The Way a Packers Forum Should Be
https://packers-huddle.com/phpBB/
This, so much this.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:14The 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.
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.
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.BF004 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:23This, so much this.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:14The 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.
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:Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:34so 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.
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?I didn't know if you knew anything or what your opinion was on the matter.
Again... no one knows if GMs or draftniks are right or wrong on a reach... No one has access to the teams' draft boards.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:37is 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.BF004 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:23This, so much this.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:14The 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 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:37is 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.BF004 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:23This, so much this.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:14The 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.
I just can't. Believe me, I often wonder if you are joking.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:37is 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.BF004 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:23This, so much this.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:14The 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.
And then also reread the crux of the argument.
Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:14The 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.
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.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:42You 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:Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:34so 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.
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?I didn't know if you knew anything or what your opinion was on the matter.
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.
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.BF004 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:49Believe 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.
And then also reread the crux of the argument.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 08:14The 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.
No BS, I didn't know what your opinion was, hence why I asked.Yoop wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 09:13BS, 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.
This is literally my first 2 posts in the discussion: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?
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.
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.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 09:43I 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.
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.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 09:59That 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.
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.YoHoChecko wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 10:00I 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.
I agree, read my post above for other thoughts on that.Drj820 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 10:03read 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.Pckfn23 wrote: ↑14 Apr 2022 09:59That 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.
The term reach can be used for both conversations.