3 prospects · 2016 draft
The four numbers a GM checks first.
Each axis is the prospect's percentile among prospects at his position (0–100). Bigger shape = stronger across the board.
Top five historical comps per prospect. Shared comps highlighted.
Top three concerns and top two upside signals from the model.
Projected share of his team's snaps across the first four NFL seasons. Solid = seasons already played, dashed = the forecast.
The model's plain-English read.
Draftanomics projects Jake Rudock (age 23.3 at draft) as a Day 3 dart throw at #244 (range #242-#246, tight projection). Bust probability sits at 65% — scary. Drafted #191 by DET in 2016 but recorded ZERO regular-season NFL snaps. Year-1 absence is one of the strongest single-signal bust predictors we have. The call is a conviction buy: the model has him 92 spots ahead of the room (board #244 vs consensus #336) — but size the bet for the 65% bust probability; this is a price edge, not a safety edge.
Draftanomics projects Connor Cook (age 23.2 at draft) as a Day 3 dart throw at #185 (range #183-#187, tight projection). Bust probability sits at 0% — low. Age 23.2 at draft. Slightly older than the cohort median (~22.5); upside ceiling is trimmed. The call is a genuine fade: the room's consensus prices him around #55 and the model won't take him before #185 — a 130-spot markdown. The discount is earned — older prospect leads the case against.
Draftanomics projects Dak Prescott (age 22.7 at draft) as a Day 3 dart throw at #234 (range #232-#236, tight projection). Bust probability sits at 42% — real but not disqualifying. Career trajectory in passing yards: 194 → 1940 → 3449 → 3793. Production rose every season — the kind of upward arc that often continues into the league. No Combine drills or Pro Day numbers on file while most of the class has tested — the athletic part of the grade is unmeasured. The call is a genuine fade: the room's consensus prices him around #117 and the model won't take him before #234 — a 117-spot markdown. The 117-spot markdown rests on thin verified signal rather than a named flaw — the model hasn't seen enough yet to match the room's conviction.