The current ordering of TE prospects on CBS Draft Scout is as follows:
|Clive Walford||TE||2||Miami (Fla.)||rSr|
|Nick O’Leary||TE||3||Florida State||Sr|
|Ben Koyack||TE||4||Notre Dame||Sr|
|*Jesse James||TE||5||Penn State||Jr|
|Jeff Heuerman||TE||7||Ohio State||Sr|
|E.J. Bibbs||TE||9||Iowa State||Sr|
|MyCole Pruitt||TE||10||Southern Illinois||rSr|
|Wes Saxton||TE||11||South Alabama||Sr|
Then, if I enter their names in the Box Score Scout I get the following ordering:
You may notice that some of the names are missing – that’s because for memory purposes the app only loads players with over 1,000 career yards from scrimmage – but otherwise the ordering is essentially the same. The Box Score Scout is just taking the average z-score of the variables displayed and ordering in descending fashion. But it pretty much came up with the same ordering as CBS’ list.
I did the same exercise yesterday for RBs and the list was close to the same as well. I don’t think it’s going to be the same for every list of prospects every time I try this. But as I explained yesterday, I think a lot of what makes its way onto tape is also likely to be contained in the box score. In fact, some of the information in the box score is likely to make its way into draft position as well. To the extent that we use draft position as a proxy for evaluation in a lot of our models, that could be problematic if the models are un-calibrated. Or, to touch on a subject that Josh Norris talks about a lot, you have to be careful about counting things twice.
One thing that’s worth discussing is that NFL draft position isn’t a perfect proxy for evaluation because the draft involves Winner’s Curse and also false consensus. Something involving wisdom of the crowds might actually be a better gauge of talent than the draft is. We have a plan to get maybe a little bit better idea as to a more crowd sourced snapshot of evaluation here on the site. We’re working on it now and should have some progress to report in the next few days, so stay tuned for that.