There are a zillion experts we'll read about from now until April. Do ANY of them do this kind of prognosticating which I think would really tell how good they are in the long term? Since I don't read most of them, somebody will jump out in the next year and stick their neck out and do this if it doesn't exist already.
RULE 1: They mock the first two rounds on who THEY would pick for that team and then they mock it on who they think the TEAM will pick based on no swaps. This would be way more interesting IMO. Once you get past the first two rounds (heck - even the first round is a crap shoot) then all kinds of crazy stuff happens.
RULE 2: The experts should only be judged on their FINAL mock before the actual draft.
RULE 3: If the Team's pick equals who you said the team would pick as well as who you would pick, you get 2 points.
RULE 4: If the team picks the player you said the team would pick, but was not your pick, you get 1/2 point.
Rule 5 is where we know who the experts are and will take almost 4 years to get here:
RULE 5: If during year 4 after said draft, the expert's pick for that team is a starter (no matter what team they now play for) and the team's pick is not, plus 1 point for the expert. If that player is a Pro Bowler after Year 4 (save the contempt for that voting) and the team's equivalent positional player is not., add one more point for the expert. (Yes injuries will play a role -- don't cry)
To really grade an expert, I think you have to make them differentiate the two decisions and basically state, if I was the GM, here is who I would pick. Right now, they can sort of skate between who they think a team will pick and who they would pick. This clears up that convenient confusion.
We can tweak the metrics on this a lot, but I think this adds a dimension that the experts always think about but don't really need to put on paper when they make their final picks for any given team.