Draftanomics
  • 2027 board
  • Consensus board
  • 2028 way-too-early
  • Draft news
  • Simulator
  • The house mock
  • Draft order
  • Trade calculator
  • The Scouting Slate
  • Sleepers & reaches
  • Movers & fallers
  • Player comps
  • Dynasty rookie board
  • Track record
  • Past drafts, re-graded
  • Analyst leaderboard
My rankingsAccount
Get the weekly →
Draftanomics

Honest NFL Draft analytics. The model's receipts against actual NFL teams live on the track record.

Boards
  • 2027 board
  • Consensus board
  • Sleepers
Tools
  • Mock draft simulator
  • Plays Like
  • Dynasty rookie board
Track Record
  • Year-by-year results
  • Accountability Index
  • Our board, on the record
  • Past drafts, re-graded
  • Methodology
  • Developers · free API
  • About
Account
  • My board
  • Weekly email
Data + sources
RAS by Kent Lee Platte·Consensus Big Board (Arif Hasan)·nflverse·PFR·CFBD·All sources & credits·Methodology
Career-value model, live
Privacy·Terms·Press ⌘K to search·Draftanomics2026
  1. Draftanomics/
  2. Prospects/
  3. 2020 board/
  4. Compare

Side-by-side comparison

Backtest

2 prospects · 2020 draft

Each spoke: percentile within the prospect's own position (LB)
CJ
Clay Johnston
LB · Baylor
23.7 yo · 6'1" · 227 lb
JG
Jordan Glasgow
LB · Michigan
23.8 yo · — · —
Tiebreaker
Low confidence — essentially tied
Truly tied on the model.

Clay Johnston and Jordan Glasgow project within 8 picks of each other, and neither bust risk nor the historical comps can separate them. Take the one at the position of greater need.

Headline metrics

The four numbers a GM checks first.

Clay Johnston
Predicted pick
#194
range #146–#242
Bust probability
55%
0%0/5 comps
Consensus rank
—
no boards yet
Career arc
Bust
tier · Day 3
2nd-deal AAV
$2Mmodel
Jordan Glasgow
Predicted pick
#209
range #181–#237
Bust probability
45%
0%0/5 comps
Consensus rank
—
no boards yet
Career arc
Bust
tier · Day 3
2nd-deal AAV
$3Mmodel

Feature radar

Each axis is the prospect's percentile among prospects at his position (0–100). Bigger shape = stronger across the board.

ProductionAthleticismAgeConsensusPer-play impact (PPA)Breakout ageWorkloadRAS × production
Prospects
  • Clay Johnston· EDGE / DL / LB
  • Jordan Glasgow· EDGE / DL / LB
Axis leaders
  • ProductionClay Johnston0
  • AthleticismJordan Glasgow29
  • AgeClay Johnston21
  • ConsensusJordan Glasgow5
  • Per-play impact (PPA)Clay Johnston50
  • Breakout ageClay Johnston50
  • WorkloadClay Johnston100
  • RAS × productionClay Johnston0

Comp overlap

Top five historical comps per prospect. Shared comps highlighted.

Shared comps
  • Quentin PolingLB · Bust→ shared byClay JohnstonJordan Glasgow
  • Jermaine Carter Jr.LB · Contributor→ shared byClay JohnstonJordan Glasgow
  • Peter KalambayiLB · Bust→ shared byClay JohnstonJordan Glasgow
Clay Johnston
  • Quentin Polingshared
    LB · #227
    Bust
  • Jermaine Carter Jr.shared
    LB · #161
    Contributor
  • Matthew Adams
    LB · #221
    Bust
  • Peter Kalambayishared
    LB · #214
    Bust
  • Shaquille Leonard
    LB · #36
    Franchise
Jordan Glasgow
  • Quentin Polingshared
    LB · #227
    Bust
  • Vince Biegel
    LB · #108
    Bust
  • Antwione Williams
    LB · #169
    Bust
  • Jermaine Carter Jr.shared
    LB · #161
    Contributor
  • Peter Kalambayishared
    LB · #214
    Bust

Risk and opportunity flags

Top three concerns and top two upside signals from the model.

Clay Johnston
Risks
  • Older prospect
    Age 23.7 at draft. Slightly older than the cohort median (~22.5); upside ceiling is trimmed.
  • Comp group bust rate
    3 of 4 closest comps with NFL outcomes washed out: Quentin Poling, Matthew Adams, Peter Kalambayi. The neighborhood in feature space is dangerous.
Opportunities
No standout upside flags.
Jordan Glasgow
Risks
  • Older prospect
    Age 23.8 at draft. Slightly older than the cohort median (~22.5); upside ceiling is trimmed.
  • No athletic testing
    No Combine drills or Pro Day numbers on file while most of the class has tested — the athletic part of the grade is unmeasured.
  • Comp group bust rate
    4 of 4 closest comps with NFL outcomes washed out: Quentin Poling, Vince Biegel, Antwione Williams (+1 more). The neighborhood in feature space is dangerous.
Opportunities
No standout upside flags.

Career trajectory forecast

Projected share of his team's snaps across the first four NFL seasons. Solid = seasons already played, dashed = the forecast.

0%25%50%75%100%Y1Y2Y3Y4Snap share
Clay JohnstonJordan Glasgow· solid = actuals, dashed = forecast

Verdict

The model's plain-English read.

Clay Johnston

Draftanomics projects Clay Johnston (age 23.7 at draft) as a Day 3 dart throw at #194 (range #146-#242, very wide band — too little on him yet to project tightly). Bust probability sits at 55% — elevated. The comp set is dangerous: 3 of 4 closest comps with known NFL outcomes washed out as backups or busts. Closest comps: Quentin Poling (Bust), Jermaine Carter Jr. (Contributor), Matthew Adams (Bust). Ceiling is Shaquille Leonard (Franchise); floor is Jermaine Carter Jr. (Contributor). 3 of 4 closest comps with NFL outcomes washed out: Quentin Poling, Matthew Adams, Peter Kalambayi. The neighborhood in feature space is dangerous. The call is a hold: no public board ranks him, so the model's #194 stands alone — and with bust risk at 55%, let the room catch up before paying a premium.

Jordan Glasgow

Draftanomics projects Jordan Glasgow (age 23.8 at draft) as a Day 3 dart throw at #209 (range #181-#237, very wide band — too little on him yet to project tightly). Bust probability sits at 45% — real but not disqualifying. The comp set is dangerous: 4 of 4 closest comps with known NFL outcomes washed out as backups or busts. Closest comps: Quentin Poling (Bust), Vince Biegel (Bust), Antwione Williams (Bust). Ceiling is Jermaine Carter Jr. (Contributor); floor is Quentin Poling (Bust). 4 of 4 closest comps with NFL outcomes washed out: Quentin Poling, Vince Biegel, Antwione Williams (+1 more). The neighborhood in feature space is dangerous. The call is a hold: no public board ranks him, so the model's #209 stands alone — and with bust risk at 45%, let the room catch up before paying a premium.