Some staff changes in the offseason:

Houston Texans (DomCasual)
Green Bay Packers (ColoradoBuff)
New York Giants (-Rod-)
Buffalo Bills (gunns)
Atlanta Falcons (Nalenite66)
Minnesota Vikings (Vera Hara) (a/k/a Req)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers (Pewter Pride)
Las Vegas Raiders (RaiderDave)
Los Angeles Rams (codysseus)
Cincinnati Bengals (cmhargrove)

I just won myself the Hawk Eye Award for Accuracy. Pretty much like a Nobel Peace Prize. You didn't win anything, Old Dude.

Comparisons: ​
* Official

Old Dude runner-up in both scoring systems. If you ain't first you are last.

Oh ffs I didn’t realize my summary page didn’t update the names automatically, my bad. Will fix tomorrow.

edit: Snuck in the fix, also changed the winner of one of the awards!

I don't see the problem with the MUG system at all. It's a fine system.

I like Odessa more. In that one I beat jebures and Zero. There has to be more accuracy in that one. 😒

One possible synthesis: (a) Adopt Bullseye scoring and "Round Value" from Odessa, (b) Keep raw value bonuses/penalties and UDFA scoring from the old system, (c) Ditch positional accuracy altogether. Plenty of time to talk about all that later. In the meantime, thanks for your hard work!

Alert alert! Rod found an error in NYG's scoring, the spreadsheet didn't capture his raw and inherent value scores for his first rounder. I've corrected it on the table moving him up 78 points and over cmhargrove. I double checked the rest of the teams and they were unaffected.

oh oh

Req also won the prestigiously obscure Socal Jeff Luc Award.

I didn't draft someone in the third-round who went undrafted.

All I can say is

Congratulations to official 2023 Orange Huddle mock draft champion eddiemac87, and to unanimous second-team all-american Old Dude!



Also, a bouquet of flowers and an air-kiss to Vera Hara for winning Miss Congeniality for the 15th consecutive year.

Thank you so much.

It's OK, it just leans too heavily on drafting like the team you are picking for. Even if you draft better than the team overall.
We won't know who actually won until 3-4 years from now. If you look at the most frequent "winners" and top 5-10, they don't hold up very well over the long haul. Which is true of the real draft too.

Nope, you simply traded down in the 1st and managed to land 2 4th round picks 😁
In fact, you got less value for trading down to select Ringo than you got for trading up for Ronald Jones.

My comment was strictly due to the fact I scored way better in the MUG system. I agree with you comments to an extent, but I do like that the idea of this game SHOULD be to try and draft like the team you are drafting for. I had commented earlier that on a couple of my picks I correctly traded up, giving up draft capital and selecting a player who was taken more or less within 10 picks or better, of the spot I traded into. KC made 3 or 4 actual trade ups.....so while I do admire the Eddie Mac multipick extravaganza.....there is maybe a little something to be said for expending some capital, emulating your draft team..and having that play out. And yes..I understand that concept is nearly impossible to score and no one would want to try to produce a formula etc for such a minor piece of hte overall picture.

The attempt to draft like your team and scoring it is flat out stupid. It was MUG's way of reinforcing his reasoning. He flipped out years ago because the pinch drafter for the Jags chose Scherff when he was all in Parnell and claimed the Jags didn't need a OT as they were already set with Joeckel at LT and that Scherff would be a G and not a top 10 pick.
​Scherff is a better player then the player the Jags actually picked and their OL sucked so they needed the OL boost.

He lambasted me for picking Ronnie Stanley for the Ravens because he claimed Jack Conklin was the better prospect, would be the better player overall, would be a great LT and have the better career. The Ravens then selected Ronnie Stanley IRL and proved my point. Conklin has never played LT in the NFL and is not a better player than Stanley.
He and I were always at odds because I told him I cared nothing for his scoring system and would always attempt to select the best players and not who I simply felt the Ravens would draft. He would draft for the Bengals and then never understand why they didn't choose certain players when he did a bunch of research on players they had interest in and should fit.

It was baked into the scoring to force his vision of the mock draft on others. It's never really worked correctly. It's looks great on paper to win the mock and get a imaginary trophy but overall the winners aren't as good as the lower scored teams.
Just score the damn mock. The extra isn't needed. I get that it adds some fun to the end of the mock to add intrigue but it's ultimately useless as ****. Of course, given that it's a fake draft that has no impact IRL the same could be said for it. To me it takes away the fun of if. For others it adds to it and gives bragging rights and probably increases the overall participation.

I think the whole exercise is alot of fun....including any and all scoring systems...as far as MUG....i think my very first draft was his last one...and I got into what would be a discourse...not really an argument....about Kyler Murray. I was sure he'd go no.1 overall..way out ahead of that draft and MUG couldn't see it. Too short, already signed millions of dollar contract with the A's....and if the Cards did consider it....it was not worthwhile to think of because they'd taken Rosen one year earlier....and his biggest point.....that the Cardinals shouldn't want a player willing to go back on his word/contract with the A's. ......I think he was trying to hard to argue it from the point of view of what he thought should happen and not so much what was going to happen. ...kind of wish he was still around....arguing is part of the fun.

As I wrote months ago:

At the outset, I want to recognize a couple of things. First, some people don't really care about the scoring. In real life, the value of a draft class is nearly impossible to judge until years after the fact. Second, the game is fundamentally unfair because some teams start off with much less draft capital than others.

Nonetheless, I disagree with a couple of your points. There are dozens, if not hundreds of "mock drafts" every year, and the vast majority of them do, in fact, try to predict what each team will do. For many, that's kind of the essence of doing a mock draft.

Second, I could be wrong, because I didn't start participating in this thing until 2015 (the year of the Scherff incident), but I was under the impression that MUGS was scoring mock drafts before that. He must have at least announced it before the 2015 draft because I was aware of the general guidelines when we started that year - before the Scherff selection.

For me, the value of the whole process has very little to do with the "game aspects." In the last 20 years, I've watched maybe 9 or 10 college games. So, again, just for me, it's a chance to learn something about the incoming players and how front offices view the process. I really appreciate people's writeups and I wish more of us would do that. If "scoring" motivates that, all the better.

As far as the scoring goes, it is "game" all to itself and, as mentioned above, not everyone is into it. That's perfectly fair. Hell, my most accurate picks, (or the ones I got the most "points" for) have almost all been NFL disappointments in real life. My only goal is to make the "scoring" more transparent, consistent and easy to calculate. My biggest gripe about MUGs was when he started changing the scoring after the mock draft was completed. (mostly dealing with UDFA scores.) At best, that made the whole thing just a matter of his opinion. At worst, that's kid stuff.

Of course, there's a second type of "bragging right," and that's when we look back at the drafts and see who really got the best players. I suck at that. Always have, probably always will.

A. The whole mock draft is fun because it gets you in touch with team needs, and you also get a good look at all he new talent getting ready to enter the league.
B. Both scoring systems are fun and I thought, interesting perspectives on value.
C. I did try to draft like my team. I'll sill focus on this in the future. Trading down for 20+ picks is definitely a home run in this mock, but not as interesting (to me) as playing GM and really trying to develop a SB roster.
D. I think that lots of the fun here is to look back in years to come and see what we thought of all these guys.

Thanks again, this has been fun.

And they are usually flat out wrong. Yes you want to address issues with the team but ultimately the goal is the draft as well as possible.
Otherwise it'd be silly to go into the later rounds or UDFA and take a K for instance when the Ravens never would because they have Tucker. Silly to take WR's in certain years when it's clear the Ravens won't IRL. Or like when Aga drafted Trubisky because he fell to the 20's for the value but the real life Niners wouldn't have at the time.

MUG's scoring system was heavily weighted on values he loved. Which is fine, it was his system and he took the time to calculate it up. But 90% of the time he was flat out wrong and he was biased as hell. You've even seen comments by some on the board that he's still mad about the mock he last participated in because it made no sense that the NFL was drafting the way it is.
The NFL always circles back to certain things and people never ****ing listen.

A lot of people don't post writeups in the draft because they do it for fun and don't actually know who they're drafting. They go and read a few publications draft previews or listen to mock draft experts feelings on prospects and go with that because they "trust" them.
And hell, most of them are more accurate guessing than the ones who sit down and try to study film like a actual scout or GM.

That's the entire point, MUG's system was to meet the needs of the way he valued the draft. If you didn't like UDFA and didn't participate then your score suffered. You didn't draft like your team? Your score suffered.

That's the only bragging rights I care about. I get cooked in the mock for taking Joe Mixon and people swear he won't get taken that high IRL, then he not only goes that high but becomes a superstar player. I would rather have drafted Joe Mixon than Tyus Bowser because I knew the Ravens liked him and could potentially take him.
The entire point for me is to draft guys I like, then look back on it 3-4 years from now and see where the hits were, where the misses were and how it stacks up. Will there be years in which I drafted closer to the Ravens style than others? Yes. Last year was a prime example of that.

At the end of the day, it's not that deep for me. Yes I will get up on my soapbox and proclaim this prospect isn't worth this round or etc but it's all in fun.
Even my "rants" are done as more of a schtick than anything else. Except for the holding up the draft process ones, those are real annoyance.
It's fun to debate different draft prospects and utilize varying philosophies to come to your eventual end goal class.

I mean, eddie does try to draft like the IRL Pats and he trades down a lot because the Pats do IRL. He's probably the closest GM to his IRL counterpart this draft has. Him and jebures are dedicated to the cause.