Bryce Underwood’s growing pains mirror those of college football’s best
NCAAF College Football News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos...
Much has been made of Michigan’s passing game, or lack thereof, in recent weeks. Despite oozing with talent and potential, Bryce Underwood has hit a rough patch in the middle of his freshman year. However, most fans seem to be losing context and forgetting he turned 18 a few months ago.
Today we decided to look at some historical data to see how Underwood stacks up with others in the same position as him. Let’s dive in.
To start, we need a sample population to compare Underwood to. We defined this as quarterbacks since 2015 who were rated as a five-star by 247Sports. We also preemptively struck through those who didn’t play as a freshman (or threw less than 100 passes).
- 2025: Bryce Underwood (Michigan),
Keelon Russell (Alabama),Tavien St. Clair (Ohio State),Husan Longstreet (USC) - 2024: DJ Lagway (Florida), Dylan Raiola (Nebraska),
Julian Sayin (Alabama) - 2023:
Arch Manning (Texas),Nico Iamaleava (Tennesee), Dante Moore (UCLA),Jackson Arnold (Oklahoma),Malachi Nelson (USC) - 2022:
Drew Allar (Penn State), Cade Klubnik (Clemson), Conner Weigman (Texas A&M),Ty Simpson (Alabama) - 2021:
Quinn Ewers (Ohio State), Caleb Williams (Oklahoma),Sam Huard (Washington),Drake Maye (North Carolina) - 2020:
Bryce Young (Alabama), DJ Uiagalelei (Clemson),C.J. Stroud (Ohio State) - 2019:
Spencer Rattler (Oklahoma) - 2018: Trevor Lawrence (Clemson),
Justin Fields (Georgia), JT Daniels (USC) - 2017:
Davis Mills (Stanford),Tua Tagovailoa (Alabama) - 2016: Shea Patterson (Ole Miss), Jacob Eason (Georgia)
- 2015: Jarrett Stidham (Baylor), Josh Rosen (UCLA),
Blake Barnett (Alabama), Kyler Murray (Texas A&M)
Now that we’ve got a sample size of 15 quarterbacks, let’s narrow in on just the first nine games of their respective freshman seasons to see where Underwood stacks up. For some housekeeping information, we focused on the first nine games in which the player accumulated stats. If a player didn’t play at all, that did not count towards their nine games. Likewise, we only considered their freshmen years. A few of these players played in less than nine games despite throwing more than 100 passes.
| Name | College | Year | Passing Yards | Passing TDs | Interceptions | Completion % | Rushing Yards | Rushing TDs |
| Underwood | Michigan | 2025 | 1,671 | 7 | 3 | 60.9% | 272 | 4 |
| Lagway | Florida | 2024 | 1,297 | 7 | 5 | 58.5% | 114 | 0 |
| Raiola | Nebraska | 2024 | 1,921 | 10 | 8 | 64.7% | -68 | 0 |
| Moore | UCLA | 2023 | 1,610 | 11 | 9 | 53.5% | -84 | 0 |
| Klubnik | Clemson | 2022 | 377 | 2 | 1 | 67.4% | 88 | 1 |
| Weigman | Texas A&M | 2022 | 896 | 8 | 0 | 55.3% | 97 | 0 |
| Williams | Oklahoma | 2021 | 1,418 | 15 | 4 | 65.6% | 372 | 6 |
| Uiagaleilei | Clemson | 2020 | 914 | 5 | 0 | 66.7% | 60 | 4 |
| Lawrence | Clemson | 2018 | 1,549 | 18 | 3 | 65.4% | 49 | 0 |
| Daniels | USC | 2018 | 1,986 | 11 | 8 | 57.2% | -122 | 0 |
| Patterson | Ole Miss | 2016 | 880 | 6 | 3 | 54.5% | 169 | 0 |
| Eason | Georgia | 2016 | 1,754 | 11 | 5 | 53.5% | -34 | 1 |
| Stidham | Baylor | 2015 | 1,007 | 11 | 2 | 71.6% | 34 | 2 |
| Rosen | UCLA | 2015 | 2,564 | 18 | 7 | 61.6% | -28 | 1 |
| Murray | Texas A&M | 2015 | 686 | 5 | 7 | 59.5% | 335 | 1 |
The takeaways here are plentiful.
The first thing I notice is the rushing yards. Despite most of the Michigan faithful complaining about the coaching staff refusing to let Underwood run the football, he trails only Williams and Murray in rushing yards through nine games. While it remains silly that college football includes sacks as negative rushing yards, this is a testament to both Underwood’s ability to avoid sacks as well as run the ball.
Another topic of conversation has been his completion percentage. Between drops by the wide receivers and a concerning trend of inaccuracy the last two weeks, Underwood’s completion percentage remains north of 60 percent. While that’s not good, it sits smack dab in the middle of this table. While he’s by no means been spectacularly accurate, he’s well above where Patterson and Moore were at this point in their careers.
The most surprising thing I noticed is the passing yards. If you asked the average Michigan fan, they’d likely say the offense has been too conservative and the coaching staff hasn’t allowed Underwood to push the ball downfield. Whether that’s true or not, only four quarterbacks threw for more yards through nine games. It’s worth noting that Raiola, Daniels, Eason and Rosen played in offenses that threw significantly more passes than Underwood is asked to.
Lawrence is largely referred to as the gold standard for a freshman quarterback. Rightfully so, as he ended his freshman season with 3,280 yards, 30 touchdowns, four interceptions and a national championship. However, it’s worth noting things didn’t begin to click for Lawrence until his seventh game. After game nine (where Underwood is now), Lawrence averaged 288 passing yards per game.
Along those same lines, several of these quarterbacks really hit their strides after their ninth game. Klubnik was just a gadget piece for Clemson prior to exploding in the Orange Bowl against Tennessee. Daniels put up his two best performances of his freshman season in games No. 10 and No. 11 by throwing for 330+ yards in each. The aforementioned Lawrence got better and better as the season went on.
My general takeaway from this exercise is Michigan fans, myself included, need to relax. Yes, Underwood has had a few rough games in a row now, but the sky is not falling. He is above average when compared to fellow five-star recruits starting as true freshmen. He’s rushing the ball well, limiting turnovers and has still put up the yardage required to be successful.
The key is the next step. We saw players such as Lawrence and Klubnik take the next step near the end of their freshmen years. Underwood needs to follow suit in order for the 2025 Wolverines to be a legitimate College Football Playoff contender.
More at NCAAF College Football News, Photos, Stats, Scores, Schedule & Videos