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

[Dibs]

Don't think taking a safety in the Top 8 is a bad idea, per se... BUT...

 

Roy Williams, Sean Taylor (RIP), and Laron Landry are in a far superior class than Donte Whitner and Huff. 2006 was not a year to devote a top 10 pick to a safety... important position, no argument there... but Whitner simply is not in that class (yet). I for one would be thrilled to eat crow if I see it happen this year, or any year for that matter

 

That said, I think it was fairly evident even before the draft, that Whitner is not in the same class as Roy Will, Sean T, Palomalu, etc...

Go Bills

 

So in my view, your numbers still don't justify that pick.

I was responding to the concept that one rarely drafts safeties that high(top 8)

I showed that in recent times that certainly is not the case.

[Mickey]

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.

"...probably available a their next pick..." is a really big probably. Usually, when someone is complaining about a pick the team makes, that is the first justification off the shelf, "but so and so would have been there in the next round." I always thought that was a very weak criticism because there is just no way, despite what Mel Kiper might say to the contrary, that you can be sure that pick would be there in the next round.

[Dawgg]

I was responding to the concept that one rarely drafts safeties that high(top 8)

I showed that in recent times that certainly is not the case.

 

Fair enough.

[Steely Dan]

"...probably available a their next pick..." is a really big probably. Usually, when someone is complaining about a pick the team makes, that is the first justification off the shelf, "but so and so would have been there in the next round." I always thought that was a very weak criticism because there is just no way, despite what Mel Kiper might say to the contrary, that you can be sure that pick would be there in the next round.

 

Agreed to a certain extent. The Pets* and the rest of the league knew Brady would still be available in at least the fourth round. Teams have semi similar ratings if they run the same schemes and part of draft day picking is to know what the other teams are likely to do.