Let's say that a team does an accurate job of assessing the top 200 players in a draft, and that out of those top 200, through extensive analysis finds that only 25 are actually strong possible fits for your scheme or your selection criteria. The other 175 on the board, if on your team, wouldn't be good fits or would be sub-optimal, so you basically ignore or de-value them. If you are sitting at #10 and you estimate that your next highest-ranked 'fit' player will be picked within the next 5, 10, or even 25 picks, it doesn't matter if other people think you are reaching. You are picking the best player on your board, for your team. What good does it do to pick the best talent regardless of fit, when you are trying to build a team that excels in your specific scheme or organizational mission/philosophy? A team that truly believes in its own values, system, and organization will not hesitate to pass over who 3rd party observers consider to be superior talent. The entire debate of who was a reach, does not matter. It does not matter if people think picking Seymour, Warren, Watson, Mankins, Mayo came out of nowhere, if the Pats thought those highest ranked fit players would not last to the next round. The only analogy I can give as additional explanation is think of a fantasy baseball draft. If pre-draft I know that I want to build a team with excellent pitching, on base percentage, and steals, I will value those players higher than other teams do. If I highly value Chone Figgins for his potential contributions under my team strategy, and I know he won't last through the next round, it doesn't matter if I pick him much higher than is expected. Even if people think I am 'reaching' on picks, I am building my team under my vision, and picking players I know will not last if I do not pick them in those specific rounds.