%RPO %8.0%Pass play %60.8%Play action %25.6%Screen pass %11.1%Deep pass %12.1%

Which teams don’t fit the bill?

Obviously, there are a few FBS schools we can immediately discount as anything close to an NFL offense — the triple option academy schools of Army, Navy and Air Force.

This year, we have a very rare example of an offensive prospect coming from the triple option — Navy fullback Eli Heidenreich is the 196th-ranked player on PFF’s big board after posting a 92.9 PFF grade last season. There’s a realistic chance his name is called on Day 3.

Heidenreich’s necessary adjustment to a pro-style offense will be closely monitored this summer, but there are plenty of other prospects coming from offenses that play nothing like those in the NFL. 

Tennessee quarterback Joey Aguilar and wide receiver Chris Brazzell II are coming from Josh Heupel’s “Veer and Shoot” scheme, which is designed to stretch defenses horizontally and then vertically through wide alignments and deep route progressions, all while using roughly one-third as much motion as the NFL average. Recent alumni, such as running backs Dylan Sampson and Jaylen Wright, have yet to make meaningful strides at the next level.

Iowa’s offense, although lackluster by college standards, has consistently produced quality NFL prospects. The program will likely have three offensive linemen drafted this year, but due to its run-heavy approach, the trio may lack the experience required for a high-volume dropback offense.

Right tackle Gennings Dunker has never played more than 40 pass-blocking snaps in a single game during his college career. His closest mark this season — 32 snaps against Iowa State — was also his lowest-graded game of the year.

Other prospects may lack experience in specific areas, such as Stanford tight end Sam Roush. The 87th-ranked player on PFF’s board was on the field for just 13 screen plays last season and 92 across his four-year career, earning a 51.9 PFF grade. That profile may not appeal to Andy Reid, whose screen-heavy Chiefs offense accounted for 15.3% of pass attempts last season and is searching for a long-term answer at tight end beyond Travis Kelce.

One well-documented area of transition from college to the pros is a quarterback’s experience under center. The FBS average (6.4%) is more than five times lower than what is typically seen in the NFL. Most of this year’s top quarterback prospects were above that average in under-center usage last season.

Two notable exceptions are Fernando Mendoza, who took just 29 snaps from under center (3.0% of total snaps), and potential late Day 3 pick Sawyer Robinson, who did not take a single snap under center last season at Baylor.

RPO usage is particularly prevalent in college football, accounting for 21.8% of all Power Four offensive plays compared to 8.0% in the NFL. Skill players such as Michael Trigg (Baylor), Brennen Thompson (Mississippi State) and Reggie Virgil (Texas Tech) all played in some of the most RPO-heavy offenses in the country, along with highly touted Auburn center Connor Lew.

Explore PFF Tools Mock Draft Simulator Be the GM for any team in the 2026 NFL Draft with a fully immersive simulation that lets you trade picks and players for a realistic, in-depth draft experience. Customizable Draft Big Board Take control of your rankings with a customizable big board that lets you add players, share with friends, export to CSV and save your personalized list. Scouting Assistant Master the evaluation process with a customizable grading system built for serious scouts. Choose your own scouting categories, assign 0–10 grades in each area and generate a finalized prospect grade tailored to your criteria. NCAA Premium Stats Our exclusive database, featuring the most in-depth collection of NCAA player performance data. Subscribe For Full Access

Which offenses check all the boxes?

Among offenses that aren’t overly up-tempo (below 20%), feature at least some under-center usage (above 2%) and incorporate a meaningful amount of motion (above 40%), fewer than half of FBS teams remain.

Looking at play calling, we can further exclude offenses that rely heavily on read options and RPOs (above 25%), as well as those that lean too heavily on play action (above 40%) or screens (above 25%).

From the remaining group, we can eliminate additional teams based on extreme tendencies — such as Kansas State’s frequent use of empty formations — or unique profiles, like Notre Dame’s combination of minimal play action and a high rate of deep pass attempts.

That leaves 27 pro-style offenses, accounting for 14 players inside PFF’s top 100.

Top 14 prospects from pro-style offenses

PFF RankPlayerPos.College15Makai LemonWRUSC25Blake FisherTClemson27Kadyn ProctorTAlabama31Denzel BostonWRWashington35KC ConcepcionWRTexas A&M42Ty SimpsonQBAlabama44Chris BellWRLouisville48Chase BisontisGTexas A&M49Germie BernardWRAlabama60Skylar BellWRUConn64Caleb TiernanTNorthwestern69Antonio WilliamsWRClemson93Garrett NussmeierQBLSU99Jonah ColemanRBWashington108Dametrious CrownoverTTexas A&M121Kage CaseyTBoise State131Jack EndriesTETexas136Ja’Kobi LaneWRUSC

Across PFF’s full 450-prospect big board, just over a third of offensive prospects come from pro-style systems, so this isn’t some kind of exclusive club, but rather a helpful qualifier. 

Notably, only four of the top 19 offensive line prospects are coming from pro-style offenses, although it’s worth noting that not all of those excluded were for reasons detrimental to offensive line play. 

This shouldn’t be treated as the be-all and end-all of prospect evaluation, but if you're stuck between two similarly graded prospects and need a tiebreaker, pro-style prospects should theoretically transition more smoothly to the NFL. 

This bleeds into several aspects. For starters, college production in these offenses should be treated with more respect than that coming from more gimmicky setups. In addition, the learning curve for rookies adjusting to a new environment should be more straightforward for those coming from standardized offenses, many of whom have been learning under former NFL coaches now in the college ranks. 

This can also be applied in the other direction. If evaluators liked a prospect but weren’t satisfied with their lack of production and chose to justify it by a poorly run college scheme, this kind of analysis could make them rethink that belief. 

The gap between college production and NFL projection is just as much about translation as it is about talent alone. When the underlying structure already aligns with the league, a prospect’s transition is one less thing to worry about. In a process built on narrow edges, this is one worth factoring in.