And of what use is that? The only thing that matters is how those picks turn out, not where experts (on either side) have them ranked. Wheeler turned out just fine, as an example. Turris too.
The only thing such a measurement would be useful in calculating is if your GM is getting relative value at the picks. You certainly wouldn't want DM taking the consensus 30th guy at 13, even if that player turns out to be great. He should have traded down in that scenario.
Beyond that, everyone is stabbing in the dark. Some are better at it than others, but nobody is consistently money at the draft. Where teams put distance on others is really in development - it's something that's controllable. The Coyotes have historically sucked ass at this and it has only improved marginally since Maloney took over.
It tells you if our scouting staff sucks. If we drafted 12th and we fnished 15th in the ranking I would likely go yeah average. but when you draft on average 12th (and this is since 2010) and we finish at or near the bottom third I'm saying yeah we can make the same conclusion that Maloney did when he elected to remove Keith Gretzky from the organization. This board didn't need that metric though. We knew by out lack of 2nd rounders making the squad and lack of homegrown talent in general for a long stretch.
Another metric I've seen tossed around is number of players drafted each year that played more than 200 games at the NHL level. Again very general and way too much of a Monday morning quarterback stat but it essentially equates out that you need to average between 2-3 players from each year to be considered "elite".