One of the comments on the Chris Gragg post asked how he would stack up against the wide receivers in this class, which is a great question considering that I advocated just playing him at receiver.
Here is a table which shows the top wide receivers in this class based on the physical score that goes into my WR model, along with Gragg’s name added to the list. You can see that Gragg is at the top of the list.
|NAME||POS||HT||WT||40 Time||VL||Physical Score|
If you want to think about Gragg’s mix of size and athleticism in a very simple way, you could say that he’s about as fast as the average wide receiver and he’s about 40 pounds heavier.
To compare Gragg to the receivers on production measures is probably a little more difficult as he only played in four games. But in those four games he compiled 27% of Arkansas’ passing yardage and 42% of their touchdowns. Those numbers compare favorably with tight ends or wide receivers. Deandre Hopkins, who is the most accomplished WR in this class recorded 34% of Clemson’s passing yards and 46% of their touchdowns. So Gragg isn’t that far off of that pace and he’s going to be available to a team for free essentially. Could you expect Gragg to be immediately productive as a WR/TE combo? I’m not sure, but I do think he could probably help right away in the red zone. Consider that over the past dozen years, tight ends have a red zone TD rate of 28%, while wide receivers as a group have a red zone TD rate of 22%. Points win football games and touchdowns have 2X the point value of a field goal, so teams should be optimizing their strategies to score touchdowns. It’s pretty crazy how much this issue is overlooked by both teams and the football media. I realize that drives don’t start in the red zone, but it’s a logical leap to claim that players that can get open and catch passes in the shortest part of the field, somehow couldn’t do it between the 20s.