Get ready for seven rounds of fun as Too Deep Zone mocks the draft with pinpoint accuracy, then has an existential crisis about the whole experience. (Existential crises are fun, right?)
Lance Zierlein has also been responsible for some of the most spontaneously funny radio moments I’ve ever heard. Really.
It reminds me a little of discovering Mike a few years back. It was kind of startling. How could someone be that insightful and that funny, sometimes in the same sentence? And how had I not heard of him before this?
So I’ve been chasing him around the web ever since. Since I am not wealthy enough to just sponsor him like Michelangelo or something, I will happily make this contribution to the cause.
Maybe part of what this forum provides you with is a chance to write about the business of NFL writing? I doubt there's a wide readership for that stuff as stand-alone essays, but folded into other NFL-themed content as you did here? Yeah, that might work. At any rate, I found this to be a fascinating read. Thanks.
Dallas Goedert, like Zach Ertz and Brent Celek before him, is a great argument that one shouldn't pay any attention at all to a TE prospect's ability to block. If he's good at catching the ball, you can teach him to lose slowly as a blocker.
I've actually made a conscious effort to tune out most predraft coverage over the last few years. In particular I won't read a mock draft, because they are COMPLETELY pointless, and very often the people writing them don't seem to understand that certain teams operate in certain ways. Like, the Eagles aren't going to draft a linebacker in the first round unless they are guaranteed he's going to be Ray Lewis, so someone mocking one to the Eagles just shows me they don't know anything about the Eagles.
I've always found your draft coverage to be a lot more useful than most. I like the mix of stats, on field analysis, and character traits you weave in. I'm glad you don't use nebulous buzzwords like "twitchy" to talk about a prospect. And you do a good job analyzing how a player fits (or doesn't fit) into what a team looks for or needs. Long story short, I'm numb to the flash but appreciate the substance.
The Eagles are a good litmus test this year. Anyone who says they need/will draft iOL in the first because Kelce retired knows nothing about the team and can be safely ignored.
The Eagles LB thing is engagement-orienter. For years, it was Packers-Receiver and Bills-RB. If you mock players that local fans WANT to their teams, local bloggers, etc. react to the mock draft, share it, etc.
Mike I am completely with you on the industrial draft machine. I do not care one iota about anyone's mock draft. I do not care one iota about the tight end from mid-power State U who's stock is rising. I do not care about anything about anyone. All I care about is who my team drafted drafted and I can learn all that shit AFTER it has happened. The NFL draft sets an annual record for ratio of amount of energy spent "analyzing" it and the value of that "analysis".
Why people think anyone care about their dipshit mock draft they spent 22 minutes on after reviewing a couple YT vids is beyond me. WHy people attend an event where the "action" consists of an old white guy making a 10-second announcement once every 15 minute is also beyond me.
Every year I celebrate the NFL draft. Not because it warrants any celebration but bc it means the temporary cessation of of activity from the basement dwelling wannabe GMs who think anyone cares about their "latest mock".
I don't think there is nearly as much interest in the draft as folks in my industry assumed 10 years ago. I also think local NFL reporters would do better work if they got 2 weeks off after free agency, or at least were sent to cover college hoops at that time, instead of churning out endless "Why Ricky Pearsall Makes Sense for the Titans" content that reads with as much inspiration as that headline suggests.
Hmmmm....I think the lack of interest would surprise the AnalyticsRUs crowd who will celebrate the end of the draft by producing "a way too early 2025 mock draft".
I too think some down time for anyone who covers the NFL is a terrific idea. Imagine a world where - for two blissful weeks - we didn't have to consider what Jerry Jones thinks about, well, anything.
I have never seen WAY TOO EARLY MOCK DRAFT traffic numbers. I cannot imagine they do well. For sites like TDN, they are part of the outlet's charter. For ESPN and such: there's a department whose expenses may be getting amortized.
To be honest I've always said that I don't really care which prospects *might* go to which team, but I do care which prospects *did* go to which team. My favorite draft articles always come after the draft.
Thanks! I do want to bring a little of that Wild Wild Web mid-2000s vibe back (without the toxicity). Folks don't do it now, because (as B/R told me a few times), it "might confuse the audience."
How about focusing on team needs and the past tendencies of various GMs / front offices? What approach (can they really evaluate, pure bpa, needs,trades etc.) have they used in the past, their results, and why some do better than others. That's something that can be analyzed with certainty based on past results and then can be tied into draft picks as they come in. Definitely sentence 1 BTW.
Forget more boring earlier comment. What I'd do if I had the knowledge and some interns with free time is a rolling draft rating scale for the previous 5 drafts per team. 10 points=clutch playoff contributor 5 =all pro 4=pro bowl, 2=good starter 1=decent 0= made the roster -2=negative contributor (team is worse with player on field) -5=contributor on another team because a) team does not recognize ability b) team favors higher picks c) coaches suck d) all of the above. This category also has a 2X to 3X multiplier for players that are waived and then become pro bowl or all pro. Keep up the good work.
I find all of that sort of research interesting! And I prefer when hungry 25 year olds do it!
But seriously, one problem with any longitudinal draft analysis is that players on bad teams get more opportunities than players on bad teams. So a bad 2010s Jaguars team might have a very good draft because they land 3 "good" starters and 3 "decent" players on a 5-11 roster, while the Patriots of that era have "bad" drafts because their roster was so competitive. It's a distortion that can be almost impossible to control against.
Totally understand. But here is where you, Mike Tanier, football writer of choice to the truly discriminating, can take things to the next level now that you are unconstrained by the conventions of traditional sports coverage. Maybe set up a committee of the semi-informed (3-10 of us for each team?, I volunteer for the Bills) and we can vote on a variety of topics. This could potentially control for the "Jaguars / (ahem) Patriots" issue. Lately the Panthers and Patriots share more than the first two letters of the alphabet IMO.
I like the idea! Maybe if our audience grows, we can do something like that. At the very least, we probably have enough Eagles, Patriots, Vikings and a few other fanbases represented to try piloting something.
I like mock drafts articles. They’re frivolous reading material while I eat my lunch or enjoy a burger or other dining meal and when I’m snacking. They work fine for my interests. Regarding what you choose to write, Mike, I’ll paraphrase the old Greyhound Bus slogan: I’ll leave the driving to you.
Mims looks good in the video. Drops his hips well, maintains a forward lean, engages with his appropriately long arms. Able to pancake much small opponents.
I think the Packers trade up a few spots to grab their tackle of choice. I do enjoy watching YouTube draft simulations, but only for the Packers and done by hardcore Packer fans. I get a few different views of a variety of players and each YouTuber is concentrating on the Packers' positions of need. I'll enjoy the draft more with a little extended knowledge aforehand.
Can't wait until the 2025 draft to be held in Green Bay. We'll never host a Super Bowl, so this will be our one shot at a huge league event. I'll be 65 by then, but I'll be down at the Lambeau / Titletown complex every day for that.
It has always been my assumption that terms like “twitch” and “fluid hips” were invented by an imaginative writer who was attempting to give the readers something more than just a block of stats. Unfortunately, that devolved into the jargon-filled nonsense paragraphs we get these days.
The other major issue, from my point of view, is the basic assumption that college football is such a different monster from the NFL that the film is meaningless and we must instead deconstruct the players to try to translate college production into NFL estimations.
All of that to say, While I enjoy the draft process and am, admittedly, a sucker for the occasional mock draft, I totally agree that a novel sized report on 1200 prospects whose names I will immediately forget and never hear from again is not something I would read. I am looking forward to your articles over the next three weeks. :)
As a lifelong Packer fan, maybe I'm a bit more interested in this year's draft as this offseason follows an unexpected playoff run (with a Dallas dismantling), the emergence of Love as a possible top QB, and the flushing of Aaron Rodgers' garbage down the Hudson River. Years ago, a buddy of mine would buy the newsstand draft magazines and pore through the pages. I couldn't do that. But this year, I find the targeted Packer mock drafts on YouTube to be entertaining and informative and solely based on the Packers. Some are garbage and I switch immediately, some are pretty in depth. If the videos run longer than 20 minutes, I seldom watch. But I've got a good idea who I'd like to see added to the Packers in the first three rounds.
There are amazing YouTubers and there are ill-informed nitwits. And unfortunately, you cannot tell who-is-who by looking at things like subscriber counts.
This article is pure gold. But what about the Saints -- they had no 4th because they sent it away last year to move up (to draft Jaren Hall), and ALSO snagged Spencer Rattler this year (to replace Jaren Hall)
Lance Zierlein has also been responsible for some of the most spontaneously funny radio moments I’ve ever heard. Really.
It reminds me a little of discovering Mike a few years back. It was kind of startling. How could someone be that insightful and that funny, sometimes in the same sentence? And how had I not heard of him before this?
So I’ve been chasing him around the web ever since. Since I am not wealthy enough to just sponsor him like Michelangelo or something, I will happily make this contribution to the cause.
Maybe part of what this forum provides you with is a chance to write about the business of NFL writing? I doubt there's a wide readership for that stuff as stand-alone essays, but folded into other NFL-themed content as you did here? Yeah, that might work. At any rate, I found this to be a fascinating read. Thanks.
I'll second this notion. I find the process fascinating, and including these bits as background works well.
I’ll third it.
Interesting. I will do some insider-type stuff when it's organic.
Dallas Goedert, like Zach Ertz and Brent Celek before him, is a great argument that one shouldn't pay any attention at all to a TE prospect's ability to block. If he's good at catching the ball, you can teach him to lose slowly as a blocker.
I definitely prefer Sentence 1.
I've actually made a conscious effort to tune out most predraft coverage over the last few years. In particular I won't read a mock draft, because they are COMPLETELY pointless, and very often the people writing them don't seem to understand that certain teams operate in certain ways. Like, the Eagles aren't going to draft a linebacker in the first round unless they are guaranteed he's going to be Ray Lewis, so someone mocking one to the Eagles just shows me they don't know anything about the Eagles.
I've always found your draft coverage to be a lot more useful than most. I like the mix of stats, on field analysis, and character traits you weave in. I'm glad you don't use nebulous buzzwords like "twitchy" to talk about a prospect. And you do a good job analyzing how a player fits (or doesn't fit) into what a team looks for or needs. Long story short, I'm numb to the flash but appreciate the substance.
The Eagles are a good litmus test this year. Anyone who says they need/will draft iOL in the first because Kelce retired knows nothing about the team and can be safely ignored.
The Eagles LB thing is engagement-orienter. For years, it was Packers-Receiver and Bills-RB. If you mock players that local fans WANT to their teams, local bloggers, etc. react to the mock draft, share it, etc.
That said, I’d take gladly Mims to the Eagles in the first round, assuming they don’t trade up.
Always worth a read for the best fourth wall breaks in sports journalism.
Mike I am completely with you on the industrial draft machine. I do not care one iota about anyone's mock draft. I do not care one iota about the tight end from mid-power State U who's stock is rising. I do not care about anything about anyone. All I care about is who my team drafted drafted and I can learn all that shit AFTER it has happened. The NFL draft sets an annual record for ratio of amount of energy spent "analyzing" it and the value of that "analysis".
Why people think anyone care about their dipshit mock draft they spent 22 minutes on after reviewing a couple YT vids is beyond me. WHy people attend an event where the "action" consists of an old white guy making a 10-second announcement once every 15 minute is also beyond me.
Every year I celebrate the NFL draft. Not because it warrants any celebration but bc it means the temporary cessation of of activity from the basement dwelling wannabe GMs who think anyone cares about their "latest mock".
I don't think there is nearly as much interest in the draft as folks in my industry assumed 10 years ago. I also think local NFL reporters would do better work if they got 2 weeks off after free agency, or at least were sent to cover college hoops at that time, instead of churning out endless "Why Ricky Pearsall Makes Sense for the Titans" content that reads with as much inspiration as that headline suggests.
Hmmmm....I think the lack of interest would surprise the AnalyticsRUs crowd who will celebrate the end of the draft by producing "a way too early 2025 mock draft".
I too think some down time for anyone who covers the NFL is a terrific idea. Imagine a world where - for two blissful weeks - we didn't have to consider what Jerry Jones thinks about, well, anything.
I have never seen WAY TOO EARLY MOCK DRAFT traffic numbers. I cannot imagine they do well. For sites like TDN, they are part of the outlet's charter. For ESPN and such: there's a department whose expenses may be getting amortized.
To be honest I've always said that I don't really care which prospects *might* go to which team, but I do care which prospects *did* go to which team. My favorite draft articles always come after the draft.
The mock draft simulator is right out of old-school Page 2 or Kissing Suzy Kolber, just great work.
Thanks! I do want to bring a little of that Wild Wild Web mid-2000s vibe back (without the toxicity). Folks don't do it now, because (as B/R told me a few times), it "might confuse the audience."
How about focusing on team needs and the past tendencies of various GMs / front offices? What approach (can they really evaluate, pure bpa, needs,trades etc.) have they used in the past, their results, and why some do better than others. That's something that can be analyzed with certainty based on past results and then can be tied into draft picks as they come in. Definitely sentence 1 BTW.
Forget more boring earlier comment. What I'd do if I had the knowledge and some interns with free time is a rolling draft rating scale for the previous 5 drafts per team. 10 points=clutch playoff contributor 5 =all pro 4=pro bowl, 2=good starter 1=decent 0= made the roster -2=negative contributor (team is worse with player on field) -5=contributor on another team because a) team does not recognize ability b) team favors higher picks c) coaches suck d) all of the above. This category also has a 2X to 3X multiplier for players that are waived and then become pro bowl or all pro. Keep up the good work.
I find all of that sort of research interesting! And I prefer when hungry 25 year olds do it!
But seriously, one problem with any longitudinal draft analysis is that players on bad teams get more opportunities than players on bad teams. So a bad 2010s Jaguars team might have a very good draft because they land 3 "good" starters and 3 "decent" players on a 5-11 roster, while the Patriots of that era have "bad" drafts because their roster was so competitive. It's a distortion that can be almost impossible to control against.
Totally understand. But here is where you, Mike Tanier, football writer of choice to the truly discriminating, can take things to the next level now that you are unconstrained by the conventions of traditional sports coverage. Maybe set up a committee of the semi-informed (3-10 of us for each team?, I volunteer for the Bills) and we can vote on a variety of topics. This could potentially control for the "Jaguars / (ahem) Patriots" issue. Lately the Panthers and Patriots share more than the first two letters of the alphabet IMO.
I like the idea! Maybe if our audience grows, we can do something like that. At the very least, we probably have enough Eagles, Patriots, Vikings and a few other fanbases represented to try piloting something.
“Hence, draft simulators: it’s more fun to think about your team’s seventh-round pick than some other team’s second-rounder.”
A thousand times this! Though, selfishly, this Eagles fan wishes most other writers covering the Eagles would be replaced by you.
I like mock drafts articles. They’re frivolous reading material while I eat my lunch or enjoy a burger or other dining meal and when I’m snacking. They work fine for my interests. Regarding what you choose to write, Mike, I’ll paraphrase the old Greyhound Bus slogan: I’ll leave the driving to you.
Maybe I will write mocks again next year. This year, I am enjoying the break from having to make my content look a certain way.
I support whatever your choice is. :-)
Mims looks good in the video. Drops his hips well, maintains a forward lean, engages with his appropriately long arms. Able to pancake much small opponents.
I think the Packers trade up a few spots to grab their tackle of choice. I do enjoy watching YouTube draft simulations, but only for the Packers and done by hardcore Packer fans. I get a few different views of a variety of players and each YouTuber is concentrating on the Packers' positions of need. I'll enjoy the draft more with a little extended knowledge aforehand.
Can't wait until the 2025 draft to be held in Green Bay. We'll never host a Super Bowl, so this will be our one shot at a huge league event. I'll be 65 by then, but I'll be down at the Lambeau / Titletown complex every day for that.
It has always been my assumption that terms like “twitch” and “fluid hips” were invented by an imaginative writer who was attempting to give the readers something more than just a block of stats. Unfortunately, that devolved into the jargon-filled nonsense paragraphs we get these days.
The other major issue, from my point of view, is the basic assumption that college football is such a different monster from the NFL that the film is meaningless and we must instead deconstruct the players to try to translate college production into NFL estimations.
All of that to say, While I enjoy the draft process and am, admittedly, a sucker for the occasional mock draft, I totally agree that a novel sized report on 1200 prospects whose names I will immediately forget and never hear from again is not something I would read. I am looking forward to your articles over the next three weeks. :)
As a lifelong Packer fan, maybe I'm a bit more interested in this year's draft as this offseason follows an unexpected playoff run (with a Dallas dismantling), the emergence of Love as a possible top QB, and the flushing of Aaron Rodgers' garbage down the Hudson River. Years ago, a buddy of mine would buy the newsstand draft magazines and pore through the pages. I couldn't do that. But this year, I find the targeted Packer mock drafts on YouTube to be entertaining and informative and solely based on the Packers. Some are garbage and I switch immediately, some are pretty in depth. If the videos run longer than 20 minutes, I seldom watch. But I've got a good idea who I'd like to see added to the Packers in the first three rounds.
There are amazing YouTubers and there are ill-informed nitwits. And unfortunately, you cannot tell who-is-who by looking at things like subscriber counts.
Aaron Nagler gulps nervously
This article is pure gold. But what about the Saints -- they had no 4th because they sent it away last year to move up (to draft Jaren Hall), and ALSO snagged Spencer Rattler this year (to replace Jaren Hall)
Only you!!