2022 Draft Discussion

[BF004]

The only way to know if a player is a reach or not is to look at all the teams' draft boards. There is just no feasible way to determine right or wrong in this situation. Have an opinion all you want, but don't be so arrogant to not realize your opinion might be different than what the NFL GMs thought.

This, so much this.

[Pckfn23]

I'll defend the consensus opinions of the draftniks, imho they are right just as often as most GM's

NO ONE can know this...!

[Yoop]

I didn't know if you knew anything

so you didn't realize that someone such as myself, thats followed this game twice as long as you have would know that draft people that do this stuff 24/7 would form and voice opinions about prospects GM's take higher then almost every draftnik has graded should be shown any respect concerning that conclusion, got it.

you might might fool others here, not me, you new what I was talking about from the start, and you dissed me just as you did the draftniks

the quote I just grabbed says it all.

[Yoop]

The only way to know if a player is a reach or not is to look at all the teams' draft boards. There is just no feasible way to determine right or wrong in this situation. Have an opinion all you want, but don't be so arrogant to not realize your opinion might be different than what the NFL GMs thought.

This, so much this.

is this some sort of joke, GM's are wrong about these players just as much as the draftniks, go look at the track records, obviously not all, but most of the sites we visit have all done better then 1/3 of the GM's in this league.

[Pckfn23]

I didn't know if you knew anything

so you didn't realize that someone such as myself, thats followed this game twice as long as you have would know that draft people that do this stuff 24/7 would form and voice opinions about prospects GM's take higher then almost every draftnik has graded should be shown any respect concerning that conclusion, got it.

you might might fool others here, not me, you new what I was talking about from the start, and you dissed me just as you did the draftniks

the quote I just grabbed says it all.

You are trying REALLY hard to be insulted over someone asking you clarifying questions, even to the point where you will pull out a half quote to do so. Here is the full sentence:

I didn't know if you knew anything or what your opinion was on the matter.

I dissed you by asking questions? I asked questions so I could clarify your position on the matter and avoid your trusted response of, "That's not what I meant." Nothing more, nothing less. I dissed draftniks? Where? What?

The only way to know if a player is a reach or not is to look at all the teams' draft boards. There is just no feasible way to determine right or wrong in this situation. Have an opinion all you want, but don't be so arrogant to not realize your opinion might be different than what the NFL GMs thought.

This, so much this.

is this some sort of joke, GM's are wrong about these players just as much as the draftniks, go look at the track records, obviously not all, but most of the sites we visit have all done better then 1/3 of the GM's in this league.

Again... no one knows if GMs or draftniks are right or wrong on a reach... No one has access to the teams' draft boards.

Here is why questions needed to be asked. You are confusing draft busts with draft reaches. Reaches are "determined" on draft night. Busts encompass a players' career. We are talking about reaches right now.

[go pak go]

The only way to know if a player is a reach or not is to look at all the teams' draft boards. There is just no feasible way to determine right or wrong in this situation. Have an opinion all you want, but don't be so arrogant to not realize your opinion might be different than what the NFL GMs thought.

This, so much this.

is this some sort of joke, GM's are wrong about these players just as much as the draftniks, go look at the track records, obviously not all, but most of the sites we visit have all done better then 1/3 of the GM's in this league.

I just can't.

"GM's are wrong about these players just as much as the draftniks" (saying being right compared to draftniks is 50/50)

"most of the sites we visit have all done better than 1/3 of the GM's in the league" (so not even close to 50/50)

Yoop. The largest thing you are confusing is "draft reach". You can only have "draft reach" if you assess a value on a player, which we all love to do. It's human nature. But that value is established by the industrial draft complex which completely skews our bias on players. The industrial draft complex, though having more insight than we do, pales in comparison to what the teams have and what the general thought on players is. The fact is each draft board is different and nobody ever knows a team's draft board. So using the term "reach" is not accurate. Though I will still use the terms reach and steal on draft weekend because it is fun. And I choose to enjoy that weekend.

The only real thing I have to say on actual draftniks is Mayock was the "respected draftnik". And he got his shot. He had a ton of draft capital as a GM as they dumped Mack to the Bears. And by and large, I would say he got smoked by guys like Brian Gutekunst who did more with less.

The one thing Mayock did do right is he drafted this forum's draft darlings in Renfrow, Foster Moreau and Maxx Crosby. We loved them. Mayock got them and they turned out to be great day 3 selections like we said they would. So the only real take away is YoHo's Draft Day 3 Darlings are gospel.

[BF004]

The only way to know if a player is a reach or not is to look at all the teams' draft boards. There is just no feasible way to determine right or wrong in this situation. Have an opinion all you want, but don't be so arrogant to not realize your opinion might be different than what the NFL GMs thought.

This, so much this.

is this some sort of joke, GM's are wrong about these players just as much as the draftniks, go look at the track records, obviously not all, but most of the sites we visit have all done better then 1/3 of the GM's in this league.

Believe me, I often wonder if you are joking.

But this right here, read it a few times and understand it before just responding with insults.

You are confusing draft busts with draft reaches. Reaches are "determined" on draft night. Busts encompass a players' career. We are talking about reaches right now.

And then also reread the crux of the argument.

The only way to know if a player is a reach or not is to look at all the teams' draft boards. There is just no feasible way to determine right or wrong in this situation. Have an opinion all you want, but don't be so arrogant to not realize your opinion might be different than what the NFL GMs thought.

[Yoop]

I didn't know if you knew anything

so you didn't realize that someone such as myself, thats followed this game twice as long as you have would know that draft people that do this stuff 24/7 would form and voice opinions about prospects GM's take higher then almost every draftnik has graded should be shown any respect concerning that conclusion, got it.

you might might fool others here, not me, you new what I was talking about from the start, and you dissed me just as you did the draftniks

the quote I just grabbed says it all.

You are trying REALLY hard to be insulted over someone asking you clarifying questions, even to the point where you will pull out a half quote to do so. Here is the full sentence:

I didn't know if you knew anything or what your opinion was on the matter.

I dissed you by asking questions? I asked questions so I could clarify your position on the matter and avoid your trusted response of, "That's not what I meant." Nothing more, nothing less. I dissed draftniks? Where? What?

This, so much this.

is this some sort of joke, GM's are wrong about these players just as much as the draftniks, go look at the track records, obviously not all, but most of the sites we visit have all done better then 1/3 of the GM's in this league.

Again... no one knows if GMs or draftniks are right or wrong on a reach... No one has access to the teams' draft boards.

Here is why questions needed to be asked. You are confusing draft busts with draft reaches. Reaches are "determined" on draft night. Busts encompass a players' career. We are talking about reaches right now.

BS, you knew what my opinion was when I said consensus opinion among the draftniks was that Watson has a 2nd round grade since forever. and I'am not confusing anything, if a player has a second or later grade and a GM takes him earlier that is going to be considered a over draft, thats it, the bust part which obviously will need to be determined is simply proof that the draftniks where right, and if you would bother to check the validity of the draftniks then you'd have check the players out individually, have at it, but I'd wager money on the draftniks.

right after you said you no longer think we should take Watson with the 22nd pick, I remarked that I always had a 2nd round grade on him ( guilty I listened to the draftniks) is this retaliation for that? seems once I mentioned consensus opinion you started to disagree, and asked that childish question of who forms these consensus opinions, duhh, seriously who did you think we had been discussing?

I'am done with your BS questions, ( I regret answering this one) you twist every convo, to much frustration with you, I come here for basic conversation, not to be badgered by something as idiotic as WHO formed a consensus when you already know the answer. grow up....

[Yoop]

This, so much this.

is this some sort of joke, GM's are wrong about these players just as much as the draftniks, go look at the track records, obviously not all, but most of the sites we visit have all done better then 1/3 of the GM's in this league.

Believe me, I often wonder if you are joking.

But this right here, read it a few times and understand it before just responding with insults.

You are confusing draft busts with draft reaches. Reaches are "determined" on draft night. Busts encompass a players' career. We are talking about reaches right now.

And then also reread the crux of the argument.

The only way to know if a player is a reach or not is to look at all the teams' draft boards. There is just no feasible way to determine right or wrong in this situation. Have an opinion all you want, but don't be so arrogant to not realize your opinion might be different than what the NFL GMs thought.

why don't you go re read the beginning of this argument, it's clear that I was referring to the consensus of draftniks opinions saying that a GM reached for a player, and that I take there opinions seriously? seriously why wouldn't I, they do this stuff full time for a living just like a NFL GM does, and they have a right to say that because more often then not they end up right, the bust part is simply ME saying go look at the track record.

and Brandons question was him dissing both me and the draftniks, as though those opinions aren't valid, I also think Yoho's opinions are also valid, what we think matters, or at least it should, opinions are the lead in to decision making, or at least they have been in my life time.

[Drj820]

this one is pretty easy too.

Did the Raiders reach when they drafted Alex Leatherwood with the 17th overall pick last year? Well, some in this argument will say "we have no idea, it depends on if the Raiders saw him as the 17th best player or not. Depends on their personal board." True??? Technically true.

But when fans talk about if someone "reached" they are usually talking about where a player is selected relative to where the average talking head has a person slated to go. For Leatherwood, most people had him in the 60s or at best a day 2 pick on their boards. So Leatherwood was, in fact, a "reach", without even needing to know what the Raiders thought of him.

The pick just showed Mayock or Gruden to be an idiot on draft night. They could, however, still have the last laugh if he turns out great.

[YoHoChecko]

I can see, for me, a relationship between Savage and Watson.

Savage was a guy I LOVED for us in the second round. I had made incredibly lofty comparisons to him and some pretty high-caliber NFL safeties. When we traded up for him in the first, I was disappointed that we lost those two 4ths, but happy to get a player I coveted and figured that if Gutey thought he needed to be higher to get him, then he probably knew something about the other teams that I didn't.

That said, I still found myself wondering, even that night, if we'd have been better off staying pat and drafting a similar player in Juan Thornhill. I liked Savage better than Thornhill. But the cost of one over the other surprised me.

If we take Watson at 22 or even 28, I'll likely feel similarly. That I don't grade him that high but he's a player I covet, so I'm happy to have him rather than not have him; that outweighs my value opinion. But I'll probably look at some other WR like Pickens or Pierce and say "was the opportunity cost right on that move? And I'll wonder, but we won't know the answer.

My joy of getting the player I covet will override my value assessment (like when I wanted AJ Dillon and Josiah Dequara in the 4th and 5th respectively, but we got them in the 2nd and 3rd). But I'll still have questions about the value and the trade-offs and the opportunity cost.

[Pckfn23]

BS, you knew what my opinion was when I said consensus opinion among the draftniks was that Watson has a 2nd round grade since forever. and I'am not confusing anything, if a player has a second or later grade and a GM takes him earlier that is going to be considered a over draft, thats it, the bust part which obviously will need to be determined is simply proof that the draftniks where right, and if you would bother to check the validity of the draftniks then you'd have check the players out individually, have at it, but I'd wager money on the draftniks.

No BS, I didn't know what your opinion was, hence why I asked.

You are 100% confusing bust and reach. We will never truly know if a player is a reach or not as we do not have access to the teams' boards. These grades come from draftniks, not GMs. Form opinions on what the draftniks think, but again, do not be so arrogant as to think you are absolutely right that a player was a reach. We just can't know that. That a players has a good career or not does not confirm that a player was a reach or not. Again, reach is "determined" on draft night. Bust is determined over the player's career. Jamarcus Russell was a bust, but not considered a reach. Eric Stokes was considered a reach, but so far he hasn't been a bust. That a player had a good or poor career does not affect the bust label...

I find it interesting that you would consider draftniks more knowledge of NFL prospects than the actual GMs. I don't need to check out individual players' careers, that isn't what the topic is...

right after you said you no longer think we should take Watson with the 22nd pick, I remarked that I always had a 2nd round grade on him ( guilty I listened to the draftniks) is this retaliation for that? seems once I mentioned consensus opinion you started to disagree, and asked that childish question of who forms these consensus opinions, duhh, seriously who did you think we had been discussing?

This is literally my first 2 posts in the discussion:
"Not talking about any specific player here. What/who determines that a player is snatched up far sooner than they should be?"

"Again, I am not talking any specific player... Are we able to determine if a player was snatched up too early on draft night? Who/What determines that? Who/what determines if a player has a first/second/third round grade?

Asking clarifying questions, nothing sinister here."

I was asking clarifying questions. I was actually giving you respect by not jumping to conclusions on what I thought you knew or meant. Now I know you are confusing reach and bust and you believe draftniks know just as much or more than GMs about players.

[Pckfn23]

So Leatherwood was, in fact, a "reach", without even needing to know what the Raiders thought of him.

That is NOT a fact. That's an opinion on what the draftniks thought. To determine if that was fact or not, we would need to see all 32 NFL boards. If several teams had Leatherwood around where the Raiders did, then the reach label can not be applied. If no other team had Leatherwood in the first round then we could definitely apply the reach label. UNFORTUNATELY, we will NEVER know these things for a fact.

[Drj820]

Reaching for a player is just a talking point. Its an inexact science. Obviously, if we all mocked a guy to round 4 and the Packers took that player in the 1st we would say "wow what a reach" even if the Packers truly had an outlier grade on the player and thought he was first round worthy.

In essence, "reach" simply means..."wow we could have gotten that same guy later in the draft, or not given up anything to get him."

no one knows if thats actually true, but the talking points or narratives are based on consensus of what they talking heads say.

[YoHoChecko]

I think there are a lot of different definitions being bandied around about what it means to reach and I think that it is perfectly fine for people to consider a reach a different thing.

Some people seem more in the camp that a reach is when you select someone higher than YOUR OWN grade of that player recommends. Like you pick someone who is not the best available either due to a positional need or due to a specific desire for that player that isn't reflected in your team's grading/ranking system.

Others think that a reach is when you select someone higher than you needed to in order to acquire that player. For instance if I have someone as the 15th player on my board but there isn't a single other team who has him above 26, then selecting him at 15 when I could have traded back 6-10 slots and maximized my draft capital.


Now, the first version of a reach is knowable by the team. It's their board. They know what they did.

The second version, which I think is more common in the general public but not in this conversation, requires you to not only know your own player evaluations, but to have a very keen sense of how other teams feel about players and tolerate additional risk due to the uncertainty of such calculations.


It may be a wise strategy to focus only on your own evaluations and control what you can control, just like buy-and-hold is the wisest investment strategy for the vast majority of people. But it may yield better results if you actually are REALLY GOOD AT THIS and you choose to try to outflank your opponents and synthesize what you know about your own board with what you can assess and determine about your competitors, the same way a select few gifted hedge fund managers are able to beat the buy-and-holders in results, even over the long term. But if you aren't really good at it, you've lowered the floor for your performance by taking on additional risk and complicating the process.


Both are fine to me. Both definitions are valid to me. We don't need to have a board-determined assessment of precisely what each word means. We just have to understand that some people are using the same words to talk about different things.

[Pckfn23]

I can see, for me, a relationship between Savage and Watson.

Savage was a guy I LOVED for us in the second round. I had made incredibly lofty comparisons to him and some pretty high-caliber NFL safeties. When we traded up for him in the first, I was disappointed that we lost those two 4ths, but happy to get a player I coveted and figured that if Gutey thought he needed to be higher to get him, then he probably knew something about the other teams that I didn't.

That said, I still found myself wondering, even that night, if we'd have been better off staying pat and drafting a similar player in Juan Thornhill. I liked Savage better than Thornhill. But the cost of one over the other surprised me.

If we take Watson at 22 or even 28, I'll likely feel similarly. That I don't grade him that high but he's a player I covet, so I'm happy to have him rather than not have him; that outweighs my value opinion. But I'll probably look at some other WR like Pickens or Pierce and say "was the opportunity cost right on that move? And I'll wonder, but we won't know the answer.

My joy of getting the player I covet will override my value assessment (like when I wanted AJ Dillon and Josiah Dequara in the 4th and 5th respectively, but we got them in the 2nd and 3rd). But I'll still have questions about the value and the trade-offs and the opportunity cost.

This is very level headed. It's not the knee jerk, "the GM is bad because I know for a fact he reached for a player and could have gotten him a round later" arrogance.

[Drj820]

So Leatherwood was, in fact, a "reach", without even needing to know what the Raiders thought of him.

That is NOT a fact. That's an opinion on what the draftniks thought. To determine if that was fact or not, we would need to see all 32 NFL boards. If several teams had Leatherwood around where the Raiders did, then the reach label can not be applied. If no other team had Leatherwood in the first round then we could definitely apply the reach label. UNFORTUNATELY, we will NEVER know these things for a fact.

read YoHos post. You are arguing as if "reach" has one precise exact definition. Reach can mean "based off the GMs board". or can easily be used to discuss a narrative based off talking heads consensus and narrative.

The term reach can be used for both conversations.

[Yoop]

I honestly had not researched Gary much, I saw him play for MI. maybe 3 times, he was over shadowed imo in all 3 games by the other DE.

then I read stuff like this., why wouldn't I look at someone else for a 12 slot pick, he did live up to slot value eventually, but that doesn't mean I was wrong, or there wasn't risk with that pick.

WEAKNESSES

—Never produced to the level of his talent and traits; is still considered a developmental player who needs coaching up in order to get the best out of his abilities.

—Can be too timid at the point of attack and doesn't play with the power you expect from a 277-pound lineman.

—Has poor technique discipline and will get too high and too wide out of his stance; doesn't hold the edge with good pad height and leverage.

—Read-and-react skills aren't developed.

OVERALL

Rashan Gary is a traits-based prospect who looks the part but hasn't played up to it. He needs to prove himself in the NFL with production instead of being a "what if" player. Gary will wow scouts with his athleticism and potential, but those are scary words. While he has a very high ceiling, Gary is an all-traits, no-production type of prospect that often busts.



GRADE: 7.20 (ROUND 1—TOP 15 PLAYER POTENTIAL)

PRO COMPARISON: Everson Griffen

[Pckfn23]

I think there are a lot of different definitions being bandied around about what it means to reach and I think that it is perfectly fine for people to consider a reach a different thing.

Some people seem more in the camp that a reach is when you select someone higher than YOUR OWN grade of that player recommends. Like you pick someone who is not the best available either due to a positional need or due to a specific desire for that player that isn't reflected in your team's grading/ranking system.

Others think that a reach is when you select someone higher than you needed to in order to acquire that player. For instance if I have someone as the 15th player on my board but there isn't a single other team who has him above 26, then selecting him at 15 when I could have traded back 6-10 slots and maximized my draft capital.


Now, the first version of a reach is knowable by the team. It's their board. They know what they did.

The second version, which I think is more common in the general public but not in this conversation, requires you to not only know your own player evaluations, but to have a very keen sense of how other teams feel about players and tolerate additional risk due to the uncertainty of such calculations.


It may be a wise strategy to focus only on your own evaluations and control what you can control, just like buy-and-hold is the wisest investment strategy for the vast majority of people. But it may yield better results if you actually are REALLY GOOD AT THIS and you choose to try to outflank your opponents and synthesize what you know about your own board with what you can assess and determine about your competitors, the same way a select few gifted hedge fund managers are able to beat the buy-and-holders in results, even over the long term. But if you aren't really good at it, you've lowered the floor for your performance by taking on additional risk and complicating the process.


Both are fine to me. Both definitions are valid to me. We don't need to have a board-determined assessment of precisely what each word means. We just have to understand that some people are using the same words to talk about different things.

No, I think you are right on with bust encompassing both definitions and I think most people understand that. What is actually being lumped in here is that a reach is determined if a player's career didn't live up to expectations. THAT is simply wrong. That and the delusion that we/draftniks know what GM's boards are and thus we can "factually" make these determinations.

[Pckfn23]

So Leatherwood was, in fact, a "reach", without even needing to know what the Raiders thought of him.

That is NOT a fact. That's an opinion on what the draftniks thought. To determine if that was fact or not, we would need to see all 32 NFL boards. If several teams had Leatherwood around where the Raiders did, then the reach label can not be applied. If no other team had Leatherwood in the first round then we could definitely apply the reach label. UNFORTUNATELY, we will NEVER know these things for a fact.

read YoHos post. You are arguing as if "reach" has one precise exact definition. Reach can mean "based off the GMs board". or can easily be used to discuss a narrative based off talking heads consensus and narrative.

The term reach can be used for both conversations.

I agree, read my post above for other thoughts on that.

We can't ever know "based off the GMs board." So, we talk the 2nd definition, which is fine, but it shouldn't be talked about as factual or a hard truth.