Fritz
04-26-2008, 10:02 AM
These are two terms that are going to be thrown about quite a bit in the next few days. I dislike both terms for what they imply - an implication with no basis in truth. These terms have some use, but very little use.
"Value picks" are simply guys still on the board with the most recognizable names once you hit say the two-thirds mark of the first round and thereafter. So if it gets to the fourth round and a guy like Mario Manningham, Michigan's receiver, is still available, he becomes a "value pick" simply because he's got a recognizabl;e name and no one has taken him yet. So fans get all excited when their team takes a guy like that - we've heard of him! He was a big deal in college and he's still on the board! Therefore, he must be good somehow! I remember Mel Kiper saying that Darell Thompson was a "value pick" when the Pack took him years ago. Aaron Rodgers was a "value pick." So what? It doesn't guarantee you've made a good pick if a guy is a "value pick."
"Reaches" are guys taken before the big-haired experts and sportswriters think they should've been. GM's get criticized for this all the time - you coulda got that guy a round or two later! What were you thinking?
This is all part of the draft hype, but has little real use. If a GM does his homework and has his board set, then he ought to stick to it. I recall that Ted's pick of Greg Jennings was considered a bit of a reach, and certainly James Jones was considered such. Well, would either of them be seen as a reach now? Of course not. TT liked them, had them on his board, and drafted them.
Sure, if TT drafted, say, an average punting prospect in, oh, say the third round - and traded up to do so - that might be a useful example of a real "reach" that could've been had later. But that kind of extremism doesn't occur often. Just as a guy like Rodgers doesn't drop from possible #1 overall just weeks before the draft to #25 first round doesn't happen often at all.
It just depends on whether a guy ends up as a player or not. And since there's no way to know at the time, those terms are just ways to judge a GM's picks without really knowing whether the pick is going to be good or not. It gives guys like Bob McGinn a way to be critical of TT before the draft for not trading up since somehow he's determined there's no "value" at the #30 slot. How the hell does he know that? If TT "reaches" for someone who has graded (by whom, by the way?) at a second round pick, and the guy works out great, then was it a reach?
Last beef: I'm pretty unhappy with McGinn's last couple of articles. I know he has to produce news where there is none, but his last couple of articles seem highly critical of Thompson for not trading up - or now, highly critical if TT doesn't trade down.
"Value picks" are simply guys still on the board with the most recognizable names once you hit say the two-thirds mark of the first round and thereafter. So if it gets to the fourth round and a guy like Mario Manningham, Michigan's receiver, is still available, he becomes a "value pick" simply because he's got a recognizabl;e name and no one has taken him yet. So fans get all excited when their team takes a guy like that - we've heard of him! He was a big deal in college and he's still on the board! Therefore, he must be good somehow! I remember Mel Kiper saying that Darell Thompson was a "value pick" when the Pack took him years ago. Aaron Rodgers was a "value pick." So what? It doesn't guarantee you've made a good pick if a guy is a "value pick."
"Reaches" are guys taken before the big-haired experts and sportswriters think they should've been. GM's get criticized for this all the time - you coulda got that guy a round or two later! What were you thinking?
This is all part of the draft hype, but has little real use. If a GM does his homework and has his board set, then he ought to stick to it. I recall that Ted's pick of Greg Jennings was considered a bit of a reach, and certainly James Jones was considered such. Well, would either of them be seen as a reach now? Of course not. TT liked them, had them on his board, and drafted them.
Sure, if TT drafted, say, an average punting prospect in, oh, say the third round - and traded up to do so - that might be a useful example of a real "reach" that could've been had later. But that kind of extremism doesn't occur often. Just as a guy like Rodgers doesn't drop from possible #1 overall just weeks before the draft to #25 first round doesn't happen often at all.
It just depends on whether a guy ends up as a player or not. And since there's no way to know at the time, those terms are just ways to judge a GM's picks without really knowing whether the pick is going to be good or not. It gives guys like Bob McGinn a way to be critical of TT before the draft for not trading up since somehow he's determined there's no "value" at the #30 slot. How the hell does he know that? If TT "reaches" for someone who has graded (by whom, by the way?) at a second round pick, and the guy works out great, then was it a reach?
Last beef: I'm pretty unhappy with McGinn's last couple of articles. I know he has to produce news where there is none, but his last couple of articles seem highly critical of Thompson for not trading up - or now, highly critical if TT doesn't trade down.