(04-23-2024, 04:15 PM)flgatorsandjags Wrote:

(04-23-2024, 03:42 PM)Mikey Wrote: So you're saying it's not a problem if our board is way out of skew with the rest of the GMs, if we have a guy that everyone else deems a second round pick graded above what everyone else thinks is a second round guy?

In other words, you are totally cool if we take Max Melton at 17, and leave Byron Murphy on the board, so long as Baalke shows you his board had Melton at 14 and Murphy at 20? Think about that.

And yeah, other teams can have guys ranked differently. Some teams may take Sweat completely off the board after his recent arrest. Others may knock him down a few pegs, others might not give a flip. But in the hypothetical presented, the condition was already stated where the consensus stood with respect to player ranks. In the hypothetical, we DO know the other teams' boards. So again, Melton over Murphy at 17...reach? Does it really change your answer if some dumbbell GM in Denver is the outlier who also thinks Melton is a top 15 pick, but he's the only other GM who does?

  I definitely wouldn't like it because he's not to me but if Melton ends up better than all of the players picked after him it was the right pick.  We have no clue how other GMs are ranking there board.  If Melton is the highest guy on our board than it's not a reach, he just better be the best player, if not the board is the problem.

Part of the equation that defines a reach has to be where others value the guy. It's 1000% the reason why nobody liked the Alualu or Anger selections, if you want concrete examples. I don't care if they were #1 on our board before the darft even started, taking either guy where we took them was bad, not because our board was flawed (it might have been), but because virtually nobody was planning to take either guy in that area. We lost heaps of value by not moving to where the picks fit more appropriately, based on the general consensus you should have derived from your scouting.

Doesn't mean you know the EXACT spot anyone values them, or that you trade to a specific pick to take them. But if general thoughts are teams see Alualu as a 25-35 guy, you move back to 17-20 and pick him there. Same thing for the Melton example. If everyone sees him as 30-45 range, taking him at 17 is boneheaded, even if he is top guy on your board. It's a reach, because you could have netted something in a move backward to take him at 24, say. You might not win the trade value chart in the move, but maybe tossing that trading partner a bone here nets you a little more later in the darft when they want to move to fit a guy they like. You still get the guy that's tops on your board, but you don't sacrifice nearly the same value to get them.

---

(04-23-2024, 04:21 PM)NYC4jags Wrote: Ranking a player way too high on your board is basically the same as a reach.

The "it's not a reach if they were at the top of your board" argument is just a ridiculous way of trying to defend the losing side of a pointless debate about need vs BAP.

Whether you reached for a Strange or Bigsby type-of-pick - or you legit thought they the best players available - either way you screwed up.

(FTR - I think Bigsby will be good if the line improves and I Strange seems like a 50/50 chance of proving worthy in time.)

The fact that the draft capital of those picks wasn't utilized differently is my rub.
For whatever reason our FO/HC didn't think our IOL needed help when it clearly did - or they didn't think the IOL prospects available at those picks were a good fit. The result of not doing enough to bolster those interior line spots ended up being a major reason they lost the division and did not advance to the playoffs.

ANNNNNNNYway -
I'd love to see them find a quality IDL player in this draft.
I hope they don't think they are "good" in the trenches yet.
And I don't care if they reach down their board a few spots to take him as long he turns out to be impactful.

Gabe Hall in the third, must cite NYC

---