The Consensus on Consensus Boards

There's a debate on across social media about the efficacy of consensus boards. To use, or not to use, that is the question.

The NFL draft is complete, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t still plenty to discuss.  In fact, in the draft’s wake, there’s been a heated debate on social media drawing in experts and amateur analysts alike.

What – if anything – should we make of consensus boards?

For those not in the know: across the internet, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of draft analysts who laboriously grind over film, pore over the data, and scour for the smallest bits of information about hundreds of potential NFL draftees.  Each one of these analysts has their own opinion.

In many ways, this isn’t dissimilar to how NFL teams operate.  Each NFL team has its own GM (in theory) and a room full of scouts (in theory) who each have their own opinions about the upcoming draft class.  They all work together to come to a consensus, and then, when the time ultimately comes, they make a single selection based on the available information.

For draftniks, the consensus board is the same – just on a tremendous scale.

And it’s not something to be taken lightly.  There’s data that shows that if a team reaches on a player significantly ahead of where the consensus says that player should go, that team regrets that decision about 80% of the time.

But draft analysts working outside the NFL are inherently at a disadvantage – they aren't playing with a full deck.  NFL GMs and scouts are.

So, how do we reconcile this?

For starters, the consensus board is not draft gospel.  There is no consensus among all 32 NFL teams.  If there were, there wouldn’t be any need for a draft – players would just be assigned to teams based on “draft” position.  It would be the most boring event in world history.

But, the consensus board is useful.  It eliminates bias to a significant extent.  One draft analyst may fall in love with a player due to certain traits that analyst prefers, but if the rest of the community doesn’t agree, that player’s position on the consensus board hardly moves.

That isn’t the case in an NFL draft room.  Unlike the consensus board, which for all intents and purposes is infinite in its scale, there are a limited number of voices making decisions for NFL teams.  An NFL team might have ten scouts who all hate a player, but if the owner wants him…well, there’s very little they can do to stop the owner making a pick.

The consensus board is the “wisdom of the crowds” as NFL Draft expert Sam Monson put it.  And there’s a lot of wisdom in listening to the crowd in this case.

The data is pretty clear: teams that reach on a player significantly ahead of consensus have poorer outcomes.  The consensus board is not predictive, but it helps with probability.  If a GM is seeing something that the consensus isn’t, re-evaluation might be necessary.

Drafting isn’t an exact science, but as Monson puts it, anything that can move the odds in your favor is valuable.  That’s where the consensus board comes in.  Value matters: drafting a player in the 4th-round instead of the 3rd- gives you an opportunity to add another valuable player to your draft class.

It’s no different in free agency.  Why spend $100 million on a player when you could spend $50?

Furthermore, the consensus board is fairly strong.  Even without complete information, the board is still accurate.  Experts – those in the NFL and outside alike – generally agree on who the best and most talented players are.

But, there’s still that critical piece: only NFL teams and their staff have complete information.  That was Bucky Brooks’ point.

Medical information, such as recovery projections after surgeries or complete medical history, is protected by HIPAA.  Player interviews are private and are unlikely (except in rare cases) to be leaked to the public.  Things like attitude, coachability, and football intelligence are generally locked behind closed doors.

Draft experts are usually very astute and work incredibly hard to come to their conclusions, but they’re still missing the big picture.  It’s not that different from sticking your head out the window and predicting it won’t rain because it’s a sunny day.  You might be right, and you might be right more often than not, but it doesn't mean you know more than a meteorologist.

Brooks also made a point to explain how important scheme fit is.  Teams aren’t grading prospects in a vacuum – they build their boards around how a player fits into their system.  The vision for that player is just as important as their talent.

Brooks mentions as well that it’s impossible to know the “why” behind each selection.  Maybe a team feels comfortable developing a project as a backup for a couple years.  Maybe they reached to fill a desperate need.  It might still be a reach if it doesn’t work out, but at least there’s a consistency and logic to it – but we’ll likely never know exactly the circumstances that led to that pick.

NFL teams also trust their coaching and development staff inherently.  It’s literally their job.  They might feel more comfortable drafting a project than the public because they trust their ability to get the most out of that player.  It might seem silly in hindsight, especially if a player busts, but NFL teams couldn’t function if they didn’t believe in the people they hired.

There’s also the fact that the 2026 Draft may have just been exceptionally volatile, as Lance Zierlein explained.  Multiple teams told Zierlein that the current draft landscape – due in large part to the effect of NIL and the influx of booster money into college football – is “the Wild West.”

The middle and late rounds have been thinned out.  Players are returning to school when in the past they would have declared.  That might change if rules change at the lower levels, but for now, the NFL has to deal with a less-talented talent pool than is typical.

Zierlein, for one, expects this trend to continue.  I guess we’ll have to see if he’s right, but if he is, we might see NFL teams reaching more because there isn’t a great reason not to.

As Steve Palazzolo pointed out, GMs are hired in part due to their conviction and success at identifying talent.  At the same time, they’re also expected to absorb and utilize as much information as humanly possible.  So, which is more important?  I guess if you’re reading this and you become an NFL owner some day, you can tell me.

The answer, honestly, is a little bit of both.  The consensus board is another piece of useful information that must be considered.  But, if all the data’s been considered and a GM and his staff feel comfortable and convicted about a certain player, you’re in that position for a reason – trust your gut.  Trust your staff.  Trust your process.  But don’t ignore the data because it’s inconvenient.

It’s also important to remember just how much of a crapshoot the NFL Draft can be.  In 2009, Aaron Curry was considered the surest linebacker prospect in recent memory.  He was drafted #4 overall – and he was out of the league in four years.  Even Hall of Fame linebackers like Patrick Willis (11th) and Luke Kuechly (9th) weren’t drafted that high.

On the flip-side, James Harrison went undrafted.  He was cut from the Steelers and the Ravens before finally finding his footing in his age 29 season.  From age 29 to age 32, he was named to four consecutive All-Pro teams and was named Defensive Player of the Year in 2008.

Even the greatest player of all time Tom Brady wasn’t drafted until the 6th-round.  He was the seventh quarterback drafted in his class.

Players succeed and fail for many reasons – often for reasons completely out of the team's control.

It’s also important to note that the consensus concept can cut both ways.  Last year, the consensus board knew that Shedeur Sanders was one of the draft’s top prospects.  It knew he was the second-best quarterback prospect.

He ended up falling to the 5th-round.  He was the sixth quarterback taken – and the team that drafted him even took a different quarterback ahead of him!  A GM that trusted the consensus would have drafted Sanders in the first- or second-round.  In reality, that player could have been had much later.

This is the underreported risk of consensus: it can lead to over-drafting just as much as it can prevent reaches.  The only difference?  Because the player was actually drafted based on consensus, we’ll never know how far that player could have fallen.  It’s a paradox that is generally in favor of the consensus and works against teams that go against the grain – at least, in the public’s eye.

So, what should we make of this?  For one, the consensus board is good!  Teams should use it!

It’s more information.  The data suggests it can be a useful tool.

But, as the Sanders example illustrates, the consensus can also work against teams too.  Reaches are generally bad.  Sometimes though, players fall for reasons that seem inexplicable to the public, but then seem obvious when that player is out of the league in two years.

The consensus board is best used as a reality check, not a ranking system.  If a GM is considering taking a player well ahead of consensus, it might be worth seeing if that player can be grabbed in a later round, or at the very least, consider trading back.  It doesn’t mean teams shouldn’t take players they like, but they should have a better reason than just, “he was there and we liked him.”

It’s a messy conclusion, but the reality is, everyone in this argument is a little bit right.  The consensus board is useful and must be used.  That said, a pick has to be made.  You can’t keep trading down forever.  Reach or no reach, a GM is staking his job on every selection – might as well go with the conviction that got you there in the first place.