Mel Kiper, Jr. wasn't trying to be bold or cutting edge (as he never tries to be), when he projected Johnny Manziel as the number one pick in next year's draft. He was just trying to be correct.

The proclamation, viewed by some, including a heated Colin Cowherd, as a reach, clarified the true purpose of mock drafts: to predict who NFL teams will take (and not to consider one's own opinions). Sometimes, you get the sense that within that purpose is perhaps part of the difference in the odd and sometimes awkward rivalry between Kiper, Jr. and fellow ESPN draft analyst, Todd McShay. In Kiper, Jr.'s eyes, there's something wrong about McShay's current projection of Teddy Bridgewater at number one is probably too safe.

Most likely, the tension between the two exists because McShay stole a portion of a career field Kiper, Jr. basically single-handedly created. I really wish some bored sports statistics nerd could run an analysis to assess the more accurate draft predictor.

In emphasizing Manziel as the number one pick only because that's what his discussions with numerous NFL teams led him to believe, Kiper, Jr. also demonstrated the current disparity between a quarterback's actual talent and his draft position, evidenced by recent picks like Christian Ponder, Blaine Gabbert, and Ryan Tannehill (Mel's example, not mine) who probably went a little higher than their skill level would assume.

Sportscenter today had Kiper, Jr. present his latest top ten, with Colin Cowherd weighing in from the other half of the split screen. I like Cowherd, but sometimes I get the sense he's asked to comment on so many different areas of sports he doesn't always have the most expert of opinions. With Kiper, Jr., whose only task is college football, you never get that feeling.

When Kiper, Jr. made his point on the over-emphasis of quarterbacks in today's NFL, for example, Cowherd countered with the fact that modern hurry-up offenses give quarterbacks the ball upwards of 70 times per day, and thus a quarterback's value should be skewed. I see his point -- that having a great quarterback has always been supreme but even more so in today's game -- and yet, there's something flawed about his logic. Having an average or below quarterback, which many of these high round draft choices are becoming, is only accentuated by more snaps. Plus, more offensive snaps also means more defensive snaps for a guy like Jadaveon Clowney to make an impact. Guys like Clowney are also the number one kryptonite for an NFL quarterback, good or bad. Using Cowherd's aggregate logic against him, why would NFL teams draft quarterbacks higher than they should when so many of them don't live up to their billing?