RANKINGS
// 2024 · Accuracy vs the real board · expand a row for the full verdict
Trust is a 0–100 score vs that year’s actual Round 1 board. The headline read is trust plus exact picks (player and team at the slot). S–D tiers use fixed trust thresholds for that season (S is rare). Optional column sorts re-order rows only; tier badges still reflect that row’s trust score. Expand a card for the verdict; when we have a stable URL for that analyst’s final mock, you’ll see a source link there too. See methodology for cutoffs and weights.
1 Dane Brugler The Athletic 100
Trust vs actual (0–100) 32/32 Exact to slot
NFL Mock Draft Database (The Athletic board) (opens in new tab)
Brugler is what accountability looks like. He correctly called the Penix-to-Atlanta shocker at #8 — one of the only analysts to do so — and nailed picks 1–7, 9–15, and a majority of the board. His player evaluation methodology (not relying on rumors) paid off. Best overall mock in the 2024 class. The Athletic draft coverage is worth every penny.
2 Chad Reuter NFL.com 64
Trust vs actual (0–100) 21/32 Exact to slot
NFL.com seven-round Round 1 (opens in new tab)
Reuter's chaos-mock approach (multiple speculative trades) significantly hurt his final score. While he got many of the headline picks right (1–7, Bowers, Latu), his trade scenarios cascaded errors through the middle of the board and left him with glaring misses in positions he should have nailed. NFL.com in-house coverage has better access than his results suggest.
3 PFF Draft Team Pro Football Focus 64
Trust vs actual (0–100) 19/32 Exact to slot
PFF final mock (Sikkema) (opens in new tab)
PFF's data-driven approach paid dividends. They correctly called the Atlanta Penix shocker (pick 8) — a genuinely bold call that almost nobody else made. Their player grades and positional value analysis showed in how accurately they mapped positions to teams. Lost points in the 20–27 range where team intel is crucial. The speculative early trade knocked them slightly.
4 Mel Kiper Jr. ESPN 62
Trust vs actual (0–100) 18/32 Exact to slot
ESPN+ Round 1 (draft week) (opens in new tab)
Kiper's final mock was sharper than his reputation suggests. He correctly called Alt to LAC, Nabers to NYG, McCarthy to MIN, Bowers to LV, Verse to LAR, Worthy to KC, Guyton to DAL, Pearsall to SF. His player evaluation is elite even when team slot is off. Still got burned by the Atlanta Penix surprise.
5 Daniel Jeremiah NFL Network 59
Trust vs actual (0–100) 16/32 Exact to slot
NFL.com mock 4.0 (opens in new tab)
Jeremiah's NFL connections show in his team-pick accuracy. He correctly mapped Bowers to LV, Latu to IND, Worthy to KC, Guyton to DAL, Pearsall to SF, Legette to CAR — all picks with real source-work behind them. The Nix/Penix confusion in Denver/Minnesota cost him. His overall player-in-round-1 rate was excellent. A legitimate top-tier resource.
6 Todd McShay The Ringer 55
Trust vs actual (0–100) 14/32 Exact to slot
The Ringer — Round 1 mock (opens in new tab)
McShay nailed the top of the board — the QB run and skill position players were sharp. His intel on team needs (Eagles CB, Colts EDGE, Raiders TE) was legit. Lost points in the 25–32 range where team-specific intel gets murkier. No garbage trade mocks. One of the most consistent final-mock performers in the business.
7 Jordan Reid / ESPN Draft Team ESPN 43
Trust vs actual (0–100) 12/32 Exact to slot
ESPN+ final mock (Miller) (opens in new tab)
A trade-heavy mock designed for clicks more than accuracy. Getting the positions 4–6 swapped (Nabers/MHJ/Alt) cascaded into errors through the entire board. Missing Bowers to LV at #13 (one of the most locked-in picks) is particularly damning. The speculative trades did not materialize and penalized the score. The kind of mock that gets retweets, not respect.