Refreshed just now
rank#90$1.3M
Limited public-board coverage (1 board) — grade leans on stats + athleticism alone
Backtest: model vs. reality
The model graded Cedric Johnson at pick #90; he was actually picked #214 by CIN. 2 NFL seasons in, he's barely gotten on the field (grading -1.0 of 20 per season). So far, the league's caution is winning the argument. The 4-tier model leans toward the bust tier as the most likely outcome; elite upside is only 4%. NFL grades have been modest so far (0% recent-3, 0% peak across 1 seasons).
Overview
Headline grade, verdict, and the one-line scout take
Draftanomics Rank
High conviction#90EDGE·Mississippi
We had him No. 90 on draft night; CIN didn't call his name until No. 214 — a 124-pick gap between our board and the league's. His career is settling that argument now.
Draftanomics's take
Draftanomics had Cedric Johnson at #90 on draft night — a Day 2 grade — and CIN took him at No. 214, 124 picks later than our grade. The model's case leans on his age curve. Bust risk projects at 26%, near the position baseline. The room had him #184 pre-draft; our board was 94 spots higher.
Scouting report
The written report — drafted from the fact sheet, every number traceable, honest about what we can't see yet
Why this grade
Which signals drove the grade up or down — in plain English
Consensus
The analyst room, accuracy-weighted, plus where Draftanomics disagrees with it
Production1
Measurables, traits, and college play quality
Risk
Bust probability, injury history, character flags, pre-mortem
Team fit
How well this prospect fits each of the 32 team schemes
Will he be there?
Probability he's still on the board at each of your picks
Comps
Historical players this prospect resembles
Film & notes
Clips, scout notes, voice memos, written reports