I like the consensus avg. right next to names on z score chart and would too for main chart. If consensus is a main feature make it easy to read. Another option is to put names on left and right ends of chart. Middle too may be too much but sometimes helps.
By consensus Looney appears to be one of most undervalued compared to DX, especially if you measure undervalue by expected value over expected value of draft pick # rather than difference between model pick # - actual (added value for pick #s rapidly decline after about 15; e.g. 20 over 21, 25 over 26, etc.) Is it significantly because of the asthma?
Maybe the over / under rated stuff with commentary from Jonathan is a part 3 or 4 thing. If it is short / not really that thorough and thoughtful it will detract.
At some point an avg. of mocks should be compared to an avg. of analytic models. Just before or after draft? Comparing to only one mock give the model avg. the sole advantage of blending.
There is also the word from the crowd:
http://www.nbadraft.net/nba_mock_drafts/consensus
If there is room for another column and even comparison it might be nice to include a rep for the audience reading the article. Or just have this link here for that is space or politics precludes.