What Makes a Reach?

[Guest]

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

I have been using the same definition of a significant reach during my entire discussion of reaches on this forum. And you do not care about bad draft strategy? You do not care about wasting draft capital?

Do you not see that engaging in significant reaches against consensus big board rankings is a terrible practice in general? Just what percentage of the time do you think the drafting team's GM is right in those instances? I cannot imagine that that percentage is very high.

And could that same player have been drafted later? The consensus big board likes that as a realistic probability.

[dmac_bolt]

[FoutsFan]

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.

Again it is all based on a value that you assigned the pick. That is what makes it wrong. While a player might not fit in one scheme they may flourish in another. A "reach" for one team is a value pick for another team. The problem is, you give someone a reach label because you do not agree with the pick. That player could go on to have a solid career but in your view unless they are 1st ballot HOF and the best to ever play that position they will never measure up.

That is why you are wrong and the reach name is a non sequitur.

[Boltjolt]

Again it is all based on a value that you assigned the pick. That is what makes it wrong. While a player might not fit in one scheme they may flourish in another. A "reach" for one team is a value pick for another team. The problem is, you give someone a reach label because you do not agree with the pick. That player could go on to have a solid career but in your view unless they are 1st ballot HOF and the best to ever play that position they will never measure up.

That is why you are wrong and the reach name is a non sequitur.

Poster called Palmer a reach...among other things. Said nothing possitive about him. We'll see how that plays out in his second season as it is clear he has reached and maybe surpassed Guyton in his first season.I wont use the word fact, but i think Palmer is our #3 from TC day 1.

[equivocation]

So we've defined "reach" down to a defintion that has no impact on football outcomes. Thanks.

"But you could have got him later!"

You don't know that, it's entirely non-falsifiable. The draft is a blind bid process. And the consensus board clearly misses players as the actual NFL draft significantly out produces the consensus board in the middle rounds.

[nomad1946]

As far as I can see, he COULD have been available for us at a later pick. What if he wasn't? What do we do then? Pick someone who doesn't fit the scheme that Staley wants to run as well? Pick someone who plays a different position? Run around like a chicken with its head cut off?

When there is a player that the HC thinks will fit his idea of what he wants from that position, you take the player and do not wait and miss out on what the team needs.

[equivocation]

As far as I can see, he COULD have been available for us at a later pick. What if he wasn't? What do we do then? Pick someone who doesn't fit the scheme that Staley wants to run as well? Pick someone who plays a different position? Run around like a chicken with its head cut off?

When there is a player that the HC thinks will fit his idea of what he wants from that position, you take the player and do not wait and miss out on what the team needs.

Teams need to make their boards without taking some interent geeks opinion into account. Make your board, stick to your board. NFL teams put a LOT more effort into scouting than "dude on the internet".

There have also been clear instances of NFL teams trying to manipulate big boards, presumably in order to manipulate their opponents.

[Guest]

Again it is all based on a value that you assigned the pick. That is what makes it wrong. While a player might not fit in one scheme they may flourish in another. A "reach" for one team is a value pick for another team. The problem is, you give someone a reach label because you do not agree with the pick. That player could go on to have a solid career but in your view unless they are 1st ballot HOF and the best to ever play that position they will never measure up.

That is why you are wrong and the reach name is a non sequitur.

You are doing a superb job at demonstrating that you do not understand what I have been saying at all.

FFS, the concept I have been discussing has zero to do with any value that I assigned the pick. The whole point is that the standard is the great weight of publicly available opinion regarding a particular player. That is why consensus big board rankings are used. It is a publicly available and objective measuring stick and it has nothing to do with how I would rank any players.

The consensus big board determines if there has been a significant reach. Significant reaches represent bad draft strategy--period.

You have the cause and effect turned on its head when discussing reaches. If the pick is a significant reach, that causes me not to like the pick. So your suggestion that if I do not like the pick, that causes me to call it a reach demonstrates a fundamentally flawed understanding of what I have been saying. Frankly, it is mind boggling that you would suggest that when I am using a published consensus big board to define what is and is not a significant reach. The standard is objective. Do you get that?

Literally, subtract the draft slot used to select the player from the consensus big board ranking. If the number is greater than 32, the draft pick represents a significant reach.

Again, your discussion about the player needing to have a Hall of Fame career to measure up misses the entire discussion, further evidencing your lack of understanding. The player's career is irrelevant to whether or not the player was a significant reach. A player's status as a significant reach is determined once and for all at the time the pick is made. Good players can be reaches and bad players can be reaches. Based upon the expected result of the draft pick, the latter is far more common.

Scheme fit may have to do with whether or not a team will consider a player, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with player value in terms of the player's consensus big board rank. A player may or may not be a good fit for a particular team, but that has nothing to do with the player's value. Players should not be drafted significantly earlier than their appropriate value range as defined by the consensus big board.

The reason why the reach concept that I have outlined is so important is that it highlights instances of poor draft strategy, which should be avoided. At best, when a team engages in a significant reach, the team likely wasted draft capital on a player that likely would have been available later in the draft even if the player is a good player. Much more likely in such instances, though, is that the consensus is right and the GM is wrong. In that case, the draft pick value is wasted on a lesser player who also could have been drafted later.

[Guest]

As far as I can see, he COULD have been available for us at a later pick. What if he wasn't? What do we do then? Pick someone who doesn't fit the scheme that Staley wants to run as well? Pick someone who plays a different position? Run around like a chicken with its head cut off?

When there is a player that the HC thinks will fit his idea of what he wants from that position, you take the player and do not wait and miss out on what the team needs.

There is an old expression in NFL drafts that admonishes GMs to let the draft come to them. What that means is that a GM should not become so fixated on a player that he loses his mind and engages in what I have been referring to as a significant reach. I would say engaging in a significant reach more closely resembles the actions of someone running around with his head cut off.

A GM should always pursue player value at positions of need. So, for example, if you have a chance to maneuver and select a consensus top 50 ranked player that fits your scheme at a position of need, you do not pass on the chance to get that player to chase a player barely consensus ranked in the top 140 players with a 70s range draft pick.

Teams should not repeatedly sacrifice draft pick value just to make sure they ended up with a player that likely could have been drafted later. Show some stones and play the odds.

A GM and head coach need to reevaluate what they are doing if they are so wed to the near #140 consensus ranked player that their entire season will crumble without drafting that player and only that player. A GM should never put himself in that position. Also, it is difficult to fathom how any near #140 consensus ranked player could ever actually put a team in that position.

As a general proposition, who cares if the team does not draft that kind of player? If the team secured the top 50 player instead, that is a much better result. That is why the one player is a top 50 player and the other is only a top 140 player.

What teams should do is to draft the best player available at a position of need and keep doing that throughout the draft. Teams should also be ready to pounce by trading up if there is a valuable faller that may not quite get to the team. And teams should be ready to trade back and generate additional draft pick value under certain circumstances as well.

[Guest]

Teams need to make their boards without taking some interent geeks opinion into account. Make your board, stick to your board. NFL teams put a LOT more effort into scouting than "dude on the internet".

There have also been clear instances of NFL teams trying to manipulate big boards, presumably in order to manipulate their opponents.

You should stop making weak strawman arguments.

Nobody has ever discussed substituting the opinion of one draftnik for a GM.

Consensus big boards represent the weighted view of hundreds of pundits, almost all of whom are experienced at player evaluation and big board creation and some of whom have experience as good or better than some NFL GMs/scouts.

When the weight of opinion of hundreds of people are telling a GM that he is hugely wrong in his player evaluation, he just might want to consider the possibility that they are right, especially where the GM in question has a fairly consistent history of failed significant reaches against consensus big board rankings.

[FoutsFan]

You are doing a superb job at demonstrating that you do not understand what I have been saying at all.

FFS, the concept I have been discussing has zero to do with any value that I assigned the pick. The whole point is that the standard is the great weight of publicly available opinion regarding a particular player. That is why consensus big board rankings are used. It is a publicly available and objective measuring stick and it has nothing to do with how I would rank any players.

The consensus big board determines if there has been a significant reach. Significant reaches represent bad draft strategy--period.

You have the cause and effect turned on its head when discussing reaches. If the pick is a significant reach, that causes me not to like the pick. So your suggestion that if I do not like the pick, that causes me to call it a reach demonstrates a fundamentally flawed understanding of what I have been saying. Frankly, it is mind boggling that you would suggest that when I am using a published consensus big board to define what is and is not a significant reach. The standard is objective. Do you get that?

Literally, subtract the draft slot used to select the player from the consensus big board ranking. If the number is greater than 32, the draft pick represents a significant reach.

Again, your discussion about the player needing to have a Hall of Fame career to measure up misses the entire discussion, further evidencing your lack of understanding. The player's career is irrelevant to whether or not the player was a significant reach. A player's status as a significant reach is determined once and for all at the time the pick is made. Good players can be reaches and bad players can be reaches. Based upon the expected result of the draft pick, the latter is far more common.

Scheme fit may have to do with whether or not a team will consider a player, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with player value in terms of the player's consensus big board rank. A player may or may not be a good fit for a particular team, but that has nothing to do with the player's value. Players should not be drafted significantly earlier than their appropriate value range as defined by the consensus big board.

The reason why the reach concept that I have outlined is so important is that it highlights instances of poor draft strategy, which should be avoided. At best, when a team engages in a significant reach, the team likely wasted draft capital on a player that likely would have been available later in the draft even if the player is a good player. Much more likely in such instances, though, is that the consensus is right and the GM is wrong. In that case, the draft pick value is wasted on a lesser player who also could have been drafted later.

Ill just leave it at this. When the NFL world is walking out of step with Chaincrusher, you need to re evaluate if it is the rest that is walking out of step or you.

You write a lot yet say very little. The "reach" and "consensus" have been debunked and proved to not mean much. With you the draft and players are personal and you take it personal, then come up with all these wild accusations and stories to show that you are right and the professionals are wrong, yet its clear to all here who does not understand.

[FoutsFan]

Teams need to make their boards without taking some interent geeks opinion into account. Make your board, stick to your board. NFL teams put a LOT more effort into scouting than "dude on the internet".

There have also been clear instances of NFL teams trying to manipulate big boards, presumably in order to manipulate their opponents.

You get it.

Others are struggling to understand, and may never understand.