Keep Texans Talk Google Ad Free!
Venmo Tip Jar | Paypal Tip Jar
Thanks for your support! 🍺😎👍

What's a reach?

infantrycak

infantrycak

Hall of Fame
steelbtexan said:
God I hope the Texans don't reach for Strong.
Click to expand...

Not disputing your use here, using it as a launch.

How do you define reach?

Not arguing for the example, just using it. Strong - we have had several prominent draft forum folks suggest/discuss Strong at 16. There have been national guys do the same.

So what defines a reach v. someone you (generic) just don't like?
 
infantrycak said:
Not disputing your use here, using it as a launch.

How do you define reach?

Not arguing for the example, just using it. Strong - we have had several prominent draft forum folks suggest/discuss Strong at 16. There have been national guys do the same.

So what defines a reach v. someone you (generic) just don't like?
Click to expand...

Strong is a big fairly fast guy with great hops that isn't quick in and out of his breaks. He needs a lot of work in his route running too. If you like Strong you should draft Perriman who has the same skillset and runs in the 4.2's.

BTW, I don't want the Texans to draft Perriman either. (So I'm sure that will be Rick's pick. LOL)
 
To me, a reach is going for someone that no one else has slotted at or in the same tier as other guys available


ie... Brown was considered a reach by most
 
JB said:
To me, a reach is going for someone that no one else has slotted at or in the same tier as other guys available


ie... Brown was considered a reach by most
Click to expand...

I was right with you until the last line...and the report San Diego was set to take him.
 
A reach to me (and this is not a definition set in stone) is basically taking a certain position not because they are the right combination of need and talent, but just letting need rule; for example, picking a receiver or running back a round earlier than they should be simply because you have a glaring need. Sometimes it works out because that player has qualities that are so specific to your team that they are naturally higher on the board (like the Cowboys and Travis Fredericks a few years back), but most of the time a team is essentially giving up on taking the best player - in that same scenario, would you rather have the No. 5 or 6 wideout, or the No. 1 EDGE? It just depends on the context.

As for Strong, I'm not against him being the pick, but I almost wish the Texans would trade down a little first; I see him as a top 20-25 player than top 15, especially if a player like Bud Dupree, Randy Gregory, La'el Collins, Danny Shelton, or Cameron Erving is available, etc.
 
A reach is any player I don't like...unless he turns into JJ Watt. Then it was a genius move. I think Dallas has shown us that even if a player, OL especially, isn't rated high by anyone else you take him if he's there.
 
JB said:
yeah, I should have qualified that statement with 'most here thought it was a reach'
Click to expand...

Maybe it would be easier to define not a reach (same difference). Okoye turned out to be a bad pick but he wasn't a reach Imo because there were lots of folks who expected him to go in that area or even higher.

Brown is tougher because we drafted him at the top of where he was mentioned. ..but it appears when we had to.

Seems like a reach should be someone who isn't in discussion for the spot. Maybe a rare reference but generally outside the discussion.
 
infantrycak said:
So that fits within the not even in the discussion definition - care to refine?
Click to expand...

Drafting someone like Ty Montgomery (a projected 3-5 rounder) over 2 who are projected as top 10 is not a reach?? Specially since with this logic he'd be drafted in the top 10 that's not a reach?
 
PHILLYTEXANFAN said:
That fits perfect in my book, drafting someone higher than they should be or originally thought to be is not a reach?
Click to expand...

ahh, but it's not necessarily drafted over someone at the same position... it's drafting someone with a mid 2nd grade in the mid first, when you still have (ranked by most) players with a first round grade
 
What is a reach?

I'd say if you draft a player more than 2 standard deviations above the mean ranking on a representative selection of 'expert' big boards.

That should be a reach 95% of the time.
 
PHILLYTEXANFAN said:
Drafting someone like Ty Montgomery (a projected 3-5 rounder) over 2 who are projected as top 10 is not a reach?? Specially since with this logic he'd be drafted in the top 10 that's not a reach?
Click to expand...

PHILLYTEXANFAN said:
That fits perfect in my book, drafting someone higher than they should be or originally thought to be is not a reach?
Click to expand...

What part of agreement followed by a question implied disagreement to you?

Got it and agreed 3rd round projection in the 1st round is a reach. Can you tighten that up any? Or is anything less, say a 2nd round projection in the 1st, not a reach?
 
infantrycak said:
What part of agreement followed by a question implied disagreement to you?

Got it and agreed 3rd round projection in the 1st round is a reach. Can you tighten that up any? Or is anything less, say a 2nd round projection in the 1st, not a reach?
Click to expand...

Id say drafting anyone higher than they should could constitute a reach.
 
Hypothetically speaking lets say a team really wants to draft a certain WR with their first round pick (oh gosh, lets say they have the #16 pick in the first round), and they decide to select a WR they kinda like but only have rated as a mid-second round valuee, and in so doing they leave other players on their border who are rated as first-round values but none are WRs. That approach may work for the short term, but over the longer term it compromise the overall talent of a teams roster. That's a reach.
It's pretty simple.
 
Last edited:
PHILLYTEXANFAN said:
Id say drafting anyone higher than they should could constitute a reach.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the circular definition.

To use the example from above, Charles Rogers was almost universally ranked above AJ (although they were largely expected to go 2 and 3). Would the Lions have been reaching to take AJ?

C'mon folks, reach is thrown around this joint a lot. What do you mean?
 
infantrycak said:
Maybe it would be easier to define not a reach (same difference). Okoye turned out to be a bad pick but he wasn't a reach Imo because there were lots of folks who expected him to go in that area or even higher.

Brown is tougher because we drafted him at the top of where he was mentioned. ..but it appears when we had to.

Seems like a reach should be someone who isn't in discussion for the spot. Maybe a rare reference but generally outside the discussion.
Click to expand...

There's the rub. Whose "discussion" is more important??

A "reach", as identified by TV's talking heads or some weinie with a website, may be the #1 or #2 guy on some team's big board for a given round because the coordinator or coaching staff knows/feels they can make guy X work in their system better than the guy those talking head bozos (who won't lose their jobs if they guess wrong by the way) have identified.

To put it simply, the team's assessment may be totally different than some talking head's or some website bozo's assessment. We need to know why the team picked who they picked - what scout/politicked for him and why - before we know who's a reach.
 
JB said:
Higher than they should by whose standard? Not by the drafters surely
Click to expand...

You would have to compile all the "experts " , sites, your personal if you get that deep into it , maybe a buddies and come up with an average grade/round per player than go from there. If say David Johnson has a fourth round grade, but is drafted in the second, that's a reach.
 
For instance drafting Strong over Andrus Peat.

Peat has the potential to be an Orlando Pace type LT. What do you think Strong will ultimately become? He becomes a high end WR2 IMHO.

Peat may bust, but he's got the potential to be a multiple time pro bowl player.
 
infantrycak said:
Thanks for the circular definition.

To use the example from above, Charles Rogers was almost universally ranked above AJ (although they were largely expected to go 2 and 3). Would the Lions have been reaching to take AJ?

C'mon folks, reach is thrown around this joint a lot. What do you mean?
Click to expand...

I mean like taking a third rounder in the first
 
steelbtexan said:
For instance drafting Strong over Andrus Peat.

Peat has the potential to be an Orlando Pace type LT. What do you think Strong will ultimately become? He becomes a high end WR2 IMHO.

Peat may bust, but he's got the potential to be a multiple time pro bowl player.
Click to expand...

What if your team has an all pro LT, but you NEED a WR2 is the pick still a reach?
 
JB said:
ahh, but it's not necessarily drafted over someone at the same position... it's drafting someone with a mid 2nd grade in the mid first, when you still have (ranked by most) players with a first round grade
Click to expand...

but if there's a run on that position, like there was on OTs when D.Brown was drafted, you take the chance of missing out on a targeted player.

talking heads and website opinions mean NOTHING to NFL coaching staffs. Teams have their own scouts who know what the coaching staff is looking for. That's the opinion that counts.
 
infantrycak said:
Maybe it would be easier to define not a reach (same difference). Okoye turned out to be a bad pick but he wasn't a reach Imo because there were lots of folks who expected him to go in that area or even higher.

Brown is tougher because we drafted him at the top of where he was mentioned. ..but it appears when we had to.

Seems like a reach should be someone who isn't in discussion for the spot. Maybe a rare reference but generally outside the discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't consider either OkOye or Brown to be reachers.

OkOye because he looked great his Sr. yr and at the Sr. Bowl. Who knew football wasn't the most important thing to him. IMHO

Brown- because the 2nd greatest OL coach all time said Brown was a player. Gibbs is 2nd to Bugel. IMHO
 
IDEXAN said:
Hypothetically speaking lets say a team really wants to draft a certain WR with their first round pick (oh gosh, lets say they have the #16 pick in the first round), and they decide to select a WR they kinda like but only have rated as a mid-second round valuee, and in so doing they leave other players on their border who are rated as first-round values but none are WRs. That approach may work for the short term, but over the longer term it compromise the overall talent of a teams roster. That's a reach.
It's petty simple.
Click to expand...

Totally disagree. A team never believes that it reached. Only fans, media and other teams may think a team 'reached' for a player.

A reach is selecting someone the majority had rated significantly lower than where he wound up being selected. ie... The Cowboys taking Frederick or Martin in the 1st the past two years. The Cowboys didn't think they reached but everyone else did.

Worked pretty well for the Cowboys btw...
 
ObsiWan said:
but if there's a run on that position, like there was on OTs when D.Brown was drafted, you take the chance of missing out on a targeted player.

talking heads and website opinions mean NOTHING to NFL coaching staffs. Teams have their own scouts who know what the coaching staff is looking for. That's the opinion that counts.
Click to expand...

That's just it and what causes reaches in many cases. But if there's a run then that player is moving up your board because of need and probably is not a good move

As far as the bolded, that's how it should be
 
PHILLYTEXANFAN said:
You would have to compile all the "experts " , sites, your personal if you get that deep into it , maybe a buddies and come up with an average grade/round per player than go from there. If say David Johnson has a fourth round grade, but is drafted in the second, that's a reach.
Click to expand...

I've got an early 3rd rd grade on David Johnson. But If the Texans used 51 on him I wouldn't have a problem with that. Because I think he could be used in the slot as a Vereen type weapon. (He has great hands.) Then when Foster goes down (Inevitable) you could play him at RB.

Versatility moves Johnson up my board. A slight reach for versatility isn't a bad thing. Montgomery who wasn't scheme versatile is the classic example of a reach. Montgomery was a 4-3 DE and his combine #'s told the tale of him not being able to transition to 3-4 OLB.

This yr my favorite DE's to transfer to 3-4 OLB's are Dupree/Orchard.
 
PHILLYTEXANFAN said:
What if your team has an all pro LT, but you NEED a WR2 is the pick still a reach?
Click to expand...

For instance, Give me Peat (BPA) 1st and Conley 3rd/4th or Shipley/Coxson in the 6th.

In other words if you don't think a WR is special (Strong isn't IMHO) take the OL and draft a talented type guy later in the draft that has the ability to develop into something special with coaching in a later rd. (Just my philosophy.)
 
steelbtexan said:
For instance drafting Strong over Andrus Peat.

Peat has the potential to be an Orlando Pace type LT. What do you think Strong will ultimately become? He becomes a high end WR2 IMHO.

Peat may bust, but he's got the potential to be a multiple time pro bowl player.
Click to expand...

But that's the other side of the coin - YOU have Peat rated high enough to take 16th overall, but there are a lot who think he is better suited as a 20s pick rather than mid-teens. Likewise, I can see the Texans taking Melvin Gordon at 16th overall, but you might disagree - rightly or wrongly - about the value of taking a RB that high.

I think a good example is the Nelson Agholor player that people have begun to mock into the 1st round, as high as Houston's 16th overall pick. While Nelson could become a solid player, Todd McShay's draft presents it as a good example of a reach: by taking what is considered maybe only the 5th or 6th best wideout in the draft, the Texans also passed on players like Trae Waynes, Cam Erving, and Bud Dupree (arguably the No. 1 corner and center and 2-3 OLB/No. 1-2 SAM 3-4 OLB in the draft) because of the assumption that they NEED to take a wide receiver so high.
 
JB said:
Totally disagree. A team never believes that it reached. Only fans, media and other teams may think a team 'reached' for a player.
Click to expand...

When a team overdrafts a prospect because it overrated him because it failed to accurately evaluate the prospects abilities and talent, that's seems to be a different situation than consciously drafting a prospect higher than they have him rated on their own Board.
 
steelbtexan said:
For instance drafting Strong over Andrus Peat.

Peat has the potential to be an Orlando Pace type LT. What do you think Strong will ultimately become? He becomes a high end WR2 IMHO.

Peat may bust, but he's got the potential to be a multiple time pro bowl player.
Click to expand...

So high end counts but not floor? - so drafting Cooper over White would be a reach?

ObsiWan said:
talking heads and website opinions mean NOTHING to NFL coaching staffs. Teams have their own scouts who know what the coaching staff is looking for. That's the opinion that counts.
Click to expand...

Teams never talk about reaches and obviously their picks are not reaches to them. Reach is a fan/commentator thing.

JB said:
Totally disagree. A team never believes that it reached. Only fans, media and other teams may think a team 'reached' for a player.

A reach is selecting someone the majority had rated significantly lower than where he wound up being selected. ie... The Cowboys taking Frederick or Martin in the 1st the past two years. The Cowboys didn't think they reached but everyone else did.

Worked pretty well for the Cowboys btw...
Click to expand...

Bingo.

Brown is a funny case. He was commonly called a reach for 2 seasons. Now he isn't. As it turned out at the time it was draft him there or he was gone, trading back wouldn't have worked.
 
IDEXAN said:
When a team overdrafts a prospect because it overrated him because it failed to accurately evaluate the prospects abilities and talent, that's seems to be a different situation than consciously drafting a prospect higher than they have him rated on their own Board.
Click to expand...

:confused:
 
bhsman said:
But that's the other side of the coin - YOU have Peat rated high enough to take 16th overall, but there are a lot who think he is better suited as a 20s pick rather than mid-teens. Likewise, I can see the Texans taking Melvin Gordon at 16th overall, but you might disagree - rightly or wrongly - about the value of taking a RB that high.

I think a good example is the Nelson Agholor player that people have begun to mock into the 1st round, as high as Houston's 16th overall pick. While Nelson could become a solid player, Todd McShay's draft presents it as a good example of a reach: by taking what is considered maybe only the 5th or 6th best wideout in the draft, the Texans also passed on players like Trae Waynes, Cam Erving, and Bud Dupree (arguably the No. 1 corner and center and 2-3 OLB/No. 1-2 SAM 3-4 OLB in the draft) because of the assumption that they NEED to take a wide receiver so high.
Click to expand...

This all depeds on how your board is stacke. I would take any of the guys you listed over Strong. All of them have the ability to be special. (Waynes/Dupree/Erving) I also like Agholor more than Strong due to his abilty to play outside, or the slot in addition to the KR/PR abilities. Strong can only play outside. Not that I want Agholor at 16.
 
IDEXAN said:
When a team overdrafts a prospect because it overrated him because it failed to accurately evaluate the prospects abilities and talent, that's seems to be a different situation than consciously drafting a prospect higher than they have him rated on their own Board.
Click to expand...

I think both of those can be considered reaches, though the former is heavily influenced by a team's own internal analysis. The latter is what I was referring to: consciously drafting a player who isn't the top player or players available on your board because you feel like that position desperately needs to be filled.

steelbtexan said:
This all depeds on how your board is stacke. I would take any of the guys you listed over Strong. All of them have the ability to be special. (Waynes/Dupree/Erving) I also like Agholor more than Strong due to his abilty to play outside, or the slot in addition to the KR/PR abilities. Strong can only play outside. Not that I want Agholor at 16.
Click to expand...

I know, I'm talking about a hypothetical version of you that would make that decision, etc.
 
I would define reach as "a pick made with a position in mind when the player at that position does not necessarily warrant that pick, made by the team in case of fear of a run on said position, miscalculation by the draft room, or some other logical fallacy that would prevent the team from picking from the highest remaining players on the board."

I don't think it's a reach to have a draft board that has the top end look like:

DT
DE
QB
FS
WR
DE
ILB

and pick the WR. Now if you have something like:

DT
DE
... (ten more players not WR)
QB
FS
DE
ILB
WR

and pick the WR simply because you have a need at the position and won't be able to pick him up with your next draft pick, that's a reach.
 
infantrycak said:
Thanks for the circular definition.

To use the example from above, Charles Rogers was almost universally ranked above AJ (although they were largely expected to go 2 and 3). Would the Lions have been reaching to take AJ?

C'mon folks, reach is thrown around this joint a lot. What do you mean?
Click to expand...

I dont think it's a circular definition. A reach is drafting someone earlier than they should. The difference between the universally accepted number 2 and 3 picks wouldnt constitute a reach since most teams will grade players differently based on all sorts of things. Us taking Hopkins over Patterson is an example many may have considered a reach.

I think Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, & Brandon Weeden... Heck, even Tannehill were reaches. They may have had first round grades, but there's no way they could have been rated higher than the handful of players who went after them who've made pro bowls & all stars.
 
htownfan32 said:
I would define reach as "a pick made with a position in mind when the player at that position does not necessarily warrant that pick, made by the team in case of fear of a run on said position, miscalculation by the draft room, or some other logical fallacy that would prevent the team from picking from the highest remaining players on the board."
Click to expand...

Good lord, watch out or someone will think you want to be a lawyer. Brevity Aggie.

thunderkyss said:
I dont think it's a circular definition. A reach is drafting someone earlier than they should.
Click to expand...

You added no clarity thru use of a word you would most likely use in the definition of the word in the first place - should.

It's textbook circular.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top