Mock Offseason

[S197]

Well, after watching the Vikings move up to select Tarvaris Jackson and try to force him, then take Christian Ponder at #12 and try to force him, I feel the whole concept of a player being a huge reach has been made apparent to everyone, including you.

Jackson was picked under Fran Foley so Spielman essentially only reached on Ponder and it was significantly less of a reach than with Jackson. At least some had Ponder with a 1st round grade, unlike Jackson (and Ryan Cook) where you were sitting at home saying, "who?!?"

Hopefully Spielman has learned from that mistake, although he has made similar ones with Miami. What's scary is with guys like Bortles, Carr, and Garoppolo, there's certainly going to be someone there for him to reach for if he wants. I like the way he's conducted the recent drafts so I'm cautiously optimistic that Ponder was a mistake that won't be repeated.

[Mothman]

Hopefully Spielman has learned from that mistake, although he has made similar ones with Miami. What's scary is with guys like Bortles, Carr, and Garoppolo, there's certainly going to be someone there for him to reach for if he wants.

Here's my problem with that mentality (and it's the main reason I'm having this dialogue with VikingLord): who determines what is a reach? I realize that mock drafts, draft profiles, college stats and performances, etc. provide a guideline so there's no real argument that a player like, say, Jordan Lynch would be a major reach in the first round but Bortles? There are well-known, respected draft evaluators projecting him to go in the top 5, perhaps even at #1! I doubt he'll be the first player off the board but with those kind of projections and his overall performance in college as a basis, what would make him reach? Is it merely because he wasn't projected that high a couple of months ago? That seems like a flimsy basis on which to make that determination. We all know that draft evaluation is a fluid process. We also know mock drafts and "big boards" change once the offseason kicks into gear, as those who make them get a better idea of who teams are really interested and how the actual people who will be making decisions on draft day see some of the players.

I'm seeing Bortles ranked as one of the top prospects in this draft so what would make him a reach?

[Demi]

I'm seeing Bortles ranked as one of the top prospects in this draft so what would make him a reach

Ranked by who? No NFL front office is going to say anything. And if they do come out and say he's a top prospect, it's probably so another team will take him.

What makes him a reach? His skill set (or lack thereof)? The fact he wasn't a "top prospect" until the season ended and the last meaningful game was played? And there still isn't exactly a consensus that he's a top 5 talent.

[Mothman]

Ranked by who? No NFL front office is going to say anything. And if they do come out and say he's a top prospect, it's probably so another team will take him.

What makes him a reach? His skill set (or lack thereof)? The fact he wasn't a "top prospect" until the season ended and the last meaningful game was played? And there still isn't exactly a consensus that he's a top 5 talent.

"Ranked by who?" indeed. You're reinforcing my point.

"He wasn't a "top prospect" until the season ended"... according to who?

There isn't a consensus that he's a top 5 talent... what would constitute such a consensus?

Get the picture?

[S197]

Here's my problem with that mentality (and it's the main reason I'm having this dialogue with VikingLord): who determines what is a reach? I realize that mock drafts, draft profiles, college stats and performances, etc. provide a guideline so there's no real argument that a player like, say, Jordan Lynch would be a major reach in the first round but Bortles? There are well-known, respected draft evaluators projecting him to go in the top 5, perhaps even at #1! I doubt he'll be the first player off the board but with those kind of projections and his overall performance in college as a basis, what would make him reach? Is it merely because he wasn't projected that high a couple of months ago? That seems like a flimsy basis on which to make that determination. We all know that draft evaluation is a fluid process. We also know mock drafts and "big boards" change once the offseason kicks into gear, as those who make them get a better idea of who teams are really interested and how the actual people who will be making decisions on draft day see some of the players.

I'm seeing Bortles ranked as one of the top prospects in this draft so what would make him a reach?

It's entirely subjective, especially when it's not a Tarvaris Jackson type situation where the pick comes out of left field. I'm sure many would be fine with Bortles or maybe even Carr at #8. I think Spielman needs to stick to his board, which he by his own admission did not do in the case of Ponder. with the board so opaque, it wouldn't be unfathomable for someone in his top 5 drop to 8. Whoever that is is who I hope he takes.

I'm not saying Bortles is a reach, just that there are a lot of rising QBs that could result in a reach.

[VikingLord]

How about an approach that yields a Super Bowl win and the kind of stability at the QB position that can lead to more than one? Green's approach yielded a 4-8 playoff record over a 10 year period. It was frustrating as hell. Meanwhile, in Green Bay, where Mike Holmgren was hired at the same time as Green, they developed a QB, went to back-to-back Super Bowls and won one of them. I'm not suggesting anything as extreme as the idea that a veteran free agent couldn't provide a temporary solution to the Vikings QB problems but I'm opposed to the passive approach you seem to be endorsing.

Wait a minute - the QB Green Bay developed and won that Superbowl with was a guy they didn't even draft IIRC. They got Favre in trade, and, IMHO, had a nice bit of luck on their side to boot when Rodgers fell to them. In neither case did they reach or otherwise have to pull off some stunt to force it.

The '98 season was great (most of it anyway) but I don't want another decade-long stretch of postseason disappointment like the one the Vikings had under Green. Continually cycling through whatever QBs the Vikings can sign off the free agent scrap heap while they hope the "right situation presents itself in the draft" sounds way too passive to me.

Its not passive if its the right approach under the circumstances, "circumstances" being the key. If the best the team can do without mortgaging its future in a given offseason is the FA vet, then maybe that's the best they can do while they attempt to line up better options the following season.

It's an approach I think would likely doom the team to mediocrity, occasionally punctuated by a season like '98 or '09 in which they get close but fail to to get the job done. Haven't we seen enough of that? Maybe they'd be able to pull off what the Bucs and Ravens did and win a Super Bowl with a tremendous defense and a solid veteran free agent at QB but that shouldn't be the plan.

The plan is to find the long-term answer at every position every offseason where the team lacks that answer IMHO. However, plans have to be based in the reality that doing that in any given offseason is not always possible given the talent available, draft position, etc.

In my view, the thing you're saying you don't want to see, that being mediocrity, is *assured* for teams that reach and force things when circumstances dictate another direction, maybe at positions of less apparent immediate "need". We hear a lot about successful offenses that take what the defense gives them. The same applies to the offseason for successful teams IMHO. Sometimes things just don't line up, but the kiss of death is convincing oneself they can make something work despite that reality.

As for the draft: I get that you don't want to see them repeat the Ponder experiement. Are you open to them drafting a QB in R2 or R3 as a possible solution?

Is "it depends" an acceptable answer? Round 2, especially early where the Vikings are picking, is still a good place to catch a falling 1st round talent, especially at an underrated position like guard, for example, and the Vikings have a need there too. Would I rather see Spielman pass over a solid prospect at guard in Round 2 to gamble on a QB prospect? I would not, and that logic extends to the first pick in Round 3. After that, Spielman could gamble a bit on a guy like Murray who will fall due to his injury and I wouldn't be too upset.

You might also consider the possibility that your personal assessment of the QBs in this draft may not be 100% accurate and that a QB you think would be a reach and a bust might prove to be neither. I don't mean that to sound sarcastic. I mean it literally.You're posting with a distinct assuredness about the quality of some of these QBs and what their value will be as pros but we all know that it's impossible to predict that accurately.

My personal assessment is just based on what I've seen of them, in many cases watching limited snaps, and read about them from sources I believe have a solid track record with player evaluations like WalterFootball. I base most of where I rank players on the questions that remain about them. The fewer questions about what will happen to them as pros is the best barometer I know to evaluating which players belong at the top of a draft and which don't. Players who have not demonstrated enough over enough time or that still have huge questions around them should not be considered for an early pick no matter what their measurables may say, how fast they run the 40, or how big their hands are. IMHO, Bortles, Carr, Garappolo, all have unanswered questions that make them unacceptably high risk at #8 no matter how dire the immediate need is at QB. Now, do I know for sure that they can't or won't be able to answer those questions with enough time in the pros? Of course not. Its very possible they will answer them and prove to be excellent QB's. Its just not a risk I think a team can take with such a high pick. Spielman needs to go for guys that don't have major question marks early (and by early, I mean his first 3 picks if at all possible). Know to the degree he can what he's getting for his investment, then take gambles in the later rounds on guys who could hit big under the right circumstances (Griffen is a great example of that kind of pick in Round 4). Honestly, I'd be perfectly content with Spielman taking Garappolo in Round 4 this year. That's an acceptable round for a guy who still has major questions to answer and yet could rise to the occasion.

Instead of going into the draft with a full head of steam about what the Vikings should or shouldn't do, why not just keep an open mind? Maybe Spielman will trade down and draft a QB later in the first or maybe he'll grab one at 8 and instead of that QB being a reach, he'll be pleasant surprise.

An open mind without a framework to evaluate the likelihood of possible outcomes is just blind hope. Unless Bridgewater or Manziel is there at #8, Spielman would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his evaluation framework is either completely whacked or non-existent IMHO. Whatever led him to draft and attempt to force Ponder, then sign and try to force Freeman, has to go ASAP. He needs a new plan because if he makes the same mistake again the most likely outcome will be he follows Frazier out the door.

[saint33]

As far as next year's QB class is concerned, the bloom would have to fall pretty far off the rose for me to believe that none of the four QB's I mentioned is going to have a knockout season next year, especially given that 2 of them were being touted as high 1st rounders had they come out this year.

Everyone said the same thing about this year's draft class just a few months ago though. This was supposed to be an incredible QB class, and although it does look to have some solid depth, the top of the draft looks relatively the same as many previous draft classes. While I agree that next year's class looks strong, but remember that not a single one of the 4 QBs you mentioned is a senior next year, meaning there is no guarantee that they all declare, or even any of them.

Also remember that Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, Jake Locker, Colt Brennan, Jimmy Clausen, Geno Smith and Matt Barkley (just to name a few) were all very highly regarded a year before and during the season leading up to their draft class. Leinart, Quinn, Smith, Barkley and Locker were at times considered near locks to be drafted 1st overall. This is why paying any attention to the internet draft experts before the actual draft process starts is usually merely to get an idea of what's out there. Their opinions mean nothing however, which is why the boards that pop up around this time change drastically once we get closer to the draft. The "experts" all come up with their opinions based on what knowledge they possess and a large amount of "group think", but then it all changes drastically once they start to get information about what the professionals actually believe. And just like the Quinns and Leinarts or the draft, there are also the Flaccos, Kaepernicks and Cutlers of the draft, or as you would call them... "draft rockets". Guys who are relatively unknown due to the schools they played for and the competition they m, who fly up the draft boards when the process starts, because in reality teams value talented players, and will look past the competition if the kid's talent is apparent.

[Mothman]

Wait a minute - the QB Green Bay developed and won that Superbowl with was a guy they didn't even draft IIRC. They got Favre in trade, and, IMHO, had a nice bit of luck on their side to boot when Rodgers fell to them. In neither case did they reach or otherwise have to pull off some stunt to force it

Let's be clear: nobody is recommending a reach but to a certain extent, a reach is subjective. It's easy to talk about the "right circumstances", having the right things line up and "convincing oneself they can make something work despite that reality" but who is determining that "reality"? Favre wasn't a player Green Bay drafted but that's immaterial. He was a second round pick Green Bay traded a first round pick (the 19th pick in the draft) to acquire. They spent a first round pick to trade for a QB instead of using it to draft one. Favre's first NFL pass was an INT returned for a TD. He was 0-4 with 2 INTs in his one season in Atlanta. Does giving up a first round pick for him sound like a reach or a desperation move? I have absolutely no doubt that's how such a move would be characterized here on the board if the Vikings made a similar choice but Green Bay identified the player they believed could be their QB, spent a first round pick to get him and developed a Hall of Famer.

This continual reference to the right circumstances and reaching or forcing things pre-supposes that you know what those circumstances are what would qualify as forcing a pick or reaching for a QB but history clearly shows that determining which QBs will succeed in the NFL is a tricky business at best. Top prospects fail and less touted quarterbacks sometimes go on to excel and win Super Bowls.

Is "it depends" an acceptable answer? Round 2, especially early where the Vikings are picking, is still a good place to catch a falling 1st round talent, especially at an underrated position like guard, for example, and the Vikings have a need there too. Would I rather see Spielman pass over a solid prospect at guard in Round 2 to gamble on a QB prospect? I would not, and that logic extends to the first pick in Round 3. After that, Spielman could gamble a bit on a guy like Murray who will fall due to his injury and I wouldn't be too upset.

"It depends" is certainly an acceptable answer and I do understand what you're saying about forcing a pick purely for need but again, I think we have to acknowledge the nature of the draft. Every pick is a gamble to some extent. Neither a solid guard with a second round rating or a QB with a similar rating offers any guarantee of success.

My personal assessment is just based on what I've seen of them, in many cases watching limited snaps, and read about them from sources I believe have a solid track record with player evaluations like WalterFootball. I base most of where I rank players on the questions that remain about them. The fewer questions about what will happen to them as pros is the best barometer I know to evaluating which players belong at the top of a draft and which don't. Players who have not demonstrated enough over enough time or that still have huge questions around them should not be considered for an early pick no matter what their measurables may say, how fast they run the 40, or how big their hands are. IMHO, Bortles, Carr, Garappolo, all have unanswered questions that make them unacceptably high risk at #8 no matter how dire the immediate need is at QB. Now, do I know for sure that they can't or won't be able to answer those questions with enough time in the pros? Of course not. Its very possible they will answer them and prove to be excellent QB's. Its just not a risk I think a team can take with such a high pick. Spielman needs to go for guys that don't have major question marks early (and by early, I mean his first 3 picks if at all possible). Know to the degree he can what he's getting for his investment, then take gambles in the later rounds on guys who could hit big under the right circumstances (Griffen is a great example of that kind of pick in Round 4). Honestly, I'd be perfectly content with Spielman taking Garappolo in Round 4 this year. That's an acceptable round for a guy who still has major questions to answer and yet could rise to the occasion.

That's an extremely risk averse approach that would have led a team to miss out on Hall of Fame players like Walter Payton or Jerry Rice, not to mention numerous others. I think a more sensible approach is for teams to build the best scouting department they can and trust their own evaluation of players. If the huge questions are about an ability to stay healthy or character issues, those are rock solid reasons to stay away from a player but if a team is confident in a player's skill set and ability to develop and succeed at the next level, I say damn the questions and make the pick. Even though Favre wasn't drafted, that's a lesson we can learn from what Green Bay did with him.

An open mind without a framework to evaluate the likelihood of possible outcomes is just blind hope. Unless Bridgewater or Manziel is there at #8, Spielman would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his evaluation framework is either completely whacked or non-existent IMHO.

Wow... do you realize the degree of hubris in that statement, especially after you just wrote that your evaluations are "just based on what I've seen of them, in many cases watching limited snaps, and read about them from sources I believe have a solid track record with player evaluations like WalterFootball"? It's mind-boggling. It even makes me question how much you're paying attention to the very framework you're talking about as the source for your assessment, since Walterfootball has Bortles going before Manziel in his latest mock draft and wrote: "he was a top-10 pick in a previous version of my 2015 NFL Mock Draft, and as mentioned, he has a legitimate shot to be selected No. 1 overall this May."

[Mothman]

It's entirely subjective, especially when it's not a Tarvaris Jackson type situation where the pick comes out of left field. I'm sure many would be fine with Bortles or maybe even Carr at #8. I think Spielman needs to stick to his board, which he by his own admission did not do in the case of Ponder. with the board so opaque, it wouldn't be unfathomable for someone in his top 5 drop to 8. Whoever that is is who I hope he takes.

I'm not saying Bortles is a reach, just that there are a lot of rising QBs that could result in a reach.

... or at least a risky pick.

Good post. I agree with your take that Spielman should stick to his board. The entire point of evaluating players to the degree that NFL teams do is to be able to trust that evaluation when the moment of truth arrives and make a great choice.

[Mothman]

Also remember that Matt Leinart, Brady Quinn, Jake Locker, Colt Brennan, Jimmy Clausen, Geno Smith and Matt Barkley (just to name a few) were all very highly regarded a year before and during the season leading up to their draft class. Leinart, Quinn, Smith, Barkley and Locker were at times considered near locks to be drafted 1st overall. This is why paying any attention to the internet draft experts before the actual draft process starts is usually merely to get an idea of what's out there. Their opinions mean nothing however, which is why the boards that pop up around this time change drastically once we get closer to the draft. The "experts" all come up with their opinions based on what knowledge they possess and a large amount of "group think", but then it all changes drastically once they start to get information about what the professionals actually believe.

Bingo!

[VikingLord]

Favre wasn't a player Green Bay drafted but that's immaterial. He was a second round pick Green Bay traded a first round pick (the 19th pick in the draft) to acquire. They spent a first round pick to trade for a QB instead of using it to draft one. Favre's first NFL pass was an INT returned for a TD. He was 0-4 with 2 INTs in his one season in Atlanta. Does giving up a first round pick for him sound like a reach or a desperation move?

I think its safe to say that Green Bay had more information prior to that trade than either of us know. In other words, they didn't give up that 1st for a guy based on the stats you posted.

That's an extremely risk averse approach that would have led a team to miss out on Hall of Fame players like Walter Payton or Jerry Rice, not to mention numerous others.

Why wouldn't a GM want to be as risk-averse as possible with a top 10 pick in a draft?

I think a more sensible approach is for teams to build the best scouting department they can and trust their own evaluation of players. If the huge questions are about an ability to stay healthy or character issues, those are rock solid reasons to stay away from a player but if a team is confident in a player's skill set and ability to develop and succeed at the next level, I say damn the questions and make the pick. Even though Favre wasn't drafted, that's a lesson we can learn from what Green Bay did with him.

I think the Oakland Raiders, Jags, Browns, et. al., would all agree with you.

Wow... do you realize the degree of hubris in that statement, especially after you just wrote that your evaluations are "just based on what I've seen of them, in many cases watching limited snaps, and read about them from sources I believe have a solid track record with player evaluations like WalterFootball"? It's mind-boggling. It even makes me question how much you're paying attention to the very framework you're talking about as the source for your assessment, since Walterfootball has Bortles going before Manziel in his latest mock draft and wrote: "he was a top-10 pick in a previous version of my 2015 NFL Mock Draft, and as mentioned, he has a legitimate shot to be selected No. 1 overall this May."

Um, first off, I can form an opinion without it being considered hubris. Even if it is hubris, who really cares? Like I said, if any of Carr, Bortles, or Garappolo is in-demand when their rookie contracts expire, remind me and I'll come on here and post that I was wrong about them. I'd be happy to do it.

As far as WalterFootball is concerned, I said I referenced that site, not that I agreed with everything on it. While the mock has Bortles going ahead of Manziel (to the Jags of all teams - imagine the irony when the good people of Jacksonville try to understand how Blaine Gabbert was replaced by... Blaine Gabbert, but I digress), the player eval page has this to say about him (where he is ranked behind Manziel) http://walterfootball.com/draft2014QB.php:

The redshirt junior needs to improve his footwork for the NFL. Bortles also needs to become more uniform and could stand to improve his throwing mechanics. That would improve his accuracy and ball placement.

Sources told WalterFootball.com that Bortles is grading out in the last first or early second round, but he could easily go higher to a quarterback-needy team. It seems very possible that Bortles' stock will consistently rise in the lead up to the 2014 NFL Draft.

Not exactly what I consider a ringing endorsement, as a I tend to see all of those flaws when I watch his highlights. Bortles may very well get those "coached out", but then again, he might not. He could have answered those questions with another year in college and been a much safer pick. Who knows, maybe even I would have agreed with the Vikings or another team taking him as high as #8 under those circumstances, but as things stand, doing so is akin to experimenting with a pick that should be about as sure-fire as they come, and I'd really rather Spielman not do that anymore at any position, much less QB.

[Mothman]

I think its safe to say that Green Bay had more information prior to that trade than either of us know. In other words, they didn't give up that 1st for a guy based on the stats you posted.

Obviously but I wasn't suggesting GB traded for him based on those stats. It was a response to your comment regarding Favre and Rodgers that "In neither case did they reach or otherwise have to pull off some stunt to force it". They traded the 19th pick in the draft for a player who was drafted in the second round one earlier, had thrown 4 passes in the NFL, completed none of them and threw two INTs. Are you telling me that isn't "pulling off some stunt" to force the issue? They had clearly identified Favre as a player worth having and were willing to make that kind of commitment to get him.

Why wouldn't a GM want to be as risk-averse as possible with a top 10 pick in a draft?

Because he could miss out on a great player like Walter Payton or, for that matter, Adrian Peterson, who came out of college marked as a risk due to injury problems. A smart GM doesn't take foolish risks with a top 10 pick but I don't think it's wise to be risk averse and always play it safe either, especially since "safe" is relative when it comes to the draft. Supposedly safe picks end up as busts or disappointments just like risky picks.

I think the Oakland Raiders, Jags, Browns, et. al., would all agree with you.

That response just evades the point. You don't think successful teams trust their own evaluation of players and succeed by taking some risks in the draft?

Um, first off, I can form an opinion without it being considered hubris. Even if it is hubris, who really cares? Like I said, if any of Carr, Bortles, or Garappolo is in-demand when their rookie contracts expire, remind me and I'll come on here and post that I was wrong about them. I'd be happy to do it.

That's not really the point. Of course you can form an opinion without it being considered hubris but it's hubris to make declarations like "Unless Bridgewater or Manziel is there at #8, Spielman would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that his evaluation framework is either completely whacked or non-existent" or "Not only does Spielman get no real help at QB OR anywhere else on the team with that high pick, but he's now in a position where the new coach is going to be under intense pressure to start a guy who will be lucky to be a journeyman backup over his entire career" (which you made in regard to Garoppolo) when you've clearly seen very little of some of the players in question and you're citing an amateur site like Walter Football as an example of the basis you use to form such definitive and dismissive views.

Not exactly what I consider a ringing endorsement, as a I tend to see all of those flaws when I watch his highlights. Bortles may very well get those "coached out", but then again, he might not. He could have answered those questions with another year in college and been a much safer pick.

You could make the exact same statements about Manziel, one of the two QBs you've declared worthy of the #8 pick and, in fact, good ol' Walter calls JFB's footwork and mechanics into question too and says he also needs to be "more uniform".

So much for ringing endorsements. If drafting Bortles is "akin to experimenting with a pick that should be about as sure-fire as they come" then how would drafting Manziel, who has numerous question marks attached to him, be safer? In terms of risky picks in the top 10, he has risk written all over him! He certainly doesn't seem to fit with the idea that a GM be as risk-averse as possible with a top 10 pick in a draft.

The framework necessary to keep a more open mind about this draft is clearly there. All I'm asking you to do is see it and be a little more open to some of the possibilities that may be available to the Vikes.

[mondry]

A reach is when you draft a player lower on your board than a player higher on your board, usually due to desperately trying to solve the problems of the position said player plays, in this case QB.

The most obvious reason to do so would be when you have a viable starter at the higher ranked players position and below average league wide starter at the other. That's not what I personally believe in as the "best move" but it seemed some were having trouble putting a definition to the term reach so I thought I'd help out!

Unless Spielman comes out about his big board, it's hard to say from the outside if he reached or not. However, you can take your own information, other scouts, and other opinions on the matter and form a pretty reasonable opinion. Of course anyone can choose to believe what they want to believe, but given all the information out there, I'm choosing to believe ponder was a reach at #12. I know, that's not that far out there, considering with hindsight we see he's pretty bad but you get the idea.

The thing that would come into question then of course isn't really if Spielman reached or not, but that his scouting ability to put a guy like Ponder as BPA at #12 is highly questionable! IF Ponder wasn't the BPA at #12, well then it's a reach, so pretty straight forward, neither situation is good that's for sure!

[NextQuestion]

I don't think 49ers will let Whitner walk. Their CBs are FAs/way too much money/not reliable. Whitner is a solid piece to that elite defense, however, if he does come here that'd be awesome!

[Mothman]

A reach is when you draft a player lower on your board than a player higher on your board, usually due to desperately trying to solve the problems of the position said player plays, in this case QB.

The most obvious reason to do so would be when you have a viable starter at the higher ranked players position and below average league wide starter at the other. That's not what I personally believe in as the "best move" but it seemed some were having trouble putting a definition to the term reach so I thought I'd help out!

I appreciate it, although it's not so much the definition of a reach I was questioning, it's how people arrive at that determination. You obviously covered that next...

Unless Spielman comes out about his big board, it's hard to say from the outside if he reached or not. However, you can take your own information, other scouts, and other opinions on the matter and form a pretty reasonable opinion. Of course anyone can choose to believe what they want to believe, but given all the information out there, I'm choosing to believe ponder was a reach at #12. I know, that's not that far out there, considering with hindsight we see he's pretty bad but you get the idea.

As you said, without inside knowledge of what a team's draft board and grades look like, it's pretty heard to truly determine whether a player was a reach or not. In fact, I'd go a step further and say it would require inside knowledge of more than one team's board. I have no doubt that grades on players vary so one team's reach could be another team's preferred choice. Consequently, as you also said, people choose what to believe. There IS information out there to help us form opinions but it often varies enough that unless a player is a significant reach, it's tends to be a pretty debatable subject.

You mentioned hindsight and that gets back to what I was talking about in the draft section a while back: the significance of results. Many people perceived Ponder as a reach, and he likely was a reach, but that wouldn't have mattered much if he'd developed into a better QB. In contrast, when the Bears drafted Kyle Long last year, it was widely perceived as a reach but so far, Long has played like he was worth the pick. The Bears clearly had him rated high enough on their board to take him and even though many draftniks and fans didn't consider Long worthy of the Bears pick at the time, who knows where he was rated on other boards?

Personally, I've never felt that reaching in the draft was a particularly egregious mistake unless it's a BIG reach with a low probability of success. I really do think teams need to trust their evaluations and act accordingly.