With so many independent analysts ranking NFL Draft prospects, it can be hard to see the big picture. So we’ve compiled prospect rankings from ten of the industry’s top analysts and organizations, including ESPN’s Mel Kiper, NFL.com’s Daniel Jeremiah, Yahoo’s Nate Tice and our own Nick Baumgardner. And of course we’ve featured the most comprehensive, authoritative draft guide there is — Dane Brugler’s The Beast, which you can find right here at The Athletic. Keep this table handy on draft night; it will update as teams make their picks.
| Consensus ↓ |
|---|
|
1 |
|
2  |
|
3  |
|
4  |
|
5  |
|
6  |
|
7  |
|
8  |
|
9  |
|
10  |
|
11  |
|
12  |
|
13  |
|
14  |
|
15  |
|
16  |
|
17  |
|
18  |
|
19  |
|
20  |
|
21  |
|
22  |
|
23  |
|
24  |
|
25  |
|
26  |
|
27  |
|
28  |
|
29  |
|
30  |
|
31  |
|
32  |
|
33  |
|
34  |
|
35  |
|
36  |
|
37  |
|
38  |
|
39  |
|
40  |
|
41  |
|
42  |
|
43  |
|
44  |
|
45  |
|
46  |
|
47  |
|
48  |
|
49  |
|
50  |
While there is a decent amount of general consensus among the experts — everyone believes Notre Dame’s Jeremiyah Love is at least in the top four overall — there is a fair amount of variation, too. Miami edge rusher Rueben Bain Jr., for example, has overall rankings spanning from fifth to 16th. And the farther down the table you go, the wider the variation is.
How to use the table: Each expert has their own column, with the consensus ranking on the left representing an average of sorts. You can click or tap on a column header to sort the table by that analyst’s ranking. Each rank is colored by how that expert compares to the consensus — prospects an analyst liked more than average are more green, and rankings lower than consensus are more orange. You can find more details about the methodology below, along with links to each expert’s full big board.
Methodology
To produce an aggregate rating for a given prospect, we used a variation of a statistical method called the Plackett-Luce model. It is often used to model ranked data and create composite ranks (some well-known applications include ranking NASCAR drivers and political candidates). Here, the composite rank is similar to an average of all ranks for a given prospect, with additional consideration given to being left off lists entirely.
Only prospects among the 2,700+ included in the 2026 Beast were eligible to be in this analysis. Dane Brugler’s additional positional rankings (for prospects outside his top 300) also contributed to composite rankings, as did Mel Kiper’s additional quarterback, running back and wide receiver positional rankings (for prospects outside his top 150). Lance Zierlein of NFL.com provides a numeric grade down to two decimal places for each prospect, without any ordinal ranks — prospects with equal scores were considered tied for the same rank.
The Athletic collected data as of April 21 from the following sources: The Athletic’s Dane Brugler’s ‘The Beast’ guide, ESPN’s Jordan Reid (published April 17), Pro Football Focus, NFL.com’s Lance Zierlein, ESPN’s best available list, The Ringer’s Todd McShay, NFL.com’s Daniel Jeremiah, ESPN’s Mel Kiper, The Athletic’s Nick Baumgardner (published March 26) and Yahoo Sports’s Nate Tice (published April 15).
Additional reporting by Emily Giambalvo.