What Makes a Reach?

[equivocation]

Big boards are not objective. Aggregating opinions does not transform them into objective fact, so consensus boards are not objective. There is no external validation of these opinions available for years.

If you have a big pile of shit, adding more shit to the pile will not transform the shit into non-shit once a certain shit pile size threshold is reached. You just end up with a bigger pile of shit.

If you're a mathematician, opinions, like shit, are a closed set under addition.

[Boltnut]

If half of my class gets 100% and half of my class gets 50%... it doesn't mean that I have a bunch of "C" 75% students in the class.
It means half my class studied hard and did their homework... while half of my class did not.

[Xenos]

So what if JT Woods most INT come from being in the right spot at the right time?
With this improved front 7 i expect alot more errant throws/ tipped balls/ hurried passes that JT Woods can be in the right spot at the right time for :rasta:

Yeah, most high volume INT are pure luck anyways. Usually QBs avoid said player, or said player has hands of stones. That’s why DBs are DBs instead of WRs lol.

[Xenos]

So reading the thread again, but yeah TT’s second day picks have been awful for the most part. That part is not debatable. Now whether it’s because it diverges so much from big consensus boards is the debate. I think it just so happens that it’s a coincidence especially now that we know how widely different consensus is for NFL teams after picks 80. Or at least according to PFF.

[Guest]

Big boards are not objective. Aggregating opinions does not transform them into objective fact, so consensus boards are not objective. There is no external validation of these opinions available for years.

If you have a big pile of shit, adding more shit to the pile will not transform the shit into non-shit once a certain shit pile size threshold is reached. You just end up with a bigger pile of shit.

If you're a mathematician, opinions, like shit, are a closed set under addition.

Nobody has ever suggested that big boards were objective, so why are you raising this point as if someone had?

I stated that the procedure that I used to determine significant reaches was objective and not subjective. Under the procedure that I have outlined for assessing a significant reach, which is determining whether or not the consensus big board ranking number of a player minus the draft slot number used to select the player exceeds 32, I am not free to alter the analysis or result based upon how I feel about a particular player. The test is objective even though the consensus big board is not.

You can certainly argue that the consensus big board ranking list is not useful, but you cannot properly argue that the application of the significant reach test outlined above is not an objective test.

[Guest]

So reading the thread again, but yeah TT’s second day picks have been awful for the most part. That part is not debatable. Now whether it’s because it diverges so much from big consensus boards is the debate. I think it just so happens that it’s a coincidence especially now that we know how widely different consensus is for NFL teams after picks 80. Or at least according to PFF.

To me, the whole concept is really common sense. And part of that common sense is recognizing that there are no absolutes. The consensus big board is not infallible and neither are GMs. But the consensus big boards can be used to raise red flags about players.

If you are using the #66 draft slot to select the consensus big board #309 ranked player, you have to know that there are a lot of people out there that have a far worse opinion of the player (Max Tuerk in my example in this paragraph) than you do.

Now, any GM just can just charge ahead and say, "I am the GM and I have an expertly trained staff and we know and others do not." But that is the kind of arrogance that can and should land a GM in hot water when pick after pick fails as the unheeded opinions of a multitude of others suggested would be the case.

In Telesco's case, the lion's share of his round 3 selections have absolutely been huge reaches versus the consensus big board and they have not returned 3rd round draft pick value, though the jury is still out on Palmer, McKitty and Woods. For me, I would set the bar for a 3rd round pick to be a solid NFL starter within his first contract and a player that gets to a second contract with the team. And I do not think it would be unreasonable to argue an equivalence of that with a high end reserve that makes a large contribution to the team. For example, if Palmer produced multiple 50+ reception seasons, but technically was not a starter, which is entirely possible, he could be deemed as justifying his draft position.

[NoMoreChillies]

Is there any GM that has consistently hit on 3rd picks the last 10 years?

[RockyMtnBoltFan]

Is there any GM that has consistently hit on 3rd picks the last 10 years?

There was a study done looking at drafts from 2010 to 2017 and only about 15% of 3rd round picks were re-signed to a 2nd contract by the team that drafted them. Interestingly, from 2013-2018 only 1 if 6 Chargers 3rd round draft picks have been re-signed by the team (16.6%).

At the same time about 32% of 3rd round draft picks sign with a different team for a 2nd contract. In the Chargers case I believe only Justin Jones and Dan Feeney signed 2nd contracts; which would be about 33%. So based on Telesco’s first 6 seasons, he was essentially right in the league average.

it’s not unfair to expect/want better than that success rate, but the reality is that the vast majority of 3rd round draft picks aren’t impact players in the league.

[richpjr]

You can certainly argue that the consensus big board ranking list is not useful, but you cannot properly argue that the application of the significant reach test outlined above is not an objective test.

If you think that consensus big board rankings are not very useful to a front office (as an awful lot here seem to) than everything else is pretty much meaningless.

[Riverwalk]

What’s a reach?

The first round RB’s the team picked hoping to replace LT while forgetting they needed road graders on the OL.

[Xenos]

Big boards are not objective. Aggregating opinions does not transform them into objective fact, so consensus boards are not objective. There is no external validation of these opinions available for years.

If you have a big pile of shit, adding more shit to the pile will not transform the shit into non-shit once a certain shit pile size threshold is reached. You just end up with a bigger pile of shit.

If you're a mathematician, opinions, like shit, are a closed set under addition.

If this graph is correct from PFF, it’s looks pretty damn close even if the NFL draft does generally outperform the big board, especially after pick 80.

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/topic/43631-should-gms-just-draft-base-on-the-general-consensus-board/?do=findComment&comment=4587181

[Lefty2SLO]

If this graph is correct from PFF, it’s looks pretty damn close even if the NFL draft does generally outperform the big board, especially after pick 80.

https://forums.footballsfuture.com/t...omment=4587181

Any NFL GM's reading this thread (HIGHLY unlikely) are most assuredly laughing their ass off!!!