First thoughts (and Facts!) on the draft

 

"Blogging" is not really our style, per se, and we're not not sure how much the Chief Troll's posts contributed, really, to the user experience. As you know, our style is wallowing around in the statistical mud and the blood and the beer  like a boy named Sue – or a boy named Kerry, for that matter – venting years of frustration at misguided opinions with acidic, bombastic and self-congratulatory long-form reports.

 

But the guys at SI.com have been good to us over the past several months, they apparently like what we do here and we were excited they asked us to be a part of the blog. The funniest post was early on by SI.com producer Dom Bonvissuto, who compared himself to Keyshawn Johnson. You can find it way back in the early stages of the blog.

 

Believe it or not, we've got a few e-mails from folks essentially accusing us of selling out for working with the likes of SI.com, given our general disdain for the traditional sports media and the way it does business. These e-mailers are donkeys.

 

Sports Illustrated has always been the singular leader in quality sports journalism. They're not the muckrakers over at the sports network we've ripped on so often over the years. So we're glad to be moving along with them here.

 

***

 

We got a lot of reaction from reporters and media types about a piece we published two weeks ago called "NFL flexes its media muscles."

 

Some said we were over-playing the problem. Others said quite bluntly that the story is much bigger and the NFL much more ruthless than we made them out to be. The short version of the story is that the NFL is becoming a powerful media force that can control its own message.

 

This problem is not going away.

 

In fact, there was something of a mini dust-up in the press box at Gillette Saturday night with reporters pissed by the fact that the Patriots were posting their picks on Twitter before announcing them to the media. Essentially, the NFL, and individual teams like the Patriots, are eliminating the middle man called the traditional reporter – and reporters are not happy.

 

So after getting beat again by Twitter, one reporter blew up at Patriots staffers, yelling that "these guys own everything" (apparently referring to the organization), while pointing out the press box window, and said that they're "killing" him.

 

Another reporter lamented: "We are now totally useless."

 

This issue doesn't really affect CHFF – we're not slaves to traditional news cycles and methods. But rest assured, this pot will continue to simmer – and maybe explode sometime soon as traditional newspapers continue to get hammered badly from so many directions.

 

***

 

A quick perusal of mock drafts this morning reveals that it was an even worse year than usual for the mock-draft "experts."

 

As you know, the mock drafters generally get the first couple of picks correct and then after that their accuracy trails off pretty quickly – so quickly, in fact, that mock drafts typically get few very picks correct in the second half of the first round and zero picks correct beyond the first round.  As you also know, we skewer the mock-draft phenomenon, and highlight their uselessness, by turning our mock draft over to Bonzo the Idiot Monkey each year, who blindly picks names out of a hoodie pocket.

 

His methods can't be that bad considering the lowly standards set for him.

 

ESPN's ubiquitous draft "expert" Todd McShay, for example, got just three of the first 16 picks correct (the second half of his first-round mock was not available to the general public). And one of those 16 picks he got correct was top pick Matt Stafford to Detroit – hell, even Bonzo got that one correct.

 

If form held true, McShay probably got one pick correct in the second half of his mock draft (that's just a guess on our part, but would be consistent with mock draft history). So that's 4 for 32, or 12.5 percent of first-round mock draft picks correct for one of ESPN's most visible draft experts.

 

We'll publish our mock-draft scorecard this week, as we do after each draft, but it looks like another embarrassing performance for the mock-draft "pundits."

 

***

 

Two words that epitomize the futility of the mock draft:

 

Rey. Maualuga.

 

EVERYBODY, and we mean everybody – even Bonzo – listed the USC middle linebacker as a top 20 pick.

 

Rumors continued to spread in the weeks and days before the draft about some off-the-field problems in his past, along with serious questions about his brain power. But the mock draft "experts" stuck by him as a Top 20 guy.

 

But the folks who really matter, the team executives, weren't buying. Maualuga dropped like brown acid at Woodstock  in the draft – falling to the second round, and No. 38 overall, where he was taken by the defenseless Bengals.

 

It doesn't make Maualuga a bad guy. He could go on to a Hall of Fame career. It just proves that the mock drafts are often totally out of touch with the thinking inside NFL war rooms and that the mock drafters have no clue what's going to happen after the first couple picks.

 

***

 

The stupidity surrounding the draft, and the idiot fans who get caught up in it, is amazing. Like this for instance: did we see ESPN publishing McShay and Mel Kiper's grades for each pick immediately after they were made?  

 

For example, it seems they both gave the Chiefs a C+ for grabbing LSU defensive end Tyson Jackson with the No. 3 pick.

 

What the hell are these grades based upon? The Chiefs were desperate, desperate, desperate for help on the defensive front, as we noted so accurately last week. Jackson, meanwhile, was one of the most highly touted defensive linemen available.

 

So it seems like an obvious selection for Kansas City, not a C+ type of move.

 

But even beyond that, Jackson could be the second coming of Deacon Jones or he could fail to make the team. So the grades, even based upon the obvious need, are irrelevant unless someone can accurately predict the future. And, as we all now know, mock drafters cannot predict the future.

 

***

 

Our first reaction to the draft, generally speaking is that (like the Chiefs) teams generally drafted not for pure talent but for need – the needs we highlighted last week with our statistical wire hangers. We think next year we should put up picks against those needs that we highlight, creating a de facto (and dreaded) mock draft in that manner.

 

Just a wild guess here, but it would probably prove incredibly accurate.

 

In fact, later today or tomorrow, we're going to compare our analysis with the actual picks. We guarantee you'll be impressed. In most cases, we pretty much nailed the way the draft was going to go down ... and we didn't do it by pretending to have insight into NFL war rooms. We don't. Neither does anybody, apparently.

 

Nope, we did it simply by assessing each team's statistical needs based upon our Quality Stats. It turns out the NFL teams are very much in tune with what we say they need ... go figure.

 

***

 

Matt Stafford to the Lions with the No. 1 pick?

Bad move.

 

The team is in statistical shambles and we hate to see what will happen to a rookie quarterback on a team that can't play defense (30th in Defensive Hog Index, 32nd in Defensive Passer Rating) or, more importantly for Stafford's health and well being, can't block, either (32nd in Offensive Hog Index).

 

Believe it or not, Detroit's passing game was one of the most successful parts of the team last year – at least by the organization's cellar-dwelling standards. The Lions were 27th in Passing yards per Attempt, but dead last in many other areas.

 

They need everything but a rookie quarterback at this point. 

 

We don't want to overstate over-emphasize the Joey Harrington experience in Detroit, but he joined the team under substantially similar circumstances as Stafford joins the team.

 

Harrington was the No. 3 overall pick in 2002 and went to a Lions team that might have been the worst in football in 2001 (2-14, but 0-12 at one point) and suffered many of the gaping statistical holes that the Lions still possess today, and largely contributed to Harrington's rep as a big-league bust.

 

***

 

We love Eric Mangini drafts, if only because he goes against the tides of convention so forcefully.

Those two picks might not seem too unusual – until you realize that centers are almost NEVER taken in the first-round of the draft. In fact, loyal CHFF readers know that NFL teams draft from the outside in. As a result, centers are drafted in the first round less often than any other position.

 

Last year, for example, the first center wasn't picked up until the fourth round (Texas A&M's Cody Wallace to San Francisco).

So Mangold and Mack were the last two centers grabbed in the first round (though Buffalo quickly followed Cleveland's lead yesterday and also grabbed a center with a No. 1 pick this year, Eric Wood of Louisville).

 

In other words, from 2006 until Buffalo's second pick at the end of the first round of 2009, Mangini was the only coach to take a center in the first round of the draft ... and he took two of them!

 

Just four centers have been selected in the first round this decade.

 

Mangold had a Pro Bowl season last year with the Jets and was one of the few bright spots in a season of such promise and then such disappointment. Mack, meanwhile, gives Cleveland something it desperately needs, a force in the middle of what was one of the worst offensive lines in football last year (27th in our Offensive Hog Index)

 

The picks also show that Mangini is more interested in building-block performers along the OL than he is in snazzy, high-profile players at fan- and media-friendly positions such as wide receiver. It gives us hope for Cleveland's future.