SI.com: Pats reached on 3 players

[Lampshade]

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?

I'm afraid that hair is not going to split any further.

A "reach" is a player taken earlier than expected by the general consensus based on mock drafts.

Does it not bother your argument slightly that Charlie Casserly (a prominent member of "the general consensus") didn't watch tape on many players?

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

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?

So they shouldn't make picks based on mock drafts but IF they deviate more than a smidgeon from them, they "reached".

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm afraid that hair is not going to split any further.

A "reach" is a player taken earlier than expected by the general consensus based on mock drafts.

Does it not bother your argument slightly that Charlie Casserly (a prominent member of "the general consensus") didn't watch tape on many players?

Not even a little bit. Why would it? I'm not the one trying to change the meaning of a term that's been in use for decades. You are.

By the way, under the "Belichick knows best so it can't be a reach" nonsense, let's see everyone explain how Tom Brady fell to the 6th round. How is it possible that the infallible Patriots front office didn't move heaven and earth to draft him in the first round? After all, someone else might have drafted him, right? So, what would be the term for that?

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

By the way, under the "Belichick knows best so it can't be a reach" nonsense, let's see everyone explain how Tom Brady fell to the 6th round. How is it possible that the infallible Patriots front office didn't move heaven and earth to draft him in the first round? After all, someone else might have drafted him, right? So, what would be the term for that?

Tom Brady was a skinny QB project when drafted. He worked his A_S_S off mentally and physically to get where he is today. That's why he was drafted so low.

...and BB's draft pick can be a reach, some of us just object to the castigation of his picks based on some entertainer's (or collection of entertainers') less informed opinion of that player's value.

 

[Deus Irae]

Tom Brady was a skinny QB project when drafted. He worked his A_S_S off mentally and physically to get where he is today. That's why he was drafted so low.

...and BB's draft pick can be a reach, some of us just object to the castigation of his picks based on some entertainer's (or collection of entertainers') less informed opinion of that player's value.

Brady was a 6th round pick. Does every team's scouting, including New England's, suck because they missed out on drafting the G.O.A.T. earlier than that 6th round? Was every pick above Brady miraculously better than him (including, in defiance of the laws of logic, the other quarterbacks)? Or, perhaps, is there a sense of 'value' involved which is part of the drafting process...?

You don't like it because the Patriots are being called out. If it was the Lions, you wouldn't be here arguing about it. Now, tell me that I'm wrong and that you've never, ever rated a player going into the draft, or rated a team's draft picks. I could use the chuckle.

 

[Lampshade]

Not even a little bit. Why would it? I'm not the one trying to change the meaning of a term that's been in use for decades. You are.

By the way, under the "Belichick knows best so it can't be a reach" nonsense, let's see everyone explain how Tom Brady fell to the 6th round. How is it possible that the infallible Patriots front office didn't move heaven and earth to draft him in the first round? After all, someone else might have drafted him, right? So, what would be the term for that?

Nobody is trying to change any term, we are simply stating that the terms themselves, and judging value using those terms, is ridiculous.

Of course the Patriots aren't infallible; it's a silly suggestion. They didn't draft Brady before the 6th round because they didn't know he would be this good. If they did know he was this good he would have gone in round 1. You would have hated the pick, and you would have been wrong.

Do you agree Brady would have been a reach in round 1 (and therefore a bad pick)? And do you further agree that that makes the term meaningless?

 

[Deus Irae]

Nobody is trying to change any term, we are simply stating that the terms themselves, and judging value using those terms, is ridiculous.

No, that's not true. I've been repeatedly told that the Patriots did not reach. Clearly they did, using the appropriate term. Therefore, people are clearly trying to change the term.

Of course the Patriots aren't infallible; it's a silly suggestion. They didn't draft Brady before the 6th round because they didn't know he would be this good. If they did know he was this good he would have gone in round 1. You would have hated the pick, and you would have been wrong.

No, I would have hated the pick, and I would have been right. I understand the idea of value. That's the whole point.

Do you agree Brady would have been a reach in round 1 (and therefore a bad pick)? And do you further agree that that makes the term meaningless?

Of course I agree that he would have been a reach in round one, and of course he doesn't make the term meaningless.

 

[Lampshade]

No, that's not true. I've been repeatedly told that the Patriots did not reach. Clearly they did, using the appropriate term. Therefore, people are clearly trying to change the term.

No, I would have hated the pick, and I would have been right. I understand the idea of value. That's the whole point.

Of course I agree that he would have been a reach in round one, and of course he doesn't make the term meaningless.

Your idea of value seems to be tied-in to the opinions of a group of people whose opinions are ultimately meaningless.

One more hypothetical for you if you don't mind:

2 months ago every scout/GM/pundit/website owner got news that the Pats were going to take Wheatley with their 2nd round pick, and as a result everyone rated him in their publications as a first day talent, and put him in every mock as a 2nd round pick.

Would he still have been a reach, and therefore a bad pick?

 

[Joker]

Tedy Bruschi...3rd rd pick...reach?

Mike Vrabel same...reach?

 

[Joker]

On a day when they could have had impact players David Terrell or Koren Robinson or the second-best tackle in the draft in Kenyatta Walker, they took Georgia defensive tackle Richard Seymour, who had 1 sacks last season in the pass-happy SEC and is too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end. This genius move was followed by trading out of a spot where they could have gotten the last decent receiver in Robert Ferguson and settled for tackle Matt Light, who will not help any time soon. - Ron Borges, MSNBC after 2001 Draft.

Seymour a reach?? Light too?

 

[stcjones]

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 in the SB when he was a swinging bar door........

 

[Deus Irae]

Your idea of value seems to be tied-in to the opinions of a group of people whose opinions are ultimately meaningless.

Whether you (or I) like it or not, the term 'reach' is used in the NFL draft when you are talking about a player who is chosen above the draft range he is expected to be taken at by a general consensus of the analysts and the people they've spoken to about players. That's just the term. It doesn't have the force of law, and players go above and below their expected range without the world coming to an end. Teams that 'reach' don't go to jail for it, and they don't become bad people. Teams that get players that 'slide' don't automatically become good people and get parades in their honor. I didn't invent the word, I merely use it, much like every other word and statistic in sports. It's just more information to process.

What looking at 'reach', 'steal', 'slider' type picks does is makes the pick subject to scrutiny about why it was taken outside of the expected range. This can be because of things that were missed of a positive or negative nature, or it can be because of other reasons (Hello Mr. Lageman, Mr. Moss, Mr. Sapp, etc...).

One more hypothetical for you if you don't mind:

2 months ago every scout/GM/pundit/website owner got news that the Pats were going to take Wheatley with their 2nd round pick, and as a result everyone rated him in their publications as a first day talent, and put him in every mock as a 2nd round pick.

Would he still have been a reach, and therefore a bad pick?

1.) If that's where he was projected to go, how would it be a reach? The question would then become "why the change in draft status?".

2.) Who said that every reach was a bad pick? I've been assured that the Patriots don't reach, and also that any reaches they 'don't' make are great moves.

 

[Lampshade]

Whether you like it or not, the term 'reach' is used in the NFL draft when you are talking about a player who is chosen above the draft range he is expected to be taken at by a general consensus of the analysts and the people they've spoken to about players. That's just the term. It doesn't have the force of law, and players go above and below their expected range without the world coming to an end. Teams that 'reach' don't go to jail for it, and they don't become bad people. Teams that get players that 'slide' don't automatically become good people and get parades in their honor. I didn't invent the word, I merely use it, much like every other word and statistic in sports. It's just more information to process.

What looking at 'reach', 'steal', 'slider' type picks does is makes the pick subject to scrutiny about why it was taken outside of the expected range. This can be because of things that were missed of a positive or negative nature, or it can be because of other reasons (Hello Mr. Lageman, Mr. Moss, Mr. Sapp, etc...).

You seem determined to debate the definition of "reach", even when the definition isn't being challenged.

1.) If that's where he was projected to go, how would it be a reach? The question would then become "why the change in draft status?".

2.) Who said that every reach was a bad pick? I've been assured that the Patriots don't reach, and also that any reaches they 'don't' make are great moves.

Exactly! Projections are guesses at where a player will be drafted, not the ultimate judgement of where they should be drafted. For some reason that I can't fathom you seem to highly value the pre-draft guesses of (mostly) amateurs. If these (mostly) amateurs had better pre-draft info from NFL teams I'm sure their projections would look a whole lot different.

Why Mel Kiper only got 60 (ish) of the top 100 selections correct is what you should be questioning, imo. My guess? He doesn't really know what he's looking for.

 

[Deus Irae]

You seem determined to debate the definition of "reach", even when the definition isn't being challenged.

You seem determined to make it seem as if I live by that definition as the only way to analyze the draft.

Exactly! Projections are guesses at where a player will be drafted, not the ultimate judgement of where they should be drafted. For some reason that I can't fathom you seem to highly value the pre-draft guesses of (mostly) amateurs. If these (mostly) amateurs had better pre-draft info from NFL teams I'm sure their projections would look a whole lot different.

1.) They aren't amateurs.

2.) It's one more method of gaining information.

3.) The draft, like any battle plan, changes upon commencement. Every move leads has ramifications on every other move.

4.) If these people had 'better pre-draft info'.... if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Had the Jets had better info, they would have known that New England wasn't trading up for Robertson. It's the lack of that 'better pre-draft info' that makes the draft worth watching and talking about.

Why Mel Kiper only got 60 (ish) of the top 100 selections correct is what you should be questioning, imo. My guess? He doesn't really know what he's looking for.

My guess? Teams have specific needs, have different ideas of what it takes to play on their particular team and, just like Kiper, make mistakes on players. You're not going to try telling me that none of the 40 selections that Kiper picked that the teams didn't will make teams but all those players that weren't on Kiper's list and went in the top 100 will become long term players for their teams, are you?

Anyone who belittles Kiper about not being an 'expert' should probably think back just to some of the top players taken in recent drafts. Kiper didn't draft Ryan Leaf, no matter what his opinion of him was (Kiper loved his attitude. Man, did he blow that call). He didn't draft Robert Gallery, Reggie Williams, Charles Rogers, Jonathan Sullivan, etc... The 'experts' did. Kiper comments on almost every player as part of his job. There's not a person alive who'd be perfect doing that.

 

[TealSox]

Reaches:

Chris Johnson, Titans: A 4.24 40 time will get your stock up fast. In most all of PFW's rankings, CJ was the 9th or 10th best running back but went ahead of Tashard Choice, Ray Rice, Matt Forte, Kevin Smith, and Jamaal Charles. A 40 time is one thing and I can understand like liking Rice's # of carries in college, but I didn't see CJ being that much better than the rest of the pack. The other thing about it is, being a first round pick is a huge difference in pay from being picked in the second or third.

Jerome Simpson, Bengals: The 6th wideout taken with Malcom Kelly, Limas Sweed and Early Doucet still on the board. All the wideouts this year had some issue and Simpson's was that he came from a small school. He went in the second round when most expected him to go around 4 or 5. No doubt I won't question the Bengals when they pick WRs, but I just call it as I see it.

Matthew Slater, Pats: You can't find this guy in any draft magazine/publication in the United States. As a Pats fan, I have no doubt that BB knew what he was getting with this pick and I applaud the picking of a special team guy. It isn't that much different than drafting a Devin Hester to play special teams in the second round (like the Eagles did with DeSean Jackson). But it is what it is and the kid wasn't on the radar and to any non-NFL GM, shouldn't had seen his name called in any round before the 7th.

Chad Rinehart, Redskins and Jeremy Zuttah, Bucs: Ranked 21 and 24 among offensive tackles (not including guys like Albert that can be transitioned), but found themselves being picked at 96 and 83, respectively. As the trend showed this year and years prior, small school athletes get looked over by scouting publications. Kirk Barton of Ohio State, Drew Radovich of USC and Tony Hills of Texas were going to get higher ranking since writers were more familiar and they assume GMs would be interested in level of competition.


Chilo Rachal, 49ers: Opposite of the trend, but definitely a need for the 49ers, Rachal was respected for the level of his competition while playing at USC. He only went in the second round while being ranked in as a third or fourth rounder. No big deal, but was a bit of a shocker considering the negatives floating around.

Jerod Mayo, Patriots: This guy will prove he should had been ranked high by some publication, but for those Monday morning GMs, he was expected to go in round two and not in the top 10. I'll defend him as a reach to anyone because I feel there was a lot of demand, he fit the system, and the prospects for the Pats was grossly limited. Hurts that he will get paid big money, but I know he will earn it in time.

Antoine Cason, Chargers/Reggie Corner, Bills/Dwight Lowery, Jets/Jonathan Wilhite, Pats: Cason and Lowery were well liked in December, but lost favor by a number of publications. Lowery was loved as a ballhawk and Cason was the shutdown corner every team wanted by all accounts of his play in AZ. I like Cason a lot and it pained me to see the Chargers take him, but I really thought he would drop into the early mid-second round. PFW expected him to go in the 3rd or 4th. I didn't see that, but it was possible considering how much Will Poole dropped a few years ago. I thought Lowery would go earlier than PFW predicted (5th-6th round).

Corner and Wilhite as much the same, but it isn't as if they were taken before any other top ranked corner with the exception of DeJuan Tribble and Trae Williams. Not that much of a reach when you consider a team only has a few shots at a guy or risk losing him all together.

 

[tuckeverlasting]

every year they do this to me. their pick comes up and i'll have a guy in mind and when they make their selection i'm like "who" and every year they prove me wrong. some people choose to question what works. i prefer to question the so called "experts". especially chicken head. we've proved him wrong so many times that his opinion has been rendered meaningless. si is so generic, i wouldn't waste my time.


i do respect kiper because he loves the draft like me.

 

[RayClay]

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?

Well prepared to make bad picks.

Let's look at the stats...

Inside knowledge...zero

Football experience at the Pro, College or High school level..zero

Actual predictive results...very poor.

He is well prepared to compile statistics and bite on rumors that apparently have no relevance to the people who run the NFL.

 

[RayClay]

Joel Buschbaum brought the NFL draft into prominence, not Kiper.

The fact that Kiper is trying to take his mantel and compiles tons of statistics doesn't change the fact that Buschbaum was good at what he did and had the respect of football men as well as some actual connections (knew the difference between information and propaganda too).

Kiper wasn't fit to shine his shoes as far as understanding the game of football.

 

[Lampshade]

You seem determined to make it seem as if I live by that definition as the only way to analyze the draft.

1.) They aren't amateurs.

2.) It's one more method of gaining information.

3.) The draft, like any battle plan, changes upon commencement. Every move leads has ramifications on every other move.

4.) If these people had 'better pre-draft info'.... if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Had the Jets had better info, they would have known that New England wasn't trading up for Robertson. It's the lack of that 'better pre-draft info' that makes the draft worth watching and talking about.

My guess? Teams have specific needs, have different ideas of what it takes to play on their particular team and, just like Kiper, make mistakes on players. You're not going to try telling me that none of the 40 selections that Kiper picked that the teams didn't will make teams but all those players that weren't on Kiper's list and went in the top 100 will become long term players for their teams, are you?

Anyone who belittles Kiper about not being an 'expert' should probably think back just to some of the top players taken in recent drafts. Kiper didn't draft Ryan Leaf, no matter what his opinion of him was (Kiper loved his attitude. Man, did he blow that call). He didn't draft Robert Gallery, Reggie Williams, Charles Rogers, Jonathan Sullivan, etc... The 'experts' did. Kiper comments on almost every player as part of his job. There's not a person alive who'd be perfect doing that.

I think this discussion has gotten way off track with irrelevant debates.

My personal feelings are:

The draft is an inexact science. The Patriots will be wrong about players sometimes, and the pre-draft general consensus (pdgc) will be wrong about players sometimes. However, NFL teams have a far greater knowledge of how players are valued by other teams, so it makes little sense to put greater stock into the pdgc player rankings than you do in NFL teams.

As long as "reach", "slider", "steal" aren't used in any way to judge the quality of a draft then I'm a happy bunny.

I like Mel Kiper, but it's clear he is more out of touch than ever when it comes to player rankings. Possibly because NFL teams don't give him the same info they give Mayock etc.

 

[bradmahn]

Pointing to Kiper and Mayock and other draft publications is going to wind up showing a lot more later round "reaches" (even early ones, apparently) because they compile generic player rankings (the "BIG BOARD!") without regard for system or the type of player that teams are looking for. That 4-3 LB who weighs 228 lbs is not going to be near the top of the Patriots list because he doesn't have a position for this team. On top of that, they are also pretty specific about cornerbacks.

How many fantastic 3-4 prospects come out every year compared to 4-3 ones? A lot fewer. Teams create their big boards specifically for the systems they run so these generic rankings made by Kiper, for instance, mean nothing to them. That said, who do you think has a better understanding of what fellow NFL teams do, Mel Kiper or Bill Belichick, Scott Pioli, and their draft team? Kiper and all of your members of the media are far less "in the know" and every year you see them point to great numbers of reaches and steals when they should be evaluating why their original rankings were so off in the first place.