It seems to me there is an irony afloat in Mockdom. Like you, I enjoy doing mocks, it is tough and it is also very specific, that's why Walt has a contest every year. There are amateurs like me and experts like Walt and Charlie, so really there are two parts of the community. Charlie and Walt for example are recognized experts because they are accurate and maybe a dollop of promotion too, but largely they have earned their place in Mockdom lore. Now that this is reestablished, we can move forward.
My observation is that there are several ways to construct a mock, for example It could be like a Big Board regardless of need, but that is really what Big Boards already do, right? The author generally puts the component of need into any mock and I think we can all agree that very few teams are in a position to take the best player available despite their insistence they do. Teams that do would be at the bottom or at the top of the draft as a rule (as I see it). The reality is teams weight BPA according with their philosophy in any given draft (or round). The other component is who we value as the best to worst at each position; yet there are many nuances to this, for example a OT that is stronger in run blocking vs pass protection or a press corner, run stuffer etc. There is also the nuance of the cap and others considerations. I'd guess among the experts there is less bias than among us amateurs, I can tell you that I never have a poor mock intentionally for my Bears (perhaps because they need plenty of help). Mainly it seems most mock from the GM perspective of each team, in other words, they wear the mantle of each GM as they go through the mock and make their pick. The other thing the experts have is insider information through their contacts, who a team likes for instance and some mocks include this info. Then there is the mock that has a consensus of what several scouts or GM's have said. Obviously how a pick is weighted between need and BPA would be very interesting to know (say a BPA factor of X pick by pick). The experts also look beyond one year's draft to Free Agency, for example QB's might drop a bit because there are 20 available FA's this year. Other teams that are Cap challenged may rank the more expensive positions higher in the draft, or a team with shorter arms like say, Charlotte, might approach a draft different than a team with longer arms such as the Seahawks, who might take the opposite approach. Therefore, my conclusion is that A) The experts should sell their services to teams or media and we amateurs should applaud B) There are different types of mocks and different components of mocks. Now for the irony.
The irony seems to me that with all the math eggheads, why do the experts do so little of quantifying what type of draft they are presenting? Why is the methodology not spelled out as it would be in any scientific experiment or forecast? I'm not accusing anyone, just making a general observation that seems to me someone could benefit from IF they did start quantifying how their mocks are weighted and what type of mock it is. Cheers and I'll be rooting for that number 2 pick for us...:-) , Oh and do MOCK ON !