I thought it's been clear for a while the Giants set up rows, or tiers
Lurts : 8/20/2017 9:42 pm : link : reply
of players and, if they have a need, that gets preference. So, he wasn't necessarily the highest rated player on their board, but he was in the highest tier.
A tight end was a need, granted, but so were offensive linemen. Everyone here was convinced a N OL would be taken before the sixth round. Half of BBI spit beer when the Giants picked Webb in the third.
This is how the Giants have run their draft for years, and you have seen it play out in the 1st round many times where they make a pick that isn't necessarily a pick of need because the guy is the best left on the board. Other times, they have a pick of need and a player is still left in the highest tier and they pull the trigger.
Just look at last year - many still look at Apple as a "reach", even though the value at OL was no longer there.
I struggle with ever calling a pick a reach unless the guy is assured to be there the following round, especially if a team looked into trade up or downs and was unsuccessful.Engram most definitely would not have been available in the 2nd round where we picked, and what's teh endgame anyway? If engram becomes a mainstay at TE, will he still be considered a reach because Mike Mayock said so?
32 players of same/similar value imv is way too broad
but if a player is correctly called a reach, it has to mean he'd be available the next time the team picks. I'd say Mykele Thompson was a reach since there were numerous reports he'd go undrafted. Bromley was probably a reach. But unless you really go crazy in the first couple of rounds, it is hard to make a reach pick there. One could effectively argue that TB made the worst draft move in history by not just selecting Aguayo in the 2nd round, but also trading up to get him. That's a colossal fail.
But absent Engram not being there for the 2nd round pick pretty much negates the idea he was a reach, especially given that Reese has never traded down in a draft.
This team could have used a player at just about any position except CB in round 1. We haven't drafted a TE high in years. All of a sudden they realized a mistake and forced a pick at the position.
Come on....
No, the Giants would never force a pick in Rd 1???
"forced picks"? From most accounts, they were in the top tier of giants prospects and they were at positions of need.
That's not forcing a pick.
I'm assuming your post was made in part because of the way Flowers has played - performance is completely different from if the pick was right or not. Teams that have taken shots at franchise QB's are legitimate picks at those slots, regardless of if they pan out or not. The same can be said for any position.
but if a player is correctly called a reach, it has to mean he'd be available the next time the team picks.
We don't agree on this. I am clear on your view, but its not mine.
IF Engram could have made it all the way to pick #54 (just using this b/c its the math in your definition) and the Giants picked him at #23 because they couldn't/wouldn't force a trade, then I would see they reached. Sure they got their guy, but he was picked out his area of value. As mentioned, I think the stakes and value in rounds 1-2 far outweigh the other rounds so even 10 picks later is big value differential...
Sure they got their guy, but he was picked out his area of value
But by what metric is he picked out of the area of value? Is it the Giants metric or Mel Kiper's? Let's say the Giants have a list of 14 players in Tier one and they were all off the board except for Engram. To them, he isn't just the pick they would want at 23, he is a STEAL.
And assessing value is also dependent on the ability to trade down to match the value - and that takes another team willing not only to trade, but also to deliver the appropriate value to move down.
I really think the actual number of reaches in rounds 1 and 2 are few and far in between, not just on the Giants, but for all teams. You might have 1 per year. I mentioned Agauyo, but he might have been the lone one last year.
Basically, the concept of reaches comes up so analysts can assert that a pick that doesn't match their board is a poor pick, whether it truly is or not. It is a talking point for a period of time that is otherwise dead for NFL news. But in the end, it really has little to no meaning.
Yeah I think Flowers was a forced pick, and possibly Pugh
but moreso Flowers. And very possible that they could have been put in the top tier because it was SUCH a position of need. I think very different to separate the two concepts when need becomes NEED.
Pugh being further down the line in draft that year may have gone a bit early, but not egregiously. But there was no way the Giants were not going O-line in Rd 1 that year so maybe he was pulled up over other positional players with higher values.
if a player is slotted between 23 and 54 and you know he isn't going to make it to your next pick, he isn't a reach.
That's not everyone's opinion but mine - it is actually a principle GM's will use.
If you have a player or group of players targeted and their value is similar to your draft position - either above or below, and you know they aren't going to be there in the 2nd round, you take one of those guys.
Again I'll stress the point that trading down is something fans think is easy to do, but it really isn't. Not only do you need a trading partner, but you need to get a return value that makes it worth trading, and that's a lot of stuff that has to happen just so Mel Kiper doesn't call a player a reach, a term that truly has no meaning as it pertains to football ability or performance - it is strictly a term used to confirm one's ability to slot draft prospects.
majority of the time, a "reach" is only considered such because it doesn't mesh with the picks some of the draft analysts expect a team to make.
But it is easier to call the pick a reach than the draft analyst wrong.
Eli Apple was called a reach by some despite evidence coming out in the days after the draft that two other teams were taking him if the Giants didn't. And even in Engram's case, there was evidence two teams were going to take him before the end of the 1st round.
So not only is the assertion Engram was going to last another 15 picks likely wrong, calling him a reach likely is wrong too.
And the kicker is - even if he lasted 15 picks, the Giants then can't draft him because they didn't have a 2nd round pick until later. I know - they could have traded down - but could they have?
The classic reach example for the Giants, was Osi. People were saying he could have been had as an undrafted freeagent after the draft. Did not the Bucs want him also?
are interesting because it brings the ignorance of fans into play. If they've heard of a guy before, he automatically becomes a reach, even if a dozen NFL GM's are prepping to draft him. At the time, Christian Okoye was considered a reach, getting taken in teh 2nd round, and after his first two years, he was being called a bust by some.
That's common for small school players. If a fan hasn't heard of the guy, he's likely considered a reach.
RE: And Engram was a reach. I don't know why its inconceivable that
this player may very well have been taken about a half round or so too early.
There is the value of the player and value of the draft position. When they are aligned, the pick is strong. When the latter is more valuable than the former, its kind of a reach.
We pulled the trigger on him more because of our specific Giant needs than that total value picture.
I don't understand comments like this. Who determines the value of the player? How do you know his value wasn't greater than where he was picked?
Lurts : 8/20/2017 9:42 pm : link : reply
of players and, if they have a need, that gets preference. So, he wasn't necessarily the highest rated player on their board, but he was in the highest tier.
A tight end was a need, granted, but so were offensive linemen. Everyone here was convinced a N OL would be taken before the sixth round. Half of BBI spit beer when the Giants picked Webb in the third.
This is how the Giants have run their draft for years, and you have seen it play out in the 1st round many times where they make a pick that isn't necessarily a pick of need because the guy is the best left on the board. Other times, they have a pick of need and a player is still left in the highest tier and they pull the trigger.
Just look at last year - many still look at Apple as a "reach", even though the value at OL was no longer there.
I struggle with ever calling a pick a reach unless the guy is assured to be there the following round, especially if a team looked into trade up or downs and was unsuccessful.Engram most definitely would not have been available in the 2nd round where we picked, and what's teh endgame anyway? If engram becomes a mainstay at TE, will he still be considered a reach because Mike Mayock said so?
But absent Engram not being there for the 2nd round pick pretty much negates the idea he was a reach, especially given that Reese has never traded down in a draft.
This team could have used a player at just about any position except CB in round 1. We haven't drafted a TE high in years. All of a sudden they realized a mistake and forced a pick at the position.
Come on....
No, the Giants would never force a pick in Rd 1???
Several are starting on the offense today...
That's not forcing a pick.
I'm assuming your post was made in part because of the way Flowers has played - performance is completely different from if the pick was right or not. Teams that have taken shots at franchise QB's are legitimate picks at those slots, regardless of if they pan out or not. The same can be said for any position.
We don't agree on this. I am clear on your view, but its not mine.
IF Engram could have made it all the way to pick #54 (just using this b/c its the math in your definition) and the Giants picked him at #23 because they couldn't/wouldn't force a trade, then I would see they reached. Sure they got their guy, but he was picked out his area of value. As mentioned, I think the stakes and value in rounds 1-2 far outweigh the other rounds so even 10 picks later is big value differential...
But by what metric is he picked out of the area of value? Is it the Giants metric or Mel Kiper's? Let's say the Giants have a list of 14 players in Tier one and they were all off the board except for Engram. To them, he isn't just the pick they would want at 23, he is a STEAL.
And assessing value is also dependent on the ability to trade down to match the value - and that takes another team willing not only to trade, but also to deliver the appropriate value to move down.
I really think the actual number of reaches in rounds 1 and 2 are few and far in between, not just on the Giants, but for all teams. You might have 1 per year. I mentioned Agauyo, but he might have been the lone one last year.
Basically, the concept of reaches comes up so analysts can assert that a pick that doesn't match their board is a poor pick, whether it truly is or not. It is a talking point for a period of time that is otherwise dead for NFL news. But in the end, it really has little to no meaning.
Pugh being further down the line in draft that year may have gone a bit early, but not egregiously. But there was no way the Giants were not going O-line in Rd 1 that year so maybe he was pulled up over other positional players with higher values.
Quote:
Sure they got their guy, but he was picked out his area of value
But by what metric is he picked out of the area of value? Is it the Giants metric or Mel Kiper's?
Everybody but yours because your definition has #23 and #54 at the same value.
That's not everyone's opinion but mine - it is actually a principle GM's will use.
If you have a player or group of players targeted and their value is similar to your draft position - either above or below, and you know they aren't going to be there in the 2nd round, you take one of those guys.
Again I'll stress the point that trading down is something fans think is easy to do, but it really isn't. Not only do you need a trading partner, but you need to get a return value that makes it worth trading, and that's a lot of stuff that has to happen just so Mel Kiper doesn't call a player a reach, a term that truly has no meaning as it pertains to football ability or performance - it is strictly a term used to confirm one's ability to slot draft prospects.
Again, we don't agree on the above.
Do agree that trade-downs are not as easy as fans think. But lack of getting one done doesn't eliminate still reaching imv.
But it is easier to call the pick a reach than the draft analyst wrong.
Eli Apple was called a reach by some despite evidence coming out in the days after the draft that two other teams were taking him if the Giants didn't. And even in Engram's case, there was evidence two teams were going to take him before the end of the 1st round.
So not only is the assertion Engram was going to last another 15 picks likely wrong, calling him a reach likely is wrong too.
And the kicker is - even if he lasted 15 picks, the Giants then can't draft him because they didn't have a 2nd round pick until later. I know - they could have traded down - but could they have?
That's common for small school players. If a fan hasn't heard of the guy, he's likely considered a reach.
There is the value of the player and value of the draft position. When they are aligned, the pick is strong. When the latter is more valuable than the former, its kind of a reach.
We pulled the trigger on him more because of our specific Giant needs than that total value picture.
I don't understand comments like this. Who determines the value of the player? How do you know his value wasn't greater than where he was picked?