Behind The Numbers: Who Is Really the Top Returning QB in FCS Football in 2026?

The debate surrounding who is the top returning FCS quarterback is louder than ever. A deep dive into the data reveals who actually separates from the pack.

Montana State Bobcats quarterback Justin Lamson (8) scores a touchdown against the Montana Grizzlies | Michael Thomas Shroyer-Imagn Images

With a ton of social media debate surrounding the topic, I wanted to take a look at some of the best returning FCS quarterbacks for the 2026 season. This is not meant to be a definitive ranking, which will come later this offseason, but a true picture of the strengths and weaknesses of each player.

We used several advanced statistics, which were tracked by PFF, organizing them into six main categories that are extremely important to a quarterback's success.

• Overall Accuracy (Adjusts completion percentage to compensate for drops)
• Big-Time Throw Rate (Shows how often a quarterback is completing difficult, high-level throws)
• Deep Ball Effectiveness (How effective each quarterback was at throwing 20+ yards downfield)
• Under Pressure Performance (How did each quarterback perform on passing attempts when facing pressure?)
• Ball Security (INTs can be misleading and a sign of luck... This allows us to see how often each quarterback put the ball in danger)
• Sack Avoidance (Looks at how often pressure dropbacks turned into sacks)

A lot of these quarterbacks are true dual-threat playmakers, which sometimes skews the analysis when it comes to ranking who is the best overall player. This analysis really focuses on ranking these players as passers, along with how they maneuvered the pocket and protected the football. Overall rushing impact will be included in our official rankings, which will be released this summer.

Note: Villanova quarterback Pat McQuaide is included in the analysis below, but is still waiting on an official waiver from the NCAA to be eligible for next season.

Overall Accuracy

1. Justin Lamson (Montana State)
2. Ty Pennington (Northern Arizona)
3. Keali'i Ah Yat (Montana)
4. Andrew Body (Alabama State)
5. Beau Brungard (Youngstown State)
6. Chris Parson (Austin Peay)
7. Devin Farrell (Rhode Island)
8. Collin Hurst (West Georgia)
9. Hayden Johnson (Lehigh)
10. DJ Williams (Southern Illinois)
11. Chase Mason (South Dakota State)
12. Pat McQuaide (Villanova)
13. Jerry Kaminski (North Dakota)
14. Jordan Cooke (Idaho State)
15. Joshua Wood (Idaho)

Big-Time Throw Ability

1. Chris Parson
2. Hayden Johnson
3. Devin Farrell
4. Ty Pennington
5. Pat McQuaide
6. Jordan Cooke
7. Beau Brungard
8. DJ Williams
9. Collin Hurst
10. Andrew Body
11. Keali'i Ah Yat
12. Joshua Wood
13. Justin Lamson
14. Chase Mason
15. Jerry Kaminski

Deep Ball Effectiveness

1. Justin Lamson
2. Devin Farrell
3. Ty Pennington
4. Keali'i Ah Yat
5. Hayden Johnson
6. Andrew Body
7. DJ Williams
8. Chris Parson
9. Collin Hurst
10. Pat McQuaide
11. Beau Brungard
12. Chase Mason
13. Joshua Wood
14. Jordan Cooke
15. Jerry Kaminski

Under Pressure Performance

1. Justin Lamson
2. Keali'i Ah Yat
3. Ty Pennington
4. Andrew Body
5. Hayden Johnson
6. Devin Farrell
7. Beau Brungard
8. Joshua Wood
9. Collin Hurst
10. Chris Parson
11. Chase Mason
12. DJ Williams
13. Jordan Cooke
14. Pat McQuaide
15. Jerry Kaminski

Ball Security

1. Justin Lamson
2. Ty Pennington
3. Beau Brungard
4. Chase Mason
5. Andrew Body
6. Keali'i Ah Yat
7. Jordan Cooke
8. Devin Farrell
9. Jerry Kaminski
10. Hayden Johnson
11. DJ Williams
12. Chris Parson
13. Collin Hurst
14. Pat McQuaide
15. Joshua Wood

Sack Avoidance

1. Jordan Cooke
2. Joshua Wood
3. Beau Brungard
4. Jerry Kaminski
5. DJ Williams
6. Hayden Johnson
7. Keali'i Ah Yat
8. Ty Pennington
9. Pat McQuaide
10. Collin Hurst
11. Chris Parson
12. Justin Lamson
13. Andrew Body
14. Chase Mason
15. Devin Farrell

Analysis

Montana State quarterback Justin Lamson leads 4 of our 6 categories, and it paints a great picture of what made him so good last season.

Lamson was accurate, didn't put the ball in harm's way, and remained composed under pressure, though he often just played it safe and took a sack or threw the ball away. Montana State's system allowed for this, as he attempted a higher percentage of short throws than any other player.

What sets him apart, though, is that when he did throw deep, he was deadly effective. Lamson was the most effective deep ball passer of this group, averaging 20 yards per attempt on those throws.

If you combine all this with how he stepped up in the biggest moments, it's easy to make the case that Lamson should be the No. 1 returning quarterback in FCS football.

Keali'i Ah Yat and Ty Pennington didn't lead any of the 6 categories, but they were the only players who were near the top of every single measure. Both guys were outstanding last season, and the data suggest both should be firmly in the Top 5, if not the Top 3 of returning FCS quarterbacks. The only thing possibly holding them back is that they are not difference makers with their legs, but the data show that they are effective in moving in the pocket and making plays outside of it.

Montana Grizzlies quarterback Keali'I Ah Yat (8) warms up before the game against the Montana State Bobcats | Michael Thomas Shroyer-Imagn Images

Beau Brungard averaged out as the 4th-best quarterback in this group, which may surprise some people since he won the Walter Payton Award in 2025. However, this analysis did not incorporate what makes him extremely special, and that is his rushing ability. The fact that he scored so well outside of any rushing analysis is pretty eye-opening, speaking to his development as a passer. The only possible area of concern is his deep ball.

Chris Parson and Devin Farrell have demonstrated big-time ability to make elite throws down the field. Both players are mostly held back by too many negative plays, whether that's sacks taken or putting the ball in danger. Both of these guys offer a ton of upside, especially Parson, who just completed his first season as a full-time starter.

Southern Illinois quarterback DJ Williams could be viewed as Beau Brungard-lite. He's not terrible at any one thing, but he also did not rank among the elite players in any measure. His most dangerous asset is his legs, which, outside of Brungard, are probably the most potent in FCS football. Williams needs to find consistency with his accuracy and how effectively he pushes the ball down the field in 2026.

Southern Illinois quarterback DJ Williams (1) | SIU Athletics

Chase Mason may be the toughest quarterback to evaluate going into next season. He's probably the best NFL prospect of the group with ideal size, incredible athleticism, and elite arm talent. The only issue is that his performance in 2025 did not measure up to his potential.

Mason was too cautious at times and struggled to evade pressure, which led to a ton of sacks. His completion percentage and effectiveness under pressure did not stack up well with the other quarterbacks we analyzed. It's reasonable to think that he was injured the whole season and that the shortened offseason with a new coaching staff really hampered his ceiling. I really could see Mason having a true breakout season for the Jacks if he remains healthy, making his case for No. 1 in this debate.

Andrew Body, Collin Hurst, and Hayden Johnson have excellent resumes that match up with a lot of players in the top half of this group. The question with these guys is that the level of competition they face each week is much lower than that of several other players near the top of the rankings. It would be interesting to see if their performance would remain at the same level against some of the top teams in the FCS.

Alabama State quarterback Andrew Body (1) carries the ball against Bethune-Cookman | Mickey Welsh / Advertiser / USA TODAY NETWORK via Imagn Images

Jerry Kaminski, Joshua Wood, Jordan Cooke, and Pat McQuaide all found themselves near the bottom of most categories. Kaminski and McQuaide, in particular, really struggled any time they were under pressure and didn't take care of the ball at a high level. Wood and Cooke had some accuracy issues as well, but were elite at avoiding pressure.

Follow FCS Football Central on social media for ongoing coverage of FCS football, including on X, Facebook, and YouTube.