The model graded Josh Jacobs at pick #11; he was actually picked #24 by OAK. 7 NFL seasons in, he's carved out a genuine role (grading 9.5 of 20 per season), and the market has paid him — a second deal at $11.8M a year. The 4-tier model sees a strong shot at elite: 71% probability of Pro-Bowl-level career. His NFL play has graded as a solid starter (17% recent-3, 69% peak across 6 seasons). Model predicted $20M/yr; actual $12M (over by $8M).
Headline grade, verdict, and the one-line scout take
We had him No. 11 on draft night, and the league mostly agreed — OAK took him at No. 24. The seasons since are the scoreboard.
Draftanomics had Josh Jacobs at #11 on draft night — a 1st round grade — and OAK took him at No. 24. The model's case leans on broad top-100 board coverage and top-50 board coverage. Bust risk projects at 22%, below the position median — the model has a tight grade. The room had him #29 pre-draft; our board was 18 spots higher.
Written from the live model's numbers — projected to round 1, 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.
25 public boards track this prospect. Per-board breakdown loads with the live board.
Highlight reels indexed from YouTube. Loads only when you press play.
Working in his favor: how many boards rank him top-100, how many boards rank him top-50, and rank within position+class. Nothing in the profile pulled the grade down.
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 Josh Jacobs, 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. 11, and which of them already spent premium capital at RB / WR / TE in the 2018 draft.
Gold means no recent premium investment at RB / WR / TE — the cleaner fit on paper. Grey means they already spent one.