SI.com: Pats reached on 3 players

[billdog3484]

I cant really get into the draft analysis of guys who know nothing about football. they are journalists, who go by what maybe 2 or 3 "experts" tell them....

 

[Deus Irae]

Let me get this straight.

If the player the Patriots picked works out and the player Mel Kiper thought we should have flops, our pick was still a reach, even though the Patriots have better knowledge of what other teams might have picked than a draft analyst does?

Is it really so difficult to understand something as simple as the word 'reach' being a word used by analysts to describe players taken higher than the range most of the punditry projected that player to be taken in? Seriously?

Of course not. If this was the Lions making these picks, you (and the rest of the people who've suddenly gotten religiong about defining a term) would be all over Millen about how bad his drafting was because he was reaching. Why pretend that this is anything but a bunch of homers getting their backs up because their team is being questioned? Are you going to pretend that you've never graded any team's draft or critiqued any team's pick? If you're not going to make that claim, then you have no leg to stand on.

 

[RayClay]

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.

The Patriots had two fairly high picks coming up in the third round. After Wheatley, they made a trade and still got Crable.

Obviously they wanted Wheatley. Why would they risk not getting the player they wanted by fooling around when they had two more chances to get the player they were supposed to have wanted high in the third?

Says to me they targeted Wheatley.

 

[Deus Irae]

The Patriots had two fairly high picks coming up in the third round. After Wheatley, they made a trade and still got Crable.

Obviously they wanted Wheatley. Why would they risk not getting the player they wanted by fooling around when they had two more chances to get the player they were supposed to have wanted high in the third?

Says to me they targeted Wheatley.

They reached. They took a player they wanted earlier than he was expected to go rather than dropping down and picking up more compensation while still drafting that player at a lower position. If you don't mind that they did that, why do you care that it's called a reach?

The question about those 3rd round picks that people should be asking is this one:

"Given the Chargers recent history of draft success, why the hell would BB trade a pick to San Diego that will likely result in less than a 10 slot improvement next season when they could simply have taken the player the Chargers coveted (Hester) instead, and begun preparing for the post-Faulk days?"

 

[RayClay]

Is it really so difficult to understand something as simple as the word 'reach' being a word used by analysts to describe players taken higher than the range most of the punditry projected that player to be taken in? Seriously?

Of course that's all it is. I thought you were implying the term meant something.

It is a term for a bunch of amateur bookies who have one day a year to show their analysis of something they don't understand.

You'll agree with me that only dunce organizations (there are some) draft based on the consensus of a bunch posers while the top organizations have completely individualized boards and a knowledge of other teams boards so they don't actually reach for players they covet, even if they seem to based on the guys from ESPN etc.

 

[sebman2112]

Is it really so difficult to understand something as simple as the word 'reach' being a word used by analysts to describe players taken higher than the range most of the punditry projected that player to be taken in? Seriously?

Of course not. If this was the Lions making these picks, you (and the rest of the people who've suddenly gotten religiong about defining a term) would be all over Millen about how bad his drafting was because he was reaching. Why pretend that this is anything but a bunch of homers getting their backs up because their team is being questioned? Are you going to pretend that you've never graded any team's draft or critiqued any team's pick? If you're not going to make that claim, then you have no leg to stand on.

OK, so Jerry Rice was a reach then, right? I'll await your answer...

 

[RayClay]

They reached. They took a player they wanted earlier than he was expected to go rather than dropping down and picking up more compensation while still drafting that player at a lower position. If you don't mind that they did that, why do you care that it's called a reach?

Yet they traded the next pick and still got the LB they wanted. To them, any chance of missing Wheatley would have been a failure. they were willing to miss on Crable if they goofed.

If they think Wheatley is great for their system, that's who they pick. Given they had plenty of picks to get the guy hairhat Kiper wanted it wasn't a reach.

Except by the definition that the list a bunch of lounge lizards who've never run a team comes up with is relevant.

 

[RayClay]

"Given the Chargers recent history of draft success, why the hell would BB trade a pick to San Diego that will likely result in less than a 10 slot improvement next season when they could simply have taken the player the Chargers coveted (Hester) instead, and begun preparing for the post-Faulk days?"

Boy, I gave you more credit than this.

So we're supposed to build our team based on the chargers draft board?

 

[Deus Irae]

You'll agree with me that only dunce organizations (there are some) draft based on the consensus of a bunch posers while the top organizations have completely individualized boards and a knowledge of other teams boards so they don't actually reach for players they covet, even if they seem to based on the guys from ESPN etc.

All teams have individualized boards. Some stick to it better than others. Some use the same basic scouting info, while others scout differently. Some, like New England, project 'value' differently than others.

The picks are still reaches. They just tend to be much smarter and more successful reaches. Mankins was a reach no matter how great a player he is. The word is about the draft. It's not about how good the player will end up being.

Or, to put it another way.... If Tom Brady had been drafted in round one, it would have been a reach. The fact that Brady has become arguably the greatest quarterback in the history of the game doesn't somehow alter the fact that he was only a 6th round value in his draft. The success/failure of a player after the fact is where terms like "bust" and "steal" come into play.

 

[RayClay]

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...

Kiper grew up in Baltimore, Maryland and resides in Jarrettsville, Maryland with his family. He attended Calvert Hall College High School and Essex Community College. He never participated in football on any level in high school or college.[13] He is also the uncle on his mother's side of Academy Award winning filmmaker Quentin Tarantino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Kiper_Jr.

 

[Deus Irae]

Kiper grew up in Baltimore, Maryland and resides in Jarrettsville, Maryland with his family. He attended Calvert Hall College High School and Essex Community College. He never participated in football on any level in high school or college.[13] He is also the uncle on his mother's side of Academy Award winning filmmaker Quentin Tarantino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Kiper_Jr.

This changes the fact that he's as well prepared for the draft year to year as pretty much anyone on the planet in what way?

 

[Deus Irae]

Boy, I gave you more credit than this.

So we're supposed to build our team based on the chargers draft board?

This question is just you pulling my leg, right?

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

Hmmm... wasn't one of the evaluators for ESPN a former G.M. for the Titans, for example? Wasn't one working for NFLN a former G.M. of multiple teams, for another example?

Great! 1 guy out of how many? Keep in mind that the millions of dollars from his former owner to ammass hundreds of highly qualified scouts didn't go with him to ESPN.

I'm sure ESPN doesn't spend one tenth of the money that a single team does on scouting.

 

[Deus Irae]

Great! 1 guy out of how many? Keep in mind that the millions of dollars from his former owner to ammass hundreds of highly qualified scouts didn't go with him to ESPN.

I'm sure ESPN doesn't spend one tenth of the money that a single team does on scouting.

How many examples are needed? Do you think the people who do this stuff for the networks don't learn things from guys like Parcells, Gibbs, etc... when they are on their stations? I could, theoretically, come up with a list of thousands and you'd still be arguing because you're not actually arguing the facts. Heck, now you're tossing in financial expenditures. You're just blindly defending the Patriots.

 

[Lampshade]

I still can't get my head around the fact that some people want NFL teams to make picks based on mock drafts.

Charlie Casserly, the former Texans GM, said numerous times during the NFL Network coverage that he hadn't seen tape of certain picks, yet we're supposed to take his grading of a player more seriously than professional scouts and talent evaluators who have watched numerous tapes, held interviews, done background checks etc?

Insane in the extreme.

 

[Deus Irae]

I still can't get my head around the fact that some people want NFL teams to make picks based on mock drafts.

Charlie Casserly, the former Texans GM, said numerous times during the NFL Network coverage that he hadn't seen tape of certain picks, yet we're supposed to take his grading of a player more seriously than professional scouts and talent evaluators who have watched numerous tapes, held interviews, done background checks etc?

Insane in the extreme.

I'm curious..... who has said that they want NFL teams to make picks based upon mock drafts?

 

[Lampshade]

I'm curious..... who has said that they want NFL teams to make picks based upon mock drafts?

What else are reaches based upon?

 

[Deus Irae]

What else are reaches based upon?

Who cares? Using a widely used term in the manner that it's been used historically is not the same as wanting to base a team's draft on mocks. So, again, who has said that they want NFL teams to make picks based upon mock drafts?

 

[Clonamery]

How many examples are needed? Do you think the people who do this stuff for the networks don't learn things from guys like Parcells, Gibbs, etc... when they are on their stations? I could, theoretically, come up with a list of thousands and you'd still be arguing because you're not actually arguing the facts. Heck, now you're tossing in financial expenditures. You're just blindly defending the Patriots.

What was your point again?

They probably learn things as well as I do here.

There's a saying, 'every man is a fool in some man's opinion.'

When O'Connell was chosen, the only one on the 5 member ESPN Politburo (I was at a bar with a mix of fans) who was knowingly in favor (as in, knew who he was and agreed with the pick) was Jaws. They went away to commercial and never came back to discuss the pick.

 

[Deus Irae]

What was your point again?

They probably learn things as well as I do here.

There's a saying, 'every man is a fool in some man's opinion.'

When O'Connell was chosen, the only one on the 5 member ESPN Politburo (I was at a bar with a mix of fans) who was knowingly in favor (as in, knew who he was and agreed with the pick) was Jaws. They went away to commercial and never came back to discuss the pick.

ESPN's second day coverage has always sucked. This year, even some of the first day coverage was terrible. I thought ESPN was really hampered by the format with fewer minutes between picks in the first two rounds, possibly because it's not what the station is used to.