Questions for the Draft Gurus?

[Fin D]

I've always had a hard time understanding what constitutes a "reach" in the first 3 rounds of the draft. Essentially picking in those rounds you're hoping your picks will start generally that year. Why does it matter then, if you take a guy you have targeted in say the second or first, if he's projected to go in the third? If your scouts and GM, believe in the guy and believe he'll be a starter, what difference does it make? It just seems a bit relative, to me.

The only thing I can think of is salary. However, if the league adopts a reasonable scale for rookies, then does the whole "value" thing go away?

The reason I ask is this.

Say Player X, is projected to go around pick #30, and as a team you have picks #10 and #47. You might not be able to swing a trade to get pick #30, but Player X fills a desperate need, and the "BPA" at #10 is at a position you don't have a need for. If the "scale" is in place would it be stupid to take Player X at #10 then? Or is there another factor I'm completely missing?

 

[PHINSfan]

You may very well see that this year if the reports regarding Joe Staley are true. The Phins may feel that this is the guy they want and if they find no takers to trade down, they may very well pull the trigger on a guy that's rated much lower than the #9 pick in th draft.
As far as the rest of your question I'll leave that for Chris, Keith or Simon. Those guys really know their stuff!!

 

[arsenal]

reaching is such an objective term... every team has players ranked where they have them... for example some team might have brady quinn as the 20th best prospect, while we might have him as the 3rd... so if we take him at 9 did we reach? not to us... but maybe we did to the other team...

"experts" will call picks a reach if they dont agree with it... everyone says the bills reached for whitner, but they got the player they wanted and wouldn't have been able to get any other way... thats not reaching, its drafting the player you want...

 

[Mr Yu]

Recent reaches for the FINs:

2001
1Jamar Fletcher (26)CBWisconsin
3bMorlon Greenwood (88)LBSyracuse
(from Philadelphia in '01 draft trade-up)


2002
3Seth McKinney (90)CTexas A&M

2004
1aVernon Carey (19)G/TMiami (Fla.)
(from Minnesota in 2004 draft trade-up)

2003
2Eddie Moore (49)LB Tennessee
3aWade Smith (78)Tmemphis
(from New England for 2nd-round pick in 2004)
3bTaylor Whitley (87)G Texas A&M

2006
1Jason Allen (16)S Tennessee

 

[Fin D]

Recent reaches for the FINs:

2001
1Jamar Fletcher (26)CBWisconsin
3bMorlon Greenwood (88)LBSyracuse
(from Philadelphia in '01 draft trade-up)


2002
3Seth McKinney (90)CTexas A&M

2004
1aVernon Carey (19)G/TMiami (Fla.)
(from Minnesota in 2004 draft trade-up)

2003
2Eddie Moore (49)LB Tennessee
3aWade Smith (78)Tmemphis
(from New England for 2nd-round pick in 2004)
3bTaylor Whitley (87)G Texas A&M

2006
1Jason Allen (16)S Tennessee

I hear you Mr. Yu, but that was just bad talent evaluation on some of them, not just because they are "reaches". Eddie Moore for example. Besides the fact that we had other holes to fill, the reason that pick was a problem was because he wasn't the player that they thought he was. That happens to "reaches" and #1 picks. Say Moore panned out and was a really good player for us, then it wouldn't have been a reach at all. I believe most boards had him lower 2nd to 3rd. If he had been picked there he'd still have been out of the league by now.

 

[TractorTraylor]

Reaches also refer to the fact that if you draft someone, that player would have still been able to be picked at a later spot (i.e. Next Round). The key thing to remember when talking about reaches is VALUE. In a year like this one, there is a deep WR class. The difference between the player you'd get in the first round and the second round is minimal since the talent is so deep. However, if we were talking about a punter for our first pick, that'd be a reach since we would be able to get him in later rounds without sacrificing value. But like others have said, reach can mean a million different things to a million different people..



Hope that helps..

 

[MastR_EvaluatoR]

To me, it's very easy to define a reach.. Quite simply, it's a player drafted who went much earlier than expected .

 

[Fin D]

To me, it's very easy to define a reach.. Quite simply, it's a player drafted who went much earlier than expected .

I do understand what "reach" means, I just don't necessarily buy into the fact that it is such a negative thing, and that is the crux of my question.

 

[Fin D]

Reaches also refer to the fact that if you draft someone, that player would have still been able to be picked at a later spot (i.e. Next Round). The key thing to remember when talking about reaches is VALUE. In a year like this one, there is a deep WR class. The difference between the player you'd get in the first round and the second round is minimal since the talent is so deep. However, if we were talking about a punter for our first pick, that'd be a reach since we would be able to get him in later rounds without sacrificing value. But like others have said, reach can mean a million different things to a million different people..



Hope that helps..

I appreciate the attempt. My point though is, yes, they'll be available later, but that still doesn't mean you'll get them. Getting the players you want is what the draft is about, not necessarily gambling if they'll be there later.

Think of it in these terms. Take Ebay. Many items have a BuyNow feature. It generally costs more to "buy it now" but at least you're guaranteeing you'll get what you're looking for. Sure, I could have played the bid game and gotten the same item for much lower price but I run the significant risk of losing out on that item entirely. If its something I want badly enough, I'll go BuyNow.

I just think way too much of this, is based on relative value, instead of actual value.

I believe this player makes my team better, I want him, I want to guarantee I get him. Isn't that value?

 

[showstopper]

Sorry but Jason Allen was not a reach at #16, he would have been gone by #20, if we didn't take him there.

 

[HybridPHIN 23]

Reaches also refer to the fact that if you draft someone, that player would have still been able to be picked at a later spot (i.e. Next Round). The key thing to remember when talking about reaches is VALUE. In a year like this one, there is a deep WR class. The difference between the player you'd get in the first round and the second round is minimal since the talent is so deep. However, if we were talking about a punter for our first pick, that'd be a reach since we would be able to get him in later rounds without sacrificing value. But like others have said, reach can mean a million different things to a million different people..



Hope that helps..

good points those are some factors..

 

[Phinsfan-Jay]

okay dude heres the deal

miami picks at # 9 this year

Our main needs at this time are- LT, QB, CB, S, C, WR, TE in no particular order.

Our most pressing needs are LT and QB

now lets say Quinn is off the board and so is Russell, and Laron Landry.

The issue now is, do we spend that 9th pick on Levi Brown from Penn State.
We could and it would be a reach by about 2 -3 spots so it would almost go un questioned.

Now lets say we REACHED and Got Drew stanton with our 9th pick.

yea he will probably be good and that is a need the trade off to filling another hole with a player of better value vs getting him in the 2nd would be immense, bottom line is you can get lets say Laron Landry at 9 and get Stanton with our 2a pick .

now we have LANDRY filling the need at Saftey and was simply BPA
and we have a QB who's upside equals the value in which we selected him.

 

[HybridPHIN 23]

I appreciate the attempt. My point though is, yes, they'll be available later, but that still doesn't mean you'll get them. Getting the players you want is what the draft is about, not necessarily gambling if they'll be there later.

Think of it in these terms. Take Ebay. Many items have a BuyNow feature. It generally costs more to "buy it now" but at least you're guaranteeing you'll get what you're looking for. Sure, I could have played the bid game and gotten the same item for much lower price but I run the significant risk of losing out on that item entirely. If its something I want badly enough, I'll go BuyNow.

I just think way too much of this, is based on relative value, instead of actual value.

I believe this player makes my team better, I want him, I want to guarantee I get him. Isn't that value?

Sure it's value but it's not always the most valuable....... i think your confusing value and need, or trying to merge them into one maybe. When people say value it doesnt neccessarily mean (value to your team)..... that is the "need"......... value is getting the best overall player regardless of what holes you hafta fill (bang for your buck)..... taking a need when a better player on the board is a reach........yes sometimes i guess reaching for the need could be the best option for your team.
I think you could have made his alot simpler if you asked:

"Isn't filling a need more valuable than BPA ?? " That is a good question IMO...

 

[Phinsfan-Jay]

Value is when last year Ashton Youboty was projected to be a low 1st high 2nd round corner.

He had a crap combine, some folks didn't wanna gamble on him.

The Buffalo Bills snagged him with their 3rd rounder.

That is value because you got a higher than expected player at a lower round.

Now alot of people considered the bills pick of Donte Whitner to be a Reach, No one questioned Donte Whitners abilities.

The dolphins were aiming for Whitner with our 16th pick which was right where we picked, so one of our needs fell with where a BPA was supposed to be taken that too is value not because of the player but the spot we picked and the BPA matched our need. so it was convenient, but due to the Bills reach at 8 we were stuck with the next best saftey Jason Allen. who in many eyes would have been taken more around 20 - 28.
Its all about projections and where a player is expected to go and almost guaranteed to go.

 

[Fin D]

Sure it's value but it's not always the most valuable....... i think your confusing value and need, or trying to merge them into one maybe. When people say value it doesnt neccessarily mean (value to your team)..... that is the "need"......... value is getting the best overall player regardless of what holes you hafta fill (bang for your buck)..... taking a need when a better player on the board is a reach........yes sometimes i guess reaching for the need could be the best option for your team.
I think you could have made his alot simpler if you asked:

"Isn't filling a need more valuable than BPA ?? " That is a good question IMO...

(I don't mean to appear argumentative, so I'm sorry if that's how I'm coming off. I just think my point is being missed.)

Actually, in a way, I am merging value and need. I'll also admit my question is probably confusing. Sorry :D.

I understand what is meant by "value" as it pertains to the draft. However, I'm saying I believe it to be flawed, if it is based on anything other than salary. There are only one or two "can't miss prospects" every year, if that. So, outside of those prospects who's to say who's better at a given position. If anyone knew exactly how good someone was going to be then "value" makes sense. Since we don't know how good someone is going to be (Ryan Leaf to Tom Brady) then the only value that can be truly assessed is based on team needs or a FO's beliefs.

Based on that and the fact that rookies haven't earned any money yet, I suggest that the NFL institute a per round pay scale for one year. Everyone picked in the first round gets the same amount of money. Second round, and so on. After that, if you play well, you renegotiate your contract for ridiculous money. I think that way would also limit what is considered a "reach" and teams might not pass or lose out on a player they need.