Just because he applies the same general theory an article published 3 years ago talked about, doesn't mean he got it right, or that his draft board matches the Patriots draft board. It's an educated guess at best. I'm not the only one here who has expressed differences of opinion on this particular draft board. For example, I don't believe that 5 or 6 receivers should be rated that highly, compared to other positions. And especially considering that we have Moss, Welker, and Gaffney in the fold. It was an interesting exercise to read for sure, but there are certainly areas of ranking that I find questionable.
Please show me where I said that he (heatster) got it right. Next, please show me where I said that "his draft board matches the Pats draft board.
OK. Since you failed on THOSE, Please show me where I said it was HIS BOARD. DING DING DING. Its his opinion.
Next, how about you go back to the draft article and read it again. Then go back and look at what Heatster said. It was his 1st HORIZONTAL sort. You do realize that the Pats do 3-6 horizontal and vertical sorts, yes?
Also, how about you go back and read the part where he said he'd be moving people up and down, etc.
Also, are you really that obtuse to believe that the Patriots IGNORE entire positions? If they can get a receiver who turns out to be better than Gaffney, who are you to say that the Pats won't draft him? Especially since Gaffney is only on a 1 year deal. Does having Moss, Welker, Jackson, Washington, Gaffney and Aiken make it less likely that they draft one of the 2nd round receivers? Yes it makes it less likely. But it doesn't change the fact that he had 6 WRs in the 21-35 range. And, consider that the Pats are unlikely to draft there, what does it really matter to you?
Also, if you take a look at a top 100 list, there are actually 7 receivers from 18-37.
Finally, how about you go back and read your original post. You claimed it was a MOCK when it wasn't. And while others have expressed differences with the draft board, none of them claimed it was a mock.