Which position is the toughest to evaluate?

[Mr. Scot]

When it comes to analyzing draft prospects, there's a lot of hit or miss in the process.

Players that were expected to be "The Next Big Thing" frequently turn into total busts, while picks that were greeted with a rousing round of indifference sometimes turn into superstars.

So when it comes to evaluation, what positions do you believe are the most difficult to analyze and project from college to the NFL?

Let me ask that if you say quarterback - which I feel a lot of people will - I'd also like you to add something else so this isn't just a quarterback centric discussion.

[LinvilleGorge]

Evidently it's OT. 1st round OTs used to be considered about as safe on a pick as a team could make. For the last decade or so, they sent to be one pf the riskiest.

[XClown1986]

Wide receiver is pretty difficult. Different offensive responsibilities, routes, and ways corners play them than in the NFL. For every one guy that succeeds as a highly touted prospect, there are probably at least two or three that fail.

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

For me its OLine.  College OLines I feel like play so much differently.  

[Ricky Spanish]

O-line, WR, and TE. 

 

[ColumbusCounty]

QB ...followed by OT then DT and DE

[carolinapanther]

O-line, wr

[Mr. Scot]

I've heard more than one NFL guy say that the prevalence of gimmicky systems at the college level is turning the draft pools to sh-t at some spots.

Fair criticism?

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

I've heard more than one NFL guy say that the prevalence of gimmicky systems at the college level is turning the draft pools to sh-t at some spots.

Fair criticism?

Yes

[Peppers90 NC]

O-line since they work more as a unit. Even Byron Bell became competent once Norwell became a starter.

[LinvilleGorge]

17 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've heard more than one NFL guy say that the prevalence of gimmicky systems at the college level is turning the draft pools to sh-t at some spots.

Fair criticism?

Not if it's being used as a criticism of the college game. College coaches get paid to win, not to develop NFL projects. They're bringing in 18 year old kids and most aren't ready to compete in the college game right away, they need a year or two. By the time they're ready to play, you're usually only getting 2-3 years out of them. You pretty much have no choice but to simplify the systems.

Honestly, the college game is where all the innovation in the is coming from. The "pro style offense" of today looks a helluva lot more like a college offense than it does the "pro style offense" of a decade plus ago and now we're seeing defenses having to adjust to that as well.

[Jesse]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

I've heard more than one NFL guy say that the prevalence of gimmicky systems at the college level is turning the draft pools to sh-t at some spots.

Fair criticism?

My rebuttal is that what constitutes a gimmicky system? I'm not sure of any gimmicky offensive system at the D1 level. The most unlikely college-to-NFL scheme that any D1 college plays is an option based scheme like Georgia Tech with Paul Johnson or New Mexico's offense.

On a somewhat side note, the air raid and RPO offenses are the future of football. I've gone to clinics and everyone from peewee all the way to the NFL are using them now. Even peewee teams use RPO's nowadays. 

[countryboi]

if i had to take a guess from a guy that knows nothing about talent evaluation, QB and OT are the hardest with RB being the easiest. 

[Basbear]

Simply put offense. QB, TE, WR, OT, and even RB have the highest bust rate. Basically in that order. 

The overall safest position is safety. Then LB and OG. Funny cause mostteams wait to pick those groups.