Star Thomas — RB | Tennessee | Senior (6th Year)

DynastySignal NFL Draft Scouting Report | 2026 Draft Class

1. The Short Version

Star Thomas is a compact, physical power back out of Tennessee who took a winding road through JUCO and three FBS stops before landing at a major SEC program. The case for him: legitimate size and build (6'0", 210), willingness to run through contact, proven short-yardage effectiveness, and a 4.9 career YPC across 528 FBS carries. The case against him: he's a 6th-year senior entering the 2026 draft at roughly 24-25 years old, his Tennessee production was decidedly limited in a committee role (95 carries, 529 yards), and he rarely showed the open-field elusiveness NFL teams demand from backs they invest real draft capital in. The floor here is UDFA or a late Day 3 flier — the ceiling is a depth/short-yardage specialist who cracks a 53-man roster.

2. Measurables & Background

| Category | Info |

|---|---|

| Name | Star Thomas |

| Position | Running Back |

| School | Tennessee Volunteers |

| Class | Senior (6th year of eligibility) |

| Height | 6'0" (1.83 m) |

| Weight | 210 lbs |

| Hometown | Homer, Louisiana |

| High School | Homer High School (Homer, LA) |

| Draft Year | 2026 |

| Transfer History | Coffeyville CC (JUCO, 2020–21) → New Mexico State (2022–23) → Duke (2024) → Tennessee (2025) |

| Estimated Age | ~24–25 at time of 2026 draft |

Career Stats Summary (FBS only):

| Season | School | Carries | Rush Yds | YPC | Rush TDs | Rec | Rec Yds | Rec TDs |

|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|

| 2022–23 | New Mexico State | 219 | 1,171 | 5.3 | 9 | 34 | 351 | 5 |

| 2024 | Duke | 213 | 871 | 4.1 | 7 | 8 | 36 | 0 |

| 2025 | Tennessee | 95 | 529 | 5.6 | 7 | 10 | 98 | 2 |

| Career FBS | | 528 | 2,573 | 4.9 | 23 | ~52 | ~485 | ~7 |

JUCO (Coffeyville CC, 2020–21): 160 carries, 970 yards, 11 TDs

3. Film Sources Reviewed

| Source | Frames Used | Key Content | Valid Film? |

|---|---|---|---|

| Prospects — Star Thomas 2025 Season Highlights (6:51) | 18 (`highlights_001`–`highlights_018`) | In-game footage vs. UAB, Georgia, ETSU, Syracuse, Illinois, Mississippi State, Alabama, Vanderbilt, New Mexico State, Kentucky | ✅ YES — primary evaluation source |

| ESPN CFB — Curt Cignetti clip (Jakobe Thomas) | 18 (`highlights_2_` prefix) | WRONG PLAYER — Jakobe Thomas, not Star Thomas | ❌ NOT USED |

| TT7_Productions — Ky Thomas 2021 Highlights | 19 (`highlights_3_` prefix) | WRONG PLAYER — Ky Thomas (Minnesota transfer, different player) | ❌ NOT USED |

Film note: Evaluation is based entirely on the 18 valid `highlights_` frames. These frames represent snapshot moments rather than full game cut-ups, limiting granular technique assessment. Observations are grounded where possible in specific frame evidence, with conservative grades where reps are insufficient.

4. What The Film Shows

Vision & Patience

Grade: 6/10 (B-)

Thomas is a decisively north-south runner. He identifies the designed hole and attacks it without dancing or hesitating behind the line — which is both a strength and a limitation. In highlights_001 (UAB, 3rd & 1), the pre-snap read shows Tennessee loading a power look and Thomas is set to hit it downhill. In highlights_005 (UAB goal line), he drives straight to the end zone with no wasted motion. On highlights_014 (Mississippi State, 4th & 2 in a tied game), he fires through the line quickly and gets into the open, though he's caught by a defender's ankle tackle in space — showing he reads lanes well but doesn't make defenders miss with a second gear evasion after the first level.

He's not a patient back in the "zone read, press, redirect" mold. He's a "see it, hit it" runner. That works fine in short yardage and power schemes; it's a ceiling limiter in modern NFL zone-based offenses that reward patience and cut-back vision.

Explosiveness & Speed

Grade: 6.5/10 (B-)

The best speed rep in this entire sample is highlights_007 — tied game vs. #6 Georgia, 4th quarter, 1:43 remaining. Thomas is in the open field at midfield, creating separation from Bulldog defenders in stride, running with upright balance and visible burst through the open grass. That's a legitimate open-field rep against an elite defense in a pressure situation. It shows there's something there athletically. However, it's a single breakout play in this sample. Highlights_009 (Illinois bowl game, 2nd & 4) shows him diving to extend yardage while being tackled from behind — he can't shake the defender, he has to go horizontal to gain the necessary yardage. That's a good effort trait, but it suggests his top-end speed and burst after first contact are functional rather than special. In highlights_013 (UAB, 3rd & 6 in the 3rd quarter), he appears to be stopped short of the first down marker, confirming he isn't consistently an explosive chain-mover in pass-blocking situations.

Contact Balance & Power

Grade: 7.5/10 (B+)

Strongest trait on tape. Highlights_002 (Syracuse, 4th quarter) shows him absorbing multiple tacklers in a pile and fighting for yardage. Highlights_005 and highlights_006 confirm a goal-line TD conversion on a 3rd & 1 against a stacked UAB front — low pad level, leg drive, powering through contact right at the line. Highlights_015 (Mississippi State, 4th quarter) shows him running directly into a stacked box while trailing by a score, still leaning forward through contact on 1st & 10. Highlights_003 (Georgia, 4th quarter) shows a similar trait — he's not bouncing off runs once contact is made, he's grinding. The close-up shots in highlights_016 (Alabama sideline) and highlights_018 (Kentucky goal line) reveal the physical profile driving this: a thick neck, broad shoulders, and a barrel-chested torso that fills out the jersey completely. He's built for the dirty work, and the film confirms he embraces it.

Receiving Ability

Grade: 5.5/10 (C+)

His New Mexico State years showed genuine receiving chops — 34 receptions for 351 yards and 5 receiving TDs in two seasons, suggesting real pass-catching capability was developed at some point. The Tennessee sample is thin (10 rec, 98 yards, 2 TDs), which may reflect scheme/role limitations rather than ability. Highlights_008 (Syracuse, 1st quarter, 2nd & 2 in the red zone) shows Thomas lined up in a shotgun backfield set — suggesting Tennessee trusts him to run routes or operate as a check-down option. Highlights_009 (Illinois bowl) captures what appears to be a play where he's extended laterally after a catch or run — the ball security looks solid. Not enough receiving reps in this film to grade him confidently as a pass-game weapon, but the career volume at NM State provides a historical baseline.

Pass Protection

Grade: 5/10 (C)

This is the grading area where I'm working with the least data. Highlights_017 (New Mexico State, 2nd & 9) shows Thomas in the backfield on a clear passing down, suggesting Tennessee keeps him in on passing situations. His presence on 2nd & 9 and other passing downs implies the coaches trust him to at least recognize and engage blitzers — a basic requirement. Nothing in the film reveals a blown assignment or poor technique, but there are also no specific pass-protection reps to evaluate positively. This is a "show me" trait at the next level.

Scheme Fit

Grade: 6.5/10 (B-)

Tennessee runs a spread/RPO-heavy offense, and Thomas was used in a variety of formations — highlights_011 shows a spread pre-snap look with Thomas in the backfield against ETSU, highlights_008 shows him in shotgun in the red zone vs Syracuse. He's seen in traditional under-center looks in short-yardage as well. That versatility is a mild positive. At the NFL level, his build and running style project best to an inside zone or power scheme where patience behind the line is less critical and contact at the point of attack is expected. He's a Brian Baldinger special — a "pound the rock, get your 4 yards, do it again" guy. For dynasty purposes, the scheme question isn't as much "can he play in X scheme" as it is "will he ever be the lead back in any scheme?" The answer based on this film is probably no — he's a complement piece whose scheme ceiling is a backup/early-down power back in a zone-run system.

5. Strengths Summary

6. Concerns & Risks

7. NFL Comp

Primary Comp: Latavius Murray (power back archetype)

Murray spent years as a reliable short-yardage and goal-line back who moved around the league due to his single-dimension value. Thomas shares the physical profile — 6'0"+, 210+ lbs, physical runner, low center of gravity. Murray carved out an 8-year career as a complement piece precisely because teams always need a guy who'll fall forward for 4 yards on 3rd & 1. Thomas's ceiling looks similar: a long-term fringe roster piece who sticks because of his specific short-yardage utility.

Secondary Comp: Devontae Booker (multi-program traveler, power-first)

Booker's own nomadic college career (Utah) eventually led to a serviceable NFL journey as a complement and committee back. Thomas mirrors the profile — physical runner, adequate pass-catcher, won't single-handedly change a game but won't hurt a team in a defined role. The age concern is more pronounced for Thomas than Booker was at entry.

8. Bottom Line

Star Thomas is a physically built power back who played his best football in SEC competition during his final college season, and the film confirms he belongs on an NFL roster conversation — specifically because of his goal-line effectiveness, contact balance, and the physical frame to handle early-down work. But his age entering the 2026 draft is the unmovable obstacle: teams don't invest real draft capital in 24-25-year-old committee backs with limited receiving upside and no elite speed trait. He's a UDFA or bottom-of-the-7th-round flier at best, worth a training camp look for teams that need short-yardage depth. Dynasty managers should avoid any investment — if he makes a 53-man roster, he'll never carry the fantasy load needed to justify even a late taxi squad spot.

SCOUT SCORE

Score: 53/100

Projected Pick: UDFA / R7 Late (picks 240-262)

Film Score: 53 / 100

Scouting Report: Scout 2 on Star Thomas, RB Tennessee (2026 Draft Class)

The Short Version

Thomas is a 24-year-old bruiser who bullies SEC fronts in crunch time—think goal-line beast with Duke grit. Contrarian take: Scouts sleep on transfers like him because of mileage, but this tape screams committee hammer over UDFA afterthought. He's no home-run threat, but he'll convert 4th-and-1s when stars can't.

Measurables & Background

| Trait | Detail |

|---|---|

| Height | 6-0 |

| Weight | 210 lbs |

| Age (Draft) | 23 (turns 24) |

| Class | Sr (6th year) |

| Hometown | Homer, LA |

| Path | Homer HS → Coffeyville CC → NMSU (520 rush yds/5 TD '22; 653/4 '23) → Duke (871/7 '24 starter) → Tenn ('25: 104/596/7 rush, 11/116/2 rec) |

| 2025 Stats | 596 rush yds (5.7 YPC), 7 TD; 116 rec yds, 2 TD (13 GP, backup to Bishop) |

| Accolades | C-USA 2nd Team '23; KJCCC 1st '21; Declared 2026 NFL Draft |

Film Sources

| Source | Frames | Status | Reason for Discard (if any) |

|---|---|---|---|

| Prospects — Star Thomas 2025 Highlights (6:51) | 18 | Used | Primary; valid Tennessee footage |

| ESPN — Jakobe Thomas hit (1:12) | 18 | Discarded | Wrong player (DB Jakobe Thomas, Miami) |

| TT7 — Ky Thomas 2021 Highlights (1:58) | 19 | Discarded | Wrong player (RB Ky Thomas, Minnesota transfer) |

Film Analysis

Limited to 18 highlight stills—mostly power runs vs SEC/mid-majors (UAB, ETSU, Syracuse, Georgia, Vandy, Miss St, Bama, Kentucky). No full games, no combine measurables, conservative grading applied. Focus: RB traits (vision, burst, power, balance, elusiveness, receiving).

Overall Grade: B (Solid traits, age caps ceiling.)

Strengths

Concerns

Dynasty Outlook (1-3 yr window)

RB3/goal-line specialist in committee for run-heavy teams (e.g., PIT, CLE, BUF). Year 1: 4-6 carries/gm + red-zone; Year 2: 600-800 yds/6-8 TD if lands right fit. Avoid pass-happy schemes.

NFL Comp

Bottom Line

Thomas is a plug-and-play power back overlooked due to transfer tag—grab him Day 3 before he bullies for a grinder squad. Worth the dart over flashier small-school kids.

SCOUT SCORE

Score: 75/100

Projected Pick: Day 3, R6-7

Film Score: 75 / 100