Where Draftanomics parts ways with the room
Every comprehensive analyst board for the class, weighted by a decade of hindsight (2015–2024 drafts) on whose picks landed closest to the actual draft. Then Draftanomics's model laid over the top so you see, name by name, where the model disagrees with the industry.
How to read this table
Consensus — weighted median rank across every analyst, where each analyst gets more weight if their past boards landed closer to the actual draft.
Room spread — the gap between the 25th- and 75th-percentile analyst. A spread of 24 or more means the room is split — analysts can't agree where this player belongs.
Unweighted — naive median: every analyst counted equally. We show it side-by-side so you can see how much the accuracy weighting actually moves the number.
Draftanomics — the model's board rank — the same career-value rank the dossiers and year board quote. Consensus depth is one of its signals alongside college production, athletic testing, and age/program context, so it can still land far from the room.
Δ Draftanomics — consensus minus model. Positive means the model is higher (warmer) on this player than the room. Negative means the model is colder than the room. ±25 trips the verdict pill.
Sources — tier-A analyst mentions (left) out of all mentions (right).Tier-A = the boards whose last three classes landed ≥ 80% of their top-100 in the actual NFL top-100; everyone else mention-counts but doesn't weight. We require at least 3 mentions to rank — fewer than that and the median is too noisy to trust.
Pulling the consensus board…