The model graded Clayton Thorson at pick #218; he was actually picked #167 by PHI. The 4-tier model has him as a likely starter.
Headline grade, verdict, and the one-line scout take
The league moved faster than our board — PHI took him at No. 167, 51 picks ahead of our No. 218 grade. His career is settling that argument now.
Draftanomics had Clayton Thorson at #218 on draft night — a Day 3 grade — and PHI took him at No. 167, 51 picks earlier than our grade. The model's case leans on his age curve. Bust risk projects at 44%, elevated against the position baseline. The room had him #156 pre-draft; our board sat 62 spots lower.
Written from the live model's numbers — projected to round 6, and it updates whenever the model does. See methodology for what drives the take.
The written report — drafted from the fact sheet, every number traceable, honest about what we can't see yet
Which signals drove the grade up or down — in plain English
The analyst room, accuracy-weighted, plus where Draftanomics disagrees with it
Measurables, traits, and college play quality
Bust probability, injury history, character flags, pre-mortem
How well this prospect fits each of the 32 team schemes
Probability he's still on the board at each of your picks
Historical players this prospect resembles
Clips, scout notes, voice memos, written reports
Read the two ends and skim the middle: the model has a real track record telling stars and busts apart, but “solid starter vs. rotation guy” is close to a coin flip from public data — that's why those two bars are grayed. For his odds of outright busting, the Bust-risk panel next door is the number to trust.
The bracketed ranges show how far each number could reasonably move — they come from how 23–57 similar players in past drafts actually turned out.
1 public board track this prospect. Per-board breakdown loads with the live board.
Highlight reels indexed from YouTube. Loads only when you press play.
The grade is held down by age, how many boards rank him top-100, and power-5 production share.
The grade is the 0-to-1 score the board sorts by — it only means something next to the rest of this class, which is why the rank above it is the number to quote.
Outcome shares from the 4-tier model. The Bust share here is a different model than the headline bust probability — for bust risk, use that number.
Everything that could go wrong with Clayton Thorson, gathered in one place — the most serious flags listed first.
Roster-based need returns once the 2018 season is played — grading this year’s teams on last year’s depth chart would be guessing. What’s knowable now: the teams holding picks around No. 218, and which of them already spent premium capital at QB in the 2018 draft.
Gold means no recent premium investment at QB — the cleaner fit on paper. Grey means they already spent one.