How far is a reach?

[slanidrac16]

Watching all the experts talk about player A or player B makes me wonder what is a teach.
Looking at mock drafts many “ experts” have Toney getting selected at 23. Would it be a reach to take him at 16?
Is it a reach if you select the 4th ranked db over the 2nd rank rb?
What is your definition of reaching for a player?

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

It depends on the length of your arms and flexibility.

 

[Hoodhero]

My definition for reaching would be 49ers taking Mac Jones @ 3. That been said, I pray to the football gods it happens lol

 

[LoyaltyisaCurse]

Watching all the experts talk about player A or player B makes me wonder what is a teach.
Looking at mock drafts many “ experts” have Toney getting selected at 23. Would it be a reach to take him at 16?
Is it a reach if you select the 4th ranked db over the 2nd rank rb?
What is your definition of reaching for a player?

The textbook definition of a reach: Andy Invisibella.

 

[slanidrac16]

My definition for reaching would be 49ers taking Mac Jones @ 3. That been said, I pray to the football gods it happens lol

I think we are going to see a couple of these qb’s fall which might be good for us if somebody is looking for a qb that they never thought would be there at 16.

 

[DVontel]

Feel like it way too subjective.


I know some think Newsome would be a reach at #16, but I would love it if he was the pick there. More versatile than Surtain & Horn while not having the severe injuries like Farley.

 

[slanidrac16]

Feel like it way too subjective.


I know some think Newsome would be a reach at #16, but I would love it if he was the pick there. More versatile than Surtain & Horn while not having the severe injuries like Farley.

It certainly comes down to conviction. Do you believe in the rankings? Do you believe in your scouting department? Do you pass on a player because you believe that player MIGHT be available in the second round?

 

[AZman5103]

To me a reach is taking a guy at a certain position...like the #5 or 6 CB over the best player or a better player somewhere else. Drafting for extreme need tends to lead to reaches.

Levi Brown.

That year we went in wanting Joe Thomas badly. He was gone, but we still needed a "LT" and drafted Brown even though there were way better players available....AP, Pat Willis, Derrel Revis, etc.

That being said, Newsome...Toney...AVT...those guys aren't reaches on there own because they are great players. If we take Newsome as the 4th CB of the board and pass on Devonte Smith or Kwitty Paye or someone then it might be a reach based on projected value

 

[gimpy]

 

[PACardsFan]

Bill Bidwill routinely reached for decades. And the players he drafted, he lowballed

 

[DVontel]

To me a reach is taking a guy at a certain position...like the #5 or 6 CB over the best player or a better player somewhere else. Drafting for extreme need tends to lead to reaches.

Levi Brown.

That year we went in wanting Joe Thomas badly. He was gone, but we still needed a "LT" and drafted Brown even though there were way better players available....AP, Pat Willis, Derrel Revis, etc.

That being said, Newsome...Toney...AVT...those guys aren't reaches on there own because they are great players. If we take Newsome as the 4th CB of the board and pass on Devonte Smith or Kwitty Paye or someone then it might be a reach based on projected value

This logic is so weird.

For #1, you’re not accounting for strong those positions might be. The 5th ranked CB could be a better prospect than the 1st IDL due to a strong CB class vs very weak IDL class.

#2, the 5th CB taken rarely turns out to be the 5th best CB from the class.

 

[gimpy]

A reach (to me) is taking someone way earlier, who, "in-the-know" others predicted to go far lower than when you picked him.

 

[AZman5103]

This logic is so weird.

For #1, you’re not accounting for strong those positions might be. The 5th ranked CB could be a better prospect than the 1st IDL due to a strong CB class vs very weak IDL class.

#2, the 5th CB taken rarely turns out to be the 5th best CB from the class.

#1- Im bringing up an example where a team decides we are picked "blank" regardless of which players is there...like when we took Levi Brown or Tommy Knight. We were drafting a LT and a CB no matter what, which led us to reach for those guys.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

This logic is so weird.

For #1, you’re not accounting for strong those positions might be. The 5th ranked CB could be a better prospect than the 1st IDL due to a strong CB class vs very weak IDL class.

#2, the 5th CB taken rarely turns out to be the 5th best CB from the class.

I agree with #1. #2 doesn’t hold water with me bc you can literally say that about every single player in every single draft slot.

 

[Ouchie-Z-Clown]

#1- Im bringing up an example where a team decides we are picked "blank" regardless of which players is there...like when we took Levi Brown or Tommy Knight. We were drafting a LT and a CB no matter what, which led us to reach for those guys.

While those are good examples you’re definition was still faulty. For instance, if Levi brown was graded as an equivalent to joe Thomas (which he was not) then taking him over someone else wouldn’t be a reach just bc he was the second tackle taken. It’s rare when you have a bunch of guys at one position rated above the top guy at another position, but it happens. For example this year it’s pretty clear that there are at least 3 wrs (chase, waddle, smith) that are clearly rated better than the best dt (barmore). But no one would say the third wr drafted was a reach because he was taken before barmore, and was the third receiver taken.

 

[AZman5103]

While those are good examples you’re definition was still faulty. For instance, if Levi brown was graded as an equivalent to joe Thomas (which he was not) then taking him over someone else wouldn’t be a reach just bc he was the second tackle taken. It’s rare when you have a bunch of guys at one position rated above the top guy at another position, but it happens. For example this year it’s pretty clear that there are at least 3 wrs (chase, waddle, smith) that are clearly rated better than the best dt (barmore). But no one would say the third wr drafted was a reach because he was taken before barmore, and was the third receiver taken.

Completely agree, so I guess I must have misspoken in my first post.

I don't think there are too many teams that do it any more, but there have definitely been years where it seems like teams were picking a position...almost regardless of who else was on the board. We took Levi Brown over Peterson, Willis, and Revis because our stupid FO had decided on a LT before the draft. IMO if Levi Brown would have gone 4th, they would have picked the #3 OT...(who I think was Joe Staley and would have been WAY WAY better). Those are reach picks, where you know you are passing on better players because you are trying to fill a specific need.

I think now most teams put a top 100 board up and then use position as a part of the decision....but every once in a while it still happens.

The Raiders over the past couple of years seemed to have gone to the other extreme. They have seemed to zero in on a specific guy for some reason, and then picked them almost regardless of draft position. The #4 pick on Clelin Ferrell? Damon Arnette in the 1st round...etc. If those players explode then I guess its good for them, but those are players they could have picked up 15-20 picks later than they did.

 

[SissyBoyFloyd]

I really don't get the typical strict sportswriters/broadcasters idea of what a reach is. For instance, we have the 16th pick, so let's say that the top 15 players on the average of all reputable boards are all taken. So, we are relegated to pick from those rated below 15? They are all a reach in the broadest sense. So, its just a matter of each individuals definition as to how far down constitutes a reach? Is it 5 players, 10 players, and who's board are we going by at that point in the draft?

I feel it is an unanswerable question at worst, or there is simply no right or wrong answer at best. And even if you could come to a consensus each year, is a team supposed to take a player they absolutely don't need, rather than 'reach' down to get someone who can help make their team immediately better?

Just seems like a question whose answer doesn't exist. If the player is a bust, then you can say no matter when he was picked that he was a reach. And vice versa.

 

[Ohcrap75]

Any player I didn’t want them to take that turns out to be a bust... I will say that was a reach years from now lol

 

[Beaver]

Can anyone think of situations where a player was universally considered a reach but ended up being a great pick?

 

[Solar7]

This logic is so weird.

For #1, you’re not accounting for strong those positions might be. The 5th ranked CB could be a better prospect than the 1st IDL due to a strong CB class vs very weak IDL class.

#2, the 5th CB taken rarely turns out to be the 5th best CB from the class.

With #2's logic, why not just eliminate your scouting department, buy an $8 draft magazine, and pick a name at random? You're technically right, but you have professionals working on this for a reason.

As to the topic, it's been pointed out already, but it's a reach when you overvalue your needs and could be getting a top player at another position that you maybe have a slightly lesser need at. Brown vs. Peterson will probably remain the Cardinals' best example of that for a long time.

Can anyone think of situations where a player was universally considered a reach but ended up being a great pick?

Mahomes is a great one.

https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/for-petes-sake/article224076765.html