Gap Between Rookie and FA Contracts Mean We Must Redefine The Word "Reach"

[AvengerRam]

I've seen many posts in which a draft prospect is described as a "reach" at a certain spot in the draft.

In the past, rookie contracts for early first round selections were quite large, which supported the notion that specific players or positions might be "reaches" if taken at the top of the draft.
Now, however, the NFL has a rookie scale, and when you compare what Top 10 picks get under this scale to what Free Agents are getting, a redefining of the term "reach" is in order.

By way of example, look at the wide receiver position.

This offseason, here is what the market for FA WRs has produced:

Vincent Jackson (age 29): 5 years, $55.5M, $26M guaranteed
Pierre Garcon (age 25): 5 years, $45.5M, $20.5M guaranteed
Robert Meachem (age 27): 4 years, $25.9M, $14M guaranteed

Now, compare that to Julio Jones, the sixth pick in last year's draft:

Julio Jones (rookie): 4 years, $16.2M, $16.2M guaranteed

Looking at those numbers, is anyone still going to argue that Justin Blackmon is not "worth" the sixth pick in the draft?

I'll go one step further, at that "market price," one could argue that a player like Michael Floyd is NOT a reach at No. 6 for a team like the Rams that really needs a WR. I'm not saying he's the BEST CHOICE at No. 6, but he's not, in my book, a clear "reach."

The same analysis would apply to other positions.

So, at the end of the day, teams should take the BPA on their draft board, regardless of whether, in some abstract analysis, the player in question is deemed a "reach" by some.

[Tampa_Ram]

Agree 1000%

[Rambos]

I agree with this when it comes to compensation you are spot on.

When it comes to "Reach" to fill a specific need is another story.

If you take a player that is a mid to late first round pick to fill a specific need and pass on a player that is considered to be an elite top ten player at another position. I would classify that as a Reach. You can have a reach in the 3rd round where the compensation is not really a concern, as much as the players talent. IMO

[tomahawk247]

I agree, and I think that is precisely why you could see Tannehill go in the top 10 of this years draft.

At the same time though, there needs to be some perspective. Say the Rams really love, for example, Stephen Hill. It would still be a reach taking him at no.6 overall. But the only reason for that would be

[AvengerRam]

If you take a player that is a mid to late first round pick to fill a specific need and pass on a player that is considered to be an elite top ten player at another position. I would classify that as a Reach.

I don't necessarily agree with that. If, for example, you buy that Quinton Coples is an elite/top 10 propect at DE, and the Rams passed on him (given that they have Long and Quinn) to take, let's say, Reilly Reiff, I would not call that a reach at all.

That's not to say that NO PLAYER would be a reach. Rather, I think the term must be more narrowly defined.

[AvengerRam]

I agree, and I think that is precisely why you could see Tannehill go in the top 10 of this years draft.

At the same time though, there needs to be some perspective. Say the Rams really love, for example, Stephen Hill. It would still be a reach taking him at no.6 overall. But the only reason for that would be

Stephen Hill would be a reach because at pick #6, the Rams would have a chance (even if Blackmon is gone) to take Floyd, who is a better prospect.

[Rambos]

I don't necessarily agree with that. If, for example, you buy that Quinton Coples is an elite/top 10 propect at DE, and the Rams passed on him (given that they have Long and Quinn) to take, let's say, Reilly Reiff, I would not call that a reach at all.

That's not to say that NO PLAYER would be a reach. Rather, I think the term must be more narrowly defined.

I know what you are saying and I did not want to make it players specific... many mocks have Reilly Reiff as a top ten player or just outside of the top ten. In that case I would say that's not a reach the spread is not that great.

Here is an example that might help my case.. Need WR... Balckmon is if the board at #6 we past on Morris Claiborne and Trent Richardson. We draft Michael Floyd a mid first round pick to try and fill a specific need. I would call that a Reach to take a mid first round player at 6 over all to fill a need and past on elite talent.

[tomahawk247]

Stephen Hill would be a reach because at pick #6, the Rams would have a chance (even if Blackmon is gone) to take Floyd, who is a better prospect.

That's what i was going to type when i didn't finish my sentence!

[AvengerRam]

That's what i was going to type when i didn't finish my sentence!

Oh... I'm glad you're back. I thought you had been abducted by aliens for a second there.

[AvengerRam]

I know what you are saying and I did not want to make it players specific... many mocks have Reilly Reiff as a top ten player or just outside of the top ten. In that case I would say that's not a reach the spread is not that great.

Here is an example that might help my case.. Need WR... Balckmon is if the board at #6 we past on Morris Claiborne and Trent Richardson. We draft Michael Floyd a mid first round pick to try and fill a specific need. I would call that a Reach to take a mid first round player at 6 over all to fill a need and past on elite talent.

Maybe, but that has nothing to do with my point.

I said that teams should take the BPA on their board. In your example, I'd presume that Claiborne and Richardson would be higher on the Rams' board than Floyd.

[RebelYell]

Being a reach is about talent and reaching to acquire that talent to fill a need instead of taking the best talent available.

I don't know where the Rams have Blackmon or Floyd rated but if they have one rated the 10th overall talent, drafting him at #6 to fill a need is a reach. When ranking players, you take into consideration the ability to find talent at that position in free agency. It's very possible to find high talent guards via free agency. Not so likely to acquire an elite center or taclke. You rank accordingly. If elite WRs are routinely available via free agency, it's because teams believe they can find elite talent when they need to do so later in the draft.

If you over draft a player you've wasted an asset. Great franchises utilize their assets. Bad franchises waste assets.

[AvengerRam]

I don't know where the Rams have Blackmon or Floyd rated but if they have one rated the 10th overall talent, drafting him at #6 to fill a need is a reach.

10th overall talent, or 10th overall talent on the Rams board? There is a difference. I'd say Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III are Top 10 overall talents, but they are not on the Rams' board.

Otherwise, you too are missing the point. If a team selects the 10th best player on its board over the 7th best, then that is a reach.

However, if the top player on the board happens to be a player (or a position) that the "experts" deem to be valued at a lower spot, then (assuming a trade down is not available) that player should nonetheless be taken, and should not be deemed a reach - PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE BARGAIN OF TODAY'S ROOKIE CONTRACTS.

[RebelYell]

10th overall talent, or 10th overall talent on the Rams board? There is a difference. I'd say Andrew Luck and Robert Griffin III are Top 10 overall talents, but they are not on the Rams' board.

Whether the Rams want RG3 or not, he had better be on their draft board. If you ignore players, you ignore their trade value. If RG3 by some miracle falls to the Rams, they had better know why and where he should be ranked in case teams come calling for a trade. Or they should at minimum consider calling teams to trade down to unlock RG3 being available if he's the #2 talent in the draft. If you leave him off, you have ignored the best available talent and are just ranking based upon need.

That's a system designed to fail.

[C-Mob 71]

I believe David Decastro fits this example perfectly. By all accounts I have seen, he is as can't miss prospect at offensive guard as any other player by position in this draft. Well in the past, drafting an OG in the top ten was unheard of, due to the position not being seen as important/ as lucrative. With the huge contracts given out to Nicks, Dahl, Mankins and a few years ago Hutchinson, I would no longer consider it a reach to take an elite offensive guard in the top 10.

Heck this might have convinced me that if Blackmon is gone, I am now in the Decastro camp.

[AvengerRam]

Whether the Rams want RG3 or not, he had better be on their draft board. If you ignore players, you ignore their trade value. If RG3 by some miracle falls to the Rams, they had better know why and where he should be ranked in case teams come calling for a trade. Or they should at minimum consider calling teams to trade down to unlock RG3 being available if he's the #2 talent in the draft. If you leave him off, you have ignored the best available talent and are just ranking based upon need.

That's a system designed to fail.

It really is remarkable how you continue to miss the point entirely. Clearly, you just want to argue.

Suffice to say, if RGIII fell to No. 6 (0% chance of that happening, by the way), then the Rams would be smart to explore trade options. However, if no team were interested in making such a trade (heck, if we're going to throw out absurd hypotheticals, let's go all the way with it), then the Rams should pick the top player on their board and pass on RGIII, and...

THAT WOULD NOT BE A REACH.