Its OK to reach for a QB

[Mr. Scot]

Here's the problem with the argument here...

Guys like Mahomes, Watson, Rodgers, etc. aren't examples of "reaches".

Icege posted an example of a true "reach" in Mitch Trubisky, who hasn't exactly led the Bears to glory.

As far as this year's draft, the top guys aren't reaches either. If you want to talk about drafting a reach, imagine taking Kellen Mond or Sam Ehlinger at #4 overall.

Is that a decision you could defend?

[LinvilleGorge]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

Here's the problem with the argument here...

Guys like Mahomes, Watson, Rodgers, etc. aren't examples of "reaches".

Icege posted an example of a true "reach" in Mitch Trubisky, who hasn't exactly led the Bears to glory.

As far as this year's draft, the top guys aren't reaches either. If you want to talk about drafting a reach, imagine taking Kellen Mond or Sam Ehlinger at #4 overall.

Is that a decision you could defend?

Trubisky wasn't considered a reach at the time. There's a reason why the Bears traded up for him.

[ClawOn]

To win a championship you need a great QB and a great head coach. We know we don't have a great QB. Let's go get one. 

[philit99]

2 hours ago, Monrowed said:

Why do you think that the Panthers won’t draft one? Is it because Teddy is doing so well?

I mainly believe the one they would like will be gone. However, no idea what a new GM may do. I just have a feeling we will get a OT.

[Peon Awesome]

3 hours ago, LinvilleGorge said:

Trubisky wasn't considered a reach at the time. There's a reason why the Bears traded up for him.

Exactly. Maybe the closest thing in recent history to a reach at QB was Daniel Jones at 6 because the Giants were desperate to move on from Eli and he was the highest rated available qb on their board. In hindsight with how bad Haskins has looked, it doesn't seem that egregious. Still, I don't think anyone else wanted him in the top 15 or so.

[LinvilleGorge]

4 minutes ago, Peon Awesome said:

Exactly. Maybe the closest thing in recent history to a reach at QB was Daniel Jones at 6 because the Giants were desperate to move on from Eli and he was the highest rated available qb on their board. In hindsight with how bad Haskins has looked, it doesn't seem that egregious. Still, I don't think anyone else wanted him in the top 15 or so.

Gettleman doesn't feel like a reacher to me. Not with drafting the likes of Shaq and Butler at positions of strength when we had glaring needs. I think he got legit sold on Jones' moxie hard enough that he overlooked some of the glaring issues.

Jones could still potentially work out, he just has to cut down on the turnovers.

[AU-panther]

18 hours ago, Mr. Scot said:

Here's the problem with the argument here...

Guys like Mahomes, Watson, Rodgers, etc. aren't examples of "reaches".

Icege posted an example of a true "reach" in Mitch Trubisky, who hasn't exactly led the Bears to glory.

As far as this year's draft, the top guys aren't reaches either. If you want to talk about drafting a reach, imagine taking Kellen Mond or Sam Ehlinger at #4 overall.

Is that a decision you could defend?

"True reach" ?

Apparently I should have defined my use of the word "reach".  To me a reach is when you draft a player with a lower grade than what is available, of course there can be varying degrees of reaching.  Drafting Lance when Sewell is available would be considered a "reach" by many and that was the point I was trying to explain.  Persoanlly I would be OK with that, others around here don't seem to be.

Under that definition than yes, even guys like Mohomes and Wastons were likely lower ranked on a lot of teams boards than various non-QBs that were also available.

How about this:

More times than not when you draft a QB he won't be the highest rated player available on your board.