Sports Info Solutions

Log In

Category: NFL Draft

  • Revisiting Our Draft Pick Value Curve

    Revisiting Our Draft Pick Value Curve

    Last year we dipped our toes into the conversation about draft pick value. Stephen Polacheck took two-year Total Points as the measure of performance and computed a curve that represents what you can expect from a selection throughout the draft.

    This year we’ll take that work and extend it to two particular lines of inquiry: the potential value over a full contract, and the value teams are ascribing to future picks.

    Production over a full rookie deal

    Our previous iteration looked only at the Total Points accumulated in a player’s first two years. This is in line with how our scouting process works, as our grades project a player through his second NFL season. But there are enough players who jump up or fall off in the final years of their rookie deals that we wanted to look at a longer time horizon as well.

    Here are the draft curves that we generate after each year in the first four. 

    The biggest thing I notice when looking at these plots is that, in general, the differences between the curves are pretty consistent year-over-year. That basically means that we’re not seeing some kind of dramatic change in production of players in their third season, or something like that.

    We can see a production advantage for early first round picks that persists throughout the player’s first contract. A player taken at the top of the first round essentially doubles the productivity of a player taken at the end of the first round at each step. That suggests top picks are overvalued by the rookie wage scale, which gives top draft picks roughly three times the contract value of a player selected at the end of the first.

    You should notice the little hitch in the curve at around the end of the second round. That’s in part because these curves are actually made by blending a steeper first round curve with a more gradual full-draft curve, which results in a curve that doesn’t have a single smooth trajectory. But it’s also a kind of quirky peak of productivity over the past several years that is hard to fully smooth out. Just picks 62 to 64 from 2016 to 2021 have produced Carlton Davis, Kevin Byard, James Bradberry, Creed Humphrey, JuJu Smith-Schuster, and DK Metcalf.

    Applying the value curve to previous trades

    At this point we’re pretty familiar with the notion that the relatively flat curve of draft pick value past the top of the first round suggests that trading back is generally a pretty valuable proposition. 

    For example, all of the seven pick-for-pick trades in the first round of the 2022 draft yielded more total expected production for the team moving down than the team moving up. How much value that is depends on which of the above curves you use, but the general trend is the same.

    What I’ve found more interesting of late is the trading of future picks. Just in the first round of the 2021 draft, three pick-for-pick trades involved a future first round pick changing hands:

    • The 49ers moving up 9 slots to take Trey Lance
    • The Dolphins moving up 6 slots to take Jaylen Waddle
    • The Bears moving up 9 slots to take Justin Fields

    It’s tough to build a model that prescriptively assigns value to a future draft pick, because teams should place different value on future assets based on their franchise trajectory. But trades that have already been made can tell us something about how much temporal discounting teams are building in.

    Let’s run these three trades through our model, comparing the projected four-year Total Points for the picks going each direction. We can assume that the difference between these values should be roughly the value teams are ascribing to the future picks included in those deals. 

    Projected Four-Year Total Points of Picks Traded in 2021

    2021 pick value  given up 2021 pick value received Suggested Value

    Rest of Trade
    49ers -> Lance 88 119 31*
    Dolphins -> Waddle 107 119 12
    Bears -> Fields 83 101 19*

    * Multiple future picks were traded

    For a little bit of context, that “rest of trade” value can be compared to the value of a single pick in the current draft. The 31 projected Total Points that make up the remainder in the Lance deal—and therefore roughly what we think the future picks are worth—is comparable to the 87th pick in the current draft. The future picks in the Waddle deal compare to the 153rd pick in the current draft, and for Fields it’s the 121st pick.

    So, if those trades were to be fair—which we actually shouldn’t expect them to be, because the team trading up is almost always going to pay a bit of a premium—the future picks would be valued at somewhere between a third rounder and a fifth rounder in total. Compared to a conventional-wisdom heuristic that a pick next year is worth one round less than a pick this year, we’re seeing some pretty heavy devaluing of future first round picks. 

    We can also think of this through the lens of the implied discounting rate for a pick year-over-year. The Waddle example suggests that a future first round pick—which we can assume is the 16th pick in the next draft, for simplicity—is getting discounted by about 85% within one year (from 79 projected Total Points to 12). The Fields deal has a similar implied discounting rate.

    Virtually all people employed by NFL teams are living in a world where you can’t guarantee your employment for very long, so it’s not unreasonable for teams to heavily devalue future draft picks. After all, even a draft pick this year might not bear fruit for two more seasons. But if teams are so willing to make trades to move up a few spots in the first round, it seems odd that they would value creating a first round pick from nothing, even if it’s deferred a year, would be more valuable than it seems to be.

    Future Directions

    With each year that we accumulate data, we also gather more firepower to build frameworks to evaluate the long-term value of players (and draft picks). Integrating draft pick value with long-term player projections will allow player-for-pick trades to be analyzed more usefully, and of course bringing in salary information (for player trades and for incoming rookies) informs teams’ decisions greatly.

    Look for us to reference these draft pick values in evaluating trades during the upcoming draft season. Of course, keep in mind that these models are still a work in progress when it comes to measuring some of the “softer” factors that contribute to trade decisions. We still have some work to do to measure how much we should expect a team to overpay for the right to move up, and how much scarcity of available players at the position being acquired moves the needle.

  • The Top Ranked NFL Draft Prospect At Every Position

    The Top Ranked NFL Draft Prospect At Every Position

    Each year, the SIS scouting staff puts their money where their mouth is and grades hundreds of the top players in the NFL Draft player pool. The SIS NFL Draft site combines those reports with advanced metrics to provide as complete a picture of each prospect as you can find.

    To celebrate the launch of the 2023 version of the site, let’s run through the staff’s top prospects at each position.

    (Of course, if you want, you can just look at the full big board, which still has more players coming in!)

    Quarterback: Bryce Young

    School: Alabama

    Grade: 6.9 (Solid starter)

    The SIS staff has Young and C.J. Stroud graded the same, but while Young’s body composition is the weakest trait between them, he only had three traits graded as sufficient or worse compared to Stroud’s five. Young’s poise, decision making, and pocket awareness and creativity are his biggest strengths.

    From Jordan Edwards’ report:

    “Young has a smooth and lightning-quick release while also showing the comfort and effectiveness to throw from different arm angles. He is consistently accurate especially in the short and intermediate areas of the field. While his deep ball accuracy is still good overall, he can miss his targets under pressure or when he can’t set his base. He has the arm strength to make most throws downfield and can put enough velocity on throws into tight windows.”

    On the statistical side, our measures of his arm strength and his ability to get the ball out show some flaws, but all other measures of production and accuracy compare very favorably to the rest of the class. His Total Points and Independent Quarterback Rating put him at the top of the group.

    For more stats on the rest of the quarterback class, check out the positional leaderboards.

    Running Back: Bijan Robinson

    School: Texas

    Grade: 7.0 (High-end 3-down starter)

    Robinson is the consensus top back in the draft, with an unimpeachable statistical record. He easily led draft-eligible running backs in Total Points per game, and did so while running into a heavy box twice as often as he did in previous years.

    Chad Tedder highlighted his vision in his scouting report:

    “Off the handoff, he does a good job at scanning the line and seeing where openings are going to be. He watches the movements of second-level defenders and can often set them up flowing one way before using his lateral agility to cut back behind them. If the space is not opening, he has the patience and trust of his line to allow for enough space to open for him to accelerate through.”

    He’s an asset in the passing game as a receiver, but his worst trait grade came as a pass blocker, where his vision and anticipation in the run game doesn’t quite translate as well.

    For more stats on the rest of the running back class, check out the positional leaderboards.

    Wide Receiver: Jaxon Smith-Njigba

    School: Ohio State

    Grade: 6.8 (Solid 3-down starter)

    C.J. Stroud didn’t rank as our top quarterback, but one of his receivers does top that positional group. Smith-Njigba didn’t play much in 2022, but his 2021 season would have put him at the top of the position in terms of Total Points on a total and per-play basis.

    He’s not an explosive athlete with big top speed, but he’s smooth and fluid with a good understanding of how to run routes running mostly from the slot.

    From Ryan Rubinstein:

    “In the passing game, Smith-Njigba excels in the slot. He consistently shows burst off the line and can beat press coverage with a studder step or by swiping the defender’s hands away. He mainly finds separation with quickness and route running, stemming to open holes in zone coverage or by manipulating defenders at the top of his route. Occasionally, he tends to get thrown off by contact at his stem but shows the ability to use his off hand to get separation and to recover back into his route.”

    For more stats on the rest of the wide receiver class, check out the positional leaderboards.

    Tight End: Michael Mayer

    School: Notre Dame

    Grade: 6.8 (Solid starter with Y & H ability)

    Mayer isn’t head and shoulders above other tight end prospects from a scouting grade perspective, but from a statistical perspective he dominated in his last year at Notre Dame. He ranked as the top tight end in 15 out of 22 tight end leaderboards.

    The scouting report from Jeremy Percy and Seamus Rooney highlights his hands and his solid blocking fundamentals.

    “Mayer has very good hands overall. He has great manual dexterity and is extremely smooth when using his hands independently from his body. He is also adept at extending fully and catching the ball away from his body, regardless of where the pass is.”

    “He showcases very good blocking fundamentals, plays under control, and makes getting in the way of his man his top priority while rarely lunging or whiffing.”

    Offensive Line: Peter Skoronski (OT)

    School: Northwestern

    Grade: 6.8 (Solid starter with positional flexibility)

    Skoronski ties with center John Michael Schmitz as the top graded offensive linemen, but the former takes the top spot in the rankings. 

    He excels in generating power from awkward positions. To hear Jeff Dean say it:

    “Power rushers have their work cut out for them, as he has a very good anchor and uses leverage to take away the opponent’s leg drive on these rushes. Even when dropped to one knee, he generates power to keep the rusher at bay and reestablishes himself in proper position.”

    On the statistical side, the team context around him makes him look a bit worse than he should, but even the stats that separate him from his context—like blown block rate—don’t show him as an elite producer.

    For more stats on the rest of the offensive line class, check out the positional leaderboards.

    Interior Defensive Line: Jalen Carter

    School: Georgia

    Grade: 7.0 (High-end 3-down starter)

    Carter’s generally viewed as a better prospect than his former teammates who were first round picks a year ago, but one who also has some red flags in terms of his off-field behavior.

    Ben Hrkach’s scouting report alludes to Defensive Player of the Year upside, but with some inconsistency as well. His elite disruption in the running game is communicated most strongly:

    “In terms of stopping the run, Carter has a collection of traits that are rarely found outside of a video game. With ideal size and bulk, Carter blends excellent base and upper-body strength with malleable power that allows him to work from awkward angles and reestablish the [line of scrimmage] while moving laterally.”

    Inconsistency often leads to less inspiring on-field metrics, and Carter is a victim of that to some extent. He shows elite run defense production—tackling ballcarriers much further upfield than typical—but the pass rush numbers are less stellar, even considering that he’s lining up inside.

    For more stats on the rest of the interior defensive line class, check out the positional leaderboards.

    Edge Rusher: Will Anderson Jr.

    School: Alabama

    Grade: 7.2 (High-end 3-down starter)

    The highest-graded player on the SIS board, Anderson burst onto the scene in 2021 with 4 more sacks and 13 more pressures than Aidan Hutchinson in his best season. His production slipped to merely quite-good in 2022, but the traits are still there to be a top performer.

    His best trait is his strength, which gives him some margin for error in terms of pass rush technique. Jeff Dean noted that he still has room for improvement in his repertoire of rush moves.

    “Due to his physical gifts, his pass rushing moves are still a work in progress. Outside of his impressive bull rush, the cupboard is a little lacking. He will flash promising swipe, spin, and push-pull moves, but they are not second nature at this point. Developing more effective counter moves will also be key to his growth, as he can seem a little lost when his initial attack fails. He appears content to stalemate the opponent or take more of a containing role if thwarted.”

    Dean also notes that Anderson has a high floor because of his skill setting the edge in the running game (although he could use improvement as a tackler).

    For more stats on the rest of the edge rusher class, check out the positional leaderboards.

    Off-ball Linebacker: Trenton Simpson (WLB)

    School: Clemson

    Grade: 6.6 (Lower-end starter)

    Simpson is one of four off-ball linebackers to be given the top grade at the position, with athleticism and versatility that make him particularly appealing.

    He might struggle to make an impact in the running game initially despite his size, but his flexibility as a coverage defender (particularly in zone) and a pass rusher on third down could have evaluators squinting and seeing visions of Micah Parsons.

    Jordan Edwards put his coverage ability this way:

    “He can close and gain ground quickly as a zone coverage defender to limit yards after the catch. He is a sure tackler and makes his presence felt on contact, using his length and physicality to bring ballcarriers down. His speed and ability to close quickly also allow him to play in the slot where he can cover and also blitz from depth.”

    Simpson’s limitations in the run game come through in his statistical performance as well. He had the worst Adjusted Tackle Depth Plus among off-ball linebackers on the SIS draft board, meaning he was tackling ballcarriers a good bit further downfield than typical.

    For more stats on the rest of the linebacker class, check out the positional leaderboards.

    Cornerback: Devon Witherspoon

    School: Illinois

    Grade: 6.8 (Solid 3-down starter)

    Witherspoon isn’t the same kind of press-man prospect that Sauce Gardner was coming out last year, but his experience playing primarily man coverage at the college level gives him intriguing upside.

    Here’s how Ben McClure described his ability playing up on the line in man coverage:

    “He has very good mirror/match technique in press coverage and rarely finds himself out of phase when pressing. He has the ability to run with receivers on crossing routes in press, and also be physical with the opponent off the line and stay tight to vertical routes.”

    Statistically, Witherspoon’s flexibility and dominance stand out. He allowed an insane 3.9 Passer Rating in 2022, and was among the best cornerbacks in the class in yards allowed per coverage snap in both man and zone coverage. And despite playing from the slot just a quarter of the time, he tied for the lead in Total Points per game from the slot.

    For more stats on the rest of the cornerback class, check out the positional leaderboards.

    Safety: Brian Branch

    School: Alabama

    Grade: 6.8 (Solid 3-down starter)

    Branch is a particular kind of safety prospect, as he played from the slot more than two-thirds of the time at Alabama. He shows natural ability as a coverage player, with his best trait grade being his football intelligence and instincts.

    From Ryan Rubinstein:

    “He displays good footwork at the top of routes and has very good reactive athleticism when flipping his hips, He shows the ability to consistently stick with his man in either press or off-man technique and shows very good mirror/match ability. He puts himself in positions to consistently contest catches and often is able to make plays on the ball to swat it away or try and go up for an interception.”

    In the run and pass game he plays with physicality. That shows particularly strongly in his run tackling numbers, which show he makes a lot of plays upfield and doesn’t miss many tackles.

    For more stats on the rest of the safety class, check out the positional leaderboards.

  • The 2023 QB Conversation: How Teammate and Schematic Context Impacts It

    The 2023 QB Conversation: How Teammate and Schematic Context Impacts It

    Every year, another group of interesting quarterbacks. Every year, another conundrum about how to project them effectively, given how complex the position is and how different the context around them will be in the NFL.

    C.J. Stroud is a great example of the context part of this. He’s thrown to the likes of Chris Olave, Garrett Wilson, Marvin Harrison Jr. and Jaxon Smith-Njigba over the last two years. It’s not surprising that Stroud has put up big numbers.

    So with this group of four top prospects—Stroud of Ohio State, Bryce Young of Alabama, Anthony Richardson of Florida, and Will Levis of Kentucky—I want to try to identify some of the bits of context that might be relevant to their evaluation. 

    Establishing a Starting Point

    It’s probably good to just start with a standard measure of total production to align on how to compare these players. Ignoring any kinds of situational factors, we can take EPA as a good measure of overall production, and then we’ll get to trying to split out the individual contributions in a second.

    QB Passing EPA Ranks, 2022 

    (out of 98 QBs with 250 attempts)

    Pass EPA Rank
    C.J. Stroud

    4
    Bryce Young

    6
    Anthony Richardson

    52
    Will Levis

    55

    That makes for some pretty obvious tiers as passers. 

    Richardson has the extra dimension with elite running ability, and obviously that’s not included here. This is just to show that Stroud and Young stand on their own from a passing production standpoint (which is, naturally, the most relevant kind of production for a QB).

    It’s difficult to advocate for Will Levis from a production perspective. His candidacy for a top pick relies on things a data analyst is ill-equipped to evaluate. So keep that in mind as we compare him to the rest of the crew.

    Now, let’s get onto trying to evaluate the offenses these players generated this production from.

    Teammates

    Let’s start with the interlocking parts of the players around each of these players. The Total Points system endeavors to disentangle the performance of each player, so let’s use that.

    Here are the team ranks in Total Points per play by the pass catchers and pass blockers around each of these prospects in 2022.

    Team Total Points per Play FBS Ranks

    Receiving Pass Blocking
    Ohio State (Stroud)

    2nd

    54th
    Alabama (Young)

    11th

    76th
    Florida (Richardson)

    26th

    18th
    Kentucky (Levis)

    16th

    16th

    Richardson’s receiving corps was definitely the most limited among this group. Their on-target catch rate was below average, which wasn’t true of the other three schools. It’s the same with contested-catch situations: Florida receivers came down with just 25% of such throws, compared to an FBS average of 32%.

    None of these players had poor offensive lines that might tilt our evaluations, but Levis and Richardson did benefit from pretty stout pass blocking overall. That’s something to keep in mind when looking at their pressure rates, which are both higher than average. That suggests they’re inviting pressure to an extent that could prove troublesome at the next level. 

    Easy Completions

    Another big talking point is how often quarterbacks are given really easy throws that can inflate their numbers. The screen game is one example of this, but so is throwing to a lot of open windows. In theory we want players who don’t rely too much on these plays.

    While only Levis was given specifically more screens than average, all of these prospects had their fair share of easy throws in 2022. Only Stroud ended up with fewer total easy throws than the FBS average.

    Top Prospects’ Easy Pass Rates, 2022

    Screen% Wide Open % (Non-Screen) Total
    C.J. Stroud

    10%

    		 14% 24%
    Bryce Young

    11%

    		 19%

    30%
    Anthony Richardson

    9%

    		 21%

    30%
    Will Levis

    16%

    		 13% 29%
    FBS Average

    13%

    14%

    		 27%

    On these easy throws, Richardson’s accuracy numbers are the worst of the group.  That could be seen as a large problem with his mechanics, or as low-hanging fruit to achieve quick improvement.

    If we’re trying to choose the “winner” of this comparison, we might give Stroud the advantage for having fewer “gimmes”. 

    Simplifying Reads

    Scheme can help by creating open throwing lanes, but it can also streamline the decisions the quarterback has to make. We know the hallmarks: play action, RPOs, and designed rollouts. Deceive the defense, split the field up, sharpen your focus to a limited number of players on both sides of the ball.

    Team Offense Play Type Percentages and Ranks, 2022

    Play Action % RPO % Designed Rollout %
    Ohio State (Stroud) 19% (39) 14% (95) 11% (17)
    Alabama (Young) 18% (57) 32% (14) 3% (112)
    Florida (Richardson) 31% (1) 29% (22) 12% (16)
    Kentucky (Levis) 17% (65) 10% (113) 7% (58)

    Richardson stands out here, but in a way that is probably somewhat consistent with how he’d be used at the NFL level. (Well, maybe not quite so many RPOs, since both he and Young used them at a rate higher than any NFL team.) It makes sense to get him on the move on designed rollouts to leverage his athleticism outside the pocket, but he was productive as a passer in those situations, too.

    Stroud has benefited from the simpler reads that come from designed rollouts, ranking in the top 10 in Independent Quarterback Rating each of the last two years on those plays. He’s not the same athlete as Richardson, so the threat to the defense isn’t the same, but it’s something that the team that drafts him probably would like to integrate.

    If we take out all these scheme elements and just try to isolate “straight up” pass plays, we’re sort of squinting to see what the player can do without some of the bumpers (to use a bowling reference). And when we do that, we get a result that looks a lot like the initial findings we had up top: Young and Stroud >>>.

    QB Ranks without Play Action, RPO, or Rollouts, 2022 

    (out of 101 QBs with 150 attempts)

    Total Points / Play IQR
    C.J. Stroud 2 7
    Bryce Young 1 2
    Anthony Richardson 38 87
    Will Levis 66 59

    Looking as far back as 2018, Young and Stroud each have two seasons in the top ten in the Total Points per play split (over 400 player seasons qualify). They’re joined exclusively by first round picks at the top: Kyler Murray, Justin Fields, and Mac Jones have the three best seasons. 

    Young coming at the top here is particularly compelling because of how RPO-dependent the Alabama offense is. Even if we remove those elements—which we know to be utilized less at the next level—he shows outstanding performance worthy of a top selection. 

    It’s an interesting contrast with Stroud, whose production is hard to claim is superior, but who arguably did so with fewer schematic supports to lean on.

  • Study: Combine Measurements and Total Points – Do they Correlate?

    Study: Combine Measurements and Total Points – Do they Correlate?

    After a week of workouts, drills, and interviews, combine week has come to an end and NFL teams are now deep in draft evaluation. Some players have had record-setting performances, while others might have more work to do at their Pro Day to shoot their name up big boards. The data is now there for everyone to analyze, but the question is: 

    What do these combine numbers actually mean?

    There has been a lot of discussion over the past few years as to whether or not combine results translate to a better performance on the field. Does the height, weight, arm length, hand size, 40-yard dash time, number of 225-lb. bench presses, vertical jump measurement, broad jump measurement, 20-yard shuttle run time, or 3-cone drill time of a player truly predict immediate future performance for a 1st- or 2nd-year player in the NFL?

    There have been studies done in the past (here and here) in finding correlations from combine  measurements to draft order, salary, and player performance. In regards to the latter, player performance was measured in total yards, yards in rates, and quarterback rating.

    At SIS, we can use our Total Points metric as the proxy to player performance to find correlations to combine measurements. For the purpose of this article, combine data from players who participated between 2016-2020 was collected and compared to the respective player’s first two-year Total Points sum. Correlations were computed between both Total Points and categorical Total Points (ex. Passing Total Points) based on positions to find any signal for a specific skill. 

    Without any further ado, let’s dive into the numbers…

    Quarterbacks

    When it comes to quarterbacks, it is not a big surprise that Total Points and Passing Total Points are very similar. The main skill the quarterback has to perform is throwing the football, so seeing that these two align for most measurements make sense. 

    Three measurements that stand out from the rest in terms of correlating to Total Points. The broad jump takes the cake as the highest correlated at 0.39 (0.35 Pasing Total Points), followed by the three cone drill at 0.33 (faster times lead to more Total Points) and the 40-yard dash at 0.23.

    Contradicting some of the discourse about quarterback hand-size, this measurement has a 0 correlation to Passer Points. Turns out Kenny Pickett might have a chance after all!

    Running Backs

    When looking strictly at Rushing Total Points, there are three measurements that clear the 0.2 correlation threshold. Weight, vertical jump, and broad jump measurements correlate the most to Rushing Total Points. 

    This suggests that explosiveness and leg strength translate well to the next level and can be a potential indicator of running back performance. Across the board, being bigger and faster correlates with success.

    When it comes to Receiving Total Points, the 40-yard dash and the broad jump correlate the most by far. This suggests that the ‘explosive pass-catcher out of the backfield’ moniker truly does exist.

    Looking at Pass Block Total Points for running backs, the three cone drill and vertical jump seem to predict some success at the next level.

    Wide Receiver

    The vertical jump and bench reps stand out as the two highest correlated measurements to Receiving Total Points. Even though the average Run Blocking Total Points value among receivers is small, height, weight, arm length, and the shuttle run correlate the most out of these measurements when projecting success.

    No measurements for Receiving Total Points reach the 0.2 threshold. One point to note is that pass blocking correlations in height and weight for receivers are much higher than those for the running backs.

    Offensive Linemen

    Pass Blocking and Run Blocking Total Points correlations for offensive linemen are similar for each measurement, with the 40-yard dash, arm length, and height having some difference between the two. Surprisingly, height and arm length seem to correlate more with run blocking than pass blocking.

    Overall, the 40-yard dash, three cone drill, vertical jump, and broad jump are the highest correlations when it comes to offensive line play. Bench reps have a low correlation, once again showing that leg strength and explosiveness predict higher success.

    Tight Ends

    For tight ends, the 40-yard dash and the broad jump have high correlations to Total Points, as they both nearly reach the 0.4 correlation threshold. The vertical jump does not fall that far behind either.

    The difference in broad jump, shuttle times, and three cone times between tight ends and receivers in Receiving Total Points is interesting. The get-off speed for a tight end might result in higher Total Points, which can be measured in explosiveness from the legs.

    Defensive Linemen

    Moving along to defense, we start with the defensive line. All of the speed measurements, height, weight, vertical jump, and broad jump correlate well to Pass Rush Total Points. This is very different when compared to Run Defense Total Points, as the higher the weight and more bench reps, the higher the Total Points value.

    All in all, an athletic freak on the defensive line when getting to the passer seems to be a good thing to have. On run defense, a strongly built defensive linemen is the key for success. The contrast between these two skill sets in one position group is the biggest from this analysis. 

    Linebackers

    Once again, for the linebacker position, athletic freaks tend to have the most success. All but 3 measurements reach the 0.2 correlation threshold for Pass Rush Total Points. After being significant for defensive linemen, the shuttle run and three cone times correlate to 0 and below, respectively, for linebackers. From a run defense perspective, the vertical jump and 40-yard dash times show the strongest correlations. Finally, both the 40-yard dash and shuttle runs are where the highest correlations are for linebacker pass coverage.

    Defensive Backs

    There are no correlations for Pass Coverage Total Points that reach the 0.2 threshold for defensive backs. The 40-yard dash and arm length are the two highest correlations for Pass Coverage Total Points. On run defense, only the 40-yard dash reached the 0.2 threshold. 

    Conclusion

    Overall, there are no correlations that exceed the 0.4 threshold across any position, measurement, and Total Points category. This is consistent with the previous studies that suggest there is no strong correlation between measurements and skill sets. 

    Two measurements that seem to find themselves at the top of most positions were the vertical jump and broad jump. 

    A strong and explosive lower body tends to predict more success, generally speaking, when looking at Total Points. On defense, speed is the key, as 40-yard dash, three cone, and shuttle times were some of the highest correlated measurements for all 3 defensive skills.

    All in all, don’t be fooled by the insane numbers seen at the combine. Yes, some are more meaningful than others, but there is a lot more that factors into having success in the NFL.

  • STUDY: What Does a College Receiver’s Route Tree Say About Their Pro Prospects?

    STUDY: What Does a College Receiver’s Route Tree Say About Their Pro Prospects?

    I’m sure since the world turned upside down you’re frequently thinking about what life was like in 2019. Let’s take that skill and apply it to the 2019 NFL Draft discourse.

    At that time, there were a lot of questions about DK Metcalf. He was a physical marvel who didn’t have enough of a track record—and specifically a track record of running a full NFL route tree—to be a top prospect.

    We can frame Metcalf’s limited route diversity at the time in a few ways. A relatively simple version is to just count how many routes he ran at least 5 times over his last two years at Ole Miss. SIS charted just nine, which is fewer than almost every receiver to enter the NFL over the last four seasons (among those with at least 150 routes run in their final two FBS seasons).

    Metcalf obviously turned that narrative on its head when he showed his physical tools to be more than sufficient to overcome whatever limitation he had in experience. Most players aren’t in that position. 

    So what can we learn about the value of a strong route tree in projecting into the NFL?

    Below are a few angles at what it means to have a route tree that might be desirable to NFL evaluators, and how useful they might be in identifying quality prospects.

    For this, the sample is limited to wide receivers drafted in 2019 or later who ran at least 150 routes over the two seasons prior to being drafted. In terms of their NFL performance, we’ll look at results over their first two seasons as professionals.

    When you see references to a player producing a WR1 or WR2 season, we want to show how often they played well enough to be a team’s top receiver or second-best receiver in a given year. So, a population of players having a WR2 % of 36% means that 36% of players achieved a top-64 season at least once in their first two years.

    Running a variety of routes

    As done above with Metcalf, we can look at players who simply ran a wide variety of routes in college. As we know always and in all situations, more is better!

    Are teams selecting for this?

    Not really. Receivers drafted in the first three rounds have averaged 15.8 routes run at least 5 times. Those who are Day 3 picks or go undrafted have averaged 15.1. And that’s with more than half of the players in the late/undrafted group being in the bottom third in this metric, which really drags down the average.

    Does it project success in the NFL?

    A little bit, and not in the way you might expect. 

    Among receivers selected in the first three rounds, only 2 of the 14 who were in the top third in route variety had at least one top-32 year at the position (by Total Points). 

    Of the 44 qualifying players in the middle or bottom third in route variety, 14 of them had a top-32 season (more than twice as often by proportion).

    Early NFL Production of Top-Three-Round Selections

    WR1 % WR2 %
    Top-third route variety (n=14) 14% 36%
    Lower route variety (n=44) 32% 55%

     

    Early NFL Production of Late Selections and Undrafted Players

    WR1 % WR2 %
    Top-third route variety (n=16) 0% 13%
    Lower route variety (n=82) 4% 10%


    This suggests that variety of routes might actually be a red herring in terms of finding top talent (bolded for emphasis)

    We don’t see enough top-32 seasons among late picks to say much about that group, but if we expand the search to top-64 campaigns, route variety might have a small benefit in terms of productivity. 

    Looking at this year’s prospects…

    To whatever extent we might be worried about players with “too much” route diversity, the names to look at would be BC’s Zay Flowers and UNC’s Josh Downs.

    At the low end, TCU’s Quentin Johnson and Tennessee’s Jalin Hyatt are not nearly at Metcalf level, but they’re solidly in the bottom third.

    Running “NFL routes”

    Logically, we can think of the routes a receiver prospect runs through the lens of the most common routes NFL receivers run. To put a point on it, more than half of NFL routes come from just the five most common routes, and more than three-quarters come from the top 10.

    Most common routes for NFL receivers

    • Curl
    • Dig
    • Go
    • Out
    • Slant
    • Post
    • Fade
    • Deep Cross
    • Corner
    • Screen

    So, we could think of a player’s NFL-readiness in terms of how often they run routes that NFL receivers run. 

    Are teams selecting for this?

    They’re selecting for it, but not within the draft. The rates of receivers running the top 10 NFL routes are virtually identical between early and late picks. But 80% of the routes run by NFL-caliber college players are NFL-caliber routes, which is roughly the same rate the NFL players run them. So there’s definitely alignment in that sense.

    Does it project success in the NFL?

    Yes, but specifically when it comes to the players at the bottom of the spectrum. The players in the bottom third in terms of running NFL routes perform worse than others drafted in a similar range.

    Early NFL Production of Top-Three-Round Selections

    WR1 % WR2 %
    Bottom-third NFL route volume (n=17) 12% 47%
    Higher NFL route volume (n=41) 34% 51%

     

    Early NFL Production of Late Selections and Undrafted Players

    WR1 % WR2 %
    Bottom-third NFL route volume (n=35) 3% 6%
    Higher NFL route volume (n=63) 3% 13%

    Depending on when the player is selected (and what you’d want from a pick in that range), the players who run relatively few routes from the NFL tree are substantially less likely to produce a quality season in their first two. So it seems like variety might not be the key, so much as running the routes that matter to NFL productivity.

    Looking at this year’s prospects…

    Two Tennessee receivers (Hyatt and Cedric Tillman) sit towards the top of this list, showing that while they might not be running a variety of routes, but the ones they’re running project to NFL usage. Quentin Johnson also shows up here, suggesting reduced route diversity comes along with running a lot of NFL routes.

    And would you look at that: The players towards the bottom of NFL route frequency are the variety kings, Flowers and Downs.

    Mirroring the NFL route tree

    We can take this notion of reproducing the NFL route tree a step further and identify players whose rank order of their routes closely resembles the NFL route tree. 

    For example, if deciding between two receivers who each ran the same total percentage of NFL routes, all-else-equal we’d prefer the one who ran more curls and outs over the one who was running a lot of deep crosses and corners.

    (There’s a bit of a confounding element of the player’s speed here—a promising deep threat might be more likely to run the top end of the route tree. We’ll get to that.)

    To get at this question, we can take the average deviation between the player’s rank order of their routes and the NFL average rank order, focusing on the fifteen most common routes. That group makes up 90% of NFL routes, and going too deep into the route tree could cause deviations that unfairly skew the results.

    Are teams selecting for this?

    There’s a little evidence that teams might care about this beyond the first few rounds, but it’s pretty flimsy. Players in the top third or bottom third in this deviation metric are more common among those added after the first two days of the draft. But early selections aren’t running route trees any more (or less) similar to NFL route trees, which is consistent with the previous analysis.

    Does it project success in the NFL?

    There is a bit of signal here as well. We can see that there is a difference when it comes to players with what we might call a “deviant” route tree—the upper one-third in average deviation from the NFL route tree.

    Early NFL Production of Top-Three-Round Selections

    WR1 % WR2 %
    Top-third route tree deviation (n=17) 6% 29%
    Lower route tree deviation (n=41) 37% 59%

     

    Early NFL Production of Late Selections and Undrafted Players

    WR1 % WR2 %
    Top-third route tree deviation (n=35) 6% 14%
    Lower route tree deviation (n=63) 2% 8%

    Like with the overall NFL-caliber-route analysis, players who don’t conform to the NFL standard who are drafted early are much less likely to produce a top season early on. 

    Interestingly we see the opposite relationship among players not drafted early, where the players who deviate from the NFL prototype have done a bit better. Technicians like Amon-Ra St. Brown and Hunter Renfrow are examples of the type of skill set that can buck this trend.

    Looking at this year’s prospects…

    We get some new names when it comes to adhering to the hierarchy of the NFL route tree: LSU’s Kayshon Boutte and Ole Miss’s Jonathan Mingo.

    However, we get even more concerning evidence for the prospects of Zay Flowers and Josh Downs, who are towards the deviant end of the spectrum.

    So what did we learn?

    Offensive schemes differ enough that there isn’t a one-size-fits-all approach to route tree analysis that’s ever going to give us a great projection into NFL productivity. However, we can see some broad strokes of what teams look for and how useful those traits are.

    More is not necessarily better when it comes to route variety. Players drafted in the first three rounds who have been asked to do a lot more in college are actually less likely to show top performance early on in their NFL careers.

    If we instead focus on the routes that NFL receivers run most often, and specifically with a frequency that aligns with what NFL receivers run, we start to see an effect. 

    This is a disqualifier more than a feather in a player’s cap, though, because the biggest effect is for players who are at the low end of the spectrum (i.e. have the least alignment with NFL-level route trees). 

    Players who come off the board in the first two days without showing they can run an NFL-like route tree are much less likely to produce like a top-level player early on.

  • Reviewing The 2019 NFL Draft Class

    Reviewing The 2019 NFL Draft Class

    While many crave all the NFL Draft Team Grades that publications put out the day after the draft, including us on both accounts, there are many others who can’t stand it. Of course, we all have our own NFL Draft prospect rankings heading into that weekend, but those players have yet to play a single snap in the NFL. So, how can we really grade a team’s draft class if those players haven’t yet stepped onto the field?

    It usually takes at least three years to see how well a draft class turned out. While said publications, including us, don’t want to wait three years before putting out their grades on a draft class, we decided to now do both.

    Three years ago, prior to the 2019 NFL Draft, Sports Info Solutions created its first ever draft guide: The SIS Football Rookie Handbook. This book marked a first for SIS, as it was the first football publication since the company added the sport on the data collection front in 2015. After the 2019 NFL Draft, we, just as many others, posted our NFL Draft Team Grades, which can be seen here.

    I’ve developed a system to evaluate the draft classes using Total Points relative to position as the foundation. Now that three seasons have gone by, let’s use that to truly see how each team did with getting value from their selections in the 2019 NFL Draft.

    How much value did teams get?

    Before we get into the process, let’s take a look at how we ranked teams after the 2019 NFL Draft and then who got the most and least value. See the Appendix below to see how all 32 teams ranked in our 2019 rankings and in TP Score.

    Here are the teams we ranked at the top immediately following the draft back in 2019. To see our scouting grading scale, check out our new NFL Draft site.

    Top 5 Teams in 2019 Post-Draft Rankings
    Team Book Rank Grade
    Titans 1 6.63
    Bills 2 6.50
    Cardinals 3 6.46
    Ravens 4 6.44
    Bengals 5 6.44

    TP Score will be defined below, but here are the top 5 teams based on how much value they received from their draft class.

    Top 5 Teams in TP Score
    Team TP Rank TP Score
    Titans 1 84.64
    Broncos 2 82.81
    Raiders 3 77.23
    Buccaneers 4 67.50
    Jaguars 5 62.18

    The No. 1 team in 2019 (the time of our initial evaluation) and in this ranking both worked out to be the Tennessee Titans. Five of their six draft picks have been above average, all playing in at least 38 games over the past three seasons. The only pick who didn’t hit was D’Andre Walker, who appeared in only one game.

    The top 3 teams, the Titans, Broncos, and Raiders, are at the top for a reason. They drafted good players throughout their entire draft class. They were the only teams to draft above-average players on 75% or more of their draft class.

    Conversely, here are the bottom 5 teams from our 2019 rankings.

    Bottom 5 Teams in 2019 Post-Draft Rankings
    Team Book Rank Grade
    Saints 28 6.12
    Browns 29 6.10
    Seahawks 30 6.03
    Lions 31 6.00
    Chiefs 32 5.90

    Based on TP Score, here are the worst teams in terms of getting value from their 2019 draft picks.

    Bottom 5 Teams in TP Score
    Team TP Rank TP Score
    Chargers 28 16.00
    Panthers 29 14.53
    Bengals 30 12.48
    Eagles 31 12.24
    Seahawks 32 10.12

    Determining Total Points Score

    Now that you’ve seen the rankings, let’s explain the process. When looking back to see how good or bad a specific draft class was, there are two main points to detect:

    1. How productive were the draft picks on the field?
    2. How much talent did the team draft relative to the amount of picks they made? 

    As in: Did they hit on one player or did they hit on multiple players?

    To determine the value of the draft classes, I used Total Points, our flagship player value stat, from across the last three seasons. However, for those of you who are familiar with Total Points, it gives a lot of extra weight to quarterbacks. With that said, Kyler Murray, the No. 1 pick, alone would have had the 5th best draft class with his 286 Total Points if we just used raw Total Points.

    While there is a reason we weigh quarterbacks so much more compared to other positions (they are pretty important), using that raw number in this sense isn’t going to make for a perfect match. Yes, the Cardinals got a lot of value in Murray, but when looking at their draft class as a whole, I think many would agree they didn’t have the best draft class. A fate they would have had if just using raw Total Points.

    Now, answering the second question takes into account how well a team drafted throughout the entirety of the draft class. I found the average Total Points per player from the 2019 class at each position, including UDFAs who have taken at least one offensive or defensive snap, since they were also available to be selected.

    The positional averages are shown in the table below.

    Pos TP per Player
    QB 38.1
    RB 8.8
    WR 15.7
    TE 11.2
    OL 25.3
    ED 29.1
    DT 19.8
    LB 23.5
    CB 23.2
    S 30.2

     

    The TP Score, as referenced earlier, is what’s used to rank the teams. It is calculated as follows:

    1. Add up the Total Points from the entire team’s draft class

    2. Divide that number by the number of selections the team had

    3. Multiply that number by the percentage of draft picks that were above the average Total Points for their given position

    4.Add that to the original Total Points per draft pick

    In these 4 steps, we are essentially answering how productive the draft class was and how many picks were “hits”.

    Let’s run through an example using the Chicago Bears.

    Here is their Draft class:

    Pos Player Total Points
    RB David Montgomery 45
    WR Riley Ridley 4
    CB Duke Shelley 21
    RB Kerrith Whyte Jr. 2
    CB Stephen Denmark 0
    1. Add up the Total Points from the entire team’s draft class
    72
    2. Divide that number by the number of selections the team had
    72 Total Points divided by 5 selections equals 14.40
    3. Multiply that number by the percentage of draft picks that were above the average Total Points for their given position
    David Montgomery was the only player whose Total Points were above average
    14.40 times 20% (1 out of 5) equals 2.88
    4. Add that to the original Total Points per draft pick
    14.40 plus 2.88 equals 17.28, which is their TP Score

     

    So, to summarize, we took the team’s Total Points gained from these players, dispersed it throughout the entire class and then gave a bump based on how many above-average players they drafted.

    Now that we know how the teams ranked and how the TP Score is calculated, let’s dive into some of the details.

    Other Key Takeaways

    – The Raiders “hit” on 7 of their 9 picks. It is interesting to note that all three of their 1st-Round picks, Clelin Ferrell, Josh Jacobs, and Johnathan Abram, had their 5th-Year Options declined. However, they still played well enough to be above-average players. Plus, that doesn’t include gems they found later in the draft in Maxx Crosby and Hunter Renfrow.

    – Every team drafted at least one player who has played above the positional average compared to the rest of the draft class. However, Dallas (Trysten Hill), New England (N’Keal Harry), Philadelphia (Andre Dillard), Seattle (L.J. Collier), and Washington (Dwayne Haskins) were the only teams whose first draft selection wasn’t an above-average player.

    – The Cardinals draft class accumulated the most Total Points with 446, though as mentioned before, Kyler Murray accounted for 286 of them. They hit on 3 of 11 draft picks on their way to a No. 7 ranking. It’s worth noting that their Supplemental Draft selection of Jalen Thompson and his 73 Total Points isn’t included, as he isn’t part of their original draft class.

    – The fewest Total Points came from the Eagles. They garnered only 51 Total Points across their five draft picks, with 43 coming from Miles Sanders.

    – Hitting on quarterbacks is pivotal to winning in the NFL, as seen by Kyler Murray in 2019. Conversely, missing on quarterbacks can set teams back. Carolina and Cincinnati both took quarterbacks who severely hurt their Total Points number and pushed them down the rankings, even in minimal games played.

    Will Grier accounted for -26 Total Points out of Carolina’s 89 total. Funny enough, Brian Burns had 91 himself. Ryan Finley was even worse for Cincinnati with -39. In nine games in which Grier and Finley played and threw at least one pass, they combined for a 1-8 record.

    It’s possible the teams had a better chance of winning if neither played. If both had never played and accumulated 0 Total Points, Carolina would have improved four spots in the rankings and Cincinnati would have improved three spots.

    How do our Initial Grades Compare?

    56% (18/32) of our initial ranks were in the correct half. Meaning a team we ranked between 1 and 16 or 17 and 32 was ultimately in that tier. And before I get too much further, I want to make sure it’s understood that 2019 was our first year of the Handbook which meant there were plenty of growing pains. Major changes took place beginning in 2020 after studying our initial process.

    The biggest differences in our initial grades and these final rankings were the Bengals (25 spots), Eagles (23 spots), and the Ravens (23 spots). We rated these teams near the top immediately following the draft, but they finished near the bottom based on these rankings.

    For Cincinnati, we’ve already talked about Ryan Finley (who was our No. 4 QB), but they also drafted two running backs. Rodney Anderson (SIS No. 4 RB) has battled injuries his entire career and Trayveon Williams (SIS No. 5 RB) has been buried on the depth chart and has seen minimal playing time.

    The Eagles took four of five players who were featured in the Handbook, with Miles Sanders and Andre Dillard both grading out as a 6.7. As mentioned earlier, Dillard was one of the top picks who has failed to be an above-average player. For Baltimore, all eight selections were in the Handbook, and we graded six of them at 6.4 or higher. They clearly have underperformed based on our initial grading.

    What were some of our biggest misses elsewhere? Not including Mecole Hardman or Sean Murphy-Bunting proved to be a big miss. As mentioned before, immediate action was taken to improve upon our process to make sure we weren’t missing good players and early draft picks.

    Additionally, we ranked Wisconsin OG Beau Benzschawel as our No. 4 guard and New Mexico State LB Terrill Hanks as our No. 5 linebacker. Neither have played a snap in the NFL.

    Nik Needham is first and foremost when we talk about our NFL Draft wins. He’s been a big talking point around the company for the past three years. We ranked him as our No. 4 corner going into the draft, and he currently ranks third in Total Points among 2019 CBs (we were higher on him than any other mainstream draft analyst). His 85 Total Points tops all UDFAs from the 2019 class and ranks 12th overall.

    The table below shows the top Total Points earners across the past three seasons and how we graded and ranked them in the Handbook.

    Rank Position Player Total Points SIS Grade SIS Pos Rank
    1 QB Kyler Murray 286 6.8 2
    2 ED Nick Bosa 120 7.0 1
    3 LB Devin White 99 7.0 1
    4 CB Jamel Dean 97 6.7 6
    T-5 ED Maxx Crosby 96 6.5 11
    T-5 CB Byron Murphy 96 6.9 3
    T-5 WR Deebo Samuel 96 6.7 4

    While we were a little low on Dean and Crosby, all eight of these guys were tabbed as starters in some form by our scouts.

    Conclusion

    Nobody really knows how a draft class is going to turn out immediately after the draft, as stated before, yet it still makes sense to grade and rank the teams based on player grades for an initial reaction. Post-draft grades are great in a sense, but they should be taken with a grain of salt. Once three years go by and we’ve seen what these players have done in the NFL, we can get a better sense of how good the team drafted.

    These rankings are all about finding which teams drafted the best draft class as a whole, not just who got the best player. While there are some players who didn’t play for the team that drafted them for the entirety of the past three seasons, that wasn’t taken into account since those decisions came after the initial drafting of these players, which is what this is based off of. It’s not a perfect science, but it does a good job at pulling player value and seeing how well teams drafted as a whole class.

    Three years later, the comparison between our initial rankings and these rankings aren’t terrible for Year 1 (in both our grading and our scouting process). Though, we hope this article next year takes a large positive swing given the process changes we made heading into the 2020 cycle.

    As with everything we do here, we hope this improves year over year and can look back and say we kept getting better every day.

    Appendix

    2019 SIS Post-Draft Rankings based on the SIS Football Rookie Handbook

    Team Book Rank Grade
    Titans 1 6.63
    Bills 2 6.50
    Cardinals 3 6.46
    Ravens 4 6.44
    Bengals 5 6.44
    Raiders 6 6.40
    Broncos 7 6.38
    Eagles 8 6.34
    Jaguars 9 6.33
    Cowboys 10 6.30
    Patriots 11 6.30
    Rams 12 6.30
    Falcons 13 6.29
    Giants 14 6.28
    Panthers 15 6.24
    Packers 16 6.24
    Dolphins 17 6.22
    Steelers 18 6.21
      Commanders 19 6.21
    49ers 20 6.20
    Buccaneers 21 6.20
    Jets 22 6.20
    Texans 23 6.17
    Vikings 24 6.14
    Bears 25 6.14
    Chargers 26 6.13
    Colts 27 6.12
    Saints 28 6.12
    Browns 29 6.10
    Seahawks 30 6.03
    Lions 31 6.00
    Chiefs 32 5.90

    TP Rank based on TP Score and how much value each team got from their draft picks over the last three seasons

    Team TP Rank TP Score
    Titans 1 84.64
    Broncos 2 82.81
    Raiders 3 77.23
    Buccaneers 4 67.50
    Jaguars 5 62.18
    49ers 6 60.19
    Cardinals 7 51.60
    Packers 8 48.38
    Saints 9 48.16
    Chiefs 10 44.50
    Commanders 11 43.68
    Dolphins 12 41.00
    Giants 13 40.80
    Texans 14 37.96
    Bills 15 36.00
    Rams 16 34.72
    Jets 17 32.89
    Browns 18 30.00
    Colts 19 29.25
    Lions 20 27.77
    Falcons 21 25.16
    Vikings 22 22.00
    Cowboys 23 21.72
    Steelers 24 18.81
    Patriots 25 18.60
    Bears 26 17.28
    Ravens 27 16.25
    Chargers 28 16.00
    Panthers 29 14.53
    Bengals 30 12.48
    Eagles 31 12.24
    Seahawks 32 10.12

     

  • 2022 NFL Draft Team Grades

    2022 NFL Draft Team Grades

    If you want our full thoughts on the players your team has added, you can check out the brand new SIS NFL Draft site for tons of great information. And if you’d like to contribute to next year’s draft cycle, consider applying to our Football Video Scout position.

    After three years of the SIS Football Rookie Handbook, our “Draft Guide” is now a website. However, not much changed with the transition. Actually, it allowed us more time to take the next step and go even bigger and better than the book has ever allowed us to do. With that said, we had 410 players on the site this year. We grade ourselves on how many players were drafted that we had on the site.

    After having 69% (174 of 254) of drafted players in the book in 2019, 78% (199 of 255) in 2020, and 84% (218 of 259) in 2021, we raised that number to 86% (226 of 262) for Year 1 of the website.

    When taking out specialists and fullbacks, which we currently don’t write up, there were only 29 players drafted who weren’t on the site and only 6 of which we didn’t get eyes on. That’s nearly 98% of the NFL Draft covered! Plus, many players who didn’t get drafted have already signed UDFA deals with teams.

    Now using our grades, we attempted to rank each team’s draft class. Just like in our article from last season, we assigned all grades from the site.

    Here are the draft classes ranked in order of their grade:

    Final Rankings
    Rank Team # of Picks Draft Grade
    1 Jets 7 6.53
    2 Eagles 5 6.46
    3 Lions 8 6.45
    4 Ravens 11 6.43
    5 Panthers 6 6.40
    6 Texans 9 6.38
    7 Seahawks 9 6.34
    8 Falcons 8 6.30
    9 Jaguars 7 6.30
    10 Saints 5 6.30
    11 Giants 11 6.28
    12 Packers 11 6.27
    13 Chiefs 10 6.27
    14 Bengals 6 6.23
    15 Commanders 8 6.19
    16 Titans 9 6.17
    17 Raiders 6 6.15
    18 Patriots 10 6.14
    19 Vikings 10 6.10
    20 Cowboys 9 6.10
    21 Browns 9 6.09
    22 Cardinals 8 6.08
    23 Bears 11 6.05
    24 Bills 8 6.04
    25 Broncos 9 6.02
    26 Steelers 7 6.01
    27 Chargers 8 6.00
    28 49ers 9 5.98
    29 Buccaneers 8 5.94
    30 Colts 8 5.90
    31 Rams 8 5.86
    32 Dolphins 4 5.80

    One difference is that we’ve usually assigned all players that weren’t in the book a flat 5.7, but with the number of players who made the site and with dropping some of the grade thresholds, we bumped that number to 5.4 this year, which is the equivalent to a training camp body. We took those grades for each player and divided that by the number of selections the team had. These rankings do not account for the value of where players were drafted or trades teams made; it is literally based on the grades we gave the players who were drafted.

    The 2022 Best Draft Class, with an average grade of 6.53, went to the New York Jets. They had seven draft picks and made the most of them by selecting players who were all featured on the SIS NFL Draft site.

    The Jets draft class is in the table below.

    New York Jets 2022 Draft Class
    Pick Position Player College Grade
    4 CB Ahmad Gardner Cincinnati 6.8
    10 WR Garrett Wilson Ohio State 6.8
    26 ED Jermaine Johnson II Florida State 6.7
    36 RB Breece Hall Iowa State 6.7
    101 TE Jeremy Ruckert Ohio State 6.6
    111 OT Max Mitchell Louisiana 6.3
    117 ED Micheal Clemons Texas A&M 5.8

    It definitely doesn’t hurt the draft grade when you get three 1st-Round picks, especially when they’re all highly graded. The Jets did just that. After selecting Ahmad Gardner at No. 4 (SIS No. 2 CB) and Garrett Wilson at No. 10 (SIS No. 3 WR), they traded back up to No. 26 to grab Jermaine Johnson II (SIS No. 5 Edge).

    Gardner is a long press corner who figures to step into the mix right away. Wilson is an excellent receiver with the traits to be a top receiver option. Johnson has the pass rush ability to be a force getting to the quarterback early and often.

    Beyond that, Breece Hall (SIS No. 2 RB) in the 2nd Round was good value, as he could eventually take over the starting job. Jeremy Ruckert (SIS No. 2 TE) could arguably be the best and most complete tight end in this class.

    Max Mitchell and Micheal Clemons on Day 3 were great value picks who should come in and compete for depth spots within their first couple seasons.

    SIS Top Draft Classes
    Year Team Previous Season Following Season 2nd Season
    2019 Tennessee Titans 9-7 (No Playoffs) 9-7 (L, AFC Champ) 11-5 (L, Wild Card)
    2020 Cleveland Browns 6-10 (No Playoffs) 11-5 (L, Divisional) 8-9
    2021 Detroit Lions 5-11 (No Playoffs) 3-13-1 ?
    2022 New York Jets 4-13 (No Playoffs) ? ?

    Since we grade players based on what they will be at the beginning of Year 2, let’s widen the table of our recent Draft Class winners. After winning in 2019, the Titans made consecutive playoff appearances. While the Browns made the playoffs the next year, the turmoil in that locker room this year forced a fall to 8-9.

    Finally, the Lions did take a dip this season after taking home the No. 1 class last year, but it was Year 1 with a new regime and they were competitive in most games. Look for them to take a step forward in 2022.

    What does that mean for the Jets? They got their franchise quarterback in Zach Wilson last year and have added good pieces around him. If he’s able to show significant development in Year 2, look for them to improve upon their 4-13 record last year.

    Scout’s Choice

    John Todd: Houston Texans (SIS Rank: 6th)

    After not having a 2021 selection until the 3rd Round last year, and only 5 picks overall, the Texans needed to make up for lost time in 2022. Determining if QB Davis Mills will be a hit is the biggest key, but we feel like Houston’s draft class this year did a great job of building up the team around him.

    Each of the Texans first 6 selections this year received a 6.4 grade (role-playing starter) or higher. Their first three choices of Derek Stingley Jr. (6.9, SIS No. 1 CB), Kenyon Green (6.9, SIS No. 1 OG) and Jalen Pitre (6.8, SIS No. 4 S) project to be high-impact players and potential cornerstone choices for the new regime. Their next three mid-round picks are all football-young, upside picks from the SEC in WR John Metchie III, LB Christian Harris, and RB Dameon Pierce.

    They did a great job of finding quality contributors after the first two rounds and made some big splashes with their early picks. There’s a long way to go in Houston, but this was a big step in the right direction.

    Nathan Cooper: Detroit Lions (SIS Rank: 3rd)

    This is a homer pick, but the Lions rank 3rd this season after taking home the top honor last year. That’s two outstanding draft classes in the first two seasons for Brad Holmes and company.

    Aidan Hutchinson was the top player on the SIS board, and one of only three 7.0 players graded this year. Getting him at No. 2 had the Lions War Room as ecstatic as they were to get Penei Sewell at No. 7 last year. Then, instead of sitting back at No. 32, they moved up to No. 12 without having to give up a 2023 1st-Round pick, and took Jameson Williams (SIS No. 2 WR). The Lions need impact players, and they got one on each side of the ball.

    On Day 2, Josh Paschal (SIS No. 10 Edge) is a strong, versatile defensive lineman with heavy hands and the ability to work against both the run and pass. Additionally, Kerby Joseph (SIS No. 5 S) has the range on the back end and is still learning the position.

    If not for an injury early in 2021, James Mitchell (SIS No. 12 TE) could’ve been in the top 5-7 tight ends heading into this year’s draft. The other Day 3 picks of Malcolm Rodriguez, James Houston IV, and Chase Lucas should all compete for depth spots at their respective positions, and at worst fill some holes on special teams.

    Jordan Edwards: Baltimore Ravens (SIS Rank: 4th)

    The Ravens were able to accumulate an abundance of talent with safety Kyle Hamilton, center Tyler Linderbaum, and tight end Isaiah Likely, who were our top ranked players at each of their respective positions. In addition to that, they added players who can make an immediate impact, such as nose tackle Travis Jones (SIS No. 2 NT) and a towering tackle prospect in Daniel Faalele (SIS No. 8 OT), who can fill a void in the offensive line left last year from the Orlando Brown trade.

    Also, looking ahead to the 2023 season they’ll have edge rusher David Ojabo (SIS No. 8 Edge), who is coming off a torn Achilles injury, that should make a very intriguing pass rush pairing with former high school teammate Odafe Oweh.

    Jeff Dean: Kansas City Chiefs (SIS Rank: 13th)

    The Chiefs defense should look a lot different next year with 5 of their top 6 picks going to that side of the ball. Trent McDuffie (SIS No. 3 CB) is a perfect fit in their defense and with half of their draft picks being defensive backs, it was clearly an area of concern. George Karlaftis (SIS No. 4 Edge) and Leo Chenal (SIS No. 3 Mike LB) both add immediate toughness in their front seven and should challenge for starting spots right away.

    While trading away Tyreek Hill created an area of need at wide receiver, the Chiefs didn’t jump up during the early wide receiver run and snagged a dynamic playmaker in Skyy Moore (SIS No. 9 WR). Darian Kinnard (SIS No. 3 OG) was once viewed as a 1st-Round pick and offers extreme value late in the draft. The Chiefs just solidified themselves as an AFC contender again with a strong draft.

    Ben Hrkach: Seattle Seahawks (SIS Rank: 7th)

    The Seahawks draft haul included a blend of easily translatable players that should start early in their career, especially Charles Cross (SIS No. 2 OT), as well as prospects with high-level traits that could excel at their position, such as Boye Mafe (SIS No. 9 Edge), Kenneth Walker III (SIS No. 3 RB), Coby Bryant (SIS No. 5 CB), and Tariq Woolen (SIS No. 14 CB), if they fulfill their potential.

    With what looks to be a strong QB class in 2023, Seattle is situated to replicate their “Legion of Boom” roster with solid starters throughout, all with controllable, salary cap-friendly contracts.

    Bottom of the rankings

    The bottom three teams for 2022, listed 30 to 32, were the Colts. Rams, and Dolphins. 

    Although the Colts didn’t possess a 1st-Round pick, they were still able to grab Bernhard Raimann (SIS No. 6 OT) in the 3rd Round, which was their best pick according to our grades. Alec Pierce (SIS No. 12 WR) is a solid No. 3 option and Jelani Woods (SIS No. 11 TE) is an athletic freak, but we project him as more of a backup. Additionally, they seemed to go heavy on small-schoolers, taking three FCS players late in the draft, two of which were not featured on the site.

    The Rams took home the worst draft class last year, and look at how that worked out. They won the Super Bowl. It’s apparent Les Snead isn’t worried about draft picks, so when you don’t have many early-round selections, it’s highly likely you’ll find yourself near the bottom.

    With that said, three of their eight selections were players not featured on the site. Their best selection was Derion Kendrick (SIS No. 11 CB) in the 6th Round. He struggled at his Pro Day, but has the tools to be a low-end starting corner at the next level. We view Kyren Williams (SIS No. 14 RB) as a 3rd-down difference maker and Logan Bruss (SIS No. 13 OG), their first selection of the draft, as a versatile backup along the O-Line.

    This year’s worst class goes to the Miami Dolphins. Another team without an early-round pick, their first pick came in the 3rd Round.

    However, it was an awesome one in Channing Tindall (SIS No. 4 Will LB). He’s an absolute missile at the linebacker position with a non-stop motor. After selecting Tindall, they drafted Erik Ezukanma (SIS No. 36 WR) in the 4th Round with Cameron Goode and Skylar Thompson coming in the 7th. Thompson just missed out on making the website.

    With the trade for Tyreek Hill, however, one can argue that he’s part of the draft class and should be a huge weapon for Tua. Can the Dolphins follow in the footsteps of the Rams and win the Super Bowl after having the worst draft class? We’ll see.

    Key Facts

    Ten teams selected players who were all featured on the NFL Draft site. An additional three teams selected all but one, with the one being a special teams player.

    After having the No. 2 Draft Class, the Eagles have reportedly added twelve UDFAs post-draft, with Carson Strong (SIS No. 5 QB), EJ Perry (SIS No. 8 QB), Mario Goodrich (SIS No. 18 CB), and Noah Elliss (SIS No. 5 NT) highlighting the group.

    The Ravens have selected only three players who were not featured in the Handbook or on the site over the last four seasons, and only one wasn’t a fullback or punter (Brandon Stephens).

    Across the past four seasons, the Bengals have the best average SIS Draft Class rank and grade average based on what grades were given in the Handbook and onto the website.

    How the Handbook Compared to the Draft

    Let’s take a look at how the SIS website stacks up to the NFL’s thinking of where players were selected. Outside of the Travon Walker/Aidan Hutchinson situation, SIS’s top player at each defensive position (NT, DT, Mike LB, Will LB, CB, and S) matched the first player of that group taken in the draft.

    However, offensively we saw plenty of differences, only matching the first center (Tyler Linderbaum) and guard (Kenyon Green) taken. We matched with the same group of first five tackles taken, Mike linebackers, and edge rushers in slightly different orders, and matched 4 of the 5 at multiple positions. Every player an NFL team took within the top five at his position was on our website with a worthy grade, which we’re very proud of. The difference of opinion is healthy, and we’ll be interested to see how it shakes out in the years to come.

    Overdrafted?

    Some of the players we believe were taken too early in our estimation were Arnold Ebiketie and Tyquan Thornton, two top 50 selections who received 5.9 grades from our scouts. We liked the traits enough to give them top backup grades, but there’s work to be done to become a starting-caliber player.

    The first round lined up with our grades very well. Again, our methodology of role-based scouting doesn’t lend itself to lining up perfectly with the rounds that players are selected in, but generally speaking, taking a player graded as a backup very early isn’t a good thing, as only 4 of the first 32 did not receive a 6.7 or higher from SIS. 

    However, we did have the Patriots’ selection of Cole Strange as our biggest Day 1 “reach.” With that said, we still did give Strange a lower-end starting grade, so even if it was a bit surprising, we still see him playing early for New England. The other non-6.7s were Kenny Pickett, Quay Walker, and Kaiir Elam.

    Some other players we believe were taken too early for the roles we project them to are Martin Emerson, JT Woods, and Nick Cross, three players taken who were Top-100 selections who received grades a notch below a top backup.

    The first eligible player (non-specialist or fullback) taken who we did not give a strong enough grade to reach the threshold we set for the website was Broncos WR Montrell Washington, taken in the 5th round, 162nd overall. This is the latest a non-website/Handbook player has been taken in the past four years.

    Underdrafted?

    Some Day 3 picks we believe will outperform their draft position include Coby Bryant, Isaiah Spiller, and Kingsley Enagbare. Each player received a universal solid-starting grade of 6.7 from our scouts and were high on our “SIS 101” Big Board. We also liked the Ravens’ two 4th-Round tight end selections of Charlie Kolar and Isaiah Likely, who were each graded a step below at 6.6.

    Later on, there were six players at the 6.5 grade level taken in the 6th Round and later. Those players are Amare Barno, Grant Calcaterra, Cade Mays, Derion Kendrick, Kalia Davis, and Rasheed Walker. We think there’s a great chance these players can contribute in a big way by their second years in the league.

    The only players SIS graded within the top 5 of their position group who were not drafted were Carson Strong, Alec Lindstrom, Dohnovan West, and Noah Elliss. Each of these players has already signed as a priority free agent (including, as noted earlier, two by the Eagles), and we could easily see them finding their way onto a roster this fall.

    Our lone 6.7-level player who wasn’t selected in the draft was Justyn Ross, which has been widely discussed. His medical history (as we’ve noted on his report) is extensive, but we grade the player for who he is on the field. He finally landed with the Chiefs on a UDFA deal Monday afternoon. Similarly, Damone Clark was drafted much later than he possibly should have been, but he recently underwent surgery that will likely keep him from playing his rookie season.

    Handbook Report Card

    Every year the SIS scouting department looks to make improvements, and this year was our biggest leap yet. Transitioning to a website allowed us to remove our strict word count/page restrictions, which led to more thorough report writing and a much larger number of reports. There are 410 scouting reports on the Sports Info Solutions NFL Draft website, compared to 318 in 2021’s third annual edition of the SIS Rookie Handbook, the majority of which are much longer and more readable in their current format.

    The number of drafted non-specialist/fullback players not featured on our site went down, as did the number of players drafted on whom we didn’t have eyes on at all (only 6 out of 262!). As we noted, our 1st-Round evaluations were a big success with 28/32 picks receiving 6.7 grades or higher and none below 6.5. The first player not featured on the website to be drafted was taken almost 90 picks after he was last year and not until the middle of the 5th Round.

    Our scouting process became much more broad and collaborative this season, which can be seen in these results. As more of our contributors take larger ownership of certain regions, and further levels of cross-checks are added, our draft evaluations will only become more comprehensive. Due to the advent of our website, we were able to incorporate Combine and Pro Day performances as slight factors into the process, which was a new strategy for us that led to deeper injury evaluations and some needed triple checking of reports.

    We can’t wait to build off the success of the introduction to our online platform and streamline the process moving forward. Year 2 of the site and Year 5 of the process will no doubt be the best yet, as has every previous edition before it.

    Please continue to check out the SIS NFL Draft website as the offseason continues. If you’d like to be involved in our scouting and charting processes next year, consider applying to our Football Video scout position. We’re taking applications and interviewing for next year’s class now. 

     

  • What Does Your Team Need in the NFL Draft?

    What Does Your Team Need in the NFL Draft?

    Over the past couple of weeks, we’ve done in-depth pieces looking at what each NFL team needs in the upcoming draft and which players are the best fits to fill those needs.

    If you’re looking for your team, you’ve come to the right place. You can find all of the articles here.

    Team Article Link
    49ers https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/26/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-san-francisco-49ers/
    Bears https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/26/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-chicago-bears/
    Bengals https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/19/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-cincinnati-bengals/
    Bills https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/26/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-buffalo-bills/
    Broncos https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/22/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-denver-broncos/
    Browns https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/25/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-cleveland-browns/
    Buccaneers https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/19/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-tampa-bay-buccaneers/
    Cardinals https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/27/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-arizona-cardinals/
    Chargers https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/15/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-los-angeles-chargers/
    Chiefs https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/13/nfl-draft-analysis-kansas-city-chiefs/
    Colts https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/13/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-indianapolis-colts/
    Commanders https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/14/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-washington-commanders/
    Cowboys https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/19/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-dallas-cowboys/
    Dolphins https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/27/nfl-draft-analysis-miami-dolphins/
    Eagles https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/26/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-philadelphia-eagles/
    Falcons https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/27/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-atlanta-falcons/
    Giants https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/18/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-new-york-giants
    Jaguars https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/08/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-jacksonville-jaguars/
    Jets https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/18/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-new-york-jets/
    Lions https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/21/2555/
    Packers https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/25/sis-nfl-draft-pick-analysis-green-bay-packers/
    Panthers https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/12/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-carolina-panthers/
    Patriots https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/25/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-new-england-patriots/
    Raiders https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/12/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-las-vegas-raiders/
    Rams https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/15/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-los-angeles-rams/
    Ravens https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/20/sis-nfl-draft-analysis-baltimore-ravens/
    Saints https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/27/nfll-draft-pick-analysis-new-orleans-saints/
    Seahawks https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/27/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-seattle-seahawks/
    Steelers https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/20/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-pittsburgh-steelers/
    Texans https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/22/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-houston-texans/
    Titans https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/25/nfl-draft-pick-analysis-tennessee-titans/
    Vikings https://ww2.sportsinfosolutions.com/2022/04/21/nfl-draft-analysis-minnesota-vikings/

     

  • 2022 SIS Ops 7-Round Mock Draft

    2022 SIS Ops 7-Round Mock Draft

    There is still so much uncertainty for much of Round 1 that this could be one of the most unpredictable NFL Drafts in some time.

    Who is the No. 1 overall pick? When does the first quarterback go off the board? How many Georgia players get selected in Round 1?

    Using traditional scouting and analytics in conjunction with the brand new SIS NFL Draft site, the Sports Info Solutions Operations department tried their hand at attempting to answer all of these questions and more in a full 7-Round Mock Draft.

    Where are your favorite players going to land?

    Who is your favorite team going to select?

    Those questions and more are about to be answered. Find out now!

    Round 1
    Pick Team Scout Player College
    1 Jaguars John ED Aidan Hutchinson Michigan
    The Jaguars need building block, reliable, cornerstone players – don’t overthink it.
    2 Lions Nathan ED Kayvon Thibodeaux Oregon
    The Lions need a lot of help and getting to the quarterback is one of them, so expect Thibodeaux to come in and be a force right away.
    3 Texans Nathan CB Ahmad Gardner Cincinnati
    The discussion here is likely between tackle and corner, but Gardner’s length and athleticism is game-changing in the secondary for years to come.
    4 Jets Alec OT Ikem Ekwonu NC State
    Icky gives the Jets much needed insurance for a tackle room that has questions beyond 2022 while adding another dominant run blocker into the fold. Becton the odd man out?
    5 Giants Ben OT Charles Cross Mississippi State
    Cross allows the Giants to move Andrew Thomas to the right side and gives them bookends that will keep Daniel Jones upright in his prove-it year.
    6 Panthers Jordan OT Evan Neal Alabama
    Neal can give the Panthers stability at the left tackle position, and fits their history of drafting high-profile SEC prospects with Top 10 selections in recent years.
    7 Giants Ben CB Derek Stingley Jr. LSU
    Without a proven top-tier corner on the roster, Stingley Jr. will have the opportunity to prove that he truly is an elite prospect and end the negative speculation that arose over his past two seasons at LSU.
    8 Falcons Jordan ED Travon Walker Georgia
    The Falcons can go BPA as they have many positions of need at the moment, and see a top edge rusher fall into their lap at 8 overall.
    9 Seahawks Jeff QB Malik Willis Liberty
    While there are rumors the Seahawks actually like Drew Lock, they decide to swing for the fences without forcing Willis to start from day 1.
    10 Jets Alec ED Jermaine Johnson II Florida State
    The Jets need a rusher opposite Carl Lawson, who is coming off an Achillies tear, and allows this defense to function as it is designed. Don’t be shocked if you see the Jets make a move on draft night to get back into Round 1 for a WR, using picks 35 and 38
    11 Commanders John WR Garrett Wilson Ohio State
    Wilson adds a much needed explosive element to Washington’s passing game
    12 Vikings Jeff S Kyle Hamilton Notre Dame
    One of the best players in the whole draft falls due to positional value, and the Vikings happily add the versatile Hamilton to their new-look defense.
    13 Texans Nathan OT Trevor Penning Northern Iowa
    The Texans need OL help bad, and if selected, Penning has a fairly clear path to the RT job within his first couple years.
    14 Ravens Segev NT Jordan Davis Georgia
    One of the best players available at this point in the draft, the Ravens will gladly take a chance on Davis’s upside to be a game changing interior DL
    15 Eagles Ben ED George Karlaftis Purdue
    After finishing with the second lowest amount of sacks in 2021, The Eagles need to get to the quarterback more frequently and Karlaftis is a player that can do that from various alignments, making him a prime candidate to take over for Brandon Graham.
    16 Saints Jordan WR Jameson Williams Alabama
    Although he is recovering from an ACL injury, Williams’ speed to stretch the field vertically is a need in the Saints WR room.
    17 Chargers John OG Zion Johnson Boston College
    Adding a playmaker in the slot is intriguing, but giving star QB Justin Herbert better protection is crucial.
    18 Eagles Ben CB Trent McDuffie Washington
    McDuffie is a high-floor prospect that will excel as a No. 2 corner immediately and will forces offenses to challenge Darius Slay more frequently.
    19 Saints Jordan DT Devonte Wyatt Georgia
    With all the top tackles gone to this point, the Saints look to go BPA and add to the interior of their DL.
    20 Steelers Jeremy QB Kenny Pickett Pittsburgh
    The Steelers keep Pickett in Pittsburgh to compete for the starting job with Mitchell Trubisky.
    21 Patriots Stephen LB Devin Lloyd Utah
    An athletic and versatile linebacker will fit perfectly into a Bill Belichick defense, especially to an aging linebacker corps.
    22 Packers Jeff WR Treylon Burks Arkansas
    Burks gives the Packers a dynamic playmaker from Rodgers to work with and should alleviate some of the sting of trading away Adams.
    23 Cardinals Ben WR Drake London USC
    Arizona’s offense is in need of young, dynamic skill position players and London has the ability to become a true No. 1 receiver early in his career.
    24 Cowboys Chad OG Kenyon Green Texas A&M
    The Cowboys need to rebuild their offensive line to get back their ground game, and Green provides immediate help at guard.
    25 Bills Evan CB Andrew Booth Jr. Clemson
    The Bills need to fill a hole at their #2 CB spot across from Tre’Davious White and Booth can fill that role for their defense.
    26 Titans Dan LB Nakobe Dean Georgia
    Nakobe Dean brings high FBI and very good range to a position lacking depth and elite athleticism.
    27 Buccaneers Jordan DT Logan Hall Houston
    The Bucs love long and powerful interior defenders and Hall’s physical and athletic makeup fit the profile that Tampa desires making this an ideal fit.
    28 Packers Jeff WR Chris Olave Ohio State
    While double-dipping at a position is rare, the Packers still have a need for receiving threats and have the luxury of not having many other pressing needs so they take the best receiver left on the board.
    29 Chiefs Nathan S Daxton Hill Michigan
    After losing Tyrann Mathieu, Hill would come in and serve a similar role with the hope of being just as productive within just a couple seasons.
    30 Chiefs Nathan WR Jahan Dotson Penn State
    With the trade of Tyreek Hill, they’ve brought in FA receivers, but Dotson will bring more firepower to the position with the athleticism and versatility
    31 Bengals Jeff OT Tyler Smith Tulsa
    The Bengals offensive line was an issue last year, especially in the postseason, and Smith has inside-outside flexibility to help protect their franchise quarterback.
    32 Lions Nathan S Lewis Cine Georgia
    The Lions need athleticism in the secondary, and Cine would pair nicely with Tracy Walker at the safety positions.
    Round 2
    Pick Team Scout Player College
    33 Jaguars John OC Tyler Linderbaum Iowa
    34 Lions Nathan WR George Pickens Georgia
    35 Jets Alec S Jaquan Brisker Penn State
    36 Giants Ben S Jalen Pitre Baylor
    37 Texans Nathan LB Quay Walker Georgia
    38 Jets Alec WR Christian Watson North Dakota State
    39 Bears Jacob CB Coby Bryant Cincinnati
    40 Seahawks Jeff OG Darian Kinnard Kentucky
    41 Seahawks Jeff ED David Ojabo Michigan
    42 Colts Jeremy WR Skyy Moore Western Michigan
    43 Falcons Jordan QB Matt Corral Ole Miss
    44 Browns Ben ED Boye Mafe Minnesota
    45 Ravens Segev CB Kaiir Elam Florida
    46 Vikings Jeff DT DeMarvin Leal Texas A&M
    47 Commanders John RB Kenneth Walker III Michigan State
    48 Bears Jacob OG Dylan Parham Memphis
    49 Saints Jordan OT Bernhard Raimann Central Michigan
    50 Chiefs Nathan CB Kyler Gordon Washington
    51 Eagles Ben S Kerby Joseph lllinois
    52 Steelers Jeremy NT Travis Jones UCONN
    53 Packers Jeff CB Cam Taylor-Britt Nebraska
    54 Patriots Stephen WR Alec Pierce Cincinnati
    55 Cardinals Ben ED Myjai Sanders Cincinnati
    56 Cowboys Chad ED Kingsley Enagbare South Carolina
    57 Bills Evan RB Isaiah Spiller Texas A&M
    58 Falcons Jordan WR David Bell Purdue
    59 Packers Jeff ED Josh Paschal Kentucky
    60 Buccaneers Jordan OG Cole Strange Chattanooga
    61 49ers John CB Roger McCreary Auburn
    62 Chiefs Nathan DT Perrion Winfrey Oklahoma
    63 Bengals Jeff TE Isaiah Likely Coastal Carolina
    64 Broncos Nathan TE Trey McBride Colorado State
    Round 3
    Pick Team Scout Player College
    65 Jaguars John RB Breece Hall Iowa State
    66 Lions Nathan QB Desmond Ridder Cincinnati
    67 Giants Ben QB Sam Howell North Carolina
    68 Texans Nathan TE Jeremy Ruckert Ohio State
    69 Jets Alec LB Chad Muma Wyoming
    70 Jaguars John LB Brian Asamoah Oklahoma
    71 Bears Jacob WR Wan’Dale Robinson Kentucky
    72 Seahawks Jeff ED Nik Bonitto Oklahoma
    73 Colts Jeremy TE Greg Dulcich UCLA
    74 Falcons Jordan S Bryan Cook Cincinnati
    75 Broncos Nathan OT Nicholas Petit-Frere Ohio State
    76 Ravens Segev OG Cade Mays Tennessee
    77 Vikings Jeff LB Leo Chenal Wisconsin
    78 Browns Ben LB D’Marco Jackson Appalachian State
    79 Chargers John WR Khalil Shakir Boise State
    80 Texans Nathan RB Dameon Pierce Florida
    81 Giants Ben OC Dohnovan West Arizona State
    82 Falcons Jordan WR John Metchie III Alabama
    83 Eagles Ben LB Troy Andersen Montana
    84 Steelers Jeremy WR Justyn Ross Clemson
    85 Patriots Stephen CB Tariq Woolen UTSA
    86 Raiders Theo LB Channing Tindall Georgia
    87 Cardinals Ben TE Charlie Kolar Iowa State
    88 Cowboys Chad LB Christian Harris Alabama
    89 Bills Evan OG Ed Ingram LSU
    90 Titans Dan OC Alec Lindstrom Boston College
    91 Buccaneers Jordan TE Cade Otton Washington
    92 Packers Jeff TE Jalen Wydermyer Texas A&M
    93 49ers John ED Arnold Ebiketie Penn State
    94 Chiefs Nathan ED Cameron Thomas San Diego State
    95 Bengals Jeff OT Daniel Faalele Minnesota
    96 Broncos Nathan ED Isaiah Thomas Oklahoma
    97 Lions Nathan LB Terrell Bernard Baylor
    98 Saints Jordan S Nick Cross Maryland
    99 Browns Ben DT Phidarian Mathis Alabama
    100 Ravens Segev OT Max Mitchell Louisiana
    101 Eagles Ben WR Jalen Tolbert South Alabama
    102 Dolphins Alec OC Cam Jurgens Nebraska
    103 Chiefs Nathan OT Rasheed Walker Penn State
    104 Rams Justin CB Cordale Flott LSU
    105 49ers John OC Luke Fortner Kentucky
    Round 4
    Pick Team Scout Player College
    106 Jaguars John OT Joshua Ezeudu North Carolina
    107 Texans Nathan S Verone McKinley III Oregon
    108 Texans Nathan DT Matthew Butler Tennessee
    109 Seahawks Jeff LB Damone Clark LSU
    110 Ravens Segev LB Jeremiah Gemmel North Carolina
    111 Jets Alec RB Tyler Allgeier BYU
    112 Giants Ben ED Sam Williams Ole Miss
    113 Commanders John QB Carson Strong Nevada
    114 Falcons Jordan RB Zamir White Georgia
    115 Broncos Nathan CB Alontae Taylor Tennessee
    116 Broncos Nathan OG Justin Shaffer Georgia
    117 Jets Alec CB Derion Kendrick Georgia
    118 Browns Ben TE Jelani Woods Virginia
    119 Ravens Segev ED Drake Jackson USC
    120 Saints Jordan RB Brian Robinson Jr. Alabama
    121 Chiefs Nathan ED DeAngelo Malone Western Kentucky
    122 Colts Jeremy OT Abraham Lucas Washington State
    123 Chargers John OT Sean Rhyan UCLA
    124 Eagles Ben RB Jerome Ford Cincinnati
    125 Dolphins Alec LB Brandon Smith Penn State
    126 Raiders Theo NT Otito Ogbonnia UCLA
    127 Patriots Stephen OT Zachary Thomas San Diego State
    128 Ravens Segev RB Kyren Williams Notre Dame
    129 Cowboys Chad TE Daniel Bellinger San Diego State
    130 Bills Evan WR Danny Gray SMU
    131 Titans Dan CB Damarion Williams Houston
    132 Packers Jeff OT Spencer Burford UTSA
    133 Buccaneers Jordan RB James Cook Georgia
    134 49ers John CB Marcus Jones Houston
    135 Chiefs Nathan CB Mario Goodrich Clemson
    136 Bengals Jeff NT John Ridgeway Arkansas
    137 Panthers Jordan ED Amare Barno Virginia Tech
    138 Steelers Jeremy OT Zach Tom Wake Forest
    139 Ravens Segev TE Austin Allen Nebraska
    140 Packers Jeff ED Alex Wright UAB
    141 Ravens Segev ED Jesse Luketa Penn State
    142 Rams Justin OT Kellen Diesch Arizona State
    143 Titans Dan WR Tyquan Thornton Baylor
    Round 5
    Pick Team Scout Player College
    144 Panthers Jordan QB Bailey Zappe Western Kentucky
    145 Seahawks Jeff RB Pierre Strong South Dakota State
    146 Jets Alec WR Bo Melton Rutgers
    147 Giants Ben RB Abram Smith Baylor
    148 Bears Jacob OT Obinna Eze TCU
    149 Panthers Jordan OG Thayer Munford Ohio State
    150 Bears Jacob WR Dai’Jean Dixon Nicholls State
    151 Falcons Jordan DT Zachary Carter Florida
    152 Broncos Nathan WR Calvin Austin III Memphis
    153 Seahawks Jeff DT Kalia Davis UCF
    154 Eagles Ben OT Bamidele Olaseni Utah
    155 Cowboys Chad S Yusuf Corker Kentucky
    156 Vikings Jeff TE Grant Calcaterra SMU
    157 Jaguars John CB Zyon McCollum Sam Houston State
    158 Patriots Stephen OG Jamaree Salyer Georgia
    159 Colts Jeremy LB Darrian Beavers Cincinnati
    160 Chargers John CB Kalon Barnes Baylor
    161 Saints Jordan CB Jalyn Armour-Davis Alabama
    162 Eagles Ben DT Neil Farrell Jr. LSU
    163 Jets Jeremy OG Marquis Hayes Oklahoma
    164 Raiders Theo OT Andrew Stueber Michigan
    165 Raiders Theo CB Akayleb Evans Missouri
    166 Eagles Ben OC Keegan Cryder Wyoming
    167 Cowboys Chad WR Velus Jones Jr. Tennessee
    168 Bills Evan S Dane Belton Iowa
    169 Titans Dan QB EJ Perry Brown
    170 Texans Nathan WR Kyle Philips UCLA
    171 Packers Jeff CB Mykael Wright Oregon
    172 49ers John OG Lecitus Smith Virginia Tech
    173 Giants Ben LB Aaron Hansford Texas A&M
    174 Bengals Jeff ED Christopher Allen Alabama
    175 Rams Justin LB JoJo Domann Nebraska
    176 Cowboys Chad OT Braxton Jones Southern Utah
    177 Lions Nathan CB Joshua Williams Fayetteville State
    178 Cowboys Chad CB Josh Jobe Alabama
    179 Colts Jeremy WR Romeo Doubs Nevada
    Round 6
    Pick Team Scout Player College
    180 Jaguars John S JT Woods Baylor
    181 Lions Nathan RB Rachaad White Arizona State
    182 Giants Ben DT Haskell Garrett Ohio State
    183 Patriots Stephen WR Britain Covey Utah
    184 Vikings Jeff CB Tayler Hawkins San Diego State
    185 Bills Evan DT Curtis Brooks Cincinnati
    186 Bears Jacob S Markquese Bell Florida A&M
    187 49ers John RB Ty Chandler North Carolina
    188 Jaguars John OG Luke Goedeke Central Michigan
    189 Commanders John LB Jack Sanborn Wisconsin
    190 Falcons Jordan P Matt Araiza San Diego State
    191 Vikings Jeff OT Austin Deculus LSU
    192 Vikings Jeff OG Logan Bruss Wisconsin
    193 Cowboys Chad K Cade York LSU
    194 Saints Jordan OT Dare Rosenthal Kentucky
    195 Chargers John ED Tyreke Smith Ohio State
    196 Ravens Segev WR Michael Woods II Oklahoma
    197 Jaguars John WR Tre Turner Virginia Tech
    198 Jaguars John TE Jake Ferguson Wisconsin
    199 Panthers Jordan S Tycen Anderson Toledo
    200 Patriots Stephen S Delarrin Turner-Yell Oklahoma
    201 Cardinals Ben RB Hassan Haskins Michigan
    202 Browns Ben WR Reggie Roberson Jr. SMU
    203 Bills Evan OT Matt Waletzko North Dakota
    204 Titans Dan DT Eyioma Uwazurike Iowa State
    205 Texans Nathan CB Jermaine Waller Virginia Tech
    206 Broncos Nathan S Percy Butler Louisiana
    207 Texans Nathan OC Dawson Deaton Texas Tech
    208 Steelers Jeremy S Smoke Monday Auburn
    209 Bengals Jeff CB Chase Lucas Arizona State
    210 Patriots Stephen ED Micheal Clemons Texas A&M
    211 Rams Justin OG Chris Paul Tulsa
    212 Rams Justin NT Noah Elliss Idaho
    213 Falcons Jordan LB Malcolm Rodriguez Oklahoma State
    214 Chargers John RB Tyrion Davis-Price LSU
    215 Cardinals Ben ED Dominique Robinson Miami OH
    216 Colts Jeremy OG Chasen Hines LSU
    217 Lions Nathan LB Tariq Carpenter Georgia Tech
    218 Rams Justin OG Jason Poe Mercer
    219 Titans Dan RB Kennedy Brooks Oklahoma
    220 49ers John S Leon O’Neal Texas A&M
    221 49ers John DT Matt Henningsen Wisconsin
    Round 7
    Pick Team Scout Player College
    222 Jaguars John LB Kyron Johnson Kansas
    223 Browns Ben S Kekaula Kaniho Boise State
    224 Dolphins Alec WR Kevin Austin Jr. Notre Dame
    225 Steelers Jeremy RB ZaQuandre White South Carolina
    226 Bengals Jeff OC Brock Hoffman Virginia Tech
    227 Raiders Theo TE Derrick Deese Jr San Jose State
    228 Packers Jeff NT Marquan McCall Kentucky
    229 Seahawks Jeff TE Armani Rogers Ohio
    230 Commanders John DT Demetrius Taylor Appalachian State
    231 Bills Evan LB Nephi Sewell Utah
    232 Broncos Nathan LB Kana’i Mauga USC
    233 Chiefs Nathan S Joey Blount Virginia
    234 Broncos Nathan RB Tyler Badie Missouri
    235 Jaguars John DT Myron Tagovailoa-Amosa Notre Dame
    236 Chargers John WR Jaquarii Roberson Wake Forest
    237 Eagles Ben QB Cole Kelley Southeastern Louisiana
    238 Rams Justin ED Ali Fayad Western Michigan
    239 Colts Jeremy DT Thomas Booker Stanford
    240 Commanders John CB Decobie Durant South Carolina State
    241 Steelers Jeremy CB Damarri Mathis Pittsburgh
    242 Panthers Jordan TE Jeremiah Hall Oklahoma
    243 Chiefs Nathan LB Josh Ross Michigan
    244 Cardinals Ben OC Derek Schweiger Iowa State
    245 Patriots Stephen RB Jerrion Ealy Ole Miss
    246 Browns Ben OT Ja’Tyre Carter Southern
    247 Dolphins Alec DT Jayden Peevy Texas A&M
    248 Buccaneers Jordan CB Tariq Castro-Fields Penn State
    249 Packers Jeff LB Jake Hansen Illinois
    250 Vikings Jeff ED Jeffrey Gunter Coastal Carolina
    251 Chiefs Nathan ED Luiji Vilain Wake Forest
    252 Bengals Jeff FB Connor Heyward Michigan State
    253 Rams Justin TE James Mitchell Virginia Tech
    254 Chargers John ED Tyree Johnson Texas A&M
    255 Chargers John CB DaRon Bland Fresno State
    256 Cardinals Ben OT Nick Zakelj Fordham
    257 Cardinals Ben WR Erik Ezukanma Texas Tech
    258 Packers Jeff RB BJ Baylor Oregon State
    259 Chiefs Nathan WR Josh Johnson Tulsa
    260 Chargers John DT Eric Johnson Missouri State
    261 Buccaneers Jordan S Jaylan Foster South Carolina
    262 49ers John WR Samori Toure Nebraska

    The members of the SIS Operations staff who took part in this Mock Draft are: Nathan Cooper, John Todd, Jeff Dean, Ben Hrkach, Jordan Edwards, Alec Mallon, Chad Tedder, Jeremy Percy, Stephen Marciello, Evan Butler, Theo Fornaciari, Jacob Halleen, Dan Foehrenbach, Segev Goldberg, and Justin Stine.

  • STUDY: Athleticism vs Production – What is Valued in the NFL?

    STUDY: Athleticism vs Production – What is Valued in the NFL?

    Throughout the draft process, the words continue to echo: production profile, athletic freak, stats dominator, elite testing numbers. But what actually matters to NFL teams? Looking at athleticism through the lens of NFL Combine testing, as well as the production found through our proprietary stat, Total Points, can we identify what NFL teams value?

    The Data

    Using the data available, college stats and combine metrics all are between 2016-2020 (as the 2021 class did not have a combine). For these 4 classes, production was measured as their stats from the preceding year (for many, their senior year).

    Every position has different stats, but at SIS we invented Total Points, a measure to explain a player’s value in the scale of points on the scoreboard. This has been tracked from 2018 onwards for college. Knowing our draft sample is of multiple years before Total Points was tracked, I had to come up with a solution to retroactively fit production metrics to a Total Points stat. 

    I built a regression model for each position using the 2019 and 2020 classes as my training set. 2021 was ignored due to the differences in schedule lengths, and the many obstacles players experienced that season. Attempting to predict the percentile rank of a player’s Total Points, I used the player’s percentile rank in each of many selected statistics relevant to the position. Rather than averaging these percentiles, this regression model gives weights to the stats more related to Total Points. This allows us to approximate their Total Points as a measure of production from any season.

    This predicted Total Points gives a “Production Score”, between 0 (bad) and 100 (good). To illustrate what it looks like, these are the top 5 WRs:

    Rank Player Production Score
    1 Andy Isabella 95
    2 Justin Jefferson 94
    3 Taywan Taylor 94
    4 Zay Jones 94
    5 Keke Coutee 93

     

    With a lack of sufficient stats for seasons prior to 2018, offensive linemen were excluded from the analysis.

    The athletic scores get a little bit trickier, as not every player accrues scores. It’s not uncommon for players to skip the combine for a multitude of potential reasons. Among those that do compete, some choose selective tests they have trained and know they will perform well in, while others participate in everything they are eligible for. 

    Using a similar percentile ranking format as for production, players are compared on their tests among others at their position. Players are first checked to make sure they completed 3 different tests, then their lowest percentile score is dropped to eliminate the ambiguity of selective testing, missing for injuries, or common issues like a slip. The remaining scores are averaged to get an “Athletic Score”, also between 0 and 100. To illustrate what that looks like, here are what the top RBs look like:

    Rank Player Athletic Score
    1 Justice Hill 75
    2 Saquon Barkley 71
    3 Darrynton Evans 68
    4 A.J. Dillon 66
    5 Justin Jackson 65

    This isn’t a gauge of what translates into the NFL, it’s a study into what we can learn from teams’ draft trends. We are observing how they compare to each other through the lens of athleticism and their production profiles, and seeing how they translate to draft pick overall.

    What Helps a Player Get Drafted Higher?

    The simple answer is obvious: both. But we can do better than that. In the following charts, we can see the correlation of each of the production and athletic profiles with the draft position, as well as the two together.

     

    So what do these tell us?

    There are a few positions that see little correlation between either score and where they end up getting drafted (Cornerback, Defensive End, Quarterback, Safety). These are positions you could consider as “film positions,” as teams may look more for traits and on-field abilities rather than their overall performances in various metrics. The non-correlation between draft pick overall and production score for these positions tell me these metrics are not an ultimate decider of whether they are picked or not.

    Five positions really jump out, and are worthy of their own breakdowns.

    There is a gigantic difference between production and testing for running backs. While looking at production (which offers both rushing and receiving stats), there is almost no correlation. But when it comes to testing, that is the higher driver of draft capital. Only one player was drafted in the top 100 that didn’t have an above average athleticism score (Devin Singletary). Regardless of college production, the NFL is looking for good combine testing in running backs.

    Tight ends weigh in similarly to running backs. Production profiles are a bit scattered and all over the place, but when it comes to athletic testing, it stabilizes. However, the combined two metrics paint a good picture as to how high a tight end may get drafted, as seen in the combined (third) chart.

    Defensive tackles come with little predictability of production and athleticism, but when paired together, there’s a better vision. Neither work as individual metrics to predict draft position, but together, they help identify the higher-valued players.

    Linebackers have the highest correlation of any position to a production score. A productive LB is more likely to be selected before a less productive player, compared to the other positions. Being athletic is also highly desirable, so the two scores together fill out a very solid predictive line. 

    Wide receivers follow a similar style, while the metrics are strong individually, they work very well when combined together. When a WR performs on the field, and backs that up with a solid combine, they get selected high.

    Generally, it seems like the combine matters more than production. Which it does, as a random player’s athleticism score compared to their overall selection number has a correlation score of 0.25, where the same metric for production is at 0.24. The two r correlation scores are so similar, a conclusion of either mattering more than the other cannot be made, and these r values are relatively low and suggest more of a non-correlation. 

    The bottom line is, no, we cannot confidently guess a player’s overall draft pick number using these scores, but together, their r correlation score comes to a respectable 0.33.

    What do Teams Value?

    One especially interesting way to use these numbers is to evaluate how teams draft. We can look to see what teams are looking for in prospects. Can you guess what a team is going to look for in a  prospect? If so, does it hold value to you as a competitor?

    In all of these charts, trending to the top right is a team who likes their selections to be proven on paper, both by production and combine testing. In the bottom left, those are teams that are more likely to look for traits on film, rather than what can be seen by metrics.

    Where a team falls on these charts is not to be taken as a positive or a negative, as there are varying degrees of success all over. It is highly likely that there are teams somewhere in the middle that don’t especially value production or the combine, but have drafted toward the league average while not paying extra attention to these inputs.

    The value in the following charts is from looking at the extremes, not the centers.

    When looking at how teams draft, there are a few teams who really like high combine testers in the Packers, Saints, Titans, Eagles, Chargers, and Jaguars. There are teams that really value college production in the Colts, Saints, Titans, Broncos, Cardinals, Chargers, and Browns.

    But that’s the whole draft—what if I only care about the early picks? Those come with some wildly different results (albeit small samples of only 4 drafts), where the 49ers and Packers seem to really stress the combine performances along with many of the teams mentioned above, except for the Eagles, who fall to the middle. The Colts, Broncos, Saints, Titans, and Cardinals are very high in looking for college production in early picks of drafts (Jonathan Taylor an example).

    When looking only at days 1 and 2, the most surprising metrics to me are the amount of teams drafting players with below-average athletic scores. 12 teams have averaged drafting sub-par athletes based on combine metrics. To be fair, the Kansas City Chiefs won a Super Bowl as one of those teams, but many of the other teams below the threshold are recent bottom-dwellers (Jets, Lions, Dolphins, Bears).

    While the entire league drafts above average producing players in these early rounds, the Chiefs, 49ers, Packers, and Texans have each taken average-producing players. 

    When the draft hits the later rounds, the emphasis turns from finding starters to more dart throws. Looking for upside, teams are trying to find low-cost players who could return in-game value, and we see teams shift their emphasis as they get to this later stage.

    The Packers, Eagles, and Titans are the only teams to draft above-average athletes at this stage. These are teams that historically bank on players’ athletic traits. The Titans, Browns, and Rams are teams that look for production in college for their picks. The Panthers, Bills, Lions, 49ers, and Steelers evidently have little emphasis on combine results. The Giants, Bears, and Panthers evidently do not care for college production. 

    The red dotted lines indicate the average/average prospect, which matches across all plots. Comparing teams over each of these charts holds some interesting results, as the Chiefs and Rams tend to draft more productive players later in the draft, and the 49ers go from a combine-heavy team to a team that doesn’t care for it as the draft progresses.

    Another big takeaway is how athleticism tails off as we approach the later stages of the draft, where production remains a bit steadier. This implies teams emphasizing the combine early, and keeping the same emphasis on production throughout. 

    Overall, the teams drift from the highly productive and highly athletic players, to the ones who don’t measure up as well. The overall takeaway and the study’s bottom line is that college production and combine results BOTH matter to NFL teams.