With the NFL Draft just a week away, our College Football expert Thor Nystrom shares his official Tight End rankings. Read on for Thor’s player comps and analysis on the next crop of pro football tight ends.
Thor Nystrom’s 2024 NFL Draft TE Rankings
TIGHT ENDS
6031/243 | RAS: N/A
Player comparison: George Kittle
These are my tight end rankings. And, as you can see, Brock Bowers tops them. But I would be remiss if I didn’t state, from the top, that it’s a misleading designation on its face. Brock Bowers isn’t a tight end – not in the way your father thinks about tight end play.
Georgia HC Kirby Smart recently spoke to this in an interview with CBS Sports’ Josh Pate: “I don’t think I will see a kid like that at that position the rest of the time I coach, because I haven’t thus far.”
Brock Bowers only spent three years on campus. Each year, he was a first-team All-American. As a true freshman on the national title-winning 2021 team, Bowers set the school’s single-season TE records for receptions (56), receiving yards (882), and TD (13). Bowers went on to lead the 2022 repeat national champions in receiving, as well as the 2023 team that was No. 1 until losing to Alabama in the SEC title game.
Last year, Bowers only played in 10 games due to a high-ankle sprain. He could have shut it down with the NFL Draft on the horizon. But with a three-peat in play, Bowers opted for TightRope surgery and returned 26 days later. He was not 100-percent, but Bowers gutted it out through that narrow loss to the Tide.
How contextually impressive was it for Bowers to lead all three of those dominant Georgia teams in receiving? When Bowers arrived on campus, Georgia’s receiving room featured George Pickens, Adonai Mitchell, Ladd McConkey, Jermaine Burton, Kearis Jackson, and Marcus Rosemy-Jacksaint, and the Bulldogs had another NFL tight end in Darnell Washington (along with a premier pass-catching NFL RB in James Cook).
To hear Kirby Smart talk about it, Georgia only scratched the surface of Bowers’ utility. The Bulldogs gave Bowers 19 carries over three seasons – which he converted into 193 yards and five TD (10.2 YPC). Smart said if they had shifted Bowers to RB, Bowers would have been the team’s best running back. In the NFL, Bowers’ bonus running utility, which can be leveraged on gadget plays and near the goal line, gives him a Deebo-of-TEs feel.
Offensive coordinators love Bowers, because he’s a hide-the-ball-in-the-cup game every play against the opposing coordinator. You can – quite literally – line Bowers up anywhere. Georgia did just that, in the highest-leverage situations possible.
Put Bowers inline, put him in the slot, get him out on the boundary, line him up offset, use him as a lead-blocker, shift him around pre-snap so the defense has to tip its hand, and, if you really want to ramp up the defense’s confusion, come out of the huddle with Bowers as a single back once or twice a game. I hate the terms “offensive weapon” and “chess piece.” But, as descriptive designations, they more accurately fit Brock Bowers than “tight end.”
Bowers didn’t test at the NFL Combine or at UGA’s pro day after he tweaked a hamstring in pre-draft training. I don’t care. His athletic traits are all over his film – he used them to repeatedly beat NFL-caliber defenders in the SEC as the focal points of Georgia teams that went 42-2 the past three years.
From the scouting report during team meetings during game week, every back-end defender on the field knows Bowers can win at all three levels. So those defenders are prepared for anything. This also has the effect of keeping them back on their heels. Bowers wastes no time elevating their discomfort off the line, manipulating their calculus.
Bowers is a smooth, controlled, tempo-adjusting route-runner with an eye for detail and a bloodlust for using a defender’s leverage against him. Along his route, you notice all kinds of subtle false tells, unorthodox upper-body movements, head deeks, false steps. He keeps you off-balance into the route-break and brings precise, sudden footwork into them, with turbo-button acceleration out the other side.
Now that he’s won separation and the ball is headed his way, it’s a given that it’s a completion so long as the ball is anywhere near his area code. Bowers’ 4.4% drop rate in college is miniscule – and I don’t remember seeing an easy flub.
Once the ball is in his hands, the fun begins. Bowers is a tackle-breaking menace. In 2023, he led this class with 18, despite playing in only 10 games, multiple of those at less than 100-percent! Over his three-year career, Bowers broke 44 tackle attempts. Last spring, readers will recall me waxing poetic about Sam LaPorta‘s aptitude in this area… LaPorta broke 36 over four years.
With the ball in his hands, Bowers combines elite speed and change-of-direction for the position. He also, to Kirby Smart’s earlier point about his theoretical RB-skillset, has sublime open-field vision, the ever-rare tight end who will do things like cut back against the grain, or slow down to allow a teammate to execute a block.
Despite being undersized, Bowers is a solid blocker with anyone who won’t overwhelm him with size and strength. The thing with Bowers is he is full-go every rep. With blocking, effort and technique carry the day for him in every interaction he is physically capable of winning. You’re obviously never going to ask him to block on a passing down. So merely avoid assigning him to a power EDGE in a phone booth on a running concept, and he’s going to be just fine in this area.
The only nitpick I have is the obvious one: By traditional tight end standards he’s undersized. Then again, for what Bowers actually is – a multi-dimensional weapon who can be deployed anywhere and whose function is “advance the ball forward” – his size is borderline elephantine compared to his athleticism.
6040/250 | RAS: 9.73
Player comparison: Sam LaPorta
Sinnott’s process reminds me so much of Sam LaPorta‘s from last year. I simply don’t understand why he doesn’t get more respect. Last year, Sinnott had a top-three PFF grade in this class, and he did it as a two-way tight end, a reliable blocker and a strong receiver.
Sinnott got plenty of snaps inline at KSU, but was also used extensively in the slot and lined up in the backfield. He’s an extremely good athlete, as he proved during the pre-draft process. He also knows how to run a route. An undersized childhood multi-sport standout in Iowa, Sinnott retained the body control as he built himself up from a 205-pound walk-on fullback.
Sinnott’s footwork in route breaks shows the kind of attention to detail required to work your way up from rock-bottom of a Power 5 depth chart to one of the team’s unquestioned offensive pillars. He doesn’t lose momentum in transitions, and is particularly adept on in-breaking concepts over the middle.
Nearly half his 2023 catches came between the hashes within 20 yards of the line of scrimmages. The NFL is going to love that. Sinnott is also a clear and present danger to the seam whose post-snap intentions must be monitored carefully.
Hockey, baseball, and basketball are three sports from Sinnott’s past, and all preach soft hands – last year, on 73 targets, Sinnott posted a sterling 4.0% drop rate. Not only a sure-thing with the easy stuff, he’ll also bail the quarterback out by spearing off-target throws outside his frame.
Sinnott is a handful after the catch. Among FBS prospects in this TE class, Sinnott finished No. 3 with 14 broken tackles last year, and No. 4 with 15 explosive plays. Sinnott wasn’t spoon-fed easy targets, either. Among the same group with 30-plus catches last season, Sinnott’s 10.1 aDOT ranked No. 1.
Sinnott is a high-effort blocker who gets to work. He was one of the Big 12’s best in this area last season. Due to strength and length limitations, it won’t be translating apples-to-apples against war-daddy edge rushers at the next level.
Where I saw that manifest on film against superior power was an inclination by Sinnott to try to become a human battering ram, throwing the force of his weight down into larger opponents at contact, in contrast to the more measured technique he reliably displays against defenders in his weight class.
This compensatory mechanism, of course, was not very effective, and had the effect of letting larger fish off the hook earlier. You can be comfortable keeping Sinnott in a phone booth against anyone around his size or smaller. Sinnott’s technique and effort were almost always sufficient to wall-off from the play-side in those scenarios.
Overall, I see an undervalued prospect. At present, Sinnott is being discussed as a Round 3 prospect, much like Sam LaPorta was one year ago at this time. I think Sinnott is a Round 2 value who can step in immediately and contribute.
6044/253 | RAS: N/A
Player comparison: Noah Fant
Let’s get the obvious out of the way first: All has medical questions. He suffered a season-ending ACL tear in October. This came after a season-ending back injury ended his 2022 campaign prematurely. Those injuries held him to a mere 10 games the last two seasons.
There was an apparent disagreement between All and Michigan’s staff about the best course of action to deal with the back injury. All elected for season-ending surgery, which he referred to on social media as “life changing.” This led to his transfer to Iowa, where All was back, healthy, and ready to play for the 2023 opener.
The Hawkeye staff viewed All as Sam LaPorta‘s usage replacement in the offense. And All fulfilled expectations, ranking No. 1 among all FBS TEs with at least 10 targets in yards per route run against man coverage on what was an utter abomination of a passing offense. That is, until All tore his ACL in October.
The expectation was that All would return to Iowa City and be one of college football’s premier tight ends next season. Get his stock in a more stable place in advance of the 2025 NFL Draft. But All had a change of heart just prior to the declaration deadline in January and announced he was headed to the NFL.
Not much is known about All’s back injury – very little details were reported about it publicly. But since he had such a quick turnaround to the following training camp, and since the back did not bother him in 2023, I’m going to make a situational assumption that it, at minimum, doesn’t present a clear-and-present danger to his short-term viability on the field. My ranking is representative of that situational assumption.
When he’s been on the field, All has shown high-level flashes as a receiver. I love his combination of size, speed, and feet. He’s a slick direction-changer at his size who is sudden into-and-out-of route breaks. He enters them suddenly, gets through them efficiently, and explodes out of them. All threatens the seam at alarming speed. He’s also adept at slamming on the breaks and careening back to balls.
All has proven – at two different veritable collegiate TE factories – that he can be deployed regularly inline or out of the slot. He was used as an H-back/big-slot with the Wolverines, and took over LaPorta’s old inline post with the Hawkeyes.
All was hurt badly by missing the pre-draft process – in my opinion, far worse than people realize. He is a legitimately nasty athlete. Check out the catch-and-run 47-yard touchdown below, where All outraces Penn State CB Kalen King – who ran a 4.52 forty at PSU’s pro day – down the sidelines to the end zone.
All may not have bested Washington’s Devin Culp (4.47) for the honor of this year’s fastest-testing TE, but I feel pretty confident in saying he would have topped King’s PSU teammate Theo Johnson (4.57) for second-place.
All is a very strong runner after the catch. He has a good understanding of when to leverage his speed and hit the jets to outrace defenders, and when to lower his pads and muscle for the yards available to him.
All has strong, aggressive hands. He attacks the ball outside his frame and spears it. He does have some concentration drops on film that he could clean up.
While he is absolutely capable of being deployed inline, he doesn’t have the natural play strength to take on power EDGEs. All brought more effort in this phase than I was expecting, and he was highly effective picking off smaller defenders in space.
Beyond that, while his athleticism is a trump card against lumbering linebackers and strong safeties, the same types can disrupt his momentum along his route path when they get hands on him.
The million dollar question surrounding All is unknowable to the general public: What, exactly, do NFL personnel see as his risk of injury recurrence after poking around his medicals at the NFL Combine? I can understand those who might believe I have ranked him too high without that knowledge.
But he would have been my TE2 with a bullet in this downtrodden post-Bowers TE-class if I knew the NFL was reasonably comfortable with what they had seen. The mystery surrounding All’s medicals seem likely, by extension, to have him available at a severely depressed price point on Draft Weekend. He’ll be a steal if his body is up for it.
6037/245 | RAS: 5.75
Player comparison: Gerald Everett
Sanders was deployed inline and out wide by Texas, and put up impressive receiving stats the past two seasons. He entered the process as the clear consensus TE2 in this class. After a disappointing pre-draft process, it remains to be seen if he’ll hang onto that designation on Draft Weekend.
Sanders always profiled as a big-slot seam-stretcher. He cannot be played inline at the next level due to his issues holding up at the point of attack. Sanders is on the smaller side, and he lacks play strength. Though he’s able to handle smaller defenders in space, he got pushed around by defensive ends in the Big 12.
Sanders’ uninspiring gamut of athletic tests cast doubt on his next-level ceiling within that usage-specific role. The good: an 82nd-percentile 4.69 forty and 91st-percentile 10-yard split. The bad: A 53rd-percentile broad jump. The ugly: A 28th-percentile vertical and 2nd-percentile bench press showing at 36th-percentile weight.
The speed and acceleration are apparent on Sanders’ tape. They’re going to have to carry the day for Sanders to be a difference-maker at the next level. There is encouraging news on that front. Sanders had some flashy reps on campus scorching up the seam and beating defenders on contested balls.
The area Steve Sarkisian leveraged that speed and acceleration more regularly was scheming Sanders into open areas of the field where he had an opportunity to hit the jets upfield after the catch. Last season, Sanders was a top-5 TE in the FBS in YAC, and, amongst that list, he had the highest aDOT.
Last year, Sanders converted a mediocre 3-of-11 targets 20+ yards downfield, including one-of-three contested targets. Interestingly, this was an area he was better at on his 2022 tape. Where he made up for it last fall was the run-after-the-catch machinations after corralling balls in the intermediate range.
Beyond the glitzy stuff, I appreciated Sanders’ body control and balance on tape. Though I saw him get mauled as an inline blocker, while in motion along his route path it’s hard to move him off it. Sanders also has vice-grip hands. In fact, last year, he dropped zero balls – his 3.9% career drop rate is the best in this class.
Sanders’ lack of strength and upper-tier agility can be seen in his meager broken tackle numbers. Even off-angle attempts in the NFL should be enough to finish him off, and, on the move, he doesn’t shake enough to force more than that.
I wonder what percentage of that YAC goodness translates to the NFL without Sarkisian calling the plays, and without Xavier Worthy and AD Mitchell drawing both the defense’s primary attention. To be fair to Sanders, two-of-his-three 100-plus yard games last year were in big spots – against Alabama and Oklahoma State in the Big 12 title.
But this should also be mentioned: Nearly half Sanders’ receiving yards last season – 329 of 682 – came in three of his 14 games. In the other 11, he was often a receiving afterthought.
Sanders offers utility to creative passing offenses like the one he played in under Steve Sarkisian at Texas. His next staff needs to understand the areas he excels in and leverage those with his usage, while steering clear of everything else.
6056/251 | RAS: 8.7
Player comparison: Josh Oliver
Barner is a strapping, died-in-the-wool inline prospect who was a valuable cog on Michigan’s national-title winning team after transferring over from Indiana, where he was a team captain.
What stood out about Barner’s tape was the drumbeat of his quiet consistency. He doesn’t waste movements, he’s always in the correct position, his technique is superb, and he plays to the whistle every play.
Barner’s blocking cutup is a clinic. His initial pop, length, lower-body drive, and technique reliably took care of Big 10 EDGE defenders on running downs. Barner was also extremely adept at picking off defenders on the move. Both when pulling across the formation, something Michigan asked him to do frequently, and when asked to shoot to the second level and introduce himself to a linebacker.
This sort of grunt work was super valuable on last year’s national champs. Michigan’s offensive line gets due credit for Blake Corum averaging the same yards before contact (2.4) as after contact (2.4) last year while facing the most eight-man boxes – Barner doesn’t get enough. Barner ranked No. 1 among FBS TEs with a 81.4 PFF run blocking grade – the next closest was 77.2.
Barner has solid hands (7.2% career drop rate) and a big catch radius (88th-percentile wingspan). His receiving utility is confined to the short and intermediate sectors. He finds the openings against zone, and shoots off the line (80th-percentile vertical) and changes direction fluidly (86th-percentile 3-cone) against man.
At Michigan, Barner was mostly used as a security blanket on checkdowns. Playing with improvisational QB JJ McCarthy, Barner also displayed a clever freelancing bent on scramble drills. He is rugged after the catch, breaking five tackles last year on only 22 catches.
What AJ Barner categorically will not do for you is stretch the field. Over his entire collegiate career, Barner caught only two balls 20-plus yards down the field. If you needed an answer as to why, you got it when Barner submitted a 4.84 forty during the pre-draft process.
Barner will appeal to NFL teams far more than fantasy players. He has a wealth of special teams experience, and he is this class’ best run-blocking tight end by a wide margin. He will be of interest to teams who run 12-personnel offenses, to be used as Jim Harbaugh used him last season: As a third offensive tackle on the field, one that will catch the rock a few times a game on checkdowns and maybe break a tackle, while plugging numerous special team holes.
6040/247 | RAS: 8.22
Player comparison: Dawson Knox
Stover is the tight end class’ renaissance man. He grew up on an Ohio farm. In high school, he was a basketball star in addition to being named Ohio’s Mr. Football as a senior. Stover was given a consensus four-star recruiting designation.
He signed with Ohio State – as a four-star linebacker. In its recruiting capsule, 247Sports comped Stover to… Anthony Barr(!). Stover played DE and LB as a freshman. Ohio State’s staff moved him to TE as a sophomore in 2020. Aside from a brief shift back to defense late in the 2021 season, that’s where Stover has been ever since.
Stover is a springy athlete with a commendable fluidity to him along his route-path for someone so relatively new to the position full-time. Per Sumer Sports, Stover was No. 3 in both average separation rate and separation in air rate of the top-6 consensus TEs.
But Stover’s most impressive attribute in the aerial game is undoubtedly his hands. Like Ja’Tavion Sanders, Stover dropped zero balls in 2023. Not only that, but Stover is the only TE in this class who converted every single one of his charted catchable targets into targets – a perfect 45-for-45. Over 108 career targets, Stover dropped only two balls. He leaves college with an eye-popping 2.4% drop rate.
Those are some country-strong hands! And speaking of country, tell me you don’t see some of it with Stover after the catch. When Stover knows he can’t shake a defender, it’s time for his raging bull routine. If you approach from the wrong angle, prepare for Stover’s palm to rudely introduce itself to your facemask.
On tape, prior to the NFL Combine, I liked Stover’s acceleration and overall stop/start ability. But I wondered about his top-end speed. Hands up, I wasn’t expecting the 78th-percentile forty he submitted at the NFL Combine.
Still, I don’t see him as a seam-stretcher in the NFL. I’d isolate his looks to the short and intermediate range, where he’s money-in-the-bank reliable on targets, and can leverage his YAC ability.
Stover needs real work as a blocker. On the reps he won, I noted Stover’s use of length and angle-playing to seal the deal. But, in the aggregate, where it matters, Stover got pushed around in the phone booth. He needs to continue working on his technique and core strength.
And he’s surprisingly poor when sent out to the second-level, like the most awkward person you know at a party who desperately wants to engage in conversation but isn’t exactly sure how. Still new to the position, I’d expect that latter area to show improvement with more reps.
6033/241 | RAS: 6.07
Player comparison: Bo Scaife
Holker is headed for an H-Back role at the next level. He absolutely has the skill to excel at that. The question becomes… does he have the physical ability? Holker lacks speed (4.78), and he needs space to build up to that meager gear (24th-percentile 10-yard split). Additionally, as one of the classes’ oldest players, there’s a glass ceiling on his potential within that usage-specific role.
That said, Holker is a hands-catcher with real ball skills, a rarity amongst this class. He tracks the ball well in congested quarters. Holker’s 10 contested catches last year were two more than any TE in this draft class.
Holker has one genetic quirk that decidedly works in his favor in this area: Holker is tied with the 6’7/260 Brevyn Spann-Ford for the longest arms of my top-15 TE. This gives Holker a deceivingly large catch radius that he uses to great effect, extending those long levers out to greet the rock at its earliest point every time.
During pre-draft testing, Holker showed-out in only one area of athletic testing, agility. He posted a sublime 94th-percentile 3-cone and an 83rd-percentile short shuttle. Holker’s change-of-direction fluidness is most evident after the catch, where he was a veritable broken-tackle machine in the Mountain West, finishing No. 2 in this class with 15 last year.
One area to work on at the next level to play up his natural agility and win more separation is footwork efficiency during the route-break process. But, overall, what his routes lack in snap and pizazz, Holker augments with tempo changes and a fun grab bag of upper-body deeks.
You will never ask Holker to play inline, as he would get ragdolled by NFL power. In some ways, Holker is Barner’s counterpoint in this class – his ceiling is likewise capped, but he brings to the NFL a skillset that is immediately playable in a very specific role. In Holker’s case, an H-Back in the Bo Scaife mold who chips in 40-50 catches a year while moving around the formation.
6060/259 | RAS: 9.93
Player comparison: Albert Okwuegbunam
Johnson is a hot name right now after lighting it up during pre-draft testing. Over the full gamut of tests, Johnson’s 9.93 RAS slotted No. 8 amongst all TE prospects to go through the pre-draft process since 1987.
For all his gifts, the late-blooming Canadien never bloomed in Penn State’s 12-personnel offense. Johnson enters the NFL much as like arrived on campus in State College – as a fascinating ball-of-clay (Johnson went from a zero-star recruit to a four-star recruit during his senior year of high school, largely on the basis of his summer camp testing).
Johnson played 1,740 snaps across four seasons but left PSU with less than 80 catches and 1,000 receiving yards despite his made-in-a-lab frame/athleticism combo. He would disappear for full games at a time.
I have two theories for why Johnson didn’t pan out at Penn State. Getting to the bottom of this paradox is key to his draft evaluation.
Theory 1) Theo Johnson was used incorrectly at Penn State.
Johnson, on tape, is very much a north-south athlete – his incredible forty and split showings were not surprises. It’s absolutely possible that he could develop into a down-the-seam problem in the NFL. But let’s call a spade a spade: That’s a theoretical idea.
Penn State’s conservative passing attack didn’t afford Johnson opportunities to stretch his legs downfield. Last season, he was targeted 30 times within nine yards of the line of scrimmage – and only five times 20+ yards downfield. Johnson caught a total of five such balls over the last two years as a starter. This was an egregious use of his skillset (and perhaps, nodding to next year at this time, a damning indictment of PSU QB Drew Allar). Johnson ran a heavy dose of straightforward, get-the-ball-out-quick routes in the short area that categorically did not suite Johnson’s skillset. Johnson’s two-worst athletic tests were the 3-cone and the bench press. Frankly, his 69th-percentile showing in the 3-cone was a surprise – and his 93rd-percentile shuttle was outright stunning – because he doesn’t fluidly change directions in pads. Johnson, for all his rawness, did convert 7-of-34 catches into touchdowns last year to lead the team. And, amongst the TE group, he also had the best Senior Bowl showing as a receiver.
Theory 2) Theo Johnson – athletic gifts and all – is a mediocre football player.
Johnson’s limited role last season led to an 18th-percentile aDOT. That makes sense. What doesn’t make as much sense is the 44th-percentile YAC/Rec. Shouldn’t an athletic freak, shuttled the ball quickly in the short, at least… finish above-average in the FBS in yards after the catch at the TE position?
Isn’t that… sort of the point of those throws, to those kinds of players? Johnson finished last season with two broken tackles, tied for lowest amongst my top-15 TE. Again… shouldn’t this type of player at least acquit himself decently in this area?
On tape, Johnson is a big moose after the catch, all straightforward north-south movement. Zero nuance. An easy target for defenders to put in the crosshairs and light up.
And yes, he telegraphs his routes off the line like he’s putting his cards face up on the flop. But I’m not even going to linger on that, as you could explain that away both by Johnson’s inexperience, and by the elementary-school concepts he was being asked to run – a blindfolded defender would have had a roughly one-in-three chance of guessing where he was headed pre-snap if he knew a pass was coming.
But even if Johnson was used incorrectly (he was) in a bad passing offense (it was), does that explain away the totality of the lack of collegiate production for a player who was on the field and saw targets? For you to like Johnson, you’d better answer yes – because he’s a terrible blocker. His technique is poor, his play strength is mediocre, and the half-hearted effort he gave on those reps does not exactly suggest dogged work to come in either area.
Beyond the above – and moving entirely off-the-field – Johnson faced questions during the pre-draft process over an incident at a frat house one year ago. Johnson didn’t have a wristband required for admittance to a party, so he was asked to leave. According to court documents, Johnson punched the person who asked in the face, a scene that was caught on surveillance footage. Johnson was charged with two misdemeanors.
Whichever team takes Johnson needs to be aware that it is not only taking a developmental prospect, but likely one with a capped ceiling. But if Theory 1 is ultimately proven correct, there’s absolutely big-play receiving utility that could be untapped at the next level.
6065/260 | RAS: 6.78
Player comparison: Charlie Kolar
Spann-Ford is a big, hulking inline tight end who is a true extension of the run game. He played in a run-intensive system at Minneota where his job, first and foremost, was to move the man in front of him. He’s really good at that. He looks like a mini-OT both latching and driving in the run game, and sitting back and anchoring in pass-pro. The value he offers to the NFL initially comes here.
Unfortunately, Spann-Ford also looked like a mini-OT in the receiving game last year at Minnesota, with a 0th-percentile PFF receiving grade. That was the case again at the Senior Bowl – he was a big lumberer who appeared to have zero feel for what he was doing.
On one particularly bizarre rep in Mobile, Spann-Ford was – apparently? – asked to subtly pick a defensive back on a crossing concept. Instead, Spann-Ford went straight at him – as though he had been asked to block him in space on a running play – and made harsh contact with the unsuspecting cover-man. This drew an immediate flag (a rarity in all-star exhibitions) along with genuinely perturbed jawing from multiple members of the defense.
Last season, Spann-Ford dropped nine balls while catching only 25 – for a stupefying 26.5% drop rate – with a mere two of those catches coming 10-or-more yards beyond the line of scrimmage.
For these reasons, I imagine not many other folks in the industry will join me in ranking BSF in the top-10 TEs. Totally get that. On the 2023 tape alone, Spann-Ford should be looking for another vocation right now.
But I’m not willing to give up on him just yet. For three (and possibly even four) reasons: 1) He’s a legitimately awesome blocker, 2) So much so that he could potentially even attempt to add more weight to actually become an OL (he has the length for it), 3) Last year’s receiving production was totally out of line from the season before.
Spann-Ford actually led the Gopher team with a 42-497-2 receiving line in 2022 – and only two drops (6.7% drop rate) – with 12 catches 10-plus yards downfield. People were excited about him as a receiver back then. And why wouldn’t they have been? In high school, Spann-Ford was a finalist for state player of the year as a two-way star… as a wide receiver, and an EDGE.
Entering last fall, Spann-Ford was considered one of the premier two-way tight ends in the country. This is a guy who lit up Minnesota prep football for nearly 3,000 receiving yards, and who had showed clear progress up until last fall’s one-season faceplant.
There is a home for Spann-Ford in the NFL. At minimum, that will be as a third-OT blocking TE. You also have a few developmental bullets in your holster if his receiving utility has indeed mysteriously vanished into the cold Minnesota night like Chuck Knoblauch’s ability to throw to first base. You could attempt to bulk Spann-Ford into an actual offensive linemen, or you could try shifting him back to EDGE.
6060/249 | RAS: 9.3
Player comparison: Michael Egnew
Wiley’s 2023 receiving numbers – in 2023, he turned 65 targets into 47 catches and eight TD with only one drop – size, and athletic composite all suggest potential commodity, especially amid the post-Bowers muck. I would look elsewhere. Wiley is a truly rancid run blocker, tall and skinny, and laughably disinterested in getting his nails dirty – his blocking reps made Theo Johnson‘s blocking cutup look like an Orlando Pace montage.
Meanwhile, Wiley’s one-year “spike” in receiving production – as a fifth-year senior – came courtesy of 43-of-55 targets coming within nine yards of the line of scrimmage. This is why Wiley had one career drop: He was never sent downfield (7.3 aDOT).
More targets sent Wiley’s way last season were intercepted (four) than were completed 20-plus yards downfield (three). Wiley manufactured very little off his spoon-fed targets, breaking five career tackles over five seasons.
As you can tell, I’m no fan of the profile. But this tight end class drops off so quickly, it’s sort of impossible to rank Wiley and his athletic traits any lower.
Best of the rest…
11. Jaheim Bell (Florida State )
6016/241 | RAS: 8.45
Player comparison: MyCole Pruitt
12. Tanner McLachlan (Arizona )
6051/244 | RAS: 7.66
Player comparison: Will Mallory
13. Tip Reiman (Illinois )
6046/271 | RAS: 9.92
Player comparison: Luke Stocker
14. Jack Westover (Washington )
6025/245 | RAS: N/A
Player comparison: Josiah Deguara
15. Devin Culp (Washington )
6032/231 | RAS: 8.14
Player comparison: Kenny Yeboah
2024 NFL Mock Drafts
Here are a few predictions for the 2024 NFL Draft. We’ll continue to add our 2024 NFL Mock Drafts leading up to the start of Round 1.
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Spotify | SoundCloud | iHeartRadio | YouTube
