SI.com: Pats reached on 3 players

[brdmaverick]

When have I heard the Pats criticized for reaching before? Oh yeah, when they drafted Richard Seymour, Ty Warren, Logan Mankins, Asante Samuel, Deion Branch, and Ben Watson. All those picks were criticized by the media as stretches or outright bad picks. And the media were wrong.

Asante was considered a reachin the fourth round?

 

[hambone1818]

Damnit...came to this discussion WAAAAY too late. But I wanted to point out one thing that bothered me to no end:

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.

You are absolutely 100% incorrect on this. The 'general consensus' is all well and good; there are some pretty smart people who spend a good amount of time and get paid alot of money to analyze the draft and the relative value of players. However, that's analysis in a vacuum--which is to say that these analysts are looking more at a player's abilities and less at team needs and philosophies. Take it out of that vacuum: on draft day, there are smarter people who spend their life and get paid even more money to analyze the relative value of players to their team. So to you, Mankins was a reach because a few 'analysts' said he should have gone later. But in reality, it turns out that another team would have taken him with the next pick--meaning the Pats would have lost out on a player they coveted.

My second point is along the same lines: at what point does a pick goes from a reach to a good pick? How, exactly, is this determined? Because the Pats would have certainly lost Mayo if they waited another 5 picks for him, and may have lost him if they waited just one more pick. Is that really a reach?

Finally, I wanted to point out a general principal of economics: the value of anything, in an open market, is what the highest bidder is willing to spend on that particular item. In the context of the NFL draft, that means that the value of any one player is the draft slot a team is willing to use on that player (and, thus, the amount of money associated with that slot, as well as the opportunity cost of not using that pick on someone else or trading it for some other pick/player). So your 'reach' term is actually nothing more than a fabrication of the media and placing a value on something that, quite frankly, they're not qualified to judge (because, as I pointed out earlier, there are people smarter and more prepared than them making the actual selections).

I won't say the Patriots are infallible...they've made some poor choices in the past, and it may turn out that some of these selections don't work out. But after listening to Belichick's presser they have some well thought-out and researched reasons for picking the guys they did, so Kiper can put the dreaded 'reach' label on every single pick they made and I'll still be confident in the selections.

 

[Deus Irae]

Damnit...came to this discussion WAAAAY too late. But I wanted to point out one thing that bothered me to no end:



You are absolutely 100% incorrect on this. The 'general consensus' is all well and good; there are some pretty smart people who spend a good amount of time and get paid alot of money to analyze the draft and the relative value of players. However, that's analysis in a vacuum--which is to say that these analysts are looking more at a player's abilities and less at team needs and philosophies. Take it out of that vacuum: on draft day, there are smarter people who spend their life and get paid even more money to analyze the relative value of players to their team. So to you, Mankins was a reach because a few 'analysts' said he should have gone later. But in reality, it turns out that another team would have taken him with the next pick--meaning the Pats would have lost out on a player they coveted.

Yeah... umm.

No. Mankins was a reach. It has nothing to do with my analysis of him, either before or after the draft. Seriously, this stuff isn't hard, and it's not anything that's changed in decades. Homers who get their panties in a bunch because they can't handle one of 'their' players being called a reach should probably consider the health of their obsession with the team.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

Yeah... umm.

No. Mankins was a reach. It has nothing to do with my analysis of him, either before or after the draft. Seriously, this stuff isn't hard, and it's not anything that's changed in decades. Homers who get their panties in a bunch because they can't handle one of 'their' players being called a reach should probably consider the health of their obsession with the team.

The "General Consensus" on Logan Mankins in that draft was, he was the 3rd rated guard. I believe his overall standing among all collegians in that draft was #65.

Hambone's got a point. If the Pats pass on Mankins, and select someone else who is more palatable to the Kipers of the world, by the time they get to pick again, the guy they originally wanted is long gone.

Such exercises in futility may make Mr. Kiper smile, make him feel proud of himself, and it may even entertain the likes of you! But it does nothing for the team, and by extension, it's fans.

Why don't you run your comment about "this stuff isn't hard" by Scott Pioli, and come back and tell us how well that went over?

Ordinarily, Deus, I like your posts, but on this particular subject you're really "reaching"!

 

[maverick4]

This entire argument of who is a reach is based on external standards from 3rd party observers, whose opinions frankly mean nothing.

If I am in an auction and I find a piece of art that I want, and the price I bid to win is still a huge bargain compared to its true value, yet the bid was more than what most people would have guessed as reasonable, who cares if people say it was 'a reach'?

Basically, there is no point arguing semantics. It doesn't matter if outside observers think a draft pick was a reach or not.

 

[Deus Irae]

The "General Consensus" on Logan Mankins in that draft was, he was the 3rd rated guard. I believe his overall standing among all collegians in that draft was #65.

Hambone's got a point. If the Pats pass on Mankins, and select someone else who is more palatable to the Kipers of the world, by the time they get to pick again, the guy they originally wanted is long gone.

Such exercises in futility may make Mr. Kiper smile, make him feel proud of himself, and it may even entertain the likes of you! But it does nothing for the team, and by extension, it's fans.

Why don't you run your comment about "this stuff isn't hard" by Scott Pioli, and come back and tell us how well that went over?

Ordinarily, Deus, I like your posts, but on this particular subject you're really "reaching"!

I assume Scott Pioli is smart enough to understand the idea of reaches. I assume BB is also smart enough to understand them. After all, both of them have been following the drafts for a long time. They understand full well that Mankins was a reach, just to point to your example, and they don't care. If I were drafting in their stead, I wouldn't care either.

What's truly been amusing is looking around at team messageboard after team messageboard and seeing the same thing being repeated all over the country.

Draft threads
Threads grading the draft
Threads insulting those who evaluate the draft for the media
Threads grading the draft of other teams
Threads with homers insisting that player "a" was a good pick

Those threads have people doing precisely what people talking about 'reaches' are doing, except from a positive side for their team or player.

Here, just for one example, is Lampshade:

I'd be okay with Albert at #7.

The Ray Rice pick seems to be cropping up in a curious number of mocks.

So, he's 'okay' with Albert at #7. How is that not analyzing the player and the draft position? Was he 'okay' with Albert at #7 before Albert became a late riser? How is it inherently different than saying "I'm not okay with Mayo at #10"?

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Sky's blue, water's wet, Patriots reached. Patriots homers pretend the team didn't reach even though they laugh at other teams when they do the same things New England did, and assail those who dare to point out the reaches.

Welcome to the yearly NFL draft weekend. The same thing will probably happen next year. Fortunately, none of it matters in the end.

I love bulletin boards erupting into celebration over rival "reaches", whether us or somebody else (say Indy.)

Think about it. Indy drafts well. SD drafts well. We draft well. Pittsburgh drafts well. A few other teams.

Minnesota typically doesn't. Detroit doesn't. The Jets don't. ...

So if you're saying one of the less good drafting teams reached, you are just saying you're smarter than bad personnel guys who nonetheless are in the league. When you say NE, Indy, SD, etc reached, you are saying you know better than guys who do this every year, and have a track record of doing it successfully, and furthermore you are saying it AT THE TIME OF THE DRAFT, not after a couple of years when those picks can be evaluated.

Furthermore, we all like to think we know for a fact that the highest guy left on the board "would have been there" at our next pick, but teams keep their draft boards very secret, and they always differ SUBSTANTIALLY from what the media say... you can check out any draft and see players "rise" or "slide" on draft day. Media guesstimates about where a player will go or "should" go -- including websites full of "scouts" and "draftniks" -- mean nothing.

So yeah, I think it's dumb to talk about the better teams "reaching." We're pretending we know something we don't. But that's exactly what pre-draft hype is all about.

Some of the crappier drafting teams? Different story. But their personnel guys are probably still a hell of a lot smarter than a bulletin board contributor.

PFnV

 

[dryheat44]

I do agree there was no need to trade up to get Slater. I'm sort of a draft-obsessive guy, and I'd never heard of him. To give up a seventh round pick to move up five slots for him was unnecessary. It tells me that Belichick felt it was more important to start working on his priority free agent list than stick around for the seventh round and pick a guy who almost certainly wouldn't make the team. It was a reach, and an unnecessary overpayment, but as I tell my boss everytime I leave a meeting early, it "wasn't the most productive use of my time" to hang around the draft room after the sixth round.

I also think Groves was a huge steal at #52.

 

[nepatz11]

The Matt Slater pick is really mind boggling. Where does he fit in with the recievers the Pats already have? I doubt Slater will make the team. However, reading that Wheatley "gets beat deep on a regular basis" kind of scares me. But then again, when I need good analysis, I never turn to cnnsi. Most of the time they are wrong and have no idea what their talking about. Also, we have to take all the info we read online now with a grain of salt because 99.9% of America hates the New England Patriots.

actually a recent poll ranked the Patriots as the sixth most popular pro sports franchise in America (all sports combined)

also pats fan in va hit the nail on the head. i think bb knows way more than some washed up loser scout who works for si.com

 

[Lloyd_Christmas]

"Homers who get their panties in a bunch because they can't handle one of 'their' players being called a reach should probably consider the health of their obsession with the team."

"What's truly been amusing is looking around at team messageboard after team messageboard and seeing the same thing being repeated all over the country."

The irony here is amusing.

Join us later today for

Post 5041: Advanced Shillistic Strategies of Reach Denial by Deus Irae

 

[Lampshade]

I assume Scott Pioli is smart enough to understand the idea of reaches. I assume BB is also smart enough to understand them. After all, both of them have been following the drafts for a long time. They understand full well that Mankins was a reach, just to point to your example, and they don't care. If I were drafting in their stead, I wouldn't care either.

What's truly been amusing is looking around at team messageboard after team messageboard and seeing the same thing being repeated all over the country.

Draft threads
Threads grading the draft
Threads insulting those who evaluate the draft for the media
Threads grading the draft of other teams
Threads with homers insisting that player "a" was a good pick

Those threads have people doing precisely what people talking about 'reaches' are doing, except from a positive side for their team or player.

Here, just for one example, is Lampshade:



So, he's 'okay' with Albert at #7. How is that not analyzing the player and the draft position? Was he 'okay' with Albert at #7 before Albert became a late riser? How is it inherently different than saying "I'm not okay with Mayo at #10"?

Are you kidding?

Do you actually read anyone's posts or just decide for yourself what point they're making?

Maybe if I write this in CAPITALS FOR YOU:

PRE-DRAFT RANKINGS AND SPECULATION MEAN NOTHING! MY PRE-DRAFT RANKINGS AND SPECULATION MEAN NOTHING.

I HAVE SEEN MAYBE 1/1000000th OF THE TAPE THE PATRIOTS AND OTHER NFL FRANCHISES HAVE.

BELIEVING THAT MY OPINION ON WHERE A PLAYER SHOULD BE DRAFTED IS THE RIGHT ONE DESPITE BEING BASED ON COMPARATIVELY LITTLE WOULD MAKE ME ARROGANT IN THE EXTREME.

 

[dryheat44]

PRE-DRAFT RANKINGS AND SPECULATION MEAN NOTHING! MY PRE-DRAFT RANKINGS AND SPECULATION MEAN NOTHING.

I HAVE SEEN MAYBE 1/1000000th OF THE TAPE THE PATRIOTS AND OTHER NFL FRANCHISES HAVE.

BELIEVING THAT MY OPINION ON WHERE A PLAYER SHOULD BE DRAFTED IS THE RIGHT ONE DESPITE BEING BASED ON COMPARATIVELY LITTLE WOULD MAKE ME ARROGANT IN THE EXTREME.

This entire thread could've began and ended with this post. The people who make mock drafts watch very little game film, don't interview prospects on football matters, and don't work players out. I find it absolutely hysterical that bobbleheads will grade a team's draft based on who and where they drafted compared to a composite of journalists and bloggers, which basically is a circular, copy-cat enterprise (and I include myself in that number). I would love to lock each person who does a mock draft in a room for six months with no access to other folks' mock drafts and see the result. I'm willing to bet that there's not going to be any clear-cut consensus that Jake Long is the top tackle, followed by Clady, Williams, Otah, Cherilus, and Baker, which was the order almost every publication printed. Or Matt Ryan followed by Brohm, Flacco, Henne, and Booty. Or Dorsey, Ellis, Balmer, Laws.

 

[Lampshade]

This entire thread could've began and ended with this post. The people who make mock drafts watch very little game film, don't interview prospects on football matters, and don't work players out. I find it absolutely hysterical that bobbleheads will grade a team's draft based on who and where they drafted compared to a composite of journalists and bloggers, which basically is a circular, copy-cat enterprise (and I include myself in that number). I would love to lock each person who does a mock draft in a room for six months with no access to other folks' mock drafts and see the result. I'm willing to bet that there's not going to be any clear-cut consensus that Jake Long is the top tackle, followed by Clady, Williams, Otah, Cherilus, and Baker, which was the order almost every publication printed. Or Matt Ryan followed by Brohm, Flacco, Henne, and Booty. Or Dorsey, Ellis, Balmer, Laws.

That would be a very intersting exercise.

I think it's a safe bet we'd see a lot more big-school players being ranked. Joe Flacco might well have struggled to be on the radar at all.

 

[spacecrime]

Sky's blue, water's wet, Patriots reached. Patriots homers pretend the team didn't reach even though they laugh at other teams when they do the same things New England did, and assail those who dare to point out the reaches.

You simply don't understand fitting players into a system, or are so determined to have the Pats at fault that you ignore it. It doesn't matter who the Pats had taken in the draft, unless it was the player hyped by ESPN or a guy whose measurables you liked, you'd find fault. It boggles my mind how so many people cna find so much wrong with a team whose philosophy yielded three superbowls and an undefeated regular season.

they laugh at other teams when they do the same things New England did, and assail those who

No one is laughing at the other teams that won three superbowls recently, or went 16-0 in hte regular season, or 18-1 overall. No one.

And I don't see much laughing at other teams here at all. There are a few like yourself who think they know a lot. The only laughing I recall in years has been over Ted Ginn Jr, and if you think that is not justified, you must be a Dolphin Homer. That pick - not only picking a slightly faster Matt Slater but passing on Brady Quinn - got their head coach fired. I for one was sick when Quinn fell to them and am eiternally grateful for that pick.

But no, I don't most fans here laughing and criticizing other teams. The criticizing is done by internegators such as yourself.

Try to understand that this is a place for Pats fans, i.e., fans of the Patriots. It is peopled mostly by those who love the Patriots. Some by people who don't like them, but mostly by Pats fans. It is understandable that fans like their team. It is their purpose to be here. If you went to a dog sledding forum and started saying negative things about dogsledding, you would get the same reaction from members. They would wonder why you were at a gathering of people who enjoyed their mutual interest while you did not.

Welcome to the yearly NFL draft weekend. The same thing will probably happen next year. Fortunately, none of it matters in the end.

Well, perhaps people who style themselves as "independent evaluator" and "impartial analysts" will find a forum devoted to the NFL in general and be with their own kind. Or they could find a different forum to haunt. You'd fit right in at jetsinsider.com

Give it a try.

Then you will find a open reception for your rants.

Unless, of course, you enjoy being the sh!t stirrer. Some do. Personally, and I've said this many times, I don't understand such a person and cannot rrelate at any level to a person whose avowed purpose in life is to be a PITA.

 

[Patriotic Fervor]

I assume Scott Pioli is smart enough to understand the idea of reaches. I assume BB is also smart enough to understand them. After all, both of them have been following the drafts for a long time. They understand full well that Mankins was a reach, just to point to your example, and they don't care. If I were drafting in their stead, I wouldn't care either.

What's truly been amusing is looking around at team messageboard after team messageboard and seeing the same thing being repeated all over the country.

Draft threads
Threads grading the draft
Threads insulting those who evaluate the draft for the media
Threads grading the draft of other teams
Threads with homers insisting that player "a" was a good pick

Those threads have people doing precisely what people talking about 'reaches' are doing, except from a positive side for their team or player.

Here, just for one example, is Lampshade:



So, he's 'okay' with Albert at #7. How is that not analyzing the player and the draft position? Was he 'okay' with Albert at #7 before Albert became a late riser? How is it inherently different than saying "I'm not okay with Mayo at #10"?

It isn't.

The thing is, Lampshade and any number of other people who follow the draft offer up their opinions on what may transpire.

I repeat that - they are offering up their opinions on the subject.

They don't care if they're right or wrong - most people who do this (I do it every year with my nephews) realize they're doubtless going to be wrong in their analysis of a given draft pick. They realize they give their opinions in the presence of a much different dynamic than the teams that actually do it for a living, and for whom their livelihood to some extent depends.

Thus, the people who do offer up their opinions on the draft, including the wags we so diffidently scorn, believe by dint of their own perceived acumen on this subject that they can define the terms of the exercise and invoke silly paradigms like "reach".

This means nothing. It is nothing!

After many, many months (and in some cases, years) of careful, close analysis of players and (and in) their environments, countless hours spent watching tape, and much deniro spent on the entire scouting enterprise, the personnel men of each NFL team decide who to take, and when, based on what their team needs, as well as the perceived potential that a given pick represents to that teams future. These guys do not get to bandy around terms like "reach", because they do not do this in the vacuum that Hambone described. For them, it is real life! For them, it is not some mindless mental exercise designed to while away the slow days of early spring. They do this for a living, they are damn good at it, and they're a lot, lot smarter at this stuff than I am. (You, too!)

They also know there is an inherent degree of difficulty in doing this, because what you are essentially doing is you are trying to predict the future, always a shaky undertaking. If it were truly a case of "this stuff not being difficult", there'd be no failures in it's execution. Everyone would be taking Tony Bosellis rather than Tony Mandariches.

Personally, I'm hoping this thread has about "reached" it's end!

 

[Deus Irae]

You simply don't understand fitting players into a system, or are so determined to have the Pats at fault that you ignore it. It doesn't matter who the Pats had taken in the draft, unless it was the player hyped by ESPN or a guy whose measurables you liked, you'd find fault. It boggles my mind how so many people cna find so much wrong with a team whose philosophy yielded three superbowls and an undefeated regular season.

As is your wont, you jump into something without knowing what the hell you're talking about. I fully understand that there are some perfectly valid reasons why a team might reach. That doesn't mean it's not a reach. The term is just that, a term. If you smile, you smile, no matter why you did it. If you reach, you reach, no matter why you did it. Why is this so difficult a concept for you to grasp?

And I don't see much laughing at other teams here at all. There are a few like yourself who think they know a lot. The only laughing I recall in years has been over Ted Ginn Jr, and if you think that is not justified, you must be a Dolphin Homer. That pick - not only picking a slightly faster Matt Slater but passing on Brady Quinn - got their head coach fired. I for one was sick when Quinn fell to them and am eiternally grateful for that pick.

Ahhh... Mr. Ginn, Jr. Thank you for the perfect illustration of my point about homers being hypocrites on this subject.

Try to understand that this is a place for Pats fans, i.e., fans of the Patriots. It is peopled mostly by those who love the Patriots. Some by people who don't like them, but mostly by Pats fans. It is understandable that fans like their team. It is their purpose to be here. If you went to a dog sledding forum and started saying negative things about dogsledding, you would get the same reaction from members. They would wonder why you were at a gathering of people who enjoyed their mutual interest while you did not.

Fan is not a synonym for shill or lemming. Look it up.

Well, perhaps people who style themselves as "independent evaluator" and "impartial analysts" will find a forum devoted to the NFL in general and be with their own kind. Or they could find a different forum to haunt. You'd fit right in at jetsinsider.com

Give it a try.

Then you will find a open reception for your rants.

Rant? I'm not the one who attacked people for daring to use the word reach, and I didn't start multiple threads about reaches.