I get paid to evaluate talent and put a winning team on the field.  If I am good at it I'll move up in my profession.  If I do a poor job, I'll be looking for another boss.  So far I've been proficient at my trade.  I've recruited many who've moved well beyond my expectations.  I think I'm pretty good at seeing past what I want to see and evaluating the intangibles.

So what I aim to do here is apply my expert opinion to the football draft.  I am going to use the most recent mock draft released by foxsports and breakdown the picks.  I won't go into much detail, just use what I know to shed a little light.  I predict I'll be 70% effective with my predictions (which I'm 100% effective at pridicting).  Follow me as I lead you down a path of enlightenment.  I will give a grade based on my prediction of their fist five years in the NFL: The prediction I make is also based on them going to the team they are projected to land on.  This will be for the first ten picks, (its taking longer than expected).  I hope to provide 11-20 sometime next week. 

1. Jamarcus Russell/Raiders (D) - A very good college quarterback and thats it.  Never had that ultimate success level where he seemed to hover above the other players on the field like we got to see from college quarterbacks like Peyton Manning and Matt Leinart and Vince Young.  Although he can do amazing things with the football he is nowhere near deserving of the hype and the number 1 pick.  He will struggle mightily and never recover if he is an NFL starter his first season.  Ought to trade.

2. Joe Thomas/Lions (A) - Big and strong.  Usually a safe pick to take the best college lineman if you're not the Raiders at least.  But, this won't help the Lions win this year.  Good pick for building the team back to a winner.

3.  Adrian Peterson/Browns (B-) - May well be the most projectable running back in a long time.  Still not deserving of the #3 pick.  I could go on and on about running backs taken lower have just as much success as running backs taken early.  Proof  2005: #2 Ronnie Brown, #4 Cedric Benson, #5 Cadillac Williams///#65 Frank Gore, #73 Vernand Morency, #109 Marion Barber.  You can stick any good running back in the right system and he can be great.  Plus paying someone coming off of an injury is a dangerous investment. Charlie Frye/Braylon Edwards/Kellen Winslow/Adrian Peterson, wow sounds like at least 4 wins.

4.  Calvin Johnson (A) - Seems to be the most dominant offensive player on the board, big, fast, strong.  A steal at #4, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets picked higher than this.  Tampa Bay lands a winner with this pick and a difference maker.

5.  Jamaal Anderson/Cardinals (B-) - I am always wary of guys who move up the board quick.  If they were that awesome they'd already be up the board.  I also find that defensive ends seem to be overvalued in the NFL.  Everyone keeps looking for the next Lawrence Taylor, but I think there are plenty of Jared Allen's to be found later and cheaper.  The Cardinals seem to need help elsewhere, maybe the offensive line?  They have the quarterback, the recievers, and the Edge.  I think they need line help to get Edgerrin back around 1350 yards on the ground.  Seems like they need to maneuver for Thomas or Brown.

6. Alan Branch/Redskins (B) - How can a DT get better than a B?  Not an impact position.  Just need someone to move bodies and stack up the middle.  Highest DT taken in 2006 - 12 (Ngata)/ 2005 - 16 (Johnson)/ 2004 - 14 (Harris)/ 2003 - 4 (Roberston).  You get the point, not good value here.

7. Gaines Adams/Vikings (B+) - Projects better than Anderson, seems more explosive and more dominant in the games I watched.  He can put on some pounds and be better than Udeze.  But, why whould you spend another pick on a DE? They just did that.  Still makes more sense than Anderson going to the Cards.

8. Levi Brown/Texans (A) - Another pick that makes sense, but not as much if they get rid of Carr.  This was the type of pick that would have made sense the last three years.  They missed they're chance at building a winner when they didn't build a line to protect Carr.  Now he seems to be on his way out.  Kubiak and Plummer does seem like a nice fit though.  I like this pick.

9. Brady Quinn/Dolphins (A) - The pick doesn't make sense because the Dolphins just spent all that money on Culpepper.  It does make sense because he ought to sit on the bench for awhile before he's thrown in the fire.  Probably the most NFL prepared college qb in a few years.  Will be an outstanding NFL quarterback, a sure Super Bowl winner.  Caught a lot of heat from fans because he's from Notre Dame and didn't really have a dominant winning career.  What I saw was a lone bright spot on an awful team that single handedly won 10-12 games in his career.  This is why I project him with a high grade.  Should easily be the fist QB taken.

10. Dwayne Jarrett/Falcons (B+) - A second rate Calvin Johnson, but makes huge sense for a Bobby Petrino/Matt Schaub led Falcons offense.  If Vick moves out of the way (which I predict within the next 2 years), he'll have a great career.  Moves into the right system to have success because the Falcons blew their last 15 reciever roster decisions.  He'll be their go to wideout. 

Ranking for the teams with the first ten picks if it goes as FoxSports has it predicted (this takes into account, the person, the pick, the team, and the slot):

1. Dolphins 2. Texans 3. Tampa Bay 4. Falcons 5. Lions 6. Vikings 7. Browns 8. Cardinals 9. Redskins 10. Raiders

Wouldn't unlawfully leaked evidence to a grand jury be inadmissable evidence to MLB under the current MLBPA contract?

I don't know the answer, but I would assume its inadmissable.  Unless tested under MLBPA specifications nothing outside of that scope would be or should be allowed to taint voting procedures.

I say McGwire doesn't belong in the hall not because he was a juiced up pitcher, but because he was only good at hitting the ball far. 

I say Pete Rose belongs in the hall because he got more hits than anyone else.  Betting on sports didn't change that.

The point should be either you were great at what you did, or you weren't.  This would squash any of the other arguments.  Cocaine, beer, hgh, andro, greenies, whiskey, crack.  What's the difference???  Can someone tell me?

Either you can hit, and field, and throw, or you can't.  Either you can pitch, and change speeds, and locate, and win, or you can't.  End of story.

Its hard to admit it but performance enhancers are a part of todays professional sports.  Its there, and you can't deny it.  I don't agree with it, and I don't like people using drugs, its bad for society.  That's not what we're arguing about though.  Should you be in the hall of fame?  Yes or No.  Either you performed splendidly, or you didn't.  Steroids made none of these guys great just like cocaine didn't make any of these guys great.  It seems so simple, but no one seems to get that.

Leave bringing up the children to parents.  Let the judicial system prosecute offenders of the law.   Athletes aren't role models, they aren't heroes, they aren't transcendent.   Let's not treat great athletes with more regard than anyone else.  Let them ruin their bodies and their careers in peace.