Draft analysts (myself included) often talk about “NFL throws” or other position-specific traits that make a player “NFL ready.” Unfortunately, we rarely define these traits and after awhile it starts to sound like a cliche. But with the rise of advanced stats, we now have access to data that can help us put an actual definition on some of these NFL-ready traits for each positions. And I’ll attempt to do that here for wide receivers. All of the data in this piece comes from Sports Info Solutions (unsolicited plug: check out their draft guide. If you enjoy the data in this article you’ll love it.)
Before diving into the numbers though, a disclaimer: just because a player wasn’t asked to do something in college, doesn’t mean he can’t do it in the NFL. Some of these prospects who appear to lack an NFL-ready body of work will end up making smooth transitions to the league. Lack of experience does, however, increase the chance of a player needing more time to develop. And sometimes it means he wasn’t asked to do it, because he had already shown on the practice field that he can’t do it. So none of these stats prove that a player is or isn’t ready to make the jump to the league, but it does point us in the right direction.
To define NFL-readiness for receivers, I decided to look at the most common NFL routes and then compare numbers for college prospects on those routes.
Based on Sports Info Solutions’ data, the most frequently targeted NFL routes for wide receivers were as follows:
Curl, 13.8% of total routes targeted
Out, 12.0%
Slant, 9.7%
Dig, 8.5%
These four routes make up 44 percent of all routes targeted in 2018. The other 56 percent comes from a combination of 22 other routes, which obviously each make up a relatively small percentage. Some will be asked to play a more specialized role—for example, the speedsters will run a higher percentage of screens and go routes—but this core group of four routes will be where the majority of receivers make their living.
To analyze this year’s prospects, I took what I considered to be the top 40 wide receivers in this class (from FBS schools only) and compared their numbers on these four routes.
Let’s start with the prospects who ran the highest percentage. Of those 40 prospects, 16 matched the NFL’s rate of 44 percent or higher, paced by these four:
The fact that Jalen Hurd, a converted running back, appears on this list probably boosts his draft stock. It takes a leap of faith for a team to spend an early pick on a player with minimal experience at a new position, but Hurd performed at a high level and did so on NFL routes. So it’s probably safe to assume his transition to the league will be more smooth than the average change-of-position prospect.
Terry McLaurin is also a surprise on the list. Urban Meyer’s offense doesn’t resemble one you’ll see on Sunday, but McLaurin appeared to get more NFL-friendly assignments. His teammate Parris Campbell, however, ran just 33.3 percent of his routes in this grouping. So McLaurin may have an easier transition to the league.
Now for the opposite end of the spectrum:
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to see some of the smaller receivers on this list, including Tony Pollard, who is a receiver/running back hybrid.
Andy Isabella and Mecole Hardman ran two of the three fastest times at the combine and, if healthy, Marquise Brown would have been right there with them. So it probably shouldn’t be too much of a concern to see these names here, because you aren’t drafting them for their well-rounded route tree. You’re drafting this crew to stretch the field.
Another way to break down the numbers in this route grouping is to look at success when targeted. To evaluate the prospects from this perspective, I threw out the uncatchable throws and ranked them by their yards gained per catchable target. Here’s who paced the field in this category:
Due to his injury-shortened season, D.K. Metcalf had just 17 targets on these routes (41.5 percent of his total), so maybe this is a sample size issue. But for teams considering him in the first round, this stat indicates he may be able to make a smooth transition to the league.
It’s also encouraging to see Hurd’s name pop up again. Not only did he run a high percentage of routes that will translate to the league, but he was among the most successful in this draft class on those routes.
And on the opposite end of the field:
Hunter Renfrow‘s appearance on this list is explained by his poor yards after catch production. He averaged just 3.7 YAC (on all routes) in 2018. This partially explains David Sills also (4.9 YAC), but we’ll get to the other issue with him later.
Hardman and Penny Hart are disappointing names to see on this list. I already touched on why Hardman had limited experience on these routes, but that doesn’t explain his poor production. Given his speed, he should have been capable of producing some big plays when given the opportunity.
Yet another way to break down this data is to simply analyze catch rate on catchable targets. Since none of these routes are necessarily designed to produce big plays, simply coming down with the catchable balls might be more relevant than the previous yards-per-target numbers:
Riley Ridley‘s name on this list is an intriguing one, because we also saw him appear on the list of most frequent targets. So he saw over 50 percent of his targets on these routes, and caught over 90 percent of the catchable passes. That definitely bodes well for his NFL-readiness.
The 6’2″ Jakobi Meyers and 6’3″ Kelvin Harmon are also exciting names on this list. Having a large frame and the hands to snag the ball on these routes bodes well for them having a role in the NFL. If nothing else, this skill set should give them the floor of productive possession receiver.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have some concerning names:
Hakeem Butler‘s place atop this list should be a giant red flag. And for those who have followed Butler’s career closely, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Butler has two bricks for hands, and it led to a 22.6 percent drop rate [drops / (drops + rec)] on these routes. When he catches the ball he’s productive, as evidenced by his 11.4 yards per reception, but he just can’t get out of his own way.
Sills also had some issues with drops (14.3 percent drop rate), as did Hart (12.5 percent). N’Keal Harry‘s appearance on this list is more confusing due to his respectable 6.7 percent drop rate. It would take a closer look at his game to evaluate why he wasn’t coming down with these catchable passes to determine if it’s a red flag teams should be concerned about.
So what can we learn from all these numbers?
As I said before, no one is guaranteed success or failure based on how often they ran these routes or how they performed on their opportunities. The transition to the NFL is far more complicated than that.
That said, I do think looking at a receiver’s specific role with within his college offense is an important factor to consider. The NFL does not have a great track record of developing players, especially at receiver, a position expected to produce near instant results. When a player struggles early in his career, teams tend to move on quickly, especially with those taken outside the first round.
So if any of these receivers are forced into a role to which they had limited exposure in college, it could lead to struggles and a quick exit from their initial franchise. On the flip side, a lesser talent with experience on these routes may be better suited to make an immediate positive impression, and then be given a longer leash.
