What Makes a Reach?

[Topcat]

That second round devastated me. Marcus Gilchrist and Jonas Mouton. We had an extra second-round pick after trading Antonio Cromartie. I was screaming at the TV to pick Justin Houston.

Wow...imagine Houston on the Bolts from day 1...and speaking of CB's and Gilchrist, the Bolts could have had Richard Sherman instead...ouch...

[Topcat]

Jonas Mouton. I had 5th round - high priority FA.

Yep...Mouton was a total reach...almost as bad as Mager in round 3...Buster Davis and Larry English in round 1 were pretty bad also...

[Boltjolt]

That second round devastated me. Marcus Gilchrist and Jonas Mouton. We had an extra second-round pick after trading Antonio Cromartie. I was screaming at the TV to pick Justin Houston.

Me too, I had a first round grade on him. Wanted us to draft him.

[Guest]

You nailed it. A reach is from a butt hurt draftnick, either on TV or just on a forum. When the team did not pick who they thought the team should pick, that is a reach. Then the person goes into attack mode the rest of the players career. Unless the player is first ballot HOF the butt hurt will continue to call them a reach.

If a player is a solid starter then they cannot be a reach. Was Scifres a reach? The Chargers spent a 5th round pick on him. Some say you do not spend draft picks on kickers but he was an MVP of a playoff game. He was no reach. The Raturds spent a 1st on Seabass, he was not a reach. but again people will say he was.

Its nothing more than trying to get back at a said GM for not taking the pick they suggested. Nothing more, nothing less.

I disagree completely with your take.

I have defined a significant reach as selecting a player much earlier, more than one round earlier, than the weight of publicly available opinion suggests the player should be drafted. Consensus big boards tell us where that weight of public opinion falls.

While based on a multitude of opinions, the standard itself is typically a very bright line standard.

Reaching has nothing to do with who anyone thinks a team should draft.

Reaching has nothing to do with whether or not the player is a starter.

Reaching has nothing to do with the quality of career the NFL draft pick has, whether that career is a bust, Hall of Fame worthy or anywhere in between.

Whether a player is a reach or not is determined for all time the moment the player is drafted. Players do not somehow play themselves out of reach status. It is entirely possible for a Hall of Fame player to have been a significant reach.

By the definition set forth above of a reach and mathematical reality, the only players that cannot possibly be significant reaches are the consensus big board's top 33 ranked players.

Absent a clear definition/standard, the term "reach" is malleable to the point of uselessness. That is why I have used a clear definition when I have discussed whether or not a player drafted is a reach.

Finally, saying that a player is a reach under the concept set forth above, while very straightforward and really not capable of being disputed, says nothing about how good the player is or will be in the NFL.

[RobH]

What’s a reach?

It’s when I have to reach into the back of the liquor cabinet for the Ouzo. It’s a damn deep cabinet.

[RTPbolt]

A reach is subjective…completely. A bunch of opinions does not make it fact if they happen to coincide. When I see a player go later or earlier I frankly have to realize I nor anyone else has all the facts and different teams evaluations are based on subjective measures. Just because a guy can run a 4.4 doesnt mean he can catch a ball with a db on his ass or a rb isnt going to fumble because he has bad technique or arm strength to grip that ball when a 320 lb man is barrelling into him.

We arent privy to the medical evals and guess what….drs are using opinions too on an injury or recovery from one…may have probabilities involved in a recurrance….but that isnt fact. Roll it all together plus a bunch of preferences for how big/fast/intelligent/etc and you get a big fat grade that is highly subjective.

Throw in the pundits and us have 1/10th the info they have…why would we be able to evaluate better? Ive hired people not on their distinct measurable or test grades…i hire based on personility and drive which really cant be measured right? Yet ive had a high success rate.

So i suppose I think reaches are in our own head. I dont have time to really grade people nor access to the info that “might” be relevant. To borrow from a movie poorly….there is no reach

[eaterfan]

Many players ID'd by the 'consensus' as can't miss players have been dogs (Robert Gallery, Vernon Gholston anyone?). This just illustrates how difficult the draft is.

My point is that the basis for defining a 'reach' has to start initially with an acceptance of the 'concensus' as accurate, which it is not and never has been.

This is point isn't accurate and never has been. The consensus isn't perfect. That doesn't mean it's not accurate. There are plenty of articles you can look up about how accurate the consensus board is compared to career WAR added or any number of means of measuring production. There will be reaches from the big board that outproduce their spot, but it's far more likely that reaches from consensus underperform their spot.

There are plenty of smokers who live to 90 years and there are plenty of people who don't smoke who die well before that, but it's accurate to say that smoking reduces life expectancy. There are successful QBs under 6' tall and there are plenty of bad ones who are over 6' tall, but height matters. Plenty of 1st round picks bust and plenty of later picks don't make it, but first round picks are more valuable.

Why can't people understand that correlation doesn't have to be perfect for something to be useful and predictive?

You can hit on 16 in blackjack and you'll win some. It's not a good process. I'm not sure why we're arguing that TT's reaches have been good when this team is basically built around 1st round picks that were consensus good picks and haven't really gotten much beyond that because TT has reached according to the big board in later rounds for the most part.

[equivocation]

This is point isn't accurate and never has been. The consensus isn't perfect. That doesn't mean it's not accurate. There are plenty of articles you can look up about how accurate the consensus board is compared to career WAR added or any number of means of measuring production. There will be reaches from the big board that outproduce their spot, but it's far more likely that reaches from consensus underperform their spot.

There are plenty of smokers who live to 90 years and there are plenty of people who don't smoke who die well before that, but it's accurate to say that smoking reduces life expectancy. There are successful QBs under 6' tall and there are plenty of bad ones who are over 6' tall, but height matters. Plenty of 1st round picks bust and plenty of later picks don't make it, but first round picks are more valuable.

Why can't people understand that correlation doesn't have to be perfect for something to be useful and predictive?

You can hit on 16 in blackjack and you'll win some. It's not a good process. I'm not sure why we're arguing that TT's reaches have been good when this team is basically built around 1st round picks that were consensus good picks and haven't really gotten much beyond that because TT has reached according to the big board in later rounds for the most part.

The actual draft outpaces the consensus board:

1. In the first 10 picks
2. After about pick 80

https://www.pff.com/news/draft-pff-data-study-can-the-consensus-big-board-really-predict-the-2021-nfl-draft

This is cumulative WAR so minor % splits at the end actual indicate a pretty large marginal split per pick.

[equivocation]

My theory on above graph:

Consensus gets the top ~70 players right but in slightly wrong order (NFL teams put them in a better order

Consensus starts missing players at about 70-80. I speculate these are "high spread" players where some big boards have a 2nd round grade and others have a 6th.

[FoutsFan]

I disagree completely with your take.

I have defined a significant reach as selecting a player much earlier, more than one round earlier, than the weight of publicly available opinion suggests the player should be drafted. Consensus big boards tell us where that weight of public opinion falls.

While based on a multitude of opinions, the standard itself is typically a very bright line standard.

Reaching has nothing to do with who anyone thinks a team should draft.

Reaching has nothing to do with whether or not the player is a starter.

Reaching has nothing to do with the quality of career the NFL draft pick has, whether that career is a bust, Hall of Fame worthy or anywhere in between.

Whether a player is a reach or not is determined for all time the moment the player is drafted. Players do not somehow play themselves out of reach status. It is entirely possible for a Hall of Fame player to have been a significant reach.

By the definition set forth above of a reach and mathematical reality, the only players that cannot possibly be significant reaches are the consensus big board's top 33 ranked players.

Absent a clear definition/standard, the term "reach" is malleable to the point of uselessness. That is why I have used a clear definition when I have discussed whether or not a player drafted is a reach.

Finally, saying that a player is a reach under the concept set forth above, while very straightforward and really not capable of being disputed, says nothing about how good the player is or will be in the NFL.

You are entitled to your opinion. You are still wrong though.

[equivocation]

So all that and no reason to care if someone is a "reach". Why bother defining a term without supporting its value?

[Guest]

You are entitled to your opinion. You are still wrong though.

Most of what I have expressed is not an opinion at all. It is fact.

1. On this forum, I have been driving the "reach" discussion since the third round of this year's draft took place in terms of posts addressing the subject.

2. During that entire discussion, to make it crystal clear what was meant as I continued to discuss this concept, I defined a significant reach as one that involved a team selecting a player more than a round (32 draft slots) earlier than his consensus big board ranking.

Under that standard, all of the following, just as I said, are true:

3. Reaching has nothing to do with who anyone thinks a team should draft.

4. Reaching has nothing to do with whether or not the player is a starter.

5. Reaching has nothing to do with the quality of career the NFL draft pick has, whether that career is a bust, Hall of Fame worthy or anywhere in between.

6. Whether a player is a reach or is not a reach is determined for all time the moment the player is drafted. Players do not somehow play themselves out of reach status. It is entirely possible for a Hall of Fame player to have been a significant reach.

7. By the definition set forth above of a reach and mathematical reality, the only players that cannot possibly be significant reaches are the consensus big board's top 33 ranked players.

None of the numbered assertions that I have made, under the conditions that I have made them, are opinions. They are all facts.

Your previous suggestion that what determines a reach is whether or not some butt hurt draftnik or forum poster thinks we drafted the "right player" is particularly absurd in the face of my multitude of posts in other threads setting forth a specific objective standard for determining whether or not a significant reach has taken place. The test is objective and has nothing to do with anyone's feelings about any particular players.

I mean, I guess you are free to call a "reach" a draft pick that has long arms or some other nonsensical definition that has nothing to do with the discussion in other threads that led to this thread, but please do not pretend that it has anything to do with anything that I have discussed because it does not.