On the live board, bust risk sits at 35% and the historical draft-day landing band is No. 103 to No. 237.
The model grades Nate Johnson as a #186 value in this projected class. The projected second-deal AAV band is $7.4M-$11.3M/yr. On the live board, bust risk sits at 35% and the historical draft-day landing band is No. 103 to No. 237.
Headline grade, verdict, and the one-line scout take
Both of the model's reads put him in Day-3 / priority-free-agent range. If the public boards are higher, the model is the one doing the fading — check the dossier for what it isn't seeing.
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
Historical players this prospect resembles
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
Clips, scout notes, voice memos, written reports
Too early to project a career arc.
No public board has ranked this prospect and the model has no production, athletic, or NFL data to anchor on — any percentages here would be noise dressed up as precision. The outlook fills in once boards rank him or real numbers land.
No public-board coverage yet.
Highlight reels indexed from YouTube. Loads only when you press play.
The displayed grade gets its strongest lift from age and hs recruit rating. Its largest drags are scout consensus.
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.
Too thin a file for a written report yet.
A report needs at least two of the five kinds of evidence we track; right now the file carries nothing. Still missing: board consensus, college production, athletic testing, age, program context. The profile fills in as testing, season data and board coverage land — we write the report when there's something real to write from.
Production dipped from 32 total tackles in 2023 to 7 in 2025 after transferring from App State to Missouri.
| Season | Team | Games | Tackles | TFL | Sacks | INT | PBU |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2023 | App State | 14 | 32 | 1 | 6 | 0 | 1 |
| 2024 | App State | 11 | 31 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| 2025 | Missouri | 9 | 7 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Counting stats from charted college games. A dash means the stat wasn't recorded that season.
Percentiles are direction-aware — for 40-time / 3-cone / shuttle, lower is faster, so a 95th-percentile mark means faster than 95% of peers. Hover any percentile for the exact peer group and sample size. A missing row means he hasn't posted that measurement.
Everything that could go wrong with Nate Johnson, gathered in one place — the most serious flags listed first.
Failure-mode scan combining bust probability, closest historical comp's arc, age curve, and active flags. Read this before turning in the card.
The 4-tier hybrid model assigns elevated bust risk. Above 30% bust prob is the threshold above which historical false-positive rates spike — confirm the production signal isn't being rescued by an outlier athletic test.
No draft-media headlines link here yet — when an outlet we track writes this player up, it lands in this panel automatically.
Roster-based need returns once the 2026 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. 186, and which of them already spent premium capital at EDGE / DL / LB in the 2026 draft.
Gold means no recent premium investment at EDGE / DL / LB — the cleaner fit on paper. Grey means they already spent one.