SI.com: Pats reached on 3 players

[Deus Irae]

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.

above the general consensus of the projected draft range of that player

Even if a second team happens to like the player (See Mankins, Logan), it's still a reach. The notion that 2 teams are willing to reach instead of one doesn't change the general consensus. Therefore, it doesn't change the pick to a 'non' reach. There are certain terms used for the draft with pretty accepted definitions: riser, slider, steal and value would be examples. So would reach.

They reached this weekend. They reached with Logan Mankins. They've reached before Logan Mankins. They'll reach again. It doesn't make them bad people. It makes them a team that's frequently willing to reach, nothing more. It opens them up to questioning, but they've been right more often than they've been wrong. It doesn't mean people have to stop questioning.

 

[unoriginal]

So if I've got this reaching thing straight, it is the press that sets the relative value of players in the draft, just as it is the press' voting that determines players of the year. What any NFL teams have to say about where any player should have gone is irrelevant.

 

[MosiT]

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

Exactly but in the world of messageboards where there are differing of opinions, and it appears that there are a lot of pats fans that think the draft was weak while others think it was good.

And that is how the world works. We will eventually find out which is the fact, wont we?

Until then all we have is opinion. Some of it like BBs and Piolis are allegedly based on experience albeit not always correct.

Other opinion is based on just being a fan and that too is sometimes right and sometime wrong. Would you agree?

That being said there is no need for some of the arrogant comments that are made to those that think one way compared to the way of another.

People who do that are very childish and ignorant, IMO.

With due respect to BB and Pioli they make mistakes too because as much as some might not want to admit...they are human.

How many times have we all heard that \\\"I trust BB and Pioli more than anyone to make the decisions.\" Well so do I because that is their job Doesnt always make them right though, does it?l

l

 

[MosiT]

So if I\'ve got this reaching thing straight, it is the press that sets the relative value of players in the draft, just as it is the press\' voting that determines players of the year. What any NFL teams have to say about where any player should have gone is irrelevant.

So are you saying that the press can never be right and a coach can never be wrong?

 

[Deus Irae]

So if I've got this reaching thing straight, it is the press that sets the relative value of players in the draft, just as it is the press' voting that determines players of the year. What any NFL teams have to say about where any player should have gone is irrelevant.

Well, let's be fair about this.

A.) The press is comprised of a lot of former players, coaches, GMs, scouts, etc... as well as the regular geeks.

B.) The 32 teams aren't about to publish a 'consensus' manual for people to work off of.

C.) One of the great ironies of these threads insisting that the team didn't reach is that this board had plenty of pre-draft threads predicting where people would be picked, which players the team should pick and where, etc... and it's not as if none of those complaining that picks are being called reaches participated in the pre-draft threads and/or conversations with friends, etc...

 

[unoriginal]

Well, let's be fair about this.

A.) The press is comprised of a lot of former players, coaches, GMs, scouts, etc... as well as the regular geeks.

B.) The 32 teams aren't about to publish a 'consensus' manual for people to work off of.

C.) One of the great ironies of these threads insisting that the team didn't reach is that this board had plenty of pre-draft threads predicting where people would be picked, which players the team should pick and where, etc... and it's not as if none of those complaining that picks are being called reaches participated in the pre-draft threads and/or conversations with friends, etc...

(A) The cretins far outnumber the savants, which has been demonstrated to us time and again.
(B) Lack of good information is not improved by bad information.
(C) If those people believe they have equal or better eyes for talent than the Pats do, I cry for them. The ones with a healthy view of the process play it as prediction or play at being a GM, not actually grading this team or any other.

3 or 4 years from now, when this draft is really graded, no one will really give a **** about the mocks. The real evaluation will be if the player turned out to have value, if there were good reasons they didn't have success, and what other players were still available at the time.

 

[Deus Irae]

(A) The cretins far outnumber the savants, which has been demonstrated to us time and again.

Given that it's opinion, and the players generally do fall in the ranges the press gives them, I'd disagree with you here. History favors the consensus when it comes to where players tend to fall.

(B) Lack of good information is not improved by bad information.

How does this change anything being talked about? A reach is still a reach. Furthermore, there is a lot of 'good information' gotten. Taking this draft as an example, the press had the top players in advance of the picks being made. Hell, people here had a thread pimping Holley's info regarding Mayo, just for one obvious example.

(C) If those people believe they have equal or better eyes for talent than the Pats do, I cry for them. The ones with a healthy view of the process play it as prediction or play at being a GM, not actually grading this team or any other.

Grading is done by the media outlets to put more stories out. It has nothing to do with anything but generating income and interest. Individuals do it because it's a fun, harmless thing to do and they can look back later and see how they did. It's clear to anyone who's followed the sport for even a couple of years that 'winning' the draft doesnt automatically equate with great talent evaluation.

3 or 4 years from now, when this draft is really graded, no one will really give a **** about the mocks. The real evaluation will be if the player turned out to have value, if there were good reasons they didn't have success, and what other players were still available at the time.

Realistically, nobody will really care about the mocks in a lot less time than that. That still doesn't change the definition of reach or mean that the Patriots didn't reach on some of their picks.

 

[Captain Cliche]

A "reach" could also mean the draftnicks were clueless.

Logan Mankins was off the "experts" radar...so labeled a reach. He was, however valued by many teams and in retrospect an excellent pick.

Reach is an artificail term synonimous with "clueless draft expert covering his ass".

I would venture a guess that most teams have at best a 50/50 record on first round picks becoming productive. They would love to have the record of sucess New England has had with their continued first round "reaches". In these cases, the "experts" were wrong.

 

[unoriginal]

Deus, the disagreement between you and your opposition is that you define a reach in terms of draft gurus and the here and now, and they define reach with n eye to what a player will do in the NFL; consequently the reach designation is static to you (what looks like a reach on draft day will always be a reach) and flexible to them (Deion Branch turns from a reach into a steal after he wins SB MVP).

Now, if you want to argue which frame of reference is more useful, I'd say it depends on what you care more about; evaluating potential or evaluating results.

 

[Deus Irae]

Deus, the disagreement between you and your opposition is that you define a reach in terms of draft gurus and the here and now, and they define reach with n eye to what a player will do in the NFL; consequently the reach designation is static to you (what looks like a reach on draft day will always be a reach) and flexible to them (Deion Branch turns from a reach into a steal after he wins SB MVP).

Now, if you want to argue which frame of reference is more useful, I'd say it depends on what you care more about; evaluating potential or evaluating results.

The disagreement is that I'm calling Patriots picks reaches. If I'd used the exact same term to describe another team's maneuvers, there'd be near universal agreement. Because I'm using it to describe Patriots picks, people are trying to alter the definition in order to defend Belioli.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

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?

First off, Godfrey is listed as a free safety. Let's not mix apples and oranges, OK?

I don't really care about Godfrey or Jackson - or Thomas, for that matter. While it's of course possible that such scenarios are possible (in the widest, deepest philosophical sense!), the real question is, who would fit best into this system, given their talents? Are height and weight the determining factors of what makes a good corner, system or otherwise? I think not. Interesting stuff, perhaps, but given the track record of the guy who builds the team, coaches them, and calls the shots, I'll put my money on him.

If you look at the results from the combine, Wheatley's numbers compare very favorably to those who are perceived to be his "betters". The kid does have some durability concerns, but he knows the position, knows the game, and is supposed to be quite coachable.

I'm sure Belichick evaluated all the names you've posted, and came to the conclusion that this kid was the best fit for what he was looking for.

The whole trouble with posts like yours is you sound agonizingly like Ron Borges castigating Belichick for selecting Richard Seymour, rather than David Terrell.

I'm really quite sure he's got a better grasp on his team and it's needs than you.

With all due respect, of course....

 

[unoriginal]

The disagreement is that I'm calling Patriots picks reaches. If I'd used the exact same term to describe another team's maneuvers, there'd be near universal agreement. Because I'm using it to describe Patriots picks, people are trying to alter the definition in order to defend Belioli.

Are you calling them reaches because you think they won't amount to jack squat in the NFL - when you'd expect a player selected in that round to be better - or are you calling them reaches because you think no other team would have selected them in that round? The first one is forward-looking and will be borne out either way, the second is static and evaluates the draft as its own sport.

That's the disagreement. As for the people who are 100% homers; they aren't worth arguing football with.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

(A) The cretins far outnumber the savants, which has been demonstrated to us time and again.
(B) Lack of good information is not improved by bad information.
(C) If those people believe they have equal or better eyes for talent than the Pats do, I cry for them. The ones with a healthy view of the process play it as prediction or play at being a GM, not actually grading this team or any other.

3 or 4 years from now, when this draft is really graded, no one will really give a **** about the mocks. The real evaluation will be if the player turned out to have value, if there were good reasons they didn't have success, and what other players were still available at the time.

This was a good post. Valuable insight is being offered here.

The fallacy of this "reach" argument is that we, the fans, have permitted the media to define the terms of this shibboleth. A "reach", in this context, is what the press thinks it is, not what the 32 GMs who actually engage in the exercise think it is. In reality, these guys are the outsiders, trying to impress their mindset on the hoi polloi, in hopes, perhaps, of being accepted by them as an "insider", one who knows the most secretive and recondite workings of professional football's Inner Sanctum on the last weekend in April.

The simple fact of the matter is, they don't know any more than you or me. They just make their living mooing like cows and fully expecting to be viewed and accepted as Brahmins.

No thanks.

While their prognostications are sometimes interesting, or on rare occasions even spirited and entertaining, in the end their words will be forgotten as quickly as yesterday's editorial, if not sooner.

I especially liked your use of the term, "cretins". I've always admired people who call a spade a spade.

 

[Joker]

Did you know the cretins have their own rock anthem? Yep..."4-5-6-7...all good cretins go to heaven"

 

[Deus Irae]

Are you calling them reaches because you think they won't amount to jack squat in the NFL - when you'd expect a player selected in that round to be better - or are you calling them reaches because you think no other team would have selected them in that round? The first one is forward-looking and will be borne out either way, the second is static and evaluates the draft as its own sport.

That's the disagreement. As for the people who are 100% homers; they aren't worth arguing football with.

Neither. I'm calling them reaches for one reason, and one reason only: They went higher than the general consensus thought they would. It's a simple and harmless definition that is what has been the basic definition for decades, which is why all the hostility about it is silly. When you draft a 'third round pick' in the first round, you've reached. That player could turn out to be the greatest player ever to lace them up. You still reached on draft day.

Now, it's possible that a team reaches for perfectly valid reasons. The drafting of Mankins has been used to argue that these aren't reaches because the 49ers claimed that they'd have taken him with the next pick. However, it was still a reach, it was just a reach with an allegedly good reason (you can't believe anything teams say about the draft afterwards any more than you can believe what they say before the draft).

The reason that 'reach' does have a legitimate place in the discussion is because of the notion of value. Taking Branch in the second round makes Belioli look great. However, taking him in the second round when it's likely (just an example, not an argument) that he wouldn't have been taken until the 4th round means that the team overspent on him rather than dropping down to pick up additional picks. Just for dropping from 7 to 10 this year, New England picked up a 3rd round pick (and lost a 5th). That's the value of dropping down, and it's lost when a team reaches.

And I know that the next arguments are often going to be "there was nobody there to trade with" or "he would have been taken", but we don't actually know that and can only guess as to whether or not it's true. One argument tossed out, for example, was that Buffalo might have grabbed Mayo. Well, most people had Buffalo going for either a WR or CB. It's just as likely, if not more likely, that the team could have dropped down anywhere in front of Detroit and still gotten Mayo.

As I've said repeatedly, Belioli's picks when they reach tend to work out. That doesn't mean that they weren't reaches.

 

[Sean Pa Patriot]

I do think that Slater was a huge reach, but to me it says they did not value the latter half of the draft that high.. Rudd is camp competion, and O Conner was probably the highest guy on thier board at that time.. Just like Crable was earlier...Whilhite, also probably the highest guy on thier board..


So the only reach you would have to say is Slater, if he becomes the next Troy Brown, by that I mean jack of all trades, then they look like a genius, if not then its a reach...

But no one knows about anything for about 3 yrs..

Heck after this yr, people will say Jay Cutler from Denver was a reach, we dont know..

 

[simkin_belinelli]

SI is right,and mayo is a reach too.I f connor downs to 3 rounf,Mayo can be our 2 round pick

 

[primetime]

There have been other guys who wore wide receiver numbers and played exclusively on special teams.

Steve Tasker comes to mind. He was pretty good back in the day (and deserves to be in the Hall of Fame, "pretty good" is an understatement). For what it's worth, a special teams maven is worth a lot to a team. The front office must have been damn impressed with Slater.

 

[Julius]

How do you define someone as a reach if you don't know every teams draft board? There is very little consensus for where a player ranks after the first few couple rounds. Too me it is more of a reach to draft guys that have no role or can't find a niche on the team. There is no room for developmental players on this Patriots team. They do not have the luxury of bringing in a bunch of developmental players with upside and letting them learn the system. Look at last year after the second round the Pats were basically drafting for other teams rosters.
This year they bring in a special teamer with no position. This guy can be a gunner and kick returner. This will be highly valuable to the team and keep Welker,Hobbs,Maroney,Jackson away from having to play those roles and risk injury. If your fifth round pick keeps your other skill players out of harms way then he is more than worth the draft pick.

 

[GuyClinch]

The problem with the press labeling a guy as a "reach" is that it indicates they were aware of the other teams draft boards. They were not - so you can't say they were "reaches" or not.

All the press can say is that they were 'reaches" with regard to the talent board they have..which of course is not real.

Pete