SI.com: Pats reached on 3 players

[Disco Volante]

No, the media wasn't wrong. A 'reach' is a simple thing. It's when a team drafts a player above the general consensus of the projected draft range of that player. The Patriots reached on multiple players in this draft. Whether a player that was 'reached' for works out or not, he's still a 'reach'.

No matter how many times you try to get this through to people - some people just refuse to listen.

Of course we reached this weekend, as said above the reacher has no say in the matter.

 

[Maroney TD]

You're defending a team that reached on almost every pick it made this weekend, so it's not a surprise that you'd take this approach. What the Patriots feel doesn't mean a damned thing when you're talking about a 'reach'. They are the team reaching. If the Patriots had taken the QB in the first round, would you still be claiming they didn't reach? Of course not, because when you play the scenario out to the extreme, it becomes obvious.

The Patriots reached a lot this weekend. If the players pan out, they will be added to the list of Patriots reaches that worked out. If they don't, it will be filed and used for chat fodder during the next few drafts. It's how the game is played.

Logan Mankins was considered a reach when they drafted him too and I have to say I'm happy that the Patriots reached on him. I would absolutely trust BB over anyone else evaluating talent. I really don't care what any of the talking heads think about the players or where they were taken.

 

[bradmahn]

Buffalo was being projected to go either WR or CB by almost every mock I'd seen. Not surprisingly, they drafted a CB.

As for Wheatley, being the 'second corner' doesn't mean he was in a run. I means he was the 'second corner'. Perhaps if he'd not been picked, there wouldn't have been a run. Perhaps he wouldn't have been picked during that run, and almost nothing the GM's or coaches will tell us about this in the near future will be trustworthy. You don't know what would have happened.

They were reaches. Such is life.

It's oh so very ironic for you to proclaim that they were reaches while denouncing my scenario because I "don't know what would have happened."

 

[unoriginal]

Semantics.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's oh so very ironic for you to proclaim that they were reaches while denouncing my scenario because I "don't know what would have happened."

Actually, it's not ironic at all. Not even 1%.

 

[patsfan13]

Yeah I am sick of all these reaches in the draft it is an absolute disgrace, why can't get someone who really understands the talen and how to build the team, Ron Borges is availiable isn't he or Mel Kiper, look at hsi track record in building teams.

Why can't we get pros like Kiper who know how to evaluate talent instead of hacks like BB and SP.

Damn were doomed this roster sucks!!!

 

[Deus Irae]

Logan Mankins was considered a reach when they drafted him too and I have to say I'm happy that the Patriots reached on him. I would absolutely trust BB over anyone else evaluating talent. I really don't care what any of the talking heads think about the players or where they were taken.

And that's a great way to look at it. Would that more people here would take that approach rather than getting their panties in a bunch because someone dared point out that the team reached. If you liked the draft and you don't care about the reaches, more power to you.

In the end, it won't mean anything anyway. Either the players can play, or they can't. A theoretical lost pick here or there isn't helpful, but it's not the end of the world. It's just a way to kill a weekend.

 

[apple strudel]

No, the media wasn't wrong. A 'reach' is a simple thing. It's when a team drafts a player above the general consensus of the projected draft range of that player. The Patriots reached on multiple players in this draft. Whether a player that was 'reached' for works out or not, he's still a 'reach'.

Even under this definition, it's a useless and irrelevant measurement.

 

[bradmahn]

A selection is not a reach if the player would not have been available at the time of the team's next pick. There is no way to determine this, therefore, there is no way to determine whether or not a player was a reach. To do so is stupid, immature, and will resort to name-calling and a general feeling of animosity and disgust.

You can, however, debate the sensibility of that particular selection, and whether or not it was a good pick based on the actual player. There is a reason teams go into a draft saying "a draft is a success if you get [insert number of preference] contributors," regardless of where they were drafted.

The inverse of this (the "value" pick) is just as stupid, especially so when immediately following it they attempt to label the "reaches." If a player falls it is because that is where the player was appraised to be worthy of going. It can be a good pick, or a wise pick for a team based on talent,fit in system, and necessity, but it is not a "value" pick in terms of draft position.

SI labeling their "value" selections is just them skirting the admittance that their original rankings were wrong, and that all of the NFL appraised that player to be less than how the "consensus" draft-geek rankings previously rated. Because they already screwed up big time, don't point to SI as any sort of justification of your belief that a pick was a "reach," because it's just as likely that their designation of a reach is a screw up as well.

 

[Deus Irae]

Even under this definition, it's a useless and irrelevant measurement.

OK, if you feel that way, then stop defending the team about it.

 

[Deus Irae]

A selection is not a reach if the player would not have been available at the time of the team's next pick. There is no way to determine this, therefore, there is no way to determine whether or not a player was a reach. To do so is stupid, immature, and will resort to name-calling and a general feeling of animosity and disgust.

You can, however, debate the sensibility of that particular selection, and whether or not it was a good pick based on the actual player. There is a reason teams go into a draft saying "a draft is a success if you get [insert number of preference] contributors," regardless of where they were drafted.

The inverse of this (the "value" pick) is just as stupid, especially so when immediately following it they attempt to label the "reaches." If a player falls it is because that is where the player was appraised to be worthy of going. It can be a good pick, or a value pick for a team based on talent,fit in system, and necessity, but it is not a "value" pick in terms of draft position.

SI labeling their "value" selections is just them skirting the admittance that their original rankings were wrong, and that all of the NFL appraised that player to be less than how the "consensus" draft-geek rankings previously rated. Because they already screwed up big time, don't point to SI as any sort of justification of your belief that a pick was a "reach," because it's just as likely that their designation of a reach is a screw up as well.

The joy of this post is thinking back to your insult of me on the other thread. How's the hypocrisy tasting now?

 

[patsfan13]

Reaches are irrelevant. BB has his board based on his way of valuing players. They don't participate in the combines the other teams use. HE has his board and goes by it. Impressing M Kiper and the draftnicks is irrelevant. We will have washouts every year cause this is a tough team to make.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I tend to agree. I believe that this was the most puzzling and possibly the worst draft in the BB/Pioli era.

Outside of the trades and the players they received through trades last year, that draft too was a total downer.

It seems as if their slip is beginning to show and quite frankly not only do I as a fan not like it but am very deeply puzzled by it.

The selection of Wheatley in particular when Terrell Thomas was still there and picked next by the Giants.

Most of the reviews that are coming down about the Pats draft are similar. This one was a total dud. Hopefully Mayo will pan out.

Of course, the comments by Si and others as well as my comments, your comments and every body elses comments are strictly speculation and we wont really know until camp begins and moves into pre season.

That being said I still tend to agree with the SI impression and especially regarding Wheatley.

Both days were real head scratchers.

All we can do now is hope for the best and hope that Si and others are wrong but I dont think so.

And I hope that BB just doesnt hang onto them because he has the power to do so and does not want to look bad.

This is a very good team, with Super Bowl possibilities but IMO this kind of draft does not help.

Is it possible that if the Patriots had selected Terrell Thomas on that pick, that the Giants would have selected Wheatley on the next one?

Ummm, more than likely, methinks....

 

[bradmahn]

The joy of this post is thinking back to your insult of me on the other thread. How's the hypocrisy tasting now?

My insult of you? When I said you were touchy? When I said, "what's obvious to you is idiotic to others," as in, what you believe as truth is seen in a different way by other people? That you can go ahead and question the draft, but you don't have to be a douche about it?

Yeah, I stand by all of those comments and there is no hypocrisy in what I said.

 

[Deus Irae]

My insult of you? When I said you were touchy? When I said, "what's obvious to you is idiotic to others," as in, what you believe as truth is seen in a different way by other people? That you can go ahead and question the draft, but you don't have to be a douche about it?

Yeah, I stand by all of those comments and there is no hypocrisy in what I said.

Yeah... you go with that, hypocrite.


P.S. Why don't you go back and read the thread? Start from this post:

http://www.patsfans.com/new-england-patriots/messageboard/showpost.php?p=874130&postcount=362

I acknowledged Belioli's general successes:

In the end, Belioli usually have the last laugh. However, Bethel Johnsons happen even to the best teams and scouts.

and still got attacked.

 

[PatsDeb]

I don't get this "reaching" crap. If there is a player you want in a certain range, and you have no opportunity to trade into a different spot in your range, and you know the guy won't be there next time it's your turn, what are you supposed to do? Take someone else who's rated higher on someone else's draft board?

It's not a reach, it's a reality. Saying the Pats should have traded down and taken Mayo later supposes two things: 1) that there was someone willing to trade who was making a fair offer; and 2) that no one btwn the Pats & their new trading partner was going to take their guy. For cripes sake, if you really want the guy, why go through all that? So you can get some jag in the 4th round with the extra pick you get?

And Logan Mankins was not a "reach." The Pats were right and everyone else's "draft boards" were dead wrong, plain & simple.

 

[Rob0729]

No, the media wasn't wrong. A 'reach' is a simple thing. It's when a team drafts a player above the general consensus of the projected draft range of that player. The Patriots reached on multiple players in this draft. Whether a player that was 'reached' for works out or not, he's still a 'reach'.

Except what is perceived to be a reach may not be. Logan Mankins was considered to be a reach by the media until San Fran came out and said that they were going to take Mankins with the next pick after the Pats if the Pats didn't take them.

Sorry, but reaches are an opinion not a fact, just because most mock drafts don't have a player going at a particular point doesn't mean that one, two, three or even more teams eager to take a "reach player" if the team that takes him didn't. Unless you know what happens in all 32 teams draft rooms, you cannot tell what is a true reach or not. It only takes one other team in the same position to a reach player interested in drafting him to not make him a reach.

 

[Keegs]

That would be lime Me saying that the Pats reached on 3 players. Neither of us are qualified to say such a thing.

 

[Rob0729]

Logan Mankins was considered a reach when they drafted him too and I have to say I'm happy that the Patriots reached on him. I would absolutely trust BB over anyone else evaluating talent. I really don't care what any of the talking heads think about the players or where they were taken.

Except Mankins wasn't a reach, just perceived to be. How can someone be a reach when two teams drafting back to back were both interested in that player and the player in the first spot grabbed him like the Pats did with Mankins.

 

[MosiT]

Is it possible that if the Patriots had selected Terrell Thomas on that pick, that the Giants would have selected Wheatley on the next one?

Ummm, more than likely, methinks....

Not more than likely, but

..... always a possibility, just as much as the possibility that they didnt have Wheatley on their list and instead one of the other corners instead.

Wouldnt you say that is just as much of a possibility? We really dont know what the Giants had on their board, do we.

Charles Godfrey and Chevis Jackson were both still available and in fact were both picked just a few places later.

That being said, if the Pats picked Thomas who is to say that the Giants wouldnt have picked either Godfrey or Jackson?

In fact, both Godfrey and Jackson are both much closer to the height and weight of Thomas more so than Wheatley and IMO I would suggest that the Giants would have taken one of those two instead of Wheatley.

You would agree that would be just as much a possibility, wouldnt you?