There are certain things you can count on each and every spring.
Birds will fly north. Flowers will blossom. Young women will wear skimpy skirts. And foolish pigskin "pundits" will crank out mock drafts.
Our position on mock drafts is fairly well and succinctly stated: they're useless.
Of course, we could just sit here and tell you they're useless. Or, we could fill your brain with gorgeous Cold, Hard Football Facts that prove beyond a reasonable doubt the uselessness of the mock draft.
In our first two years of existence, we've tracked the mock draft performances of six pigskin "pundits."
The results have been nothing short of disastrous. The "pundits" can not let these results be seen, lest it shatter their unearned reputations as draft "experts."
These hucksters are lucky if they can accurately nail down a quarter of the first-round draft picks. Hell, if you just ask them to name the position a team will draft, nobody can get it right half the time. And this is just in the first round. All hell breaks loose after that. So the only thing more useless than a mock draft is a mock draft that purports to go anywhere beyond the first round.
Here's how our six "pundits" have performed over the past two seasons combined, looking solely at their first-round mock drafts (a total of 64 picks in two years). How bad has it been? Well, if their mock-draft success rates were batting averages they'd be condemned to Single A ball in some pigskin Podunk.
Now batting, the designated hack of the Peoria Pundits ...
How six "pundit" mock drafts performed over the past two years:
Correct Players
Correct Positions
Scouts Inc.
19 of 64 (.297)
26 of 64 (.406)
Jay Glazer/FoxSports
17 of 64 (.266)
27 of 64 (.422)
17 of 64 (.266)
26 of 64 (.406)
Mel Kiper
15 of 64 (.234)
26 of 64 (.406)
Sister Prisco
14 of 64 (.219)
23 of 64 (.359)
Broadsheet Bully
12 of 64 (.188)
29 of 64 (.453)
94 of 384 (.245)
157 of 384 (.409)
Two "pundits" have been the objects of a particularly large amount of criticism from the Cold, Hard Football Facts over the past two and a half years. We won't repeat their names again ... but suffice to say they're dead last on our list, with first-round mock-draft success rates of 21.9 percent and 18.8 percent, respectively.
Those mainstream media apologists who foolishly criticize the Cold, Hard Football Facts believe we call out certain "pundits" because we don't like their opinions. Clearly, these critics don't quite comprehend the Cold, Hard Football Facts model. Perhaps they're incabable of processing something that so brazenly mocks their world view, where opinions somehow matter. The truth is that we are oblivious to opinions. We have no opinions. We report no opinions. We don't care about opinions. We care only about Cold, Hard Football Facts.
And the truth of the matter is that we criticize folks who are routinely inaccurate. We criticize folks whose inaccuracies we can prove with facts, data and empirical evidence. Once again, the empirical evidence proves that we've been right all along: the folks we have been most likely to criticize have been proven, once again, to be those who are most often factually inaccurate.
Though we take great pleasure in mocking the mock draft, we're going to jump into the game this year.
But this is how we're going to do it. We're going to offer up two versions of mock drafts:
Version 1 – We'll make our picks based solely upon our Fillability Index. That is, we'll look at the most pressing statistical need of each and every team (like we did last year and are doing again right now with our look at free-agency needs). Then we'll make our mock draft choices based upon the player best suited to fill each team's most obvious statistical need. It's something the "pundits" really don't look at that closely and we think this will have a fairly solid rate of success – relatively speaking, at least. Which means not much success at all.
Version 2 – For your entertainment pleasure, we're going to welcome Bonzo the Idiot Monkey back into the Cold, Hard Football Facts fold. Bonzo, of course, was our resident game-picking simian during the 2005 season. He'd flip a coin each and every week as he picked games against the spread. Well, it turned out that our coin-flipping imaginary monkey was more adept at picking games than any other "pundit" we looked at that year. So, we'll bring him out of retirement for our 2007 mock draft. Bonzo will build his mock draft by pulling names out of a hat.
After the real draft, we'll put our two mock drafts up against those of a number of noted "pundits," including five of the six highlighted above. (We would include all six. But, in case you haven't heard, one of these "pundits" listed above won't have a forum to publish his hackery this draft season. Too bad.)

If you think our mock drafts are foolish, just look at the success rate of the hucksters who spend countless hours studying college football talent and then offering up inaccurate mock drafts.
We don't know who's the bigger fraud. The people who create these mock drafts. Or the people who read them, under the impression that they actually have something to offer.