An Even Closer Look: 2020 WR draft class

[WNCRavensFan]

What do y’all see in DPJ?
I actually like the other wr they had this year lol

I don't think he's all that good.

[edromeo]

What do y’all see in DPJ?

Late round pick. Core special teammer good measureables, low depth chart developmental WR

[Mizerooskie]

I can post a couple...which ones?

Higgins and any projections that surprised you or seem out of line with the general draft consensus.

[edromeo]

TEE HIGGINS
Similarity Draft Year Player College Draft Pos Age Weight Forty RuAtt/Gm Max YPR Car MS Yds Car MS TD YPRR
100% 2020 Tee Higgins Clemson 32* 21.6 216 4.55 0.1 20.3 21.1% 28.7% 3.7
98% 2012 Rueben Randle Louisiana State 63 21.3 210 4.55 0.0 17.3 22.5% 24.5% 3.3
97% 2014 Mike Evans Texas A&M 7 21.0 231 4.53 0.0 20.2 23.0% 20.0% 2.9
95% 2011 Jonathan Baldwin Pittsburgh 26 22.1 228 4.52 0.2 22.4 22.6% 24.6% 2.3
94% 2014 Cody Latimer Indiana 56 21.9 215 4.54 0.0 15.8 19.6% 23.6% 2.3
92% 2015 Nelson Agholor USC 20 22.3 198 4.42 0.3 18.9 24.0% 20.4% 2.9

Higgins is expected to be drafted right around the turn of the first and second rounds, making players from either round available as his comps. Higgins' top comp is Rueben Randle, a promising second-round pick who never got on track in the NFL after showing early flashes. Higgins has more good and bad in his top five comps, with Mike Evans and Jonathan Baldwin.



Despite the mostly unimpressive comps in the top five, expanding Higgins’ comp out to 15 from his WAR numbers produces decent results. Higgins’ comps had a mean four-year WAR of 0.82 and a ceiling lower than only Jeudy and Lamb at 1.53 WAR.

[edromeo]

MICHAEL PITTMAN JR.
Similarity Draft Year Player College Draft Pos Age Weight Forty RuAtt/Gm Max YPR Car MS Yds Car MS TD YPRR
100% 2020 Michael Pittman Jr. USC 55* 22.9 223 4.52 0.0 18.4 22.3% 24.7% 2.3
100% 2007 Dwayne Bowe LSU 23 22.9 221 4.57 0.0 17.3 20.3% 25.7% 2.7
99% 2011 Leonard Hankerson Miami 79 23.3 209 4.53 0.0 17.8 19.5% 26.2% 2.6
97% 2016 Michael Thomas Ohio State 47 23.5 212 4.57 0.0 14.8 19.2% 23.1% 2.4
96% 2019 Deebo Samuel South Carolina 36 23.6 214 4.48 0.6 14.2 23.9% 23.9% 2.5
94% 2008 Limas Sweed Texas 53 23.7 215 4.55 0.1 17.4 16.9% 22.0% 1.3
Pittman’s top comps of Dwayne Bowe and Michael Thomas are extremely promising, but there are also busts included. The expanded comps that go into his WAR plot below take a turn for the worse, which is reflected in the lower numbers, especially for the ceiling.



Micheal Thomas is the likely culprit for making Pittman’s mean number higher than his 75th percentile, as he dominates the former. The averages for Pittman’s mean and ceiling are 0.69 and 0.71 WAR, respectively.

[edromeo]

LAVISKA SHENAULT JR.
Similarity Draft Year Player College Draft Pos Age Weight Forty RuAtt/Gm Max YPR Car MS Yds Car MS TD YPRR
100% 2020 Laviska Shenault Jr. Colorado 37* 21.9 227 4.58 2.1 24.0 28.8% 25.0% 3.0
99% 2009 Kenny Britt Rutgers 30 21.0 218 4.56 0.6 19.9 34.1% 28.8% 3.5
97% 2012 Rueben Randle LSU 63 21.3 210 4.55 0.0 17.3 22.5% 24.5% 3.3
96% 2011 Jonathan Baldwin Pittsburgh 26 22.1 228 4.52 0.2 22.4 22.6% 24.6% 2.3
94% 2010 Dez Bryant Oklahoma State 24 21.8 224 4.62 0.0 17.0 25.1% 36.7% 4.2
93% 2014 Mike Evans Texas A&M 7 21.0 231 4.53 0.0 20.2 23.0% 20.0% 2.9
Kenny Britt is an intriguing, and also potentially miscast, top comp for Shenault. The thing is, there aren’t many players who were as highly productive in the passing game while also contributing over two rushing attempts per game. The are concerns about Sheault’s injuries, but comps like Dez Bryant show his massive upside.



Shenault’s comps have the lowest floor outcomes of the top prospects, which makes sense with a nontraditional prospect. But his mean and ceiling outcomes are strong at 0.78 and 1.47 WAR, respectively.

[Mizerooskie]

Thanks Ed! I think using market share (or accumulating stats) is only going to hurt Clemson players in this sort of methodology. Too much deliberate rotation and spreading the ball around in their program approach/scheme.

Tee is being undersold, IMO. Best hands in the draft, great size/length, excellent fluidity, and elite development environment.

Edit: And whoa, just noticed that the scale on the vertical axis is not consistent among the players. It makes the Pittman projection look a lot better than it actually is vs. Higgins and Shenault

[edromeo]

Thanks Ed! I think using market share (or accumulating stats) is only going to hurt Clemson players in this sort of methodology. Too much deliberate rotation and spreading the ball around in their program approach/scheme.

Tee is being undersold, IMO. Best hands in the draft, great size/length, excellent fluidity, and elite development environment.

Edit: And whoa, just noticed that the scale on the vertical axis is not consistent among the players. It makes the Pittman projection look a lot better than it actually is vs. Higgins and Shenault

No worries.

Not sure if i can agree about with you on market share in regards to Clemson. When they had a 'guy' he got to the targets like Mike Williams. But, i agree not all data carries equal weight.

Yes, the vertical axis is adjusted to show the height of their respective ceilings you have to look at their mean and ceiling averages and Pittman is low in their projects: .69 and 0.71 WAR

[Mizerooskie]

No worries.

Not sure if i can agree about with you on market share in regards to Clemson. When they had a 'guy' he got to the targets like Mike Williams. But, i agree not all data carries equal weight.

Yes, the vertical axis is adjusted to show the height of their respective ceilings you have to look at their mean and ceiling averages and Pittman is low in their projects: .69 and 0.71 WAR

Clemson offense in 2016 was a way different animal than 2020.

2016 Watson had 92.4% of the pass attempts
2019 Lawrence had 80.3% of the pass attempts

2016 86/476 receptions from RB/TE (18%)
2019 81/326 receptions from RB/TE (24.8 %) -- This was an emphasis in the scheme

Basically, the 1's played more in 2016 and there was more of an emphasis on going vertical in the passing game. In 2019, the 1's got less of the team market share and there was more of an emphasis on getting the running backs involved in the passing game.

[edromeo]

Clemson offense in 2016 was a way different animal than 2020.

2016 Watson had 92.4% of the pass attempts
2019 Lawrence had 80.3% of the pass attempts

2016 86/476 receptions from RB/TE (18%)
2019 81/326 receptions from RB/TE (24.8 %) -- This was an emphasis in the scheme

Basically, the 1's played more in 2016 and there was more of an emphasis on going vertical in the passing game. In 2019, the 1's got less of the team market share and there was more of an emphasis on getting the running backs involved in the passing game.

Good observations.

I don't think scheme emphasis is arbitrary, I think scheme emphasis is based on personnel. I think the reason they were more vertical in the passing game back then could be the difference between Mike Williams and Tee Higgins same with their market share.

[WrongBaldy]

Coulda really used Jetta