The Definition Of A Reach - A Lot Of People Are Confused IMO

[ans4e64]

The trade value chart has value. The fact that front offices around the league use it to determine the value of a pick assigns it its value. The 11th pick has a value of 1250. Move down to 22 and you're looking at 780. The 22nd pick in the 3rd rd has a value of 86, for a total received value of 846. The difference amounts basically to the 15th pick in the 2nd rd. Your "I know better then everyone else" logic has the effect of making our front office look like fools to the rest of the league as well as cheating us out of a good player. It's guys like you who think the Dolphins should pass on their #1 pick, slide down 2 or 3 slots just to save money, absolutely ridiculous.

 

So you think that trading down a few spots, getting the player we want, paying out less guaranteed money, AND picking up an extra draft pick will make us look like fools? Lets hope you never sniff the war room.

[Dibs]

So you think that trading down a few spots, getting the player we want, paying out less guaranteed money, AND picking up an extra draft pick will make us look like fools? Lets hope you never sniff the war room.

It will make us look like fools.......even though it would be foolish not to do it if the situation warranted it.

IMO the fact that the media & fans would look at it as a bad move because of the trade value chart is no reason not to do the smart thing.

 

Better to look the fool than be the fool.

[ExpertOpinion]

I think there are too many varying opinions on what a reach in the draft is. This thread gives people a chance to define a reach in their opinion and defend it.

 

To me a reach is a player taken when they will probably be available at their next pick. Too many people think that taking a player earlier than 5-10, 10-20 or 20-30 spots before "the draftniks" have them rated is a reach. If a team rates a player the best fit for them and they can't trade down, trading down is not as easy as some people seem to think*, then I have no problem with a team taking them. Donte Whitner was "a reach" but has outplayed Michael Huff who was taken ahead of him.

 

A team should take a guy they think is the best fit if he's still on the board and if they don't believe they'll be there at the next pick.

 

* In order to trade down a team needs a trading partner and they must be contacted by another team interested in trading down. IMO, teams don't call other teams to see if they want their pick.

Who gives a sh*t that he outplayed Huff ?

Neither one is a good pick on the basis that very few safeties become true impact players that warrant that being draft that high.

So he out played another safety ....big f*cking deal.

 

You rarely draft punters high in the 1st round for a reason and it also holds true at other positions.

 

It WAS a reach !!!

 

I said back then and I still say now that not taking Culter will go down as one of the biggest draft blunders the Bills have ever made.

[DrDawkinstein]

a question for Steely Dan:

 

I noticed in your sig, there is no mention of Harvey in your D-lineman. wassupwitdat?

[Steely Dan]

The argument being put forward is that if the team trading down was willing to trade down asking a far lesser cost than what has become the norm(trade value chart), there would probably be plenty of teams willing to slide up a few spots to get their preferred player for a lower round pick.

I personally don't think that any team(including the Bills) would ever do this.....even though it makes sense to do. The media & fans would have a field day. For instance......in that trade with Bills-Cardinals.....the chart says it is worth a very high 3rd rounder(250 pts). If the Bills accepted a high 5th rounder instead(40 pts).....even though it would be a benefit to the Bills(in the situation I described).....they would be touted as morons & the boards here would go ballistic.

 

Still doubtful in my mind. I just don't think too many teams would still do it unless it's for free or very close like a 7th round pick and then I'd be wary of doing that. Between the 11th and 22nd (Per Todd McShay's Mock) pick it's likely that (WR) Malcolm Kelly, (OT) Jeff Otah, (DE) Derrick Harvey, (OT) Chris Williams, (RB) Rashard Mendenhall, (CB) DRC, (CB) Mike Jenkins, (CB) Aquib Talib, (OG) Branden Albert, (WR) Devin Thomas, and (DE) Phillip Merling. will go off the board. Passing on one of those players is worth a lot more than a seventh round pick. So the question becomes what draft pick makes it worth it to pass on them while at the same time being a pick someone would feel free to part with?

 

 

The trade value chart has value. The fact that front offices around the league use it to determine the value of a pick assigns it its value. The 11th pick has a value of 1250. Move down to 22 and you're looking at 780. The 22nd pick in the 3rd rd has a value of 86, for a total received value of 846. The difference amounts basically to the 15th pick in the 2nd rd. Your "I know better then everyone else" logic has the effect of making our front office look like fools to the rest of the league as well as cheating us out of a good player. It's guys like you who think the Dolphins should pass on their #1 pick, slide down 2 or 3 slots just to save money, absolutely ridiculous.

 

The 11th pick in round one is 1250 and the 22nd is 780. The 22nd pick in the third round is worth 155 and that is a difference of 630 points missing according to the value chart not made up if the team agrees to settle for that. So as pointed out above would a team even be willing to part with a third rounder to move up 11 spots?

 

Who gives a sh*t that he outplayed Huff ?

Neither one is a good pick on the basis that very few safeties become true impact players that warrant that being draft that high.

So he out played another safety ....big f*cking deal.

 

You rarely draft punters high in the 1st round for a reason and it also holds true at other positions.

 

It WAS a reach !!!

 

I said back then and I still say now that not taking Culter will go down as one of the biggest draft blunders the Bills have ever made.

 

I agree that passing on Cutler was a mistake but the Bills had a first round QB on their roster already. S is a very important position on the team IMO and the Raiders(Three times), Bills, Dallas, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Washington (Twice), Carolina, Miami, Tennessee, Jacksonville, St. Louis, and NE have all taken Safeties in the first round of the draft since 2001. So 12 teams have taken Safeties in the first round and they disagree with you. That's three of the last six SB winners.

That have taken Safeties in the first round. IMO, it's an important position.

[Steely Dan]

a question for Steely Dan:

 

I noticed in your sig, there is no mention of Harvey in your D-lineman. wassupwitdat?

 

He's a little small and will be gone in the first round or early second and I feel the Bills have more pressing needs in those rounds to pick from. He doesn't warrant being picked by Buffalo over guys at WR, CB or DT. Some are projecting Harvey as an outside LB.

[Bill from NYC]

I voted "other" and while not seeking a big debate, I will explain why.

 

A great example of a reach was Whitner. Not only was he taken at #8, the Bills turned down numerous trade offers (according to Marv) to move down. So in reality, he cost us more than a #8.

 

This is not to say that he is not a good player but the fact is, we could have had either Whitner, or a mid round 1st and an extra mid round second. In this sense, I think that Whitner was clearly a reach, but that is simply my opinion.

[Steely Dan]

I voted "other" and while not seeking a big debate, I will explain why.

 

A great example of a reach was Whitner. Not only was he taken at #8, the Bills turned down numerous trade offers (according to Marv) to move down. So in reality, he cost us more than a #8.

 

This is not to say that he is not a good player but the fact is, we could have had either Whitner, or a mid round 1st and an extra mid round second. In this sense, I think that Whitner was clearly a reach, but that is simply my opinion.

 

Detroit who picked after Buffalo took a S in the second round and probably would have taken Whitner with their pick. He's doing well enough that I don't mind too much. I do think they probably should have traded back and taken someone else if they had to.

[Ramius]

I voted "other" and while not seeking a big debate, I will explain why.

 

A great example of a reach was Whitner. Not only was he taken at #8, the Bills turned down numerous trade offers (according to Marv) to move down. So in reality, he cost us more than a #8.

 

This is not to say that he is not a good player but the fact is, we could have had either Whitner, or a mid round 1st and an extra mid round second. In this sense, I think that Whitner was clearly a reach, but that is simply my opinion.

 

I can see it now.

 

In 2026, Donte Whitner is being inducted into the HOF after a long extremely productive career. At the HOF induction ceremony, There's one Bills fans in the back of the crowd chanting

"Reach! Reach! Reach! Reach!"

[DrDawkinstein]

again, the term "reach" being used by people who dont like/understand the pick. and instead of admitting that the Pros might know a little more about it than they do.

[Ramius]

I agree with DrDank on the concept of a reach. I stated it a couple of days ago, but "reach" and "value" are idiot terms made up by draftniks so they can put the blame for their incorrect analysis (of a player) on the team that chose him. A good example is winston justice form 2006. All the draftniks were calling him a great OT, while obviously no team thought he was worth a first round pick. The "experts" called him a great value for the Eagles, because they got "1st round value" in round 2, when in reality, Justice thusfar has proven to not be anything near a "1st round value". So the NFL was right, and the experts were wrong, as usual.

 

Also regarding "reaches," a lot depends on how the team ranks a player, and more importantly, the talent dropoff at the given position compared to another. Heres an example. My team is looking at drafting an LB or a CB. The top CB left on our board we have rated a 90, and the top LB is rated an 84. Overall, there are roughly 10-12 other players rated higher than the LB on the draft board. But, taking a look at the draft, we have 4 other CB's, rated 87, 85, 81, and 79. The next highest rated LB is a 66. I'm taking the LB, because i know a can get a CB later on in the draft, and because the dropoff is so much less at CB than it is at LB. Sure, technically i "reached" for a "lesser" LB, but in the end, i still got a good LB and a good CB in the next round. I think there are a lot of teams that go into the draft with this method.

[Ramius]

again, the term "reach" being used by people who dont like/understand the pick. and instead of admitting that the Pros might know a little more about it than they do.

 

Besides "reach", the biggest problem i have with the fans and the draft, is how some fans complain our draft sucked because we drafted position X at spot Y. Nevermind how good the player turns out to be, they think our draft was a disaster because we took a specific position. That screams of a personal agenda, with little regard to actual football analysis and knowledge.

[Dawgg]

I can see it now.

 

In 2026, Donte Whitner is being inducted into the HOF after a long extremely productive career.

 

Duuuuude can I smoke some of that?

[Kelly the Dog]

I agree with DrDank on the concept of a reach. I stated it a couple of days ago, but "reach" and "value" are idiot terms made up by draftniks so they can put the blame for their incorrect analysis (of a player) on the team that chose him. A good example is winston justice form 2006. All the draftniks were calling him a great OT, while obviously no team thought he was worth a first round pick. The "experts" called him a great value for the Eagles, because they got "1st round value" in round 2, when in reality, Justice thusfar has proven to not be anything near a "1st round value". So the NFL was right, and the experts were wrong, as usual.

 

Also regarding "reaches," a lot depends on how the team ranks a player, and more importantly, the talent dropoff at the given position compared to another. Heres an example. My team is looking at drafting an LB or a CB. The top CB left on our board we have rated a 90, and the top LB is rated an 84. Overall, there are roughly 10-12 other players rated higher than the LB on the draft board. But, taking a look at the draft, we have 4 other CB's, rated 87, 85, 81, and 79. The next highest rated LB is a 66. I'm taking the LB, because i know a can get a CB later on in the draft, and because the dropoff is so much less at CB than it is at LB. Sure, technically i "reached" for a "lesser" LB, but in the end, i still got a good LB and a good CB in the next round. I think there are a lot of teams that go into the draft with this method.

Good post. Not to mention that when you look at the production of any player is almost as important as how he is playing. Looking at a draft pick the day after the draft, after his rookie season, and after each ensuing season in his career until he retires usually has the consistency of a drug addict's heart rate graph.

[Ramius]

Duuuuude can I smoke some of that?

 

I didnt say he would be. I was postulating that if Donte were to make the HOf, there's no doubt that you and Bill would be chanting "Reach" at the ceremony. You 2 would probably have a sign.

[ans4e64]

A great example of a reach was Whitner. Not only was he taken at #8, the Bills turned down numerous trade offers (according to Marv) to move down. So in reality, he cost us more than a #8.

 

Whitner cost us more than a first round pick? Couldn't it be we didnt want to trade down for fear he would be gone by then?

 

This is not to say that he is not a good player but the fact is, we could have had either Whitner, or a mid round 1st and an extra mid round second. In this sense, I think that Whitner was clearly a reach, but that is simply my opinion.

 

The problem is, that is not a fact. How can you say it is a fact we could have had Whitner later on and gained a second rounder? Come on, Bill.

 

So you think that at pick number 15, Whitner is a good pick, but at number 8 he is not? So 7 picks qualifies as a "reach" for you. Interesting.

 

The guy is a first round talent, he should be picked in the first round, and he was. Its not even like he was rated at the end of the first round, he was top 15, and thats where we picked him.

[obie_wan]

The trade value chart has value. The fact that front offices around the league use it to determine the value of a pick assigns it its value. The 11th pick has a value of 1250. Move down to 22 and you're looking at 780. The 22nd pick in the 3rd rd has a value of 86, for a total received value of 846. The difference amounts basically to the 15th pick in the 2nd rd. Your "I know better then everyone else" logic has the effect of making our front office look like fools to the rest of the league as well as cheating us out of a good player. It's guys like you who think the Dolphins should pass on their #1 pick, slide down 2 or 3 slots just to save money, absolutely ridiculous.

 

The problem with doing stupid trades is not the bad press

 

It is the precedent it sets for future trades.

 

Teams will hold out to screw the Bills based on their prior history of not valyiing draft picks very highly.

 

The Bills are already going down this path as they have significantly overpaid according to the trade chart for moving up the last 2 years

[Dan]

Also regarding "reaches," a lot depends on how the team ranks a player, and more importantly, the talent dropoff at the given position compared to another. Heres an example. My team is looking at drafting an LB or a CB. The top CB left on our board we have rated a 90, and the top LB is rated an 84. Overall, there are roughly 10-12 other players rated higher than the LB on the draft board. But, taking a look at the draft, we have 4 other CB's, rated 87, 85, 81, and 79. The next highest rated LB is a 66. I'm taking the LB, because i know a can get a CB later on in the draft, and because the dropoff is so much less at CB than it is at LB. Sure, technically i "reached" for a "lesser" LB, but in the end, i still got a good LB and a good CB in the next round. I think there are a lot of teams that go into the draft with this method.

Excellent summation of how I see it. And that is probably why they drafted Whitner when they did. The drop off after him was great. If they miss Whitner, then who do they get at safety?

 

I would allow for exceptions though. Perhaps there's a guy you feel is just a sure fire hit at a position of need or a position you'll need in a year. You have to take him. Also, you may have someone you think is a great player; however, you have zero need at that position. A good example would be RB this year. We have 3 solid RBs on the roster, it would seem to me to be the waste of a pick to draft McFadden, not matter how good he may be if he's still on the board at 11. So you pass.

[KD in CA]

Who are these people who believe a team can trade down any time they want to? Why don't they say why they believe that? It's just absurd as far as I'm concerned. They really believe that every team has a trade back partner every year?!

 

 

Well, a team can easily trade down every pick. I'm sure the Bills would have no problem 'trading down' by swapping first round picks with the Giants.

 

What can't be done easily is to trade down for equal value. For that I'd say about 20%-30% (which is how I voted).

[Steely Dan]

again, the term "reach" being used by people who dont like/understand the pick. and instead of admitting that the Pros might know a little more about it than they do.

 

No, no logic...can't wrap my brain around logic...... HELP!!!! I'm sure that's going through some people's noggins when they read that.

 

 

I agree with DrDank on the concept of a reach. I stated it a couple of days ago, but "reach" and "value" are idiot terms made up by draftniks so they can put the blame for their incorrect analysis (of a player) on the team that chose him. A good example is winston justice form 2006. All the draftniks were calling him a great OT, while obviously no team thought he was worth a first round pick. The "experts" called him a great value for the Eagles, because they got "1st round value" in round 2, when in reality, Justice thusfar has proven to not be anything near a "1st round value". So the NFL was right, and the experts were wrong, as usual.

 

Also regarding "reaches," a lot depends on how the team ranks a player, and more importantly, the talent dropoff at the given position compared to another. Heres an example. My team is looking at drafting an LB or a CB. The top CB left on our board we have rated a 90, and the top LB is rated an 84. Overall, there are roughly 10-12 other players rated higher than the LB on the draft board. But, taking a look at the draft, we have 4 other CB's, rated 87, 85, 81, and 79. The next highest rated LB is a 66. I'm taking the LB, because i know a can get a CB later on in the draft, and because the dropoff is so much less at CB than it is at LB. Sure, technically i "reached" for a "lesser" LB, but in the end, i still got a good LB and a good CB in the next round. I think there are a lot of teams that go into the draft with this method.

 

Excellent post. Once again logic will only make people's head's explode!!

 

 

The problem with doing stupid trades is not the bad press

 

It is the precedent it sets for future trades.

 

Teams will hold out to screw the Bills based on their prior history of not valyiing draft picks very highly.

 

The Bills are already going down this path as they have significantly overpaid according to the trade chart for moving up the last 2 years

 

 

I'm not so sure about that. I think it's always fluid from one year to another and from player to player. If McFadden were by some miracle to last til the 11th pick the Bills could get more from a suitor than if another player fell, IMO. I agree that they shouldn't give things away for too little but a little leeway would work.