The Definition Of A Reach - A Lot Of People Are Confused IMO

[Steely Dan]

I think there are too many varying opinions on what a reach in the draft is. This thread gives people a chance to define a reach in their opinion and defend it.

 

To me a reach is a player taken when they will probably be available at their next pick. Too many people think that taking a player earlier than 5-10, 10-20 or 20-30 spots before "the draftniks" have them rated is a reach. If a team rates a player the best fit for them and they can't trade down, trading down is not as easy as some people seem to think*, then I have no problem with a team taking them. Donte Whitner was "a reach" but has outplayed Michael Huff who was taken ahead of him.

 

A team should take a guy they think is the best fit if he's still on the board and if they don't believe they'll be there at the next pick.

 

* In order to trade down a team needs a trading partner and they must be contacted by another team interested in trading down. IMO, teams don't call other teams to see if they want their pick.

[Steely Dan]

Would the person who voted all the time please explain their reason for that belief.

[justnzane]

I figure that a good pick is one that is made and does well in the long run regardless of where in the draft (ie Jared Allen in the 5th round or Mario williams 1st pick). A reach would be grabbing a player that you won't be able to get with your next pick.

[DrDawkinstein]

there is no such thing as a reach. it was a term made up by draft experts (nerds, losers) to cover their ego when teams take players they werent able to predict since, as it turns out, theyre just guessing too.

 

now if you want to argue the extreme and say a team taking the 10th ranked Guard with the 15th pick of the draft is a reach, ill say this:

 

it can work out 2 ways. 1) the player goes on to a great career and therefore its not a reach since the PROS obviously knew something we didnt. or 2) he stinks and the GM is fired and its remembered as a bad draft.

 

but the whole "reach" concept is just a little too much.

[Steely Dan]

there is no such thing as a reach. it was a term made up by draft experts (nerds, losers) to cover their ego when teams take players they werent able to predict since, as it turns out, theyre just guessing too.

 

now if you want to argue the extreme and say a team taking the 10th ranked Guard with the 15th pick of the draft is a reach, ill say this:

 

it can work out 2 ways. 1) the player goes on to a great career and therefore its not a reach since the PROS obviously knew something we didnt. or 2) he stinks and the GM is fired and its remembered as a bad draft.

 

but the whole "reach" concept is just a little too much.

 

If the team can wait to the next pick then I'd say anything else is a reach. While Tom Brady wouldn't have been a bad choice in the first round based on production the Patriots would have passed up guys that would easily be there by the time Brady would have gone off the board.

[Brandon]

What is a 'reach'? There are two equally valid definitions, IMO. The pick is a reach...

 

1) If the guy would still be on the board the next time you pick.

2) You choose a player at a need position with a significantly lower grade than a second player at the same or another need position.

[Steely Dan]

What is a 'reach'? There are two equally valid definitions, IMO. The pick is a reach...

 

1) If the guy would still be on the board the next time you pick.

2) You choose a player at a need position with a significantly lower grade than a second player at the same or another need position.

 

I like number 2. I agree with that.

 

No need to make jokes about my I like number 2 line.

[Dibs]

If the team can wait to the next pick then I'd say anything else is a reach. While Tom Brady wouldn't have been a bad choice in the first round based on production the Patriots would have passed up guys that would easily be there by the time Brady would have gone off the board.

But if the Patriots drafted Brady in the 1st, nobody would ever really know if he would have lasted to the 2nd round or not.

 

I agree basically with what DrDankenstein said. A 'reach' is really a player who is selected(significantly?) ahead of where the consensus media has him positioned talent-wise in the draft pool. One has to assume that the team selecting said reach legitimately considers the player their best option. I think one really has to ask the question "Would you prefer that the Bills follow the consensus media boards or stick to their own draft analysis?" Basically, every team that 'reaches' is showing the strength of their convictions.......which should be admired, not admonished. If their ability to select well in the draft is not good(or they get bad luck), they will lose their jobs(eventually.....one hopes).

[DrDawkinstein]

If the team can wait to the next pick then I'd say anything else is a reach. While Tom Brady wouldn't have been a bad choice in the first round based on production the Patriots would have passed up guys that would easily be there by the time Brady would have gone off the board.

 

but no one really knows when anyone will or wont be on the board. its IMPOSSIBLE to ever say "we wont pick that guy now, we KNOW he'll be there in 2 rounds".

 

i think you guys are trying to quantify something that isnt there.

[DrDawkinstein]

2) You choose a player at a need position with a significantly lower grade than a second player at the same or another need position.

 

i could agree with something along those lines... but that definition has nothing to do with actual draft position. its a strict comparison of talent. and i like that.

 

but its still being judged by guidelines made up by some media guys.

[Steely Dan]

But if the Patriots drafted Brady in the 1st, nobody would ever really know if he would have lasted to the 2nd round or not.

 

I agree basically with what DrDankenstein said. A 'reach' is really a player who is selected(significantly?) ahead of where the consensus media has him positioned talent-wise in the draft pool. One has to assume that the team selecting said reach legitimately considers the player their best option. I think one really has to ask the question "Would you prefer that the Bills follow the consensus media boards or stick to their own draft analysis?" Basically, every team that 'reaches' is showing the strength of their convictions.......which should be admired, not admonished. If their ability to select well in the draft is not good(or they get bad luck), they will lose their jobs(eventually.....one hopes).

 

Unless they are with an AFCE team.

 

 

but no one really knows when anyone will or wont be on the board. its IMPOSSIBLE to ever say "we wont pick that guy now, we KNOW he'll be there in 2 rounds".

 

i think you guys are trying to quantify something that isnt there.

 

I think it's a safe bet for a team to know Marques Colston will still be there in the sixth round. Setting up a draft board is trying to figure out where other teams will rate players so you have a good idea of where they'll fall and be available.

[Brandon]

I like number 2. I agree with that.

 

No need to make jokes about my I like number 2 line.

 

The first definition probably applies more to the guys 60 picks or so into the draft and later. At that point, it really starts becoming a case of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder.' The first two rounds? Not so much, though even those guys after the elite group of 5-15 at the top usually have a significant issue or two in their game and the team-to-team grades may vary significantly.

[Brandon]

i could agree with something along those lines... but that definition has nothing to do with actual draft position. its a strict comparison of talent. and i like that.

 

but its still being judged by guidelines made up by some media guys.

 

I'm talking about on the team's actual board, in both cases.

[Steely Dan]

Who are these people who believe a team can trade down any time they want to? Why don't they say why they believe that? It's just absurd as far as I'm concerned. They really believe that every team has a trade back partner every year?!

[ans4e64]

I think there are too many varying opinions on what a reach in the draft is. This thread gives people a chance to define a reach in their opinion and defend it.

 

To me a reach is a player taken when they will probably be available at their next pick. Too many people think that taking a player earlier than 5-10, 10-20 or 20-30 spots before "the draftniks" have them rated is a reach. If a team rates a player the best fit for them and they can't trade down, trading down is not as easy as some people seem to think*, then I have no problem with a team taking them. Donte Whitner was "a reach" but has outplayed Michael Huff who was taken ahead of him.

A team should take a guy they think is the best fit if he's still on the board and if they don't believe they'll be there at the next pick.

 

* In order to trade down a team needs a trading partner and they must be contacted by another team interested in trading down. IMO, teams don't call other teams to see if they want their pick.

 

So, you think we could have gotten Whitner with our next pick then, right?

 

People are way to excited to call everything a reach nowadays. If we took a WR at #11 this year people would freak out and say we reached. IMO, all of the WRs have 1st round talent. Meaning they all should be selected in the 1st round. Anywhere in the first round is not a reach (maybe top 5). If you have a 1st round grade on a guy, it shouldn't matter if you are at pick #11 or #25, you take the player.

[DrDawkinstein]

I'm talking about on the team's actual board, in both cases.

 

ok, then i really like it

[ans4e64]

Who are these people who believe a team can trade down any time they want to? Why don't they say why they believe that? It's just absurd as far as I'm concerned. They really believe that every team has a trade back partner every year?!

 

I am one of those people and I'll tell you why.

 

Everybody goes nuts over this stupid "trade chart." People think that every little point needs to match up, and if it doesn't, it is not a good trade.

 

Bullsh*t.

 

We are at pick number 11. We want to get out of there because:

 

1.) There is nobody at that slot that is worth the money that fits our team.

2.) The money to be paid out is way too high (my own opinion, this would be if we were in the top 5 or 10).

 

Now, everyone thinks that we need to pick up a second rounder, or even 2 firsts, in order to move down or its not a "good" trade. If we can move down in the draft and pick up even another 3rd, while not having to pay someone top 10 money, who isn't a player we are enamored with anyway, you make the trade. You get out of there. I think there are plenty of teams willing to trade an extra 3rd or 4th, or anything, to move up 10-15 slots.

 

People expect that if we trade back we will get 2 firsts, or a 1st and 2nd. Why is it worth staying there and picking a player you don't want, and paying him all that money, when you could get out of there with another 3rd or 4th AND the player you want? That is a good trade. Forget the god damn trade chart, its ridiculous.

[Steely Dan]

So, you think we could have gotten Whitner with our next pick then, right?

People are way to excited to call everything a reach nowadays. If we took a WR at #11 this year people would freak out and say we reached. IMO, all of the WRs have 1st round talent. Meaning they all should be selected in the 1st round. Anywhere in the first round is not a reach (maybe top 5). If you have a 1st round grade on a guy, it shouldn't matter if you are at pick #11 or #25, you take the player.

 

 

Sorry, that was sarcastic. When I put it in quotes I thought that would make it be sarcastic enough. My point was that the so called "draft experts" called him a reach but he's outplayed the S taken ahead of him.

[ans4e64]

Sorry, that was sarcastic. When I put it in quotes I thought that would make it be sarcastic enough. My point was that the so called "draft experts" called him a reach but he's outplayed the S taken ahead of him.

 

Oh, I see.

 

This is a fantastic thread btw. I was just talking about this topic today with someone.

[Steely Dan]

I am one of those people and I'll tell you why.

 

Everybody goes nuts over this stupid "trade chart." People think that every little point needs to match up, and if it doesn't, it is not a good trade.

 

Bullsh*t.

 

We are at pick number 11. We want to get out of there because:

 

1.) There is nobody at that slot that is worth the money that fits our team.

2.) The money to be paid out is way too high (my own opinion, this would be if we were in the top 5 or 10).

 

Now, everyone thinks that we need to pick up a second rounder, or even 2 firsts, in order to move down or its not a "good" trade. If we can move down in the draft and pick up even another 3rd, while not having to pay someone top 10 money, who isn't a player we are enamored with anyway, you make the trade. You get out of there. I think there are plenty of teams willing to trade an extra 3rd or 4th, or anything, to move up 10-15 slots.

 

People expect that if we trade back we will get 2 firsts, or a 1st and 2nd. Why is it worth staying there and picking a player you don't want, and paying him all that money, when you could get out of there with another 3rd or 4th AND the player you want? That is a good trade. Forget the god damn trade chart, its ridiculous.

 

I still don't believe that there are teams willing to part with a third rounder to move up every time. How do you think it works? Do you think the Bills start calling teams to trade up? If they do then they haven't gotten trade partners in the past. Also, it may be a risk to lose the guy they want. I say stick where they are but if someone calls and offers a third round pick to move up 15 spots and they think a couple of guys they have targeted will still be there I think they'd do it anyway. I just don't think there are that many teams willing to part with high draft picks that much.