Wyatt Davis
Getty Images

Which 2021 NFL draft prospects do not have a track record of production that matches their projected draft stock?

Projecting how college players will perform in the NFL is an extremely difficult task. Some players are highly productive in college, but lack traits that suggest their success will translate to the next level. On the other hand, there are plenty of players who weren’t necessarily dominant in college but possess traits that suggest they have a strong chance of progressing over time and eventually developing into a good pro.

Today, we’re going to be looking at players who fit the latter category. Which prospects have a track record of production that pales in comparison to the level of their draft stock?

The goal here is not to knock these prospects, but to identify them as players who fall under the “projection” umbrella – their stock is based more so around what they could be than what they are.

Here we go: some of the prospects who have the biggest disparities between their numbers and their projected draft position.

IOL Wyatt Davis (Ohio St.)

Widely considered a second-round prospect, Buckeyes right guard Wyatt Davis had a rough redshirt junior season that represented a huge step back from the heights he reached as a sophomore.

In 2020, Davis earned a run blocking grade of 66.4 at Pro Football Focus that ranked at the 61st percentile among qualified FBS guards. That’s a disappointing ranking for an NFL prospect – out of 15 top offensive line prospects in the 2021 class whose numbers I broke down, 10 of them placed above the 90th percentile in this category and 13 of them placed above the 75th percentile.

Davis allowed 11 pressures over 260 snaps in pass protection, a 4.23% rate that ranked way down at the 39th percentile among qualified FBS guards. Most prospects in this class placed above the 80th percentile, so that’s a ghastly mark for Davis.

An excellent redshirt sophomore season in 2019 is what catapulted Davis into the draft spotlight. That year, Davis posted an 82.4 overall grade at PFF that ranked fourth-best among all qualified FBS guards, including tops in the Big Ten and second in the Power-5.

Davis boasts a strong pedigree, as he was ranked by 247Sports as the country’s No. 1 guard in the 2017 recruiting class.

Clearly, the talent is there for Davis. Teams appear to be confident enough in the promise of his high school career and 2019 season to overlook the big-time struggles that he had in 2020.

New York Jets, Mock Draft Simulator, Offseason Tool, Jets X-Factor, Deebo Samuel

IOL Josh Myers (Ohio St.)

Interestingly enough, Davis is not the only redshirt junior interior offensive lineman from Ohio State who put up disappointing numbers in 2020. Buckeyes center Josh Myers, generally projected to be a third-round prospect, posted even worse numbers than the man to his right.

Myers surrendered 11 pressures on 248 protection snaps this past season, a 4.44% rate that ranked at the 16th percentile among qualified FBS centers. He posted a 63.9 run blocking grade that was barely above average for a collegiate center, ranking at the 53rd percentile.

Like Davis, Myers had a better season in 2019. That year, he posted an overall PFF grade of 72.5 that ranked at the 81st percentile among centers. In 2020, his 65.4 grade ranked at the 57th percentile.

Davis and Myers are two examples of prospects whose stock is based upon their success prior to a downturn in their most recent season. It’s also worth noting that, in a season where most schools played fewer games, NFL teams will likely place a larger premium than usual on what prospects did prior to their most recent season if there is a large disparity in the number of games they played. That was the case for Ohio State, which played only seven games compared to 13 in 2019. That’s nearly twice as much tape to evaluate.


Jets X-Factor Membership
Sorry, the content stops here if you’re not a Jet X Member, not currently logged-in, or viewing from an outside source such as Google AMP or an RSS Feed where logged-in status is not possible.

Get Started with the button below to access this Jets X-Factor article and the best damn New York Jets content in the world for free (after becoming a member, search for this article near the bottom of the Membership Confirmation page):
Jets X-Factor Membership, Get Started
Log In with the button below if you’re already a member:
Jets X-Factor, Log In
Connect with the button below if you’d like to create a free account first:
Jets X-Factor, Register, Connect

Audio Version available to members only: Learn more here

Download Jet X Mobile on the App Store and Google Play.

Want More NY Jets News & Jets X-Factor Content?

Download the free Jet X Mobile App to get customizable notifications directly to your iOS (App Store) or Google/Android (Google Play) device.

Add Jets X-Factor to your Google News feed to stay up to date with the New York Jets.

Follow us on Twitter @jetsxfactor for all the latest New York Jets news, Facebook for even more, Instagram for some of the top NY Jets images, and YouTube for original Jets X-Factor videos.

Join the official Jets Discord community to connect with likeminded fans.

Michael Nania is one of the best analytical New York Jets minds in the world, combining his statistical expertise with game film to add proper context to the data. Nania scrapes every corner, ensuring you know all there is to know about everyone from the QB to the long snapper. Nania's Numbers, Nania's QB Grades, and Nania's All-22 give fans a deeper and more well-rounded dive into the Jets than anyone else can offer. Email: michael.nania[at]jetsxfactor.com - Twitter: @Michael_Nania
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Fields of Gold
Fields of Gold
1 year ago

Due to the nature of Suratt’s unique circumstances (a position change after his sophomore season) and the improved production, I can see why some scouts’ projections might be favorable in his case. The analytics of the two OSU linemen, however, paint a very different picture.