Let's talk about REACHES and the 2022 draft...

[Bifflog]

Let me preface this with the following disclaimer:  I don't claim to know a damn thing about evaluating film and ranking players and I don't claim to know a good draft from a bad one.  What I can do, and any fan can do, is look at mock bigboards and consensus draft rankings and locate the delta between where our team picked a fella versus where said rankings suggest he should go.  Many, many of us took part in this exercise over the last 3 days or so, and the consistent result of this were loud, widespread screams of REACH.  What I ask for you to consider is that maybe you care when this team "reaches" and no so much when others do.  Further disclaimer: I am not taking issue with posters here who have specific opinions about the players selected, specific opinions of the players we left on the board after our selections, specific opinions on positional value with respect to the picks we made, or any other way to be critical of a draft other than specifically the selection of each player relative to where they "should" have gone.  So with that, let's look at how Washington, and a few other teams did with regard to reaches.

 

I'm using https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/ for my comparisons which seems as good as any other draft aggregation site, we can easily scan each team's class and the reaches and steals are highlighted.  Let's see what we have:

 

https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/teams/2022/washington-commanders

 

 

Right, so Mathis and Butler as reaches.  Some will want to put Dotson as well, but this site had Dotson as a consensus 1st rounder and thus not a reach in the first round.  This will be consistent across all the teams so, fine for comparison purposes.  Mathis is a 1 round reach as a consensus 3rd rounder, and Butler is a 2 round reach as a consensus 6th rounder.  I'm not really considering anything outside of the 5th for any teams since things get murkier and murkier in the back end of the draft.  Let's compare a few teams:

 

How about 49ers:

 

https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/teams/2022/san-francisco-49ers

 

 

Lot of red here.  Dig deeper and we see they took consensus 7th rounder Davis-Price and consensus 4th rounder Gray both in the 3rd.  Tack on Burford(consensus 5th) in the 4th, Womack(consensus UDFA) in the 5th.  How would these picks have gone over here for us?

 

On to the Giants:

 

https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/teams/2022/new-york-giants

 

 

Great Cesar's ghost, their ledger is rotten with red as well.  For summation, Robinson(consensus 3rd) in the 2nd, Ezeudu(consensus 5th) in the 3rd, Flott(consensus 6th) in the 3rd, Bellinger(consensus 5th) in the 4th, Belton(consensus 6th) in the 4th, and McFadden(consensus 6th) in the 5th.  So damn near every round.  Common (bit of a woe is me) take I see in chatter here in this forum is this team with pass us within a year.  May still be true, but if it is I guess they will have reached their way around us.

 

The main point of this exercise is to sort of evaluate if we have tunnel vision or not.  Most teams, thumbing through their classes, have a pick or two in the red, like us.  The Bills do, the Cowboys do, the Bucs do.  Consider whether you just give the currently better teams benefit of the doubt, and they're allowed to reach because they'll probably be right while we'll be wrong.  I don't think its a particularly interesting or discussion worthy point to make.  It may be cosmically true, but it's low effort.

[86 Snyder]

OK I’ve considered it.  Some teams inherently get more benefit of the doubt given track records.  And when you’re a bad team you have less room for error.  So no, I don’t think every “reach” is the same.  
 

But the Pats had the biggest reach of the entire draft and it annoyed me too.

[skinsfan4128]

I honestly don't put alot of stock in reaches. Perhaps I'm old school and stubborn,  but what may seem like a reach to others may not necessarily fit with what a team is doing (whether for need or BPA). 

 

As some of us elder statesmen like to say, the draft is a crapshoot and in those terms beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

As it pertains to this draft, I thought overall it was a solid draft. Nothing fancy or flashy, just methodical in their approach.  Addressed some needs and depth. The Mathis pick (while called a reach) made sense and covered a couple of bases, ie we needed depth and quite possibly an insurance policy for probable departure of Payne. So, when put into that context, I don't see it as a reach.

 

Same as I can see the value of getting QB Howell in the 5th, albeit rather surprising he was there to begin with. It's the nature of the draft and saying someone reached on a player really can't be decided for a couple of years later. Then you might have an argument. 

 

Makes for good discussion though.  Bravo.

 

HTTR!

[Bifflog]

33 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

OK I’ve considered it.  Some teams inherently get more benefit of the doubt given track records.  And when you’re a bad team you have less room for error.  So no, I don’t think every “reach” is the same.  
 

But the Pats had the biggest reach of the entire draft and it annoyed me too.

 

Yeah, but either you believe in the consensus rankings or you don't.  If you only buy into them when you want to, or it's convenient, isn't that more of a conventional wisdom approach vs. Big Data?  And if you're going to be into conventional wisdom rather than "the numbers", then why care about aggregated data.

 

Also illustrates a secondary point where you're reinforcing an easy avenue to get "good grades."  Just go look at the most popular mock, and pluck the guy off of the top of it (maybe adjusted somewhat for need if someone REALLY tried this strategy).  You'll always nab the biggest faller, and snag the best delta in mock vs actual selection.

 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Bifflog

[86 Snyder]

1 minute ago, Bifflog said:

 

Yeah, but either you believe in the consensus rankings or you don't.  If you only buy into them when you want to, or it's convenient, isn't that more of a conventional wisdom approach vs. Big Data?  And if you're going to be into conventional wisdom rather than "the numbers", then why care about aggregated data.

 

The earlier the round, the more weight I put.  1st and 2nd rounds are generally more well staked out.  I’ll give a lot more leeway in the 3rd/4th.  After that, it’s basically anything goes.  The probability of success gets much lower each round anyway.

 

If WAS took Mathis in the 3rd and he was a projected 5th, that would matter a whole lot less to me than a projected 3rd round guy being taken in the 2nd.

[Bifflog]

17 minutes ago, 86 Snyder said:

The earlier the round, the more weight I put.  1st and 2nd rounds are generally more well staked out.  I’ll give a lot more leeway in the 3rd/4th.  After that, it’s basically anything goes.  The probability of success gets much lower each round anyway.

 

If WAS took Mathis in the 3rd and he was a projected 5th, that would matter a whole lot less to me than a projected 3rd round guy being taken in the 2nd.

 

Yeah, I think this makes sense.  And I actually was never making a case that it wasn't a reach, as funny as that word is to really pin down.  You look at the mocks under his profile, and there's no shortage of round 2's in there.

 

https://www.nflmockdraftdatabase.com/players/2022/phidarian-mathis

 

A little bit of this was precipitated just because I think this site is neat to play with.

Edited May 1, 2022 by Bifflog

[Burgold]

The way I think about it is the same way I think about BPA. Ideally, you always want to pick the best player on the board regardless of position, but let's say you have a Patrick Maholmes and three draft picks in a row the best player turns out to be a QB. You aren't going to draft three quarterbacks in one draft. So, you develop a best player available that adjusts by looking at three factors: Best player, best scheme fit, and biggest team need. If the player is not the best player, but is the best scheme fit and the biggest team need, then the "reach" is less for your team than if some other team picked that player.

 

I do think that you have to qualify that by understanding what other team's boards are like though. Just because you rate someone as a really good fit/need you still want to draft him three rounds before anyone else would. Jumping a round might be okay because you don't really know what other team's boards look like and you usually only get one bite at the apple each round and so if you don't grab someone for fear of reaching then it's likely they're gone. To a degree, that's what happened with both Hamilton and Olave. Both would have been grumbled about as reaches at 11, but by 16 they were gone. So, if you wanted them you can't wait even if they would be a "reach."

[RandyHolt]

I think we set some sort of record drafting guys that said they were surprised to get drafted so early. As Martin Mayhew laughs to counter the awkwardness.

[FootballZombie]

21 minutes ago, RandyHolt said:

I think we set some sort of record drafting guys that said they were surprised to get drafted so early. As Martin Mayhew laughs to counter the awkwardness.

 

Were probably gonna convince the league to work on advising against saying stuff like that into the pre-draft training instructions for rookies next year. They don't wanna see that again.

Still not as bad as what Mcvay did to the Pats tho... they should press charges... Yeesh

 

 

As for reaches they happen every draft. Teams draft mostly for need and the boards only gonna line up perfectly once in a blue moon. With runs on positions, and knowing the needs of the next several teams, sometimes you gotta take a guy 15 spots early if you want your dude, especially at a premium position.

 

Whats important is how the players respond once they get the opportunity. If they ball, it does not matter if they were overdrafted, underdrafted or not drafted at all.

 

As w/ all things in sports, ball and nobody cares.

[kingdaddy]

Interesting thread....I was thinking about drafting for need vs drafting best talent available after hearing Martin Mayhew's comment about "nobody knows our needs better than we do". For example, RR made a comment that Brian Robinson takes care of the football and runs hard. Does this mean he'd like a 3rd down back who he trusts more than Gibson to get the tough yard without fumbling? This (backs fumbling) was certainly an issue last season. 

Is drafting for need over best talent an organizational philosophy or do most teams draft based on where they have holes? I saw where New England drafted two running backs while they already have 2 very good backs on their roster?

I have no problem with the Commanders draft other than wishing they had gone with a bigger WR over Dotson but maybe they have big plans on how they'll use Dotson? Maybe they prefer speed and elusiveness over speed and size? 

I do hope we are not done signing players and that maybe we can grab an impact player on defense along with a solid vet TE in the coming days/weeks. Thanks for this thread Bifflog.

[Zim489]

I don’t mind reaches in a broad sense but when you reach early in a spot if need you created for a guy with marginal value due to position and play style it amplifies the problems with the pick. 
 

I think Matthis in anyway is a terrible pick. Brian Robinson I’m not a fan of either as a draft pick. Like I don’t hate the players we drafted but the value attached to a good portion of them is outright terrible.

 

I would feel a lot better about this draft if it was the first of a tenure whwre you’re getting guys that can stop the bleeding of an awful team or you were a 13-4 type of team and you’re trying to backfill the lower portions of your roster with role players you were weak in. Not when you’re a middling team firmly stuck in the middle in dire need of talent across the board. They needed to hit home runs to make this team great. I feel they swung for singles to keep this team from being awful instead of trying to be great 

[Voice_of_Reason]

There is no such thing as a reach. NONE.  There is a simple reason why: there are 32 draft boards which differ wildly based on their evaluations, and there is absolutely nobody who knows what is on those draft boards.

 

None of the pundits know.  Mel doesn't know.  Todd doesn't know.  Thor Neistrom doesn't know. (I'm going to get to him in a minute.) Nobody knows.  

 

I listed to Galdi's podcast this morning, and he had that Thor guy on.  It was so illuminating.  He gave the Commanders draft a D-.  Why?

 

He kept saying "Well, I had this guy rated 187 on my board, and they took him at 113."  Or other such nonsense.  To quote (and slightly change) Bill Tobin, the GM of the Colts in 1994: "Who the hell is Thor Neistrom anyway?"  

 

He kept coming back to "it's not the players, it's the value of the pick." This is complete, total, and absolute bull****.  Unless you have a DeLorean Time Machine, you have absolutely no idea who is going to be picked with the very next pick.  "I had Dotson rated my 25th player on my board, WR 5. With a big drop off between the top 4 (London, the 2 Ohio State guys and the ACL guy)."  So he beat the commanders up a bit for picking him at 16.  But there is a good possibility he would have gone via a trade to either GB or KC at 17.  Or, if we had traded back with one of those 2 teams, to THEM at 16.  And the whole world would have lauded them for going and getting their guy.  There were plenty of folks who thought Olave wasn't good enough for the 11th overall pick.  The Saints traded UP to get him.  

 

Now let me rant on the second round criticism: "You could have gotten him in the third."  Really?  How do you know that?  Have you seen the 32 draft boards?  You have no idea.  Maybe they could have.  Maybe not.

 

Brandon Beane (who everybody loves as the GM of the Bills) and Mahew (who everybody hates because he's the GM of the Commanders) BOTH said that the draft boards of different teams were going to vary wildly, especially after the first round, because of the glut of players in the draft due to the COVID year, and different scouting priorities.  There is literally no way to know if any player lasts one more pick than where you are picking.  None.  

 

Also, my buddy Thor said he would have picked Howell in the 4th, because that would have been great value.  Really?  We got him with the first overall pick in the 5th, doofus.  

 

Now lets' address the "the player's agent said they thought I would be drafted in the ..."  

1. Agents absolutely have to set expectations low.  

2. They are guessing.  Do you know the one group of people who the teams would NEVER tell their plans?  Even before the media?  Agents.

3. The agents are getting their information from Mel.  Or Todd.  Or Thor. Or some other media pundit.  NOT the teams.  

4. The teams would also never tell the players.

 

This particular narrative is also amazingly stupid.  

 

Anyway, back to my buddy Thor.  

 

Why did this guy give them a D-?  Because they didn't pick along with HIS value chart.  But who is saying HIS value chart is even remotely accurate.  Point of fact, he had Malik Willis as the absolute #1 QB, and then he was somewhat aggressive and arrogant about it when asked how Malik was the 3rd QB off the board and in the third round.  He basically said "I think I'm right and the NFL is wrong."  

 

He might be.  Honestly, chances are he's not.  

 

Keim said it best, it's easy to "win the draft."  Just pick the players who the pundits have rated highly and they will grade you spectacularly. Because the team is VALIDATING their analysis.

 

The simple fact is, absolutely NOBDY knows what is a reach and what is not a reach.  Because nobody can see into the future.  

 

All of these arrogant draft analysis ass hats should literally cut over a part of their income to Mel, who single handedly created this cottage industry.   And at the beginning, I really enjoyed it because it was really good theater.  But Bill Tobin was right, and was actually validated the next year.  Mel gave them a hard time because they passed on Trent Freaking Dilfer because they had Jim Harbaugh.  Well, what happened in 1995?  Jim Harbaugh win the comeback player of the year and the Colts were in the AFC Championship game (and a very questionable call sent the Steelers to the SB, if I recall.)

 

/Rant.  (Btw, I give this rant, in some form, every year.) Also, this is a rant I give even if the Commanders have a highly rated draft.  We've had some of those. 

 

These guys know nothing.  You have to wait to see how it plays out over a couple of years.  

[BatteredFanSyndrome]

I don't think there's any legit way to directly quantify what is an actual reach considering we have no idea what each team's actual big board looks like.  Not to downplay the OP's efforts, because this is a good insight considering we'll never know what the actual big boards look like.

 

That said, in general - most of the folks bellowing the loudest about reaches are the folks that were never really going to like what the team did no matter who they selected, as they are predisposed to disliking Ron and the FO he setup.  We've been applauded by the pundits in the past for having a great draft that ended up very meh.  We've been pooped on for having bad drafts that ended up rather decent.  I find it incredibly difficult to make any definitive conclusions about what constitutes a successful draft this early in the game.  Even our devoted draft guys here, that watch loads of tape and make one hell of a hobby out of following this stuff - they miss and miss often.  As do GM's across the league that actually do this for a living.

 

What would be cool is if everyone speaking on this with conviction etched their opinions in stone, and we revisited those several years later.  It's easy to sit here and crap on the org, believe me - I know, 90% of my posts fall in that category.  I absolutely agree that nobody associated with this organization is entitled to any benefit of the doubt.  But I'll stick to my guns that most of the negative nellies, were never open to being positive to begin with.

[Bifflog]

30 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

I don't think there's any legit way to directly quantify what is an actual reach considering we have no idea what each team's actual big board looks like.  Not to downplay the OP's efforts, because this is a good insight considering we'll never know what the actual big boards look like.

 

I was dealing entirely in what the perception is, which if you really dig into it is the only way to talk about "reaches."  I didn't want to go full blown "Reaches don't actually exist" like @Voice_of_Reason did, lest @Going Commando come smack me in the mouth, it's more like reaches exist, but you can only state your case for why a pick is a reach and present evidence, but it's not going to conclusively prove anything.  Meanwhile, folks who are going that far to look at film, do bottom up analysis, of which we have several posters here who provide that service, I'm never going to take issue with their thoughts because I can't hack it at that, don't know enough.  It's more the parroting, and looking at who we picked, and then looking at the mocks and saying "numbers are different, bad!!"  If we were drafting piles of cash, all of our mocks would be the same, we'd just count the bills.

 

30 minutes ago, BatteredFanSyndrome said:

What would be cool is if everyone speaking on this with conviction etched their opinions in stone, and we revisited those several years later.

 

I think there's an attempt at this over at

 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Bifflog

[Berggy9598]

The idea that an aggregate of media outlets and fan run sites doing mock drafts can tell a Shannahan he reached for a RB tells you all you need to know about so called reaches. 

[skinsfan66]

So, if Howell was selected 2 and Mathis 5 would that that change some opinions?  

[Berggy9598]

I remember the Seahawks were destroyed for their first 3 picks in the 2012 draft. Who were the picks? Bruce Irvin, Bobby Wagner and Russell Wilson. 

[Warhead36]

I don't think reaches really exist beyond like maybe the first 15-20 picks or so. After that, draft boards are going to vary greatly from team to team based on team need, roster/scheme fit, etc. 

 

I mean once you get to midway through the 2nd round, you're talking 50+ players have already been picked. Some teams might have a guy ranked as the 51st best player, while other teams might have that same guy ranked as the 63rd best, some other teams might have him ranked 80th best, etc. GMs aren't drafting based on some Yahoo Sports Fantasy Football draft guide.

10 minutes ago, Berggy9598 said:

I remember the Seahawks were destroyed for their first 3 picks in the 2012 draft. Who were the picks? Bruce Irvin, Bobby Wagner and Russell Wilson. 

Yep. I remember that draft was widely regarded as being awful and everyone giving it an F. Two years later they were the core of a Super Bowl champion.

 

This is why grading drafts before the guys play a down is beyond moronic.

[Thinking Skins]

30 minutes ago, skinsfan66 said:

So, if Howell was selected 2 and Mathis 5 would that that change some opinions?  

I have been saying to assume we spent our first on Howell and shift everybody else down a round

[Conn]

 

5 hours ago, skinsfan66 said:

So, if Howell was selected 2 and Mathis 5 would that that change some opinions?  

 

4 hours ago, Thinking Skins said:

I have been saying to assume we spent our first on Howell and shift everybody else down a round

 

I didn’t get the details exactly right but I got pretty damn close lol

 

On 4/29/2022 at 8:55 PM, Conn said:

This feels like the sort of thing where we’ll draft an injured “steal” at the end of the 3rd and we’ll all convince ourselves it’s cool to pretend Mathis was our 3rd round pick and our actual 3rd rounder was our 2nd rounder. You all know the feeling 

[CTskins]

Reaches exist, but they are context dependent. I personally don't consider a 1 round (or less) delta either way to be a steal or a reach, particularly if it is a position of need. Just like in fantasy football, if you do not believe a given player will be available by the next team pick, you need to take him.

 

Despite what Mathis says (and why would you ever make that public?), I've seen multiple analyses putting him in the mid 2nd/3rd round, exactly where Washington took him. He is going to be block occupier and definitely fills a team need, with Settle and Ioannidis departing. Unless it's Warren Sapp, interior defensive line is never sexy, but it might be among the most important positions on the defense.

 

As a Northeast guy and UConn alum, I would have loved for Washington to take Travis Jones, who was talked about rising up boards with end of first round potential. He was one of only a very few bright spots in Edsall's 2nd stint with UConn, but until Saban retires, an Alabama pedigree is rarely a negative.

 

Edit: Sam Howell, on the other hand, could be steal.

 

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by CTskins

[Voice_of_Reason]

@CTskin here is the problem: what’s the baseline?  That’s why I rant on “steals,” “reaches” and “value.”

 

The media pundits draw up their big boards in one way, teams do it a different way.  
 

Without having a baseline, you can’t determine what is a reach.  And that ass hat Thor (I REALLY had a problem with him) thinks his board is gospel and that’s what determines what a reach is.  
 

I will say, I do think there is “position value.”  
 

ie: don’t pick a guard or RB in the first round unless they are all world, safety/LB should be late first, RB second at rhe earliest, etc.   don’t pick a specialist until the 6th…

 

But none of these big boards actually can be used as a baseline, so it’s impossible to determine what is a reach and what isn’t.  

Also, the “rising up rhe boards” is entirely a media manufactured thing.  The teams don’t tell Mel who’s moving up and down their evaluations.  
 

“Flying up the boards” means the media is slowly completing evaluations.”

 

Its meaningless.  And has nothing to do with what teams actually are thinking. 

[CTskins]

18 minutes ago, Voice_of_Reason said:

@CTskin here is the problem: what’s the baseline?  That’s why I rant on “steals,” “reaches” and “value.”

 

The media pundits draw up their big boards in one way, teams do it a different way.  
 

Without having a baseline, you can’t determine what is a reach.  And that ass hat Thor (I REALLY had a problem with him) thinks his board is gospel and that’s what determines what a reach is.  
 

I will say, I do think there is “position value.”  
 

ie: don’t pick a guard or RB in the first round unless they are all world, safety/LB should be late first, RB second at rhe earliest, etc.   don’t pick a specialist until the 6th…

 

But none of these big boards actually can be used as a baseline, so it’s impossible to determine what is a reach and what isn’t.  

Also, the “rising up rhe boards” is entirely a media manufactured thing.  The teams don’t tell Mel who’s moving up and down their evaluations.  
 

“Flying up the boards” means the media is slowly completing evaluations.”

 

Its meaningless.  And has nothing to do with what teams actually are thinking. 

 

"...And that ass hat Thor (I REALLY had a problem with him)..." - Gee, I couldn't tell. 🤣

 

The media and teams draw up their own boards, but they don't do it in a vacuum. The media is constantly talking to the teams and while team personnel like to be cryptic (and I'm in the cryptic-press-conference-capital-of-the-NFL), many of these draftniks are quite adept at reading between the lines (Thor Whatshisnutz notwithstanding). Others, on the other hand, seem to hate their jobs and root for chaos, which gives them stories about which to write.

 

My point is that players generally can at least be aggregated into tiers and reasonable assessments can be made on where they would fall based largely on player talent but also team need. At the end of the day, 22 positions can be grouped into 7 categories. (DL, LB, DB, OL, QB, Receiver, and Back).

 

Re: Travis Jones, I was reiterating the news coming out of the Senior Bowl. He had a solid Combine and Pro Day as well.

 

I agree with your view on positional value. Sebastian Janikowski and Saquon Barkley, for example, were wasted picks by their respective teams in their particular situation and in those spots. On the other hand, I believe guards are undervalued.

[Voice_of_Reason]

@CTskins sure, but most of the pundits put their boards together based on their evaluations and the. Use the info for their mocks.  
 

I also wouldn’t believe a thing any team member said about a player to a draftnik.  
 

The fact remains, there is no baseline.  
 

I somewhat agree with you that guards are a little undervalued, especially with the rise of interior pass rushers.  But you can still find really good guards in later rounds.  If you have a super special, all pro level talent, then fine, grab them.  
 

The way I see it, nobody is going to block Aaron Donald.  But you can get a bunch of really good guards to block just about everybody else.  You just want to avoid Sean Luavao who for reasons only known to him Jay thought was God. 

[xxprodigyxx]

On 5/1/2022 at 5:40 PM, Bifflog said:

 

Yeah, but either you believe in the consensus rankings or you don't.  If you only buy into them when you want to, or it's convenient, isn't that more of a conventional wisdom approach vs. Big Data?  And if you're going to be into conventional wisdom rather than "the numbers", then why care about aggregated data.

 

my problem with consensus rankings has always revolved around the issue of who is providing input to build the aggregate rankings? if it's not (and i know it's not) based on the actual draft boards of the actual teams, it's pointless. all the consensus ranking serves to provide is to give people the ammunition to praise or crucify the team of their choice. people should limit the influence of these rankings to just entertaining thought exercises and not get overly frustrated by the team not adhering to this arbitrary consensus created by people who aren't participating in the draft.