- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 120,139
By Arif Hasan Apr 27, 2020
When it comes to draft analysis, people are usually happy to hear about prospects — what they’re good at, what they struggle with, where they fit — before the draft and hostile to it after, because of course, we can’t know how good a player will be before they’ve ever set foot on an NFL field.
But we do it because that’s part of sports, and one method to make sense of who did well in this weekend’s NFL Draft and who didn’t is to use our Consensus Big Board, which compiles the opinions of over 60 evaluators. While there’s a lot of disagreement over individual prospects between each evaluator, the sum total of the knowledge of all of these evaluators can be instructive.
In 2014 and 2015, the Consensus Big Board was almost exactly as efficient as the draft itself in evaluating talent. The most recent year we have for players that have entered second contracts is 2016, which gives us a good time to see if the board was any good at telling teams they were right or wrong to draft particular players.
The board that year was not as great at identifying “steals” — players who were ranked much higher than where they were selected and ended up outperforming their draft slots — as it was the prior two years but did well in identifying reaches — players taken well ahead of their big-board ranking who ultimately didn’t pan out. That may be because it takes many teams all passing on a player to have them fall and become a potential steal and only one team to take him too early and risk it being a reach.
Here are 2016’s “steals,” according to the Consensus Big Board, and whether they panned out. (Editor’s note: The first version of this table had Jalen Mills incorrectly labeled as not a steal. He was very much a steal and the table has been updated.)
| PLAYER | SCHOOL | POS | PICK | STEAL? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Laremy Tunsil | Ole Miss | OT | 13 | Yes |
| Myles Jack | UCLA | LB | 36 | Yes |
| Andrew Billings | Baylor | DL1T | 122 | Yes |
| Connor Cook | Michigan State | QB | 100 | No |
| A'Shawn Robinson | Alabama | DL3T | 46 | Yes |
| Jarran Reed | Alabama | DL3T | 49 | Yes |
| Jonathan Bullard | Florida | EDGE | 72 | No |
| Jalen Mills | LSU | CB | 233 | Yes |
| Reggie Ragland | Alabama | LB | 41 | No |
| Cardale Jones | Ohio State | QB | 139 | No |
| Shaq Lawson | Clemson | EDGE | 19 | No |
| Noah Spence | Eastern Kentucky | EDGE | 39 | No |
| Dak Prescott | Ole Miss | QB | 135 | Yes |
| Mackensie Alexander | Clemson | CB | 54 | No |
| Laquon Treadwell | Ole Miss | WR | 23 | No |
A’Shawn Robinson was difficult to figure out here because of an excellent 2018 campaign, and his contract value wasn’t high compared to other steals in the second round, like Chris Jones, Derrick Henry, Michael Thomas or Deion Jones — but $9.5 million a year isn’t bad. Shaq Lawson is a good player, but to call him a steal at 19 might be a bit rich. He’s earning about as much as Robinson. Mackensie Alexander played well in the final two years of his contract, but a $4 million deal excludes him from being a steal. Perhaps the board did a better job identifying players who dropped in the draft as “fairly good” rather than calling them true steals.
And here are the reaches.
| PLAYER | SCHOOL | POS | PICK | BUST? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seth DeValve | Princeton | WR | 138 | Yes |
| Jared Goff | California | QB | 1 | No |
| Carson Wentz | North Dakota State | QB | 2 | No |
| Brandon Williams | Texas A&M | CB | 92 | Yes |
| Keanu Neal | Florida | S | 17 | No |
| Karl Joseph | West Virginia | S | 14 | Yes |
| Tyreek Hill | West Alabama | WR | 165 | No |
| Eli Apple | Ohio State | CB | 10 | Yes |
| Trey Caldwell | Louisiana-Monroe | CB | 173 | Yes |
| Marqui Christian | Midwestern St | S | 167 | Yes |
| Roberto Aguayo | Florida State | PK | 59 | Yes |
| Cory James | Colorado State | LB | 194 | Yes |
| Wes Schweitzer | San Jose State | OT | 195 | No |
| Kamu Grugier-Hill | Eastern Illinois | S | 208 | Yes |
| Jimmy Landes | Baylor | LS | 210 | Yes |
The quarterbacks stand out, though it’s not often that the top two quarterbacks that go in the draft are ranked seventh through ninth. Generally speaking, because of positional modifiers, a quarterback ranked seventh overall would be good value at the third overall spot. For Wentz, ranked 12th, the model estimates his value to be around the sixth or seventh pick. Those are misses for the model, as is Tyreek Hill, but the model didn’t do too badly — especially if one is inclined to argue that Goff hasn’t played as well as one expects the first overall player to pick. I’ve excluded Moritz Boehringer as no one had ranked him, but that would have counted as a miss too — ranking 12th-worst, ahead of Roberto Aguayo.
Naturally, it looks pretty good to take a bunch of late-rounders and say they didn’t play well, but players past pick 100 get a second contract with one team or another about 55-65 percent of the time in some fashion, so identifying six of the eight (or seven of nine if you include Boehringer) isn’t bad.
Thus far, it looks like as good a tool as any to evaluate the draft.
So let’s project for 2020. Here, we calculated the expected value each team earned on the pick and subtracted the capital of the pick, using an equation that weighs the value of the team’s selections (capital) against the draftees’ rankings in the Consensus Big Board (value). We also take into account positional needs — if a team, for example, drafts a running back because he’s the highest-ranked player on the board but then never plays that running back because there are five better ones on the roster, that wasn’t a good pick. (For more information on how we arrived at the capital and value numbers, check out last year’s article.) Most teams ended up over 100 percent in the return on investment column because the positional need calculation gave them boosts, which means that some teams that graded poorly in other draft class rankings still ended up net positive in value here — just not as positive as the other teams around them.
Here’s how teams did:
2020 Consensus Big Board Draft Rankings
| RANK | TEAM | CAPITAL | VALUE | NET | ROI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Arizona | 4242.5 | 6104.6 | 1862.1 | 143.90% |
| 2 |  Buffalo | 3229.5 | 4632.1 | 1402.7 | 143.40% |
| 3 |  Dallas | 4705.8 | 6731.9 | 2026.1 | 143.10% |
| 4 |  Cleveland | 5431.8 | 7091.7 | 1659.8 | 130.60% |
| 5 |  Baltimore | 6194.1 | 7926.7 | 1732.6 | 128.00% |
| 6 |  Tampa Bay | 4478.6 | 5504 | 1025.4 | 122.90% |
| 7 |  Cincinnati | 6614.4 | 8119 | 1504.5 | 122.70% |
| 8 |  N.Y. Jets | 6447.7 | 7820.7 | 1373 | 121.30% |
| 9 |  Minnesota | 7618.5 | 9152.6 | 1534.1 | 120.10% |
| 10 |  Denver | 6241.8 | 7494.5 | 1252.7 | 120.10% |
| 11 |  Carolina | 5474.8 | 6430.5 | 955.7 | 117.50% |
| 12 |  Houston | 3079.7 | 3617.1 | 537.4 | 117.40% |
| 13 |  N.Y. Giants | 5933.4 | 6897.1 | 963.6 | 116.20% |
| 14 |  Tennessee | 3522.2 | 4091.8 | 569.6 | 116.20% |
| 15 |  Philadelphia | 5262.6 | 6045 | 782.4 | 114.90% |
| 16 |  Washington | 5710.3 | 6530.5 | 820.2 | 114.40% |
| 17 |  L.A. Rams | 4273.5 | 4849.6 | 576.1 | 113.50% |
| 18 |  New Orleans | 2915.5 | 3302.4 | 386.9 | 113.30% |
| 19 |  L.A. Chargers | 4962.7 | 5543.9 | 581.2 | 111.70% |
| 20 |  San Francisco | 3905.2 | 4253.7 | 348.5 | 108.90% |
| 21 |  Detroit | 6902 | 7329.2 | 427.2 | 106.20% |
| 22 |  Miami | 9583.6 | 10121.4 | 537.9 | 105.60% |
| 23 |  Las Vegas | 6336.3 | 6686.6 | 350.2 | 105.50% |
| 24 |  Jacksonville | 8165.9 | 8581.3 | 415.4 | 105.10% |
| 25 |  Pittsburgh | 3056.5 | 3060 | 3.5 | 100.10% |
| 26 |  Indianapolis | 4916.5 | 4841.2 | -75.2 | 98.50% |
| 27 |  Kansas City | 3692.4 | 3633.3 | -59.1 | 98.40% |
| 28 |  Chicago | 3564.7 | 3304.2 | -260.5 | 92.70% |
| 29 |  Green Bay | 4317.8 | 3805 | -512.7 | 88.10% |
| 30 |  Atlanta | 4548.3 | 3904.9 | -643.4 | 85.90% |
| 31 |  New England | 5453.3 | 4454.6 | -998.8 | 81.70% |
| 32 |  Seattle | 4842.2 | 3498.2 | -1343.9 | 72.20% |
That mostly aligns with grades around the media landscape, though there are significant differences for Indianapolis, Minnesota and Jacksonville on the negative end and more favorable scores here for Philadelphia, Buffalo and Houston.
While most of the positive grades for the Colts surround the stylistic fit that wide receiver Michael Pittman provides with quarterback Philip Rivers, there’s a bit of revisionist history with some of the analysis — Pittman is considered worthy of the 34th pick in post-draft analysis, but he was the 47th-ranked player on the board. The board even agrees that Pittman isn’t a negative pick after accounting for positional value and need, but it doesn’t give the Colts high marks for it either. The board would have preferred Denzel Mims, ranked 33rd overall, in that slot. Beyond that, the Colts gained significant value with Jacob Eason and some value with Jonathan Taylor but lost quite a bit with Julian Blackmon and a little more with Danny Pinter.
Minnesota benefits both from having a high number of picks in the first two rounds and didn’t really deviate from the general draft community’s consensus in those rounds. But the back end cost them in terms of total value, grabbing players outside of the top 300 on a fairly regular basis. Every step they took forward in terms of the board was met with another step backwards. Altogether a good draft — they rank ninth — but not one the board sees as the best.
Jacksonville also had four picks in the top 100, and that tends to result in high draft grades as analysts don’t always discount the fact that it’s easier to acquire talent with more picks. Jacksonville ended up with one of the highest total value returns in the class, but also spent more than any team besides Miami. Jacksonville gained value with CJ Henderson and earned even more with K’Lavon Chaisson and Ben Bartch, but also lost value with Shaquille Quarterman, Daniel Thomas and Jake Luton, despite the bonus assigned to quarterbacks. Like Indianapolis and Minnesota, it’s not a bad draft, just not an outstandingly great one by this measure.
Philadelphia gets knocked for selecting Jalen Hurts in the second round by analysts, but the board thinks that it’s appropriate value. Obviously the reality of the situation with the Eagles is different, but the Eagles did need a quarterback — just not to start. It’s difficult to find good backups, so the calculation the board makes is slightly favorable, even though Hurts was ranked 20 spots lower than where he went. It didn’t like the Jalen Reagor pick because he was valued a round later, but they more than made up for it by selecting Prince Tega Wanogho, adding more value with John Hightwoer, Jack Driscoll and K’Von Wallace.
As for Buffalo, San Francisco and Houston, there are three different stories. Analysts were high on Buffalo’s draft but not nearly high enough — Buffalo gained value with every single pick except kicker Tyler Bass. A first-round talent in the second, a third-round talent in the fifth and a pair of fifth-round talents in the seventh highlight their draft.
Houston suffers in part for not having many picks — like New Orleans — but given the capital they had to work with, they did alright with their picks. Almost all of them gained value except Charlie Heck, who was selected 60 spots from his overall value. It’s not a spectacular draft, but it wasn’t catastrophic either — yet they were ranked 31st in the aggregate of draft grades. The board doesn’t know what the Texans should have prioritized, so it doesn’t have a take on that, but it does think that the players they selected were solid.
Who were the biggest steals of the draft?
| PLAYER | SCHOOL | POSITION | TEAM | PICK | BOARD RANK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Jones | Houston | OT | Arizona | 72 | 29 |
| Prince Tega Wanogho | Auburn | OT | Philadelphia | 210 | 73 |
| Curtis Weaver | Boise State | EDGE | Miami | 164 | 66 |
| Bryce Hall | Virginia | CB | N.Y. Jets | 158 | 65 |
| Denzel Mims | Baylor | WR | N.Y. Jets | 59 | 33 |
| Zack Baun | Wisconsin | LB | New Orleans | 74 | 32 |
| Bradlee Anae | Utah | EDGE | Dallas | 179 | 81 |
| Kristian Fulton | LSU | CB | Tennessee | 61 | 28 |
| Jedrick Wills | Alabama | OT | Cleveland | 10 | 7 |
| Yetur Gross-Matos | Penn State | EDGE | Carolina | 38 | 24 |
| Jerry Jeudy | Alabama | WR | Denver | 15 | 8 |
| Tristan Wirfs | Iowa | OT | Tampa Bay | 13 | 10 |
| Jacob Eason | Washington | QB | Indianapolis | 122 | 77 |
| K.J. Hill | Ohio State | WRS | L.A. Chargers | 220 | 118 |
| Jake Fromm | Georgia | QB | Buffalo | 167 | 85 |
If some of the first-round steals surprise you, just think about what it would take to trade up from No. 15 to No. 8, as in the case of wide receiver Jerry Jeudy. Generating that type of value without having to make a single phone call is pretty good. Getting the seventh-ranked player at No. 10 (as in the case of Jedrick Wills) or the 10th-ranked player at No. 13 (Tristan Wirfs) is roughly equivalent from a draft value perspective of a late first-round player going in the middle of the second, a player ranked in the 40s going in the 60s, a player in the 60s going in the 90s, etc.
And the biggest reaches:
| PLAYER | SCHOOL | POSITION | TEAM | PICK | BOARD RANK |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jordyn Brooks | Texas Tech | LB | Seattle | 27 | 84 |
| Justin Rorhwasser | Marshall | PK | New England | 159 | 900 |
| Cole Kmet | Notre Dame | TE | Chicago | 43 | 62 |
| Blake Ferguson | LSU | LS | Miami | 185 | 353 |
| Jason Huntley | NM State | RBC | Detroit | 172 | 355 |
| Jalen Reagor | TCU | WRS | Philadelphia | 21 | 41 |
| Jaylinn Hawkins | California | S | Atlanta | 134 | 263 |
| McTelvin Agim | Arkansas | DL3T | Denver | 95 | 151 |
| Charlie Woerner | Georgia | TE | San Francisco | 190 | 338 |
| Tanner Muse | Clemson | S | Las Vegas | 100 | 192 |
| Josiah Deguara | Cincinnati | TE | Green Bay | 94 | 161 |
| Damon Arnette | Ohio State | CB | Las Vegas | 19 | 63 |
| Daniel Thomas | Auburn | S | Jacksonville | 157 | 271 |
| Tyler Bass | Georgia Southern | PK | Buffalo | 188 | 281 |
| Cassh Maluia | Wyoming | LB | New England | 204 | 658 |
While those teams — or fans of those teams — may disagree about these being reaches, just remember that in order for someone to win the draft, someone else has to lose. Philadelphia’s emphasis on speed makes sense, but perhaps it was better to trade down a few spots than grab a player worth a second-round pick. The Packers see a system fit for Josiah Deguara, but H-backs aren’t valued much by the NFL. Jordyn Brooks is likely the best run-stopping linebacker in the class, but his ability in coverage is pure projection.
If your team did well, congratulations! If not, I’m sure the model will be wrong in some spots — it missed on Tyreek Hill, after all. We’ll find out soon enough.
