- Joined
- Feb 8, 2005
- Messages
- 43,530
- Reaction score
- 24,122
We seem to go through this every year. What's on the Patriots board is not what defines a reach/steal. What defines a reach/steal is a comparison of where the general consensus has a player going with where that player actually goes.
Cannon's a steal if he recovers and can play, because he was originally viewed as a high round pick who ended up getting taken low due to his problems. The RBs are reaches because they were viewed as being lower picks. Whether any of them are quality players is a different question.
It's fine to trot out the "BB's draft board is different!" argument as a way of saying that you don't care if a player is a reach. However, that doesn't change the player to being a non-reach and, if it did, it would negate the "steal/great value" argument in the other direction since, if BB's draft board is different, claims that a player was supposed to go higher simply don't apply because the same "Patriots have a different board" aspect would be in play.
So, Ridley is a reach because you compared Apples to Oranges??
Neither RB was a reach by either definition. Vereen carried a grade between the 2nd and 4th round.. Ridley was rated as high as a 3rd and as low as a 6th..
Every year you attempt to make up some willy-nilly non-sensical explanation as to what defines a reach and what doesn't. Every year, people tell you that you can't compare apples to oranges, yet you do so in the hopes that no one will call you on it..
Last edited: