SNY.tv: Online Home of All Things Sports

I won't deny that NFL fate is significantly impacted by the day's events. It's just that no one, not even the NFL scouts and general managers who make their bones divining amateur talent, has anything resembling a crystal ball.

So here's a viewers' guide to the NFL Draft (for cynics). Ignore all the numbing chatter this coming weekend and be sure to keep the following in mind:

The No. 1 pick is the least valuable pick in every draft: Teams should run away from it, not toward it. The overwhelming evidence supporting the upside-down nature of the real value of draft picks was neatly laid out by economists Cade Massey and Richard Thaler in their ground-breaking research paper, "The Loser's Curse." Teams pay for certainty with the No. 1 pick, but none exists. In fact, throughout the first round, the player picked ahead of the next player picked at the same position (on average about seven selections later) has about a 47 percent chance of having a better career when measured by Pro Bowls and the dollar value of the second contract they sign. So, if the draft order holds to most projections, Boise State offensive tackle Ryan Clady has a 47 percent chance of being better than Michigan offensive tackle Jake Long, yet Long -- the expected No. 1 overall pick -- could cost $18 million more in guaranteed money.

One day soon, I predict, teams will engage in a draft filibuster where they let their time run out so someone else can pay a premium for all that uncertainty. Then, no one will step into the void and the draft lasts for three months until someone finally blinks and the first selection is made. We'll finally find out how long Kiper's hair can keep its lift.

NFL scouts and executives are inexpert in picking players: In fairness, how could anyone reliably predict who is going to emerge from the collegiate ranks? The problem is that these NFL people turn into Rod Tidwell with overconfidence and convince themselves that the more information they get on a guy -- agility drills, FBI background checks, player and coaching interviews, etc. -- the more prescient they become. But when something is inherently unpredictable (which player will adjust best to the professional game with all of its attendant unknowns) getting more data is mostly meaningless and does very little if anything to increase what are largely flip-of-the-coin odds on any given pick.

Track records in picking players mean very little: We do the same thing in evaluating GMs as GMs do in evaluating players. When a team is successful, we focus on all their hits and ignore the misses. When it's not, we do the reverse. Yes, some GMs have had long careers helming mostly successful teams, but those teams usually have had great quarterbacks.

Teams are lousy at picking quarterbacks: That's why you hear NFL types insist that the key to winning is things like "dominating the line of scrimmage" or "defense." They're conning themselves and they know it. But they also know, deep down, that haven't a clue as to who will excel behind center. Housewives have horoscopes. GMs have Wonderlic tests. And they screw around with various other measurements that range from the absurd (having quarterback prospects do 225-pound bench presses) to the largely inconsequential (measuring arm strength with velocity gun readings). Look at Tom Brady. He's great because he keeps his poise under pressure. But there's no test for that and how he did with all the other nonsense got him drafted in the sixth round. And before you lionize the Patriots for that pick, keep in mind that if they thought Brady was going to be half as good as he turned out to be, they wouldn't have risked waiting nearly that long to pick him.

If you want to tab the biggest loser the day of the draft, find the team that traded the most to move up the highest: And the biggest winner is that trading partner who moved down. Trading up for guys plays into the notion that: A) there's lots of difference between the couple of best players at each position; and that B) the GM in question can identify those differences before the fact. These GMs are undeserving of the faith they place in themselves. Not only do they pay with draft picks, but they have to pay whoever they do pick a lot more money than whoever they would have gotten had they simply stayed put. All for a relatively small chance that their target really is the better player.

The NFL draft chart that assigns points to various draft slots is and always was ill-conceived: It is, to paraphrase Woody Allen, a travesty of two mockeries of a sham. Remember, higher picks in the first round are worth less than later picks because of how much more it costs to sign the higher-drafted player. NFL GMs not only ignore this, but willingly yield additional, cheaper picks. All to only increase their odds of making a far more costly mistake. What genius thought of this? Jimmy Johnson? He's a football coach, not an economist.

Like animals who've ventured into the electric fence one too many times at the zoo, GMs are slowly learning. Note that no team has traded up into the top seven picks since 2003. (And how did that player, Dewayne Robertson, work out for the Jets?) Yes, no one is selling, either; but for the same reason that people are loathe to sell their house for less than it was worth during the real estate bubble.

The most valuable picks are the second-round guys: You still get the benefits of scouting without the risk of paying for certainty that doesn't exist. So, if you're wrong, you lose little, as these guys sign for slightly more than the league minimum and for four years. A team only has to guarantee a relatively paltry signing bonus. And sign they will, as second-rounders never hold out.