Reaching in the draft

[Coach Tuesday]

Reaches are only reaches when the player doesn't live up to expectations. If he does, then it's a shrewd move...

 

That's completely wrong, sorry. Reach has nothing to do with expectations. It's about value. I understand the point - but Peyton Manning would've been a reach at #1 if he could've been drafted at #5, his Hall of Fame performance notwithstanding. Expectations/performance are irrelevant.

[Steely Dan]

As if the endless mock drafts weren't maddening enough, people also drone on about reaching for players in the draft. Now I can understand drafting a player projected to go in the 6th round, but if a player is a low first-rounder, and you want him, and you pick #9, and he isn't going to be there when your next pick comes around, how is it considered a reach if you grab him? And furthermore, if a player helps you win, who cares if you reached for him? I swear, this whole reach issue is the most meaningless, contrived, drama-for-drama's sake, invention since the mock draft.

 

Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

PTR

 

What he said.

 

In a scenario where you like a player but project that he'll be available at a later pick, a trade down should be done if possible to get the most of a any particular draft year. An example of what I mean is 2001 when the Bills wanted Nate Clements. The held the 14th pick, but traded down to 21 and still got him while getting an extra pick. That's the "right way" to game the draft.

 

If it's not possible then it's not a reach? How does anyone know if it's possible or not?

 

Reaches are only reaches when the player doesn't live up to expectations. If he does, then it's a shrewd move...

 

I disagree. As PTR pointed out if a guy is projected as a 6th rounder by all the pundits I think it's safe to assume he would probably be available at least in the third round. So even if the Pets* had taken Brady in the first round he still would have been a reach IMO.

 

 

 

My definition of a reach: Selecting a player at more than one spot above the next team that you believe will want to select him. Therefore if we select Clausen at 9 but the next team that we believe would want him isn't selecting until 20 then we reached. We should have tried to trade down as far as possible (preferably to 19 using the example) to gain more picks, and still get the guy we want. I believe you can always find a trading partner. It's just a matter of what compensation you are willing to except. Of coarse this is a high risk poker game but that's what makes the draft fun.

 

There is no way to know how long a projected first rounder will last. If you trade down and other teams know what you want then another team may trade in front of you to get them. The price to move to #8 might have been too steep for that team.

 

I think it's hard to find a trade partner sometimes even if you offer to trade down for only a 7th. If it was so easy you'd see a lot of trade downs every draft. It seems all the teams don't think it's such a good idea to move back for very little compensation. JMO

[JPS]

Donte Whitner. He was a major reach for the Bills when they should have drafted Ngata who's player rating was much higher and right around where they were picking.

THAT is the best example of a reach. If the Bills grab a NEED player who is commonly believed to have lower vlaue over ANOTHER NEED player that they coulda had, then you can legit. call it a reach. Whitner over Ngata. Reach.

 

That being said. We have so many needs and the talent level seems so even from picks 9-25, I don't think any of the names mentioned are a reach. We will not be passing on an Okung to take Clausen, but we might pass on Charlie Brown.

[PromoTheRobot]

THAT is the best example of a reach. If the Bills grab a NEED player who is commonly believed to have lower vlaue over ANOTHER NEED player that they coulda had, then you can legit. call it a reach. Whitner over Ngata. Reach.

 

That being said. We have so many needs and the talent level seems so even from picks 9-25, I don't think any of the names mentioned are a reach. We will not be passing on an Okung to take Clausen, but we might pass on Charlie Brown.

That's making a bad pack, not a reach. Reach is a meaningless term. A player either helps you or he doesn't. Whitner is still a sh**ty pick in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Only then he's a great "value" pick. But he still sucks.

 

PTR

[Steely Dan]

THAT is the best example of a reach. If the Bills grab a NEED player who is commonly believed to have lower vlaue over ANOTHER NEED player that they coulda had, then you can legit. call it a reach. Whitner over Ngata. Reach.

 

That being said. We have so many needs and the talent level seems so even from picks 9-25, I don't think any of the names mentioned are a reach. We will not be passing on an Okung to take Clausen, but we might pass on Charlie Brown.

 

 

That's making a bad pack, not a reach. Reach is a meaningless term. A player either helps you or he doesn't. Whitner is still a sh**ty pick in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Only then he's a great "value" pick. But he still sucks.

 

PTR

 

If Ngata had sucked and Whitner was great would anyone consider Whitner a reach? As PTR says it's poor drafting not reaching. JMO

[PushthePile]

If the player sucks, does it matter where you take him? Do you feel better if he went in the 2nd or 3rd round? Either way it was a bad pick. It has nothing to do with reaching.

 

 

Again...wrong player picked...not a reach.

 

 

 

But you have to find a partner to trade down with, don't you? If no one wants to make a deal, then are you forced to give more away, all in the name of "draft value"??? Does this sound as retarded to you as it does to me?

 

 

 

 

Again, Donte Whitner would be just as disappointing as a 3rd rounder as a first rounder.

 

 

 

You're not selling tires, you're running a football team. Draft Value is an artificial concept that has no bearing on performance. You either pick players who make you a winner or not. Where they were drafted stops meaning anything one day after the draft.

 

PTR

It definately matters if you get stuck paying a bust big money. By that logic, the raiders would be in the same boat if they had taken Jamarcus Russell in the second.

[Peter]

As if the endless mock drafts weren't maddening enough, people also drone on about reaching for players in the draft. Now I can understand drafting a player projected to go in the 6th round, but if a player is a low first-rounder, and you want him, and you pick #9, and he isn't going to be there when your next pick comes around, how is it considered a reach if you grab him? And furthermore, if a player helps you win, who cares if you reached for him? I swear, this whole reach issue is the most meaningless, contrived, drama-for-drama's sake, invention since the mock draft.

 

Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

PTR

 

No disrespect, but do you offer to pay more for things than they are worth?

 

I am one of those who hates it when a team reaches -- actually I hate it when the Bills reach. The best way to accumulate talent is by picking the best talent available. The other option (also better than reaching) is to trade down.

 

It should not make any difference this year anyway. The Bills have so many needs, there is absolutely no reason to stray from their board.

[2003Contenders]

The notion of draft grades in and of itself is silly. Going back to 2006, shortly after the draft most experts ranked that draft as a bad one for the Bills, given that they had "reached" for both Whitner and McCargo. However, by the end of the season, Whitner, Simpson, Williams, Butler, and Ellison were all starters -- which meant that the draft was a very good one, right? Four years later, Kyle Williams is the only one of those players that I wouldn't list as a fringe starter.

 

Taking a player earlier than some draftnik like McShay thinks he should go to me is NOT necessarily a reach. A good example is the Patriots, who seemingly take guys a bit "early" every year. However, the Patriots trust their scouts, and they know how to pinpoint the right guys for their team. Compare that to the Lions over the years. I don't recall looking back and calling very many of Millen's picks "reaches". Still, the results weren't good (no players left on the team from the 2002-2006 drafts). Maybe Millen was basing his picks on draft magazines rather than what the scouts were telling him?

 

With all of that said, the real key is not only having a grade on your players -- but also knowing what the other teams' grade is on the same players. For example, going back to 2006 again, the Whitner pick probably was a "reach" because Marv was duped into thinking that both the Lions and Ravens had an interest in Whitner which would have precluded the Bills from trading down to the 14th (with the Eagles) or 15th (with the Broncos) spot. I believe that Marv could have made the deal to move down, picked up an extra 2nd round pick AND STILL taken Whitner. And, even if Whitner did happen to go to the Lions or Ravens, he wasn't such an indispensable selection that the Bills couldn't have taken someone else instead. (I think that is what Nix was trying to say last week when he said that when you pick at 9, you need to be prepared for at least 10 players in that slot.)

[Brandon]

Tell me why I'm wrong.

 

You're not wrong. As you said, its one thing to pick a guy who should've gone several rounds later, but a half dozen spots on some stupid draftnik's player value board makes no real difference, especially when you know you won't get a chance at that player again. In the end, all that matters is whether or not he develops into the quality of player you expect from that position and if he helps your team. Furthermore, once you get past the 6-12 truly elite prospects in any draft, the next 20-30 are usually stacked pretty closely together, and depending upon systems, one team's #10 overall may be another's #30.

[BEAST MODE BABY!]

BTW, in case anyone forgot (like I did), both Jamon Meredith and Duke Robinson graded out as 2nd round pics and we had both of them on our roster last year (Meredith we got from Green Bay's practice squad IIRC).

[bills in va]

If the player sucks, does it matter where you take him? Do you feel better if he went in the 2nd or 3rd round? Either way it was a bad pick. It has nothing to do with reaching.

 

 

 

 

Again...wrong player picked...not a reach.

 

 

 

But you have to find a partner to trade down with, don't you? If no one wants to make a deal, then are you forced to give more away, all in the name of "draft value"??? Does this sound as retarded to you as it does to me?

 

 

 

 

Again, Donte Whitner would be just as disappointing as a 3rd rounder as a first rounder.

 

 

 

You're not selling tires, you're running a football team. Draft Value is an artificial concept that has no bearing on performance. You either pick players who make you a winner or not. Where they were drafted stops meaning anything one day after the draft.

So by using your logic we shouldn't grade players, we should put names in a hat and pick them whenever we want if they're available. If a 7th rounders name comes up with our first pick then pull the trigger? It does matter where we pick a player. The good ones are usually gone first and they get paid initially because of what round they're drafted. Draft value in not artificial, it's real and value/grade is a good indication of performance but there of course are always some exceptions.

PTR

[KD in CA]

It definately matters if you get stuck paying a bust big money. By that logic, the raiders would be in the same boat if they had taken Jamarcus Russell in the second.

 

So then by definition, at least half of all drafted players are 'reaches'. Kinda makes the distinction meaningless, no?

 

Russell should not have been drafted in any round. Paying him whatever 'Mr. Irrelevant' makes would have been a total waste. Yet I don't recall a big chorus of 'REACH!' when he was drafted.

[BobbyC81]

When you reach you lose value. It would be like trading down without getting compensation for it. It has nothing to do with talking heads, just common sense business. You have to have several equal valued preferences in each round, so you don't reach but get good value. You can still fill positions of need w/o reaching and losing value.

Problem with the bills is they have reached and missed in recent years. If a pick can't play in the NFL it doesn't matter if you reach or think you're getting good value. Our scouting dept. has sucked the past 10 years with a few exceptions. A monkey could hit on as many picks as the Bills recently. I do however like our draft last year with the exception of "Maybe", who was a reach and a possible miss.

 

 

Now Erik Flowers was definitely a reach as nobody else had him projected as a 1st rounder. That being said, even if he was projected as a 2nd or 3rd rounder, he was a bust based on his lack of productivity.

[PromoTheRobot]

It definately matters if you get stuck paying a bust big money. By that logic, the raiders would be in the same boat if they had taken Jamarcus Russell in the second.

 

No disrespect, but do you offer to pay more for things than they are worth?

 

I am one of those who hates it when a team reaches -- actually I hate it when the Bills reach. The best way to accumulate talent is by picking the best talent available. The other option (also better than reaching) is to trade down.

 

It should not make any difference this year anyway. The Bills have so many needs, there is absolutely no reason to stray from their board.

Since when does what you pay a player enter into how he plays?

 

So by using your logic we shouldn't grade players, we should put names in a hat and pick them whenever we want if they're available. If a 7th rounders name comes up with our first pick then pull the trigger? It does matter where we pick a player. The good ones are usually gone first and they get paid initially because of what round they're drafted. Draft value in not artificial, it's real and value/grade is a good indication of performance but there of course are always some exceptions.

 

What you shouldn't do is believe the draft grades of so-called experts. Forgive me for forgetting who made the point earlier, but someone said that the notion of reaching for a player was invented to cover up the fact that a draft pundit made a mistake in rating a player. So instead of admitting he doesn't know what he's talking about, he blames the team for "reaching" as if the pundit's rating is infallible. I disagree with you about draft value. It's totally meaningless and artificial. And I think if you actually tracked the performance of players rated high in the draft, the results would be near 50/50... coin flip at best.

 

PTR

[1billsfan]

That's making a bad pack, not a reach. Reach is a meaningless term. A player either helps you or he doesn't. Whitner is still a sh**ty pick in the 2nd, 3rd, or 4th. Only then he's a great "value" pick. But he still sucks.

 

PTR

 

Reach is a term that only applies to a projected player's rating and where he was picked during any given draft. The higher the rated player, supposedly the better odds of that player being good or bad. The term has nothing to do with a player's career post draft. It's all conjecture as there are low round players that become good to great, just as there are high round players that are never any good. Reach pick and/or Value pick is all based on a predetermined player rating. Just like the draft itself, terms given out like Reach or Value are far from an exact science. I do buy into the term because of the Bills picking a reach player like Whitner, when Ngata was the obvious choice.

[PromoTheRobot]

Reach is a term that only applies to a projected player's rating and where he was picked during any given draft. The higher the rated player, supposedly the better odds of that player being good or bad. The term has nothing to do with a player's career post draft. It's all conjecture as there are low round players that become good to great, just as there are high round players that are never any good. Reach pick and/or Value pick is all based on a predetermined player rating. Just like the draft itself, terms given out like Reach or Value are far from an exact science. I do buy into the term because of the Bills picking a reach player like Whitner, when Ngata was the obvious choice.

But when you say Whitner over Ngata you suggest that Whitner was a player worth drafting later. If you knew Whitner was going to be what he is, would you draft him in any round? I doubt it. So his draft value is meaningless. Whitner would be a bad pick no matter where you drafted him. That's the point I am trying to make. There is no "reach", only players worth drafting or not.

 

PTR

[Peter]

Since when does what you pay a player enter into how he plays?

 

PTR

 

I was referring to the value of the draft pick (not the contract).

 

I am a big believer in staying true to your board (or trading down if possible). If I were the Bills, I would rather pick the player that they have ranked as the ninth best player in the draft with the ninth pick than pick the player that they have ranked as the 23rd best player with the ninth pick.

[Billy in 4C]

PTR -

 

It's the same thing as stocks. The market (football gurus) puts a price on a player based on analytical, speculative and subjective research. Nobody knows how exactly it's going to work out - there are no sure things.

 

BUT, the market determines the price. 2 Parts -

 

1. You don't want to overpay, by picking someone when you can have them next round.

 

2. If the consensus of the market determines that DT Suh is better than DT Williams on every board, if you are Detroit, you would "reach" if you took Williams. You could be right, but you are betting strongly against the consensus.

 

That's why everyone was PO'd about Whitner, Losman, McCargo because nobody had them that high. If you pick out of slot you are betting that you are much more knowledgable than the market on that subject, which has proven to not be the case.

[1billsfan]

But when you say Whitner over Ngata you suggest that Whitner was a player worth drafting later. If you knew Whitner was going to be what he is, would you draft him in any round? I doubt it. So his draft value is meaningless. Whitner would be a bad pick no matter where you drafted him. That's the point I am trying to make. There is no "reach", only players worth drafting or not.

 

PTR

 

It's a term based on predictions, not outcomes. Kind of like odds on a craps table. If Whitner was drafted in the second round (where I believe his value was a few weeks before the draft before his stock started to rise to the last first round), then it was because he wasn't rated as high (meaning: not as sure of a bet) as a guy drafted in the first round.

[Lurker]

I disagree. As PTR pointed out if a guy is projected as a 6th rounder by all the pundits I think it's safe to assume he would probably be available at least in the third round. So even if the Pets* had taken Brady in the first round he still would have been a reach IMO.

The only time the 'R' word is used is when fans say the player has under-performed. Half the folks on this board couldn't tell you what round Brady was picked in, or who the Bills first first round pick in the 1983 draft was. It's all second guessing, IMO...