(04-22-2024, 10:11 AM)flgatorsandjags Wrote:

(04-22-2024, 09:07 AM)Mikey Wrote: It absolutely is debatable. We may not know what their board looked like, but you can say whether a pick was an excessive reach or not. I can all but say absolutely that Strange and/or Bigsby were not the top guy on their board. But, when their time came to pick, the team saw positional value, roster need, and remaining board strategy as ways to dismiss other players on their board. We have no idea if they attempted to trade back, or had offers from other teams to trade into our picks. Could we have landed either guy if we moved off the picks? Maybe not. Could we have picked more immediate needs that might not have been ranked on our board as highly? Maybe.

Any and all of these factors help shape the argument whether a pick was a reach or not. We don't need the absolute for a debate. If we had a picture of their board, a statement from all the other 31 owners regarding their strategies with respect to each player, and a full foretelling of their future performance it would simply be statement of fact, and not any debate as to whether the selection was a reach or a savvy choice.

It's not a reach when you take the top player on your board.  That's just your board sucks.  But we have no clue they were the top player left on their board.  I think they were, then the pick makes sense.  Their board was just bad is all.

I think your statement describes the exact same thing, "reaching" is that your draft board doesn't match up with all of the other teams.  'Reaching' is defined from a perspective that is outside the team.  If you draft a player in the 1st round, where every other team wouldn't draft him until the 3rd that is the definition of reaching.  The quality of the player is irrelevant (ie. Taking Tom Brady in the 3rd round would have been a reach.) And the term 'reaching' is for the most part subjective (though sometimes it's obvious) because no one has every teams draft board at the time of the draft.

---