A Preview of the 2014 Draft Class

[DCEBB2001]

Here is a preview of some of the raw physical attributes for some of the top players in this year's NFL Draft Class based on FBG Ratings.

These are subject to change as we compile more data before and after the draft, but here is a sneak peak at some of the raw attributes. Feel free to compare these raw attribute ratings with your NFL counterparts as listed on www.fbgratings.com/members.

Enjoy, and let me know what you all think!

Dan B.
FBG Ratings




Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Bortles Blake Central Florida QB 61 79 70 62 73
Manziel Johnny Texas A&M QB 58 89 80 74 71
Bridgewater Teddy Louisville QB 58 79 69 74 68
Carr Derek Fresno State QB 58 82 74 78 72
Savage Tom Pittsburgh QB 61 72 64 62 55
Garoppolo Jimmy Eastern Illinois QB 63 79 69 56 66
Mettenberger Zach LSU QB 60 57 54 56 57
McCarron A.J. Alabama QB 60 75 67 65 51
Murray Aaron Georgia QB 58 69 69 69 70
Fales David San Jose State QB 58 64 62 63 55





Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Mason Tre Auburn RB 61 84 85 85 89
Hyde Carlos Ohio State RB 76 77 85 66 75
Sankey Bishop Washington RB 80 90 82 85 85
Hill Jeremy LSU RB 77 60 81 76 69
Williams Andre Boston College RB 67 80 85 79 90
West Terrance Towson RB 75 81 86 76 79
Seastrunk Lache Baylor RB 70 81 91 83 96
Carey KaDeem Arizona RB 75 76 73 79 77
Freeman Devonta Florida State RB 70 78 83 80 75
Sims Charles West Virginia RB 73 77 84 85 87




Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Prosch Jay Auburn FB 85 71 78 65 68
Copeland J.C. LSU FB 84 60 66 66 64
Hewitt Ryan Stanford FB 67 77 65 72 69
Millard Trey Oklahoma FB 68 76 78 76 77
Hoskins Gator Marshall FB 80 69 71 78 80
Coyle Chris Arizona State FB 75 72 68 57 64
Abram Chad Florida State FB 78 73 83 74 86
Jordan Reggie Missouri Western FB 80 76 80 71 71
Whitlock Nikita Wake Forest FB 94 79 71 66 68
Fogerson Zach Washington FB 68 73 74 72 74





Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Watkins Sammy Clemson WR 71 79 89 84 84
Evans Mike Texas A&M WR 68 79 88 77 84
Cooks Brandin Oregon State WR 70 94 93 85 82
Beckham, Jr. Odell LSU WR 61 92 91 82 86
Lee Marqise Southern Cal WR 64 87 88 80 89
Robinson Allen Penn State WR 60 93 83 85 95
Moncrief Donte Mississippi WR 69 79 92 84 93
Adams Davante Fresno State WR 69 82 85 77 90
Bryant Martavis Clemson WR 70 79 90 80 88
Benjamin Kelvin Florida State WR 70 71 82 71 77






Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Ebron Eric North Carolina TE 81 66 83 76 77
Amaro Jace Texas Tech TE 85 72 80 77 76
Seferian-Jenkins Austin Washington TE 78 73 73 72 73
Niklas Troy Notre Dame TE 84 63 68 68 72
Fiedorowicz C.J. Iowa TE 83 79 74 72 73
Lynch Arthur Georgia TE 84 71 74 69 69
Gillmore Crockett Colorado State TE 77 68 71 70 79
Murphy Jake Utah TE 81 77 73 68 73
Grimble Xavier Southern Cal TE 76 59 67 65 69
Duncan Joe Don Dixie State TE 90 71 71 70 72







Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Robinson Greg Auburn OT 92 50 71 64 66
Matthews Jake Texas A&M OT 86 69 62 62 61
Lewan Taylor Michigan OT 89 67 74 64 72
Kouandjio Cyrus Alabama OT 85 52 44 39 63
Moses Morgan Virginia OT 80 45 58 46 55
James JaWuan Tennessee OT 85 65 54 46 57
Fleming Cameron Stanford OT 88 37 52 47 40
Turner Billy North Dakota State OT 87 52 59 51 60
Mewhort Jack Ohio State OT 88 56 49 42 49
Richardson Antonio Tennessee OT 94 56 59 42 44






Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Martin Zack Notre Dame OG 89 60 52 54 59
Su'a-Filo Xavier UCLA OG 87 65 66 59 51
Bitonio Joel Nevada OG 84 69 65 66 72
Jackson Gabe Mississippi State OG 92 50 43 48 61
Dozier Dakota Furman OG 86 42 53 43 52
Richardson Cyril Baylor OG 91 53 53 51 37
Yankey David Stanford OG 85 50 41 46 56
Turner Trai LSU OG 88 46 68 62 53
Linder Brandon Miami OG 89 55 51 43 50
Halapio Jon Florida OG 83 42 50 49 51






Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Richburg Weston Colorado State C 86 54 62 52 54
Martin Marcus Southern Cal C 87 45 53 52 55
Swanson Travis Arkansas C 84 57 57 44 42
Stork Bryan Florida State C 85 44 39 52 45
Ikard Gabe Oklahoma C 85 72 61 52 51
Linsley Corey Ohio State C 92 65 64 56 57
Larsen Tyler Utah State C 93 47 55 56 46
Johnson Wesley Vanderbilt C 86 64 55 62 65
Stone James Tennessee C 85 49 58 52 56
Harrison Jonotthan Florida C 88 47 64 49 63






Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Boswell Chris Rice K 51 66 65 65 67
Fera Anthony Texas K 58 69 68 69 70
Santos Cairo Tulane K 47 72 73 71 73
Budzien Jeff Northwestern K 62 72 72 71 73
Freese Nate Boston College K 55 66 64 65 66
Hocker Zach Arkansas K 53 67 66 66 68
Parkey Cody Auburn K 53 61 59 60 61
Catanzaro Chandler Clemson K 57 66 64 65 66
D'Amato Vincenzo California K 57 66 64 65 66
Foster Cade Alabama K 72 63 60 63 65







Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Clowney Jadeveon South Carolina DE 80 71 85 78 86
Ford Dee Auburn DE 86 67 85 69 84
Ealy Kony Missouri DE 82 78 80 66 77
Lawrence Demarcus Boise State DE 78 71 76 74 74
Crichton Scott Oregon State DE 83 76 71 72 66
Martin Kareem North Carolina DE 81 75 77 72 87
Murphy Trent Stanford DE 77 85 67 71 80
Smith Marcus Louisville DE 80 76 74 79 82
Jeffcoat Jackson Texas DE 76 82 81 74 84
Clarke Will West Virginia DE 81 67 76 69 70






Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Donald Aaron Pittsburgh DT 91 75 80 74 73
Jernigan Timmy Florida State DT 88 54 66 60 57
Nix, III Louis Notre Dame DT 89 44 48 49 44
Hageman Ra'Shede Minnesota DT 90 59 69 59 77
Tuitt Stephon Notre Dame DT 89 66 66 65 67
Easley Dominique Florida DT 86 66 65 65 67
Sutton Will Arizona State DT 87 59 54 48 52
Jones DaQuan Penn State DT 88 57 48 47 52
Ferguson Ego LSU DT 87 41 55 63 53
Quarles Kelcy South Carolina DT 88 65 69 56 46







Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Mosley C.J. Alabama ILB 72 72 75 82 79
Borland Chris Wisconsin ILB 85 83 71 71 78
Skov Shayne Stanford ILB 68 65 64 64 66
Jones Christian Florida State ILB 75 77 80 68 75
Brown Preston Louisville ILB 84 80 71 71 77
Erno Trevor ILB 64 72 72 70 72
Bullough Max Michigan State ILB 85 78 75 72 68
Barrow Lamin LSU ILB 79 75 81 75 83
Smallwood Yawin Connecticut ILB 77 63 58 69 73
Williamson Avery Kentucky ILB 82 82 78 80 74








Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Mack Khalil Buffalo OLB 80 80 78 85 91
Barr Anthony UCLA OLB 77 84 90 80 84
Shazier Ryan Ohio State OLB 82 82 91 82 94
Van Noy Kyle BYU OLB 78 78 80 75 71
Attaochu Jeremiah Georgia Tech OLB 69 65 78 83 77
Reilly Trevor Utah OLB 82 76 80 70 72
Bradford Carl Arizona State OLB 81 79 76 70 85
Smith Telvin Florida State OLB 72 72 81 89 76
Tripp Jordan Montana OLB 78 88 79 76 84
Smith Chris Arkansas OLB 86 69 80 70 84








Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Gilbert Justin Oklahoma State CB 74 78 94 84 85
Dennard Darqueze Michigan State CB 69 75 90 80 91
Fuller Kyle Virginia Tech CB 65 83 87 86 90
Verrett Jason TCU CB 72 91 88 88 91
Roby Bradley Ohio State CB 70 89 90 87 87
Joyner Lamarcus Florida State CB 67 72 87 78 86
Gaines Phillip Rice CB 64 91 91 89 84
Roberson Marcus Florida CB 60 87 77 80 84
McGill Keith Utah CB 66 85 91 74 91
Breeland Bashaud Clemson CB 65 78 82 76 82







Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Clinton-Dix Ha Ha Alabama FS 66 79 81 77 77
Pryor Calvin Louisville FS 73 79 80 79 77
Brooks Terrence Florida State FS 65 73 90 84 85
Bailey Dion Southern Cal FS 68 83 81 72 74
Reynolds Ed Stanford FS 70 79 81 79 75
Ladler Kenny Vanderbilt FS 78 75 73 82 87
Huff Marqueston Wyoming FS 69 77 85 84 80
Boston Tre North Carolina FS 73 78 81 77 78
Loften Eddrick Tennessee FS 57 81 83 82 81
Bryant Christian Ohio State FS 58 79 82 79 80





Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Ward Jimmie Northern Illinois SS 63 82 85 82 87
Bucannon Deone Washington State SS 73 81 83 84 86
Loston Craig LSU SS 68 75 76 77 77
Vereen Brock Minnesota SS 78 86 83 87 77
Dixon Ahmad Baylor SS 69 72 86 78 72
Southward Dezmen Wisconsin SS 60 85 87 88 91
Sunseri Vinnie Alabama SS 76 79 81 78 80
Sorensen Daniel BYU SS 67 95 86 72 78
Lewis Isaiah Michigan State SS 71 82 83 78 84
Berhe Nat San Diego State SS 70 79 80 82 80






Last First College DraftPOS STR AGI SPD ACC JMP
Van Der Kamp Kirby Iowa State P 54 69 69 69 70
Hornsey Tom Memphis P 60 62 60 60 63
O'Donnell Pat Miami P 77 76 78 75 74
Clark Steven Auburn P 61 57 54 56 76
Leone Richie Houston P 57 59 57 59 59
Mandell Cody Alabama P 67 72 74 66 65
Campbell Tyler Mississippi P 63 62 60 60 63
Webster Cody Purdue P 57 70 73 62 59
Layton Paul Temple P 58 60 59 60 59
Wenzig Bobby Alabama State P 40 75 76 75 76







Heit Marcus Kansas State LS 72 68 72 60 72
Gillette Trevor Rice LS 71 51 59 57 54
Ott Tyler Harvard LS 77 67 70 69 61
Northern Zach Baylor LS 76 32 35 31 44
Suter Andrew Oklahoma State LS 80 46 43 43 72
Kreiter Casey Iowa LS 72 72 59 64 64
Howell Drew Oregon LS 79 71 61 54 47
Woods Austin Oklahoma LS 75 31 17 16 34
Barton Vance Massachusetts LS 76 51 55 51 56
Fajgenbaum Phillip Clemson LS 73 48 50 52 41
Iverson Ryan Colorado LS 84 71 81 68 71

[DNMHIII]

I don't understand why Speed, Acceleration, and Agility for skill players is so low. Any insight on those attributes would be interesting to hear.

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by DNMHIII

I don't understand why Speed, Acceleration, and Agility for skill players is so low. Any insight on those attributes would be interesting to hear.

I will refer you to the FAQ section of the website.

http://www.fbgratings.com/members/faqs.php

Also, check out the FBG Ratings Thread here:

http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ange-game.html


Basically, we do not rate players with over-inflated attributes or OVRs. All physical attributes are set to a true mean of 70 for the average. This allows you to determine how far above or below "average" a player is for a particular attribute, regardless of position. Gone are the days of having a WR and a LB with the same timed acceleration rate and maximum velocity having unequal SPD and ACC ratings. Since mass has no affect on velocity, we can determine that players of equal velocity and rate of acceleration are equal no matter their size or position.

All players are also graded on the same scale for all other attributes. We do not have positional "caps" like EA has been quoted as to using (DBs with SPD ratings no lower than 75, for example). Instead of manipulating, dictating, or straight-up ignoring data, we use the data to tell us how a player behaves on the field instead of the other way around. Would it really make sense to see a player run a 7.00 3-cone time and say "Oh, he looks to be about a 90 AGI" and then ignore the results compared to the rest of the population of players? Or, would it be more logical to set his time up against the rest of the population and THEN determine his AGI rating? One system ignores the data and the other utilizes it.

I know it is complicated for some gamers out there to wrap their heads around some of our concepts, but believe me, their is a HUGE amount of behind-the-scenes research that goes on behind our ratings. The data is compiled by a real NFL scout working in an NFL front office and the implementation of the data was consulted upon by professionals in biomechanical and statistical analysis fields. In an attempt to rate players REALISTICALLY, we consulted real experts.

[DNMHIII]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

I will refer you to the FAQ section of the website. http://www.fbgratings.com/members/faqs.php Also, check out the FBG Ratings Thread here: http://www.operationsports.com/forum...ange-game.html Basically, we do not rate players with over-inflated attributes or OVRs. All physical attributes are set to a true mean of 70 for the average. This allows you to determine how far above or below "average" a player is for a particular attribute, regardless of position. Gone are the days of having a WR and a LB with the same timed acceleration rate and maximum velocity having unequal SPD and ACC ratings. Since mass has no affect on velocity, we can determine that players of equal velocity and rate of acceleration are equal no matter their size or position. All players are also graded on the same scale for all other attributes. We do not have positional "caps" like EA has been quoted as to using (DBs with SPD ratings no lower than 75, for example). Instead of manipulating, dictating, or straight-up ignoring data, we use the data to tell us how a player behaves on the field instead of the other way around. Would it really make sense to see a player run a 7.00 3-cone time and say "Oh, he looks to be about a 90 AGI" and then ignore the results compared to the rest of the population of players? Or, would it be more logical to set his time up against the rest of the population and THEN determine his AGI rating? One system ignores the data and the other utilizes it. I know it is complicated for some gamers out there to wrap their heads around some of our concepts, but believe me, their is a HUGE amount of behind-the-scenes research that goes on behind our ratings. The data is compiled by a real NFL scout working in an NFL front office and the implementation of the data was consulted upon by professionals in biomechanical and statistical analysis fields. In an attempt to rate players REALISTICALLY, we consulted real experts.

Do you have a scale that you use for the measurables? if so, can you post a link because I couldn't find it at your site.

Thanks in advance

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by DNMHIII

Do you have a scale that you use for the measurables? if so, can you post a link because I couldn't find it at your site. Thanks in advance

We have several metrics that we do not publish for the sake of protecting our intellectual property.

Sorry.

[DNMHIII]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

We have several metrics that we do not publish for the sake of protecting our intellectual property. Sorry.

Interesting, people like myself will probably always question the quality of results you have without more insight to the formula.

My view is that you've neutered measurables massively but if you do that proportionately across the entire league I guess it really doesn't change anything other than just dropping everyone down.

Do you find that the game plays better with players having lower measurables?

[DNMHIII]

Quote: Originally Posted by DCEBB2001

Thanks for the input guys. The big thing that needs to be done differently, IMO, is how the players are rated...which is why I am bringing attention to the site. Have you all seen the arguments in the EA forums about certain players' speed ratings before? How rookies come in way faster and more athletic than guys already in the game? How they seem to ignore things like 40 times, etc. and get fast guys playing slow? That is the stuff that needs to change. How about rating inflation where you have half the league over 90 OVR after a few seasons!? That is the stuff that this site in particular is trying to fix. No more BS ratings developed by guys who have probably never played football, coached, or scouted at any level.

I found this interesting and it appears that maybe your efforts to control OVR is in part achieved by lowering measurables, is that right?

I've found the OVR really means nothing to my gameplay experience and the only way to separate elite players from the the others is to just focus on position specific attributes. Personally I like having skill players that stand out because of their positional attributes combined with their physical attributes.

Just my thoughts

[DCEBB2001]

Quote: Originally Posted by DNMHIII

Interesting, people like myself will probably always question the quality of results you have without more insight to the formula. My view is that you've neutered measurables massively but if you do that proportionately across the entire league I guess it really doesn't change anything other than just dropping everyone down. Do you find that the game plays better with players having lower measurables?

I completely understand. I just cannot release any of the details. Acquiring the scouting data, for example, required 2 separate NDAs just to obtain it and publish derived results.

I wouldn't argue that the measurables have been "neutered" as you put it. Instead, all players are rated on a data-driven, realistic scale that utilizes the entire 0-99 range. It isn't like I placed the top of the scale at 90. Players can still be rated a 99 in any category. These instances are just more rare, which allows for more differentiation between the elite and average players.

I have always contested that the game plays better with these ratings, which is why I have devoted so much time to it. You don't need my word for it though. There are quite a few forum members who have used them and are more than willing to express their views on it. Doing a forum search for "FBG Ratings" will bring up a myriad of topics with some reviews thrown in there.