OK, now I understand. John Clayton knows more about evaluating potential NFL talent than BB and Pioli. Then tell me, why isn't he working as a GM for an NFL team? I'm waiting....
This really isn't the game, though. ESPN produces pretty much total garbage, and they know it, which is exactly why they don't hire informed, insightful analysts. They have a few, to save face and to establish a modicum of credibility, but it's not about "truthfulness", per se.
The game is that, with an otherwise uninformed viewer-ship, what they say goes. They can create a reality that holds true within their sphere of influence. That is exactly why they can run with certain stories, and totally ignore others. So when Bill Belichick offends one of their "analysts" or doesn't grant favorable access or interviews, off goes the machinery of opinion construction as retribution. In this scenario, John Clayton doesn't need to be informed, he needs to be posited AS informed, and not challenged by somebody who is actually knowledgeable (when there are challenges, it's usually two blow hards going at it like children, in an embarrassing display).
And, with no other real competition, there's nowhere else to turn, except the web. This is also true for most network television and cable news - they are in the business of constructing realities rather than exposing them. And this is why applying a critical eye to presented information is so important for everybody.
This explains a lot of sports reporters (e.g., Borges) as well as television/radio "personalities". Their authority is their believability, not their truthfulness. It also explains why a lot of journalistic outlets aren't really as profitable as they otherwise might be. The Washington Times and NY Post have both operated at a loss for quite some time (decades?). Their usefulness is as loudspeakers of favorable opinion making, not truth telling. And this holds true for both side of the political spectrum. I wouldn't be surprised if ESPN was bleeding viewers, but I don't know if that's true.