Originally Posted by Kemp17
That's cool. One other thing I will say on the topic is that it's difficult for me to treat the media opinion as a starndard because of how they change. For instance, when the Seahawks took Bruce Irvin, most talking heads hinted at or simply called it a reach right away. Post-draft when it came out that other teams had Irvin rated that high, they piped down.
Which is why I, like yourself form my own opinions, right or wrong in the long run.
With Mouton, I was very surprised too, but again, we don't know where other teams had him on their boards, similar to the Irvin situation as you suggested. I do know he was a tackling machine with great speed for a LB on a very bad defense, so he could well have been rated higher than the "experts" had him.
Mel Kiper is no Joel Bushbaum, the only "draftnik" I'm aware of where NFL GMs and HCs actually went to visit him or called him for advice. Unlike Mel, Bushbaum ate and slept football and studied game tape after game tape on players across the country. His ability to have contacts at even the smallest school to get these tapes was incredible.
The draft has become such a TV monster that suddenly networks and web sites have gone out and found "draftniks" and labeled them "experts," and too many people form their opinions based on what these so called "experts" say. The problem arises when 99.9% of these "experts" really have no clue about how a NFL scout actually breaks down and evaluates a player. It's comical in a lot of cases, because these "expert's" qualifications, for the most part, are no better than yours or mine, and in many cases, worse. Many times I've heard them say so and so was a terrible reach. Perhaps so for team A, but for team B, he perfectly fits their scheme and turns into a star. A lot of factors, but I don't put much stock in these "experts," like yourself.