UPDATE: The original post did not include the NFL.com big board. I’ve added a graphic at the bottom that does.
Short post today, since the graphic took a while to put together.
It looks like all of the major outlet “Big Boards” have been finalized. So now its time to compare them. Below, I’ve created a graphic that shows the top 25 players on the board for 5 different sources: Kiper, Burke (SI.com), McShay, National Football Post, and my own TPR rankings. The players are all color-coded in an effort to make it easier to see where they rank on each board. I’ve also included some lines to help follow the top players.
My goal here was to provide a single source for comparison, since I’ve found it difficult to remember where each writer ranked players.
NFP provides the most varied rankings, which is a big advantage for us (since it helps balance the TPR system). However, just because they’re different doesn’t mean they’re any better or worse.
Most people know by now that Ryan Nassib tops the entire board at NFP, but those rankings also differ significantly for Joeckel, Floyd, and Lane Johnson. While Joeckel is ranked #1 in every other board here, he comes in just 11th at NFP.
– We see an interesting split regarding Jonathan Cooper. Kiper, McShay, and Burke all have him ranked either 9th or 10th. Meanwhile, both NFP and the TPR rankings drop him to 21-22.
– Tyler Eifert ranks in the top 15 in Kiper, McShay, and NFP’s board, but doesn’t even crack the top 25 in the other two.
– Eagles fans should keep an eye on Menelik Watson and Jamar Taylor. Both make the top 25 of the TPR rankings, but aren’t included on any other board here. That means they may be underrated (other guys aren’t accounting for low-risk, high-reward) and available close to the #35 pick (Eagles second rounder). They also both play positions of need for the Eagles (OT and CB).
– For someone with VERY limited football experience, Ziggy Ansah’s evaluations are remarkably consistent. This should be surprising since he’s widely regarded as the “rawest” prospect, meaning his evaluation requires the most projection and growth assumption. I’d expect that to result in widely divergent opinions (as some should expect him to NOT reach his “potential”), but we don’t see that here.