2026 UNC Player Scouting Report Series Intro

This is the sixth year of Inside Carolina’s scouting series. In this series, I give pro-style scouting reports on each Tar Heel player expected to contribute significantly in the fall. These reports are based on my evaluations after film study of each player.

We will be releasing one new report each weekday as the season approaches, going position-by-position, culminating in a cumulative scouting report of each side of the ball.

This article will serve as a primer and introduction to the series, explaining my process, how scouting is done, and addressing some of the things that have caused confusion in the past.

Separate Rating Scales

These scouting reports include numerical ratings both for individual traits/skills associated with the position and an overall rating. The overall rating is not an average of the ratings from the traits/skills ratings; it is my evaluation of where the player fits on the overall scale based on a combination of traits and on-field performance. These are entirely separate scales aiming to represent a fuller examination of the player, and each has its own separate rubric.

First, I have rated each player on a specific set of traits and position-specific skills. In the first couple years of this series, I used the default seven-point scouting scale used by current UNC head coach Bill Belichick, Nick Saban, and many others in the football world, but since this proved confusing for some readers, I moved to something likely to be more familiar to most readers: ratings paralleling what would be expected in EA Sports’ Madden/NCAA Football video game franchises. There was still a little confusion, so last year I moved to the increasingly-familiar numerical scale used by Pro Football Focus: 

Some of these traits (e.g., speed) represent raw talent—a player’s potential. Others grade the player’s skill, which refers to developed and refined ability to execute specific actions on the football field. And production refers to how a player has actually performed on the field. For production, each player’s relevant statistics and Pro Football Focus grades—a flawed but not entirely useless measurement—will be used.

For players who have logged more than 100 snaps in a single season (meaning they’ve played meaningful reps against other college players), I will also include an “overall” grade. This grade aims to combine my assessment of the player’s potential—raw, undeveloped talent—as well as that player’s demonstrated polished skill and production to date. It is important here to remember that more talented players are not always more productive players.

To put it more specifically, a wide receiver who runs a 4.3 may have more talent (physical potential) than one who runs a mid-4.5, but if the latter is a much more skilled route runner and catches the ball more consistently, he’s likely going to be the better player, resulting in more on-field production. The quarterback with more arm strength often doesn’t become the better player.

Of course, more talented players have the potential to become better players than those with fewer tools to work with. This leads to a dilemma every coach faces every season and every game: play the younger, more talented player or the less talented veteran who is more reliable and better right now? Sure, the talented youngster may produce a few more “wow” plays per game, but what happens if two of those “wow” plays are the wrong kind and result in opposing touchdowns?

This means there’s bound to be a distinction between a player’s ceiling, his potential if his raw talent is fully developed, and how good that player is at present. A freshman may be a future All-American, but right now he’s not as good as the fifth year senior former-walk-on who destroys hi in practice every day and will wind up honorable mention All-Conference this season.

Typically, ratings systems for the NFL Draft or college recruiting have different tiers to account for this difference, numerically rating players who are presently more developed and better but less talented above those players who are less developed but more talented. Given the choice between the two prospects, most coaches will recruit or draft the less developed player who is likely to be better in two years over the one who is slightly better now but maxed out. His numerical rating may be lower, but he’s got a higher ceiling. But when it comes to who to play right now, the usually the steadier and better but less talented player will usually be the choice.

As I’ve done this series each year, I’ve tweaked these ratings to make them easier to understand for readers, moving away from a single number rating and instead employing a two-tier system in which I give the current rating for the player followed by what I see as that player’s ceiling for this season in parentheses. 

By ceiling, I mean the highest level that seems plausible for that player to reach this season through significant progression of his skills and improvement in his weak areas. These are not, however, intended to represent that player’s long-term ceiling unless that player is a senior, only the plausible range for this year—given the transfer portal, a player’s long-term, multi-year potential is both harder to assess and less relevant since roughly 50% of each team’s roster turns over every year in this ludicrous era of college football.

For these overall ratings, I use a 10-point scale to keep things simple for readers; in 2023 and before, I used an 8-point scale more familiar in the scouting community. But these ratings are easily convertible from year-to-year if you just keep the different tiers in mind. The overall scale is below:

Overall Grading Scale

Grade	Description
10	One of best ever to play position in CFB (e.g., Lawrence Taylor)
9	Elite difference maker. All American level player. Consistently creates mismatches with outstanding physical traits and shows mastery of the craft. Probable early-round NFL draft pick and eventual starter in the NFL.
8	Outstanding player. Plays with consistency and shows mastery of the craft. Can create mismatches. One of the top players at his position in the league. Projects as a probable NFL draft pick. Wins games for you.
7	Plus starter on a winning team who has not produced enough splash plays or displayed the consistently elite characteristics to be considered a true difference maker. NFL roster potential.
6.5–6.9	Solid player for a winning P5 team. Lacks elite physical traits but a reliable player you can win with. Most winning P5 teams would be happy to have this player in their two-deep.
6.0–6.4	Unpolished upside prospect who flashes plus physical attributes and the traits necessary to be a difference maker but lacks the experience and/or consistency to be a reliable full-time starter on a winning team. Boom or bust player at present. NFL potential.
5.5–5.9	Average Power 5 player. Physical limitations cap ceiling and best suited as a backup and special-teamer on a winning team but may be a serviceable starter if other options are too young/inconsistent.
5.0–5.4	Good young player with potential to grow into a solid starter. Lacks elite traits but shows ability to contribute on a winning team after more development.
4	Below average Power 5 player and unlikely to contribute.

Again, because I need to see sufficient reps to do a full evaluation, I will not assign an “overall” grade to players who have not logged 100 snaps in a previous season but will discuss potential (and grade traits) based on what information is available, such as high school film, reps I’ve seen from spring football, etc. Discussion of most players with fewer than 100 snaps will be reserved for the lengthier summary articles addressing full position groups and sides of the football.

Contribution Tiers

Each scouting report also includes one other ratings element: classifying players into tiers based on their value to the current roster. The tiers work as follows:

Elite Tier (E-Tier/Carolina Blue): Franchise-type player who is one of the best in the conference at his position and whose presence significantly shifts the win-loss column. Probable NFL draft pick. These are the difference-maker types in the 8+ (Carolina Blue) range of the chart above. College Football Playoff programs typically have several of these guys on both sides of the ball. (Past examples: Drake Maye, Omarion Hampton, Javonte Williams, Kaimon Rucker, Josh Downs)

A Tier: Key starters on whom the team depends for consistent impact. These are the best players on the team who aren’t clear superstar type players. At College Football Playoff programs, most of these guys fit in the 7+ (red) ratings category, but less competitive programs have less quality depth in that respect. (Past examples: Willie Lampkin, Des Evans)

B Tier: Potential or likely starters plus key rotational contributors—basically “starting rotation” guys—who establish the depth of the team. (Past examples: 2024 Beau Atkinson, JJ Jones, John Copenhaver, Nate McCollum)

C Tier: Likely backup but with potential to contribute; likely special teams contributor.

D Tier: Developmental prospect unlikely to contribute directly to wins or losses this season.

Comparing players’ overall ratings with their expected contribution tier affords a good way to assess the overall talent level of the roster as a whole. A roster that has a lot of 4- and 5- rated players in the “A Tier,” for example, will likely have trouble winning games. But a roster with multiple 7+ rated players in the B Tier would likely contend for a conference championship and more, since that says quite a lot about the players in front of them on the depth chart.

The Process of Comparison

An important part of my scouting approach is regularly returning to rewatch players I regard as elite standard-setters for the position. After watching 15 different wide receivers, it’s easy to start letting ratings slide a little—they can all start looking pretty good after a while.

That’s when a palate cleanser is needed. For that, I return to the film of a true elite, reminding myself of what the top part of the scale really looks like. The following is a list of some of the players I regard as an elite (9+) college player at each position, allowing some variation in body types or styles at each spot: 

QB: Trevor Lawrence, Justin Fields, Joe Burrow, Drake Maye

RB: Jonathan Taylor, Dalvin Cook, Nick Chubb, Saquan Barkley

WR: Julio Jones, DeVonta Smith, Peter Warrick, Larry Fitzgerald, Percy Harvin

TE: Rob Gronkowski, Kyle Pitts, Aaron Hernandez, Brock Bowers

C: Tyler Linderbaum

G: Quentin Nelson

OT: Trent Williams

EDGE: Will Anderson, Joey Bosa, Myles Garrett, Jared Verse

DT: Ndamukong Suh, Aaron Donald, Jordan Davis, Braden Fiske

LB: Luke Kuechly, Roquan Smith

CB: Jalen Ramsey, Marlon Humphrey

S: Derwin James, Minkah Fitzpatrick, Justin Simmons

Nickel: Javier Arenas, Lamarcus Joyner

I also try to find a comparable body type and style of player for each report, which involves further digging through my own notes and archives (both mental and otherwise) followed by rewatching those other players to see if my recollection really holds up. That also helps my scouting report by revealing key differences (e.g., “he really does look a lot like X, but he clearly doesn’t have as much burst”) as I compare each player to his “comps.”

Projecting 40 Times

Part of my scouting report is a projected 40 time under NFL Combine conditions. This has led to some conversation over on the Tar Pit Premium message board at times because my projected times have typically been slower than what many fans have expected. Here it is important for those of us accustomed to hearing how every skill position recruit runs a 4.4 or better learn to ignore the hype of hand-timed high school 40s and adjust for the fact that a 4.4 under the carefully managed conditions of the NFL Combine is really fast.

So, how do I arrive at those projected times? First, there’s an old scouting rule of thumb that a player who covers 5 yards in two steps while at full stride (a “two stepper”) runs in the 4.5 range, while a player who covers more ground than that is in the 4.4 range or better. So, if I have game footage of a player at full speed, this is the first place I’m going.

Second, pay attention to the other players on the field, especially when you know the track times or NFL Combine times of other guys in the frame. If a player is running away from a defender who just ran 4.48 at the previous year’s NFL Combine, that helps set a good baseline, suggesting that he’s probably faster than a 4.48—or at least plays faster than that in pads.

It also helps if there are verified high school combine times where electronic timing systems were used. If those times are on the record, I also take account of them, though I’ll adjust them towards what I see on the tape, and it helps if I know the type of timing system used for that specific combine.

After doing this for enough years, one can eventually get pretty good at projecting 40 times. Some guys run a little faster or slower based on training/technique, how well they carry their pads, etc., but it’s usually possible to get pretty close based on film. 

Examples from the past:

Player	Projected 40	NFL Testing
Javonte Williams	4.56	4.57*
Michael Carter	4.51	4.54*
Dyami Brown	4.48	4.46
Dazz Newsome	4.54	4.59*
Ty Chandler	4.45	4.38
Tez Walker	4.40	4.36
Cedric Gray	4.58	4.64
Power Echols	4.64	4.73
Omarion Hampton	4.45	4.46

* Denotes Pro Day time rather than NFL Combine time.

Ultimately, for most good scouts, track times are better than 40 times, especially outside NFL Combine conditions. If a player has a verified Fully Automated Timing (FAT) track time, that is a more reliable indicator of how much true long speed a player has than the 40 time, which can be significantly impacted by a few weeks of technique work. Events over 60m also give more indication of a player’s power/strength endurance than can be discerned from the 40. All told, trust the track as a good gauge of a player’s athletic ceiling, at least when it comes to speed and explosiveness. And young players out there, run track!