Why would anyone be wrong in using the definition as the definition? A reach is a reach. A steal is a steal.
Because your definition is dependent on a very fallible resource. Annually, the draft plays out very differently than what conventional wisdom dictates. Were the collective view truly collective, they wouldn't be so wrong so often. Your argument rests on the belief the media sets the correct draft order and the teams don't. I believe the results of the drafts refute that.
Let's not pretend here, because it belittles us both. If you didn't believe in it, you wouldn't be arguing that someone wasn't one.
I'm here arguing because I think the annual "reach" debate is just grist for the "kool-aid" debate, your raison d'etre on this site. You live for this s***.
In one of Belichick's actual drafts, he had Chad Jackson as a second round talent and worthy of a trade up. He's gone through multiple teams and has done essentially nothing.
That's not the point. Of course people make mistakes. That's why we're saying it's an inexact science. The hours and hours of scouting don't ensure they're gonna nail these picks. There are a lot of unknowns going into the draft, and a lot of unknowns after it's over: injuries, competition, learning playbooks, getting used to the speed, strength training, etc., etc.
We're talking about which entity - media or teams - sets the actual draft order.
You're guessing at Belichick's motive, nothing more.
You're right, I am. It's all guessing. You're guessing that Wilson would be available later, something you don't know any more than I know Belichick's motives.
I'd rather he drafted a WR. I don't really see your point here, probably because your only point is really "don't question Belichick" recycled over and over. Sorry, but nobody is above questioning, and having to wait years to talk about first impressions when there's a thread for posting first impressions is a pretty nonsensical notion to me.
You're wrong, that's not my motive. I question Belichick, too. But I wait for the results to come in before criticizing what I don't have any earthly clue about beforehand. Tate, Price, Butler, et al, we can say in hindsight were poor picks. Time has proven that out. Belichick screwed up. But proof of my way of thinking is Butler; the collective thinking had him as a late first rounder. Reiss even slotted him at the Pats' pick in the first. So when they picked him at 41, everyone said "a steal!"
My way of thinking is that we have no idea whether Butler was reach or steal at 41, because we have no idea who was ready to pounce on him (or not) after that pick.
My MO is bigger than "don't question Belichick". I'm saying trust the teams rather than pundits. When the pundits screw up, it's forgotten and they live to make future mistakes. If some scout on the Patriots was the one pushing Belichick to draft Sapp at 22 in 2010, he probably would no longer be employed by New England.
Teams screw up in the draft a lot. Just look at the first round bust rate. But I'd still trust their opinions over the punditry.