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

[AvengerRam]

Doesn't matter whether you think he's the best choice, it's whether the Rams think so. If the RAMS think so, that's a scenario where Floyd is taken #6. When are you paying him $1 million?

This is getting boring.

I've never suggested that the Rams should take Floyd at No. 6. I never would say that because he's not one of the top 6 prospects on my board.

I want to thank all of you remedial reading students for derailing this thread.

[AvengerRam]

You are clearly saying at the new compensation rate Floyd is not a reach at six. I'm saying he is...

Pay up! Lol

"How could you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"

--Andy Dufresne

[codeman123]

Actually, I deleted it because I hit the wrong button when I was responding with a quote. You can untwist your panties now.

No, the problem is that you can't read. I don't think Floyd or Reiff should be taken at 6 because neither is in the top 4 of my draft board (and I'm presuming that Luck and RGIII go 1 and 2, so I only need four players to get to a certain outcome for pick No. 6.).

Convient excuse, especially since it happens rarely if ever, but fine.

While trying to blame everyone for not reading your posts, you should look and see if your reading the posts of others.
I don't understand the point of this thread, and you just posted exactly what I have been saying. If you wouldn't pick anyone of those players outside the elite 4 (which you wouldn't), I don't understand what the point of arguing the definition of 'reach' is and then using a player you wouldn't take (and consider to be a reach) to defend your reasoning.

As far as contracts go, there is a reason Demoff handles contracts, and GMs and scouts handle player evaluations. Floyd at 6 is a reach. Floyd making 10 million dollars less at 6 is still a reach. The reach part is based on their evaluation compared to the prospects higher rated then them.

Also, if a team has a player as their top rated on the board, that isn't a reach. I fail to see how that is a valid argument in this scenario either because it has nothing to do with your original premise and the reason for starting this thread. The reason you started this thread was clearly to do with how you perceive the definition of 'reach' based on its use by other people. That perception seems off base, especially considering the arguments of others in this thread (and even in other threads).

[berg8309]

Frankly I'm not convinced anyone is a "reach" if the team is trying to fill a need, and picking the best player they feel is available at that time. Getting good "draft value" and building a good football team are related, but completely different at the same time. You can take less draft value and still be making your team better than if you drafted the guy with better draft value. I decided to use the words draft value btw, don't think I've seen anyone else using it.

[codeman123]

No, the problem is that you can't read. I don't think Floyd or Reiff should be taken at 6 because neither is in the top 4 of my draft board (and I'm presuming that Luck and RGIII go 1 and 2, so I only need four players to get to a certain outcome for pick No. 6.).

I'll make it easier.

"If you don't think Floyd or Reiff should be taken at 6 then you shouldn't be defending how their hypothetical position wouldn't be a reach if they were taken there."

I never accused you of taking those players at 6, and its clear you wouldn't based on every one of your posts. Clearly in this sentence, this isn't an argument, but the setup and parameter to one.

You still haven't answered this part, and ignored it in your very classy reply back. I think your original sentence here can sum up the problem.

[AvengerRam]

I don't understand the point of this thread, and you just posted exactly what I have been saying. If you wouldn't pick anyone of those players outside the elite 4 (which you wouldn't), I don't understand what the point of arguing the definition of 'reach' is and then using a player you wouldn't take (and consider to be a reach) to defend your reasoning.

Its called using a hypothetical to prove a point. I have no expectation that the hypothetical would ever occur (as I made abundantly clear), so arguing about ACTUALLY taking Floyd at No. 6 misses the point.

What you should take from my thread is that, in the past, rookie contracts (which took up a ton of cap room) had to be factored into the issue of who is and is not a "reach." Now, rookies (compared to FAs) are bargains, so the analysis has to be modified somewhat.

Maybe the best person to illustrate the point is David DeCastro. In the past, many would have said "I don't care how good he is, you don't pay Top 10 money to an OG." Under the new scale, I'd say... "Maybe you do."

Also, if a team has a player as their top rated on the board, that isn't a reach. I fail to see how that is a valid argument in this scenario either because it has nothing to do with your original premise and the reason for starting this thread.

Really? I guess you missed the part where I said "teams should take the BPA on their draft board."

Also, the reason you started this thread was clearly to do with how to perceive the definition of reach based on its use by other people. That perception seems off base, especially considering the arguments of others in this thread and on other threads.

Actually, I'd say the opposite is true. Several people have "liked" my original post, while a couple of people who have trouble with reading comprehension have turned it into an argument.

[AvengerRam]

Frankly I'm not convinced anyone is a "reach" if the team is trying to fill a need, and picking the best player they feel is available at that time. Getting good "draft value" and building a good football team are related, but completely different at the same time. You can take less draft value and still be making your team better than if you drafted the guy with better draft value. I decided to use the words draft value btw, don't think I've seen anyone else using it.

Since I've already had one Shawshank Redemption reference in this thread, I may as well add another:

"Reach? What does that mean? Its just a made-up word so that young fellows like Mike Mayock and Todd McShay can put on a suit and have a job. What do you really want to know? Is the player going to produce? Only time will tell. So you just go ahead and fill out your mock drafts and leave me the Hell alone because frankly, I don't give a damn."

[thillis]

This thread is amazing.

[AvengerRam]

This thread is amazing.

What chu-talkin' 'bout, Thillis?

[thillis]

What chu-talkin' 'bout, Thillis?

You'd be surprised how many times that phrase has come up to me. I still enjoy it.

[mde8352gorams]

Ironically the discussion of reach ends several weeks after the draft because once the OTA's and Training Camps open everyone is considered either a rookie or a veteran. Once the season begins if a player produces, you never hear anything about his draft position unless he was an unsigned free agent (Arian Foster) or he was a late round pick (Tom Brady) playing like a first round pick. BTW, I'm not thinking Michael Floyd is such a reach at #6. As I said in another thread, I don't think the Rams think so either.

Go Rams!

[Rammed]

With these movie quotes, don't feel so bad about grabbing the popcorn at the start of this thread.

[Rambos]

"How could you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"

--Andy Dufresne

Classic

[sosa39rams]

"How could you be so obtuse? Is it deliberate?"

--Andy Dufresne

An absolute classic man.

[codeman123]

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?

Looking at the value on draft picks (financially) based on free agents is ridiculous. That is one of the problems with this argument. Two comparisons here are valid -
1) Rookie wage scale contracts to rookie contracts before a wage scale
2) Rookie contracts compared to the other prospects in the same class

Blackmon was never 'not worth' the 6th pick because of his contract. Criticism was purely based on his physical attributes and his level of competition. His contract is almost irrelevant. The value of the pick is based on the value of a first round pick to an organizations success. It is the greatest asset and resource a team has to build upon. If a player is not worthy of a top ten pick, it’s because a team or fan base doesn't want to use their most important asset on that player.

Jason Smith was a horrible pick. His lack of success and the fact that another player could have been more successful is what hurts teams and fans. His ridiculous contract is just salt on the wounds.

If any team has monetary value as a rationalization for drafting a player there is a big problem.

The biggest thing in this scenario is that every player is in the same contract slot. The financials have already been taken care of and shouldn't be a thought process, period. While its nice to say a guard can be a top ten pick because his contract is only 4 years 15 million, his value to teams is based on his performance, upside, and position.

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."

That is reaching for need, which is a horrible personnel decision past and present. The Rams taking a receiver because they need one (and not taking a superior prospect) is dangerous with or without a rookie wage scale. How can a contract value honestly vault him into a position where reaching for him is rationalized as not a 'clear reach' based solely on money. Especially when every other player would have been in the same financial position compared to the veterans that play their position. A reach before is still a reach now.

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

Here is the kicker. After all of post, nothing has changed. Teams will always fall in love with a player and reach for them. Its happened before, and will happen again. Nothing has changed. If a team takes their highest rated player, it isn't a reach. It’s the same process and practice that has been done for decades. You’re even saying that the contract analysis from your post is meaningless in the decision making process, whether you realize it or not. This entire thing has nothing to do about actual personnel moves, rankings, or decisions. Its all about how to classify and analyze a decision or player after the fact. Who cares how its perceived by the media, and who cares what the definition of reach is.

When Jacksonville took Alualu at 10, they reached. They didn't need lessened financial constraints to pick him. They missed out on much better players behind him by reaching for him, but that is how the draft works.

Taking Poe (for example) is a reach. How does his contract have anything to do with his draft position, or the after the fact judgment of whether or not it was a reach. Or even how much of a reach it was. It’s not a ‘lesser reach’ because he is making 15 million dollars over 4 years instead of 22.

After all of that, you haven’t even answered or defended your actual premise or argument. You’ve gone around denying that you wouldn’t pick this or that player outside of the top 4 elite prospects in the 6 slot. You’ve completely ignored comments that you can’t misconstrue into an argument against them or a defense of your own intelligence. I have no doubt you are good at arguing, but the argument only goes as far as the premise takes it. Minimalizing the intelligence, and reading comprehension of others to keep your point alive is ridiculous. If I didn’t know what your profession already was, it wouldn’t be too hard to guess. There’s nothing left to say. You’d be grasping for straws, even more so than in your original post.

PS – As far as deleting my post, it’s hard to imagine you not being upset if a post or yours on another forum was deleted. I call BS to you implying you wouldn’t get ‘your panties in a knot’. Also, a normal human being, after accidentally deleting a post, would write a post like ‘oops, didn’t mean to delete your post. I hit the wrong button by accident, sorry about that’. I didn’t forecast anywhere that you were about to, yet alone willing to do that. I guess you expected me to reread the thread and forget I wasted 15 minutes writing something that doesn’t exist. Classy stuff.