Hawks "Reaching" to draft players. .NET Hot Topic

[jamescasey1124]

The problem with going with what draft analyst say is right is wrong....most times out of ten the player doesnt work. Flop!!! We bettered our team with this draft. I see 2012 all over again. You may not agree, but we have players in position to lead us all the way.

Dont fret in NFC picks! Most great draft picks came in the AFC. Bill's are a contender and dont think short on dolphins now.

 

[Nunya]

The claim of "reaching" is a concept created by people with nothing invested in the selections.....most often by sports reporters or bloggers. In reality, there is no such thing.

When PC and JS first arrived in Seattle, they provided some insight into their drafting concept....the same concept used by most, if not all, teams. I tried to find a video of this, but my Google Fu is weak today. Anyway, here is the gist of it...with a little paraphrasing on my part:

1. All players in the draft are ranked from most desirable to least desirable.
2. This ranking is done without consideration of position or "position-of-need" for the team.
3. However, if 2 players are determined to be of equal talent, then position and/or position-of-need may be the deciding factor in determine their ranking.
4. When it is the team's turn to select, the player highest on the board (highest ranking) is selected....regardless of need. The idea is that every player has value....even if the team does not have a need at that player's position. If the player is not better than the players you already have at that position, he still often has trade value later...especially if they were a high to mid-round pick.
5. IF the top few players that are highest on the board are NOT a position-of-need, a team might try to trade down.
6. IF a player is near the top of the board and fills a position-of-need, but will likely not be available at their selection position, the team might trade up.
7. Trading up or down in the draft is NOT always a possibility and should never be counted on.
8. IF the top player on the board fills a position-of-need....no matter where they are projected on being drafted, a team would be foolish not to select them.
9. Teams rarely pay any attention to sports reporters/bloggers and where THEY think a specific player SHOULD be drafted.

Bottom line, it is all about the board. Teams spend months before the draft evaluating every player and ranking them so that they do not need to figure out who would be the better selection while they are on the clock. When it is their time to select and do not have a trade in place, the top player on the board is often selected.

EDIT: To add to the above:

If positions-of-needs are not filled with FA signings or draft picks, they can often be filled as other teams release player because of cap concerns. Some very good players often become available (and sometimes cheaply) after the draft, as teams try to sign all of their players.

 

[BigMeach]

Hawks said that considered drafting Taylor with their first pick. They didn't but if Brooks was gone and they did draft Taylor at 27 he would have been there at least 21 picks later as the Hawks took him at 48.

Isn't this exactly an example of how they got value for Taylor instead of drafting him too early? They originally tried to trade down, took another player when they couldn't, and the player they took was expected to go off the board in one of the next few picks. It seems weird to me that you are using them hypothetically over-drafting Taylor as a negative instead of looking at reality where they got him at a better value.

Year in and year out the Hawks get mentioned for drafting players before they are projected to go. They are IMO the only team that consistently has this reputation.

There are many dozens of selections decried as "reaches" every year. To the degree that the Seahawks are different it is that they care less about the public response than some, and clearly do a much better job of keeping their plans secret than most. To some extent that's because they have the luxury of job security and don't have to worry as much about managing the public PR component.

Just ask yourself where Mel Kiper would have ranked Taylor if somebody on the Hawks had told him that Taylor was being viewed as a top 25 player. Would being ranked higher on Mel Kiper's list have made Taylor a better value?

I
It's all about personal opinion. It appears that how the Hawks value players is quite different than other teams. It seems they are the only team that consistently surprise who they pick for where they are picking. That they admitted to truly considering taking Taylor at 27 means that they really valued him VERY differently then all other teams. They were basically admitting
that they seriously considered selected him at least 21 picks before anyone else, and it's possible not factual, that Taylor if it weren't the Hawks taking him at 48 would have remained on the board for some time after pick 48.

I pose this question. What if Brooks was off the board at 27, and the Hawks did as they say they considered doing, select Taylor at 27? Knowing now that if it weren't for the Hawks, Taylor would have lasted at least to pick 48. Would you be happy with the value they got selecting him at 27?

Straw man, straaaaw man. It doesn't prove anything because it didn't happen and noone is arguing against it because IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. On top of that, the hawks did try to trade back in the 1st, but the team that was picking in front of them offered a better deal at the last minute leaving the Hawks without a trade partner.. thus they took the best player on their board. The argument you're making is a moot point because you're taking talk and replacing it with action, action that never happened.

 

[SoulfishHawk]

"reaching" = you didn't pick someone I wanted. Or you didn't pick the media has been hyping up. Pretty much the same thing every year. It was who THEY felt was the best option.