The following is a special to NFL Draft Geek as former writer/analyst Kyle Howe has spend the pre-draft process breaking down the 2019 NFL Draft Receiver class. Listed below are his rankings which also include player comparisons along with his explanations.
| Name | School | Visual Score | RAS Score | Overall Score | NFL Comparison |
| Terry McLaurin | Ohio State | 7.88 | 9.53 | 8.71 | Amari Cooper |
| AJ Brown | Ole Miss | 7.63 | 9.45 | 8.54 | JuJu Smith – Schuster |
| Miles Boykin | Notre Dame | 7.13 | 9.94 | 8.54 | Kenny Golladay |
| DK Metcalf | Ole Miss | 7.25 | 9.65 | 8.45 | DeMaryius Thomas |
| N’Keal Harry | Arizona State | 7.75 | 9.05 | 8.4 | Anquan Boldin |
| Marquise Brown | Oklahoma | 7.25 | N/A | N/A | Stefon Diggs |
| Parris Campbell | Ohio State | 6.88 | 9.77 | 8.33 | Tedd Ginn |
| Hakeem Butler | Iowa State | 6.5 | 9.92 | 8.21 | Brandon Marshall |
| Deebo Samuel | South Carolina | 7 | 8.94 | 7.97 | Cordarrelle Patterson |
| Darius Slayton | Auburn | 6.13 | 9.57 | 7.85 | Robby Anderson |
| JJ Arcega- Whiteside | Stanford | 6.38 | 8.82 | 7.6 | Mohamed Sanu |
| Mecole Hardman | Georgia | 6.75 | 8.42 | 7.59 | Desean Jackson |
| Gary Jennings | West Virginia | 6.13 | 9.02 | 7.58 | Allen Robinson |
| Stanley Morgan | Nebraska | 6.63 | 8.52 | 7.58 | Davante Adams |
| Andy Isabella | UMASS | 6.63 | 8.41 | 7.52 | Tavon Austin |
| Cody Thompson | Toledo | 6.63 | 8.4 | 7.52 | Eric Decker |
| Olabisi Johnson | Colorado State | 6.75 | 8.11 | 7.43 | Taywan Taylor |
| Johnnie Dixon | Ohio State | 7.5 | 7.18 | 7.34 | Tyler Lockett |
| Emmanuel Hall | Missouri | 4.75 | 9.92 | 7.34 | Mike Wallace |
| Jalen Hurd | Baylor | 6.5 | 7.72 | 7.11 | Devin Funchess |
| David Sills | West Virginia | 6.5 | 7.21 | 6.86 | Chris Hogan |
| Anthony Johnson | Buffalo | 6.13 | 7.05 | 6.59 | Michael Crabtree |
| Jazz Ferguson | Northwestern St. (LA) | 5.5 | 7.22 | 6.36 | Brandon Coleman |
| Dillon Mitchell | Oregon | 4.88 | 7.8 | 6.34 | DJ Chark |
| Jamal Custis | Syracuse | 5.63 | 6.46 | 6.05 | Martavis Bryant |
| Greg Dortch | Wake Forest | 6.13 | 5.89 | 6.01 | Jamison Crowder |
| Keelan Doss | UC Davis | 6 | N/A | N/A | Dante Pettis |
| Jakobi Meyers | NC State | 5.25 | 6.31 | 5.78 | Chris Harper |
| Kelvin Harmon | NC State | 6.5 | 4.89 | 5.7 | Equanimeous St. Brown |
| Diontae Johnson | Toledo | 6.88 | 4.2 | 5.54 | Adam Humphries |
| Terry Godwin | Georgia | 6.63 | 4.39 | 5.51 | Anthony Miller |
| Riley Ridley | Georgia | 6.75 | 4.17 | 5.46 | Davante Parker |
| Jaylen Smith | Louisville | 4.13 | 6.48 | 5.31 | Corey Fuller |
| Damarkus Lodge | Ole Miss | 6.25 | 4.11 | 5.18 | Jordan Matthews |
| KeeSean Johnson | Fresno State | 5.63 | 3.11 | 4.5 | Laquon Treadwell |
| Hunter Renfrow | Clemson | 6 | 2.91 | 4.46 | Danny Amendola |
| Antoine Wesley | Texas Tech | 5.38 | 3.26 | 4.32 | Justin Hunter |
| Lil’Jordan Humphrey | Texas | 4.88 | 3.44 | 4.16 | Rod Streater |
| Jovon Durante | Florida Atlantic | 6 | 2.07 | 4.04 | Jeremy Kerley |
| Tyre Brady | Marshall | 5.13 | 2.85 | 3.99 | Kris Durham |
| Jamarius Way | South Alabama | 4.75 | 2.35 | 3.55 | Kelvin Benjamin |
| Nyqwan Murray | Florida State | 4.5 | 1.01 | 2.76 | Brandon Powell |
Explanations
For years I grew up watching the likes of Charles Rogers, Mike Williams and Roy Williams bomb out of Detroit, and eventually the league, as my Detroit Lions couldn’t manage to draft a receiver to save the franchise, or their life (until Calvin Johnson). As I sat through the misery it ultimately piqued my interest in the NFL Draft, mostly because I wondered how we could always pick the ‘wrong’ guy. As I later realized through my years of draft work there is no perfect formula for predicting a player’s success at the next level. But there has to be a better way than just the eye test, right? That’s what I’m looking to accomplish.
The wide receiver position relies on athleticism as much as any other position in football. When looking at some of the game’s most recent elites: Calvin Johnson, Julio Jones, Mike Evans and Odell Beckham, they all had exceptional athletic profiles. Because of this I wanted to somehow use their Combine/Pro Day testing as one of the final evaluating factors. Relative Athletic Scores (relativeathleticscores.com), do an exceptional job of capturing a prospect’s true athletic profile and how they stack up compared to the rest of their class. But grading a prospect on their Relative Athletic Score alone isn’t enough, so I considered what else should go into my grading criteria for wide receiver and came up with eight different categories I would grade each prospect on 1-10 (1 being lowest, 10 being highest). By using an average of those eight scores I could come up with a final ‘visual’ grade to then be averaged out with their Relative Athletic Score for overall grade. The eight categories I graded wide receivers on were: Hands, Route Running, Speed/Separation, Agility/Quickness, Release, Leaping Ability, Size/Strength, and Football IQ.
(Example: Terry McLaurin – Hands: 9, Route Running: 10, Speed/Separation: 10, Agility/Quickness: 10, Release: 7, Leaping Ability: 5, Size/Strength: 4, Football IQ: 9 – Visual Score: 7.88, RAS: 9.53, Overall Grade: 8.71)
*Prospects who did not participate in Combine or Pro Day only received a visual grade and an ‘Incomplete’ overall grade. These prospects were still ranked according to tape and their visual score should correlate with draft position.
Grading System
So what does this ‘overall grade’ mean in terms of draft position? The table below lists the grades and what pick each grade correlates with:
| Grade | Draft Grade |
| 10 | #1 overall prospect |
| 9.9-9.8 | Top 5 |
| 9.7-9.6 | Top 10 |
| 9.5-9.4 | Top 15 |
| 9.3-9.2 | Top 20 |
| 9.1-9.0 | Top 25 |
| 8.9-8.8 | Top 30 |
| 8.7-8.6 | Top 35 |
| 8.5-8.4 | Top 40 |
| 8.3-8.2 | Top 45 |
| 8.1-8.0 | Top 50 |
| 7.9-7.8 | Top 60 |
| 7.7-7.6 | Top 70 |
| 7.5-7.4 | Top 80 |
| 7.3-7.2 | Top 90 |
| 7.1-7.0 | Top 100 |
| 6.9-6.8 | Top 110 |
| 6.7-6.6 | Top 120 |
| 6.5-6.4 | Top 130 |
| 6.3-6.2 | Top 140 |
| 6.1-6.0 | Top 150 |
| 5.9-5.8 | Top 160 |
| 5.7-5.6 | Top 170 |
| 5.5-5.4 | Top 180 |
| 5.3-5.2 | Top 190 |
| 5.1-5.0 | Top 200 |
| 4.9-4.8 | Top 210 |
| 4.7-4.6 | Top 220 |
| 4.5-4.4 | Top 230 |
| 4.3-4.2 | Top 240 |
| 4.1-4.0 | Top 250 |
| 3.9-0 | Undrafted FA |
With anything data-driven there is bound to be at least one outlier, and these rankings are no different. There were a few prospects whose visual grade was not even within 3 to 4 points of their RAS, while several others saw visual grades 2 to 3 points higher than their RAS. These are the prospects one should consider to be outliers, and it’s what makes a prospect Antonio Brown, or Stephen Hill. In a hardball, results-driven environment that is the NFL, talent evaluators would go back to the drawing board in such cases to re-evaluate such discrepancies. In this case though, the rankings are left as is after the final visual and RAS scores have been calculated, however I would argue the visual score is the more important of the two and should be relied on most heavily in the overall evaluation process (assuming one has the eye to evaluate talent). While this will be it for this year I hope to look back on the success of this grading system and utilize it in a similar way to evaluate other positions down the road. Stay tuned.
Leave a Reply