Usually, Austin (@devydeets) analyzes ADP trends month over month, but we’re going to mix it up this time. The point of this article is to leverage Campus2Canton positional ranks to find reaches (the Campus2Canton ranks are lower than a player’s positional ADP). I’ll review where you can find edges in your draft with this data position by position. Part I will focus on who to stay away from, while Part II will be where to find values based on the site ranks.
Kaidon Salter, Liberty (Position Rank: QB99 vs ADP: QB51)
This one is straightforward. Salter could not keep his spot at Tennessee after many off-the-field issues, including drug charges and an assault/burglary on campus. Post-dismissal, he landed at Liberty (not shocking knowing Hugh Freeze) but is still going far too high considering the building red flags. Given his QB51 ADP, he’s clearly an avoid for the rankers.
Brock Vandagriff, UGA (Position Rank: QB44 vs. ADP: QB19)
For Vandagriff, this seems to be a case of sunken cost. A highly ranked recruit coming into Georgia, Vandagriff has floundered thus far with terrible reports in Spring. His ADP has gone relatively unchanged over the last three months, and that fails to line up with the reality of the situation. At best, he has a chance to secure the QB3 job for the Dawgs in 2021, but with Gunner Stockton coming in next season, Vandagriff’s days in Athens might be numbered.
Tyler Shough, Texas Tech (Position Rank: QB61 vs. ADP: QB34)
This is again a case of take-lock. Again, his ADP is relatively unchanged over the last three months, although it did spike in June, going as high as 134.8. Shough transferred from Oregon to Texas Tech, likely in fear of losing his job, and the only thing keeping him inside his current ADP of 165 is a terrible Walter Football mock draft.
John Emery, LSU (Position Rank: RB88 vs. ADP: RB42)
There’s a common theme among most of the players listed here. Holding onto priors and failing to adapt to new information. There is legitimately no reason to be optimistic regarding John Emery, especially when you have to take him within the top 10 rounds of a C2C startup. The lack of positive news and the uncertainty within that backfield makes it difficult to see a true path to relevance, and the 46 spot discrepancy between ranks and ADP highlights this.
Jerrion Ealy, Ole Miss (Position Rank: RB44 vs. ADP RB20)
The mystery around Jerrion Ealy’s ADP is attributable to drafters not paying attention to his weight. Ealy, listed at a slim 190lbs, needs to add substantially more weight if he wants to sniff Day 2 draft capital as a running back. Currently, he’s been working as a lot receiver, which given his size, makes sense. The only question is – is he good enough to make that transition? Taking Ealy RB20 is burning a very high pick (overall ADP of 59.8) on a tweener who is too small to get high-end draft capital as a running back. Another potential pitfall with taking Ealy that early is that, given his size, he may opt to play baseball instead.
Trey Sanders, Alabama (Position Rank: RB74 vs. ADP RB43)
I understand this (some) given the hype around Sanders pre-injury and the positive news recently out of Tuscaloosa, but the reward given the amount of risk is still too high. One of the starker contrasts between the site rank and ADP, Sanders’s value has been propped up mostly by wishful thinking and positive camp news. The issue now is twofold: one, is he truly healthy enough given the extent of his injury? And two, that running back room is extremely crowded with Brian Robinson, Jase McClellan Roydell Williams, and Camar Wheaton. Taking him in the top 10-11 rounds of a C2C startup is just a little too high.
Jordan Johnson, UCF (Position Rank: WR123 vs. ADP: WR76)
Have people been paying attention to Jordan Johnson? The number of red flags that have popped up consistently with him should drive him much further down ADP, yet he’s one of the highest WR discrepancies at over 47 spots. Johnson had to transfer from Notre Dame due to academic and work ethic issues but ended up on a UCF team that should have a good offense, keeping his ADP insulated. Johnson’s ADP is far too high, given how often the “red flag” players don’t work out.
Bru McCoy, USC (Position Rank: WR72 vs. ADP: WR38)
Bru McCoy is going almost twice as high among WRs as the C2C rankers think he should. Is this the worst numbers case of rankings/ADP discrepancy? No, but given how high McCoy is going versus our rankings, it’s probably one of the more egregious. McCoy may luck into some activity this year with receivers going down at USC, but he has done nothing to justify his WR36 ADP yet. He’s an avoid for the C2C crew at his cost.
Demond Demas, Texas A&M (Position Rank: WR48 vs. ADP: WR24)
Demas has done nothing to be drafted as a top-24 wide receiver, and given what we know thus far, as a set of rankers, we are still probably too optimistic. In July, at an ADP of 72.4, Demas is still a borderline sixth-round pick going around Marvin Harrison Jr., Mario Williams, and Jaden Walley. It’s not burning a pick per se, but the value isn’t there to justify anywhere close to his current price.
Given what we know about certain players and the tendency for fantasy players, especially C2C players, to under-react, many ADP and the ranking discrepancy are the results. Of the players above, a good chunk of the differences is not reacting to information. Based on our ranks, our suggestion is to avoid the players above at their ADP.