<![CDATA[Biggest Reaches/Biggest Underdrafted]]>What were theoretically the biggest reaches in Round 1 of the draft? Of course it is an inexact science, but I am going based just off the so called prognosticators pre draft evaluations. Here is what I come up with, using for my purposes the CBS Sports rankings. You can use others:

The following had at least a 10 spot jump up in their rating vs. selection spot:

1. Steelers choice of Artie Burns. Rated #66....chosen at #25. a 41 point jump

2. Raiders choice of Karl Joseph. Rated #46....chosen at #14. a 32 point jump

3. 49ers choice of Joshua Garnett. Rated #50....chosen at #28. a 22 point jump

4. Texans choice of Will Fuller. Rated #35...chosen at #21. a 14 point jump

5. Falcons choice of Keanu Neal. Rated #29...chosen at #17. a 12 point jump

6. Seahawks choice of Germaine Ifedi. Rated #42...chosen at #31. an 11 point jump

7. Giants choice of Eli Apple. Rated #20....chosen at #10. A 10 point jump.

Biggest droppers. Number reflects their pre draft CBS prospect rank:

#4 Myles Jack....not taken after 31 picks

#15 Reggie Ragland.....ditto

#17 Ashawn Robinson..."

#21 Jarran Reed..."

Others who were drafted:

#1 Laremy Tunsil, dropped to #13 pick, 12 spots

#13 Laquon Treadwell dropped to #23, 10 spots

Is it fair to say that the draft pickers are not as enamored with Alabama and Ole Miss player as the prognosticators were?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/topic/40298/biggest-reaches-biggest-underdraftedRSS for NodeFri, 02 Oct 2026 00:16:25 GMTFri, 29 Apr 2016 17:12:43 GMT60<![CDATA[Reply to Biggest Reaches/Biggest Underdrafted on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:57:48 GMT]]>

@tour2ma said:

Hard to see a reach bigger than Garnett considering his position and the trade up to grab him.

The team traded their 2nd, 4th (105), and 6th (178) round picks to move up into the back end of the 1st round (and net a 7th (249), and then selected Stanford offensive guard Joshua Garnett.

"The chart" favors SF's end of the trade slightly (661 vs. 634), but SF is idle until pick #68 and then idle until R4 Comps.

Yes. Especially when the progs had him rated so low. Like I said, CBS had him rated #50. Kiper last night said he had him rated #67 on his board.....a third rounder. Sorry, but I think they could have gotten this guy without doing the trade.

I guess the fact that he played in what is now the 49ers backyard at Stanford must have caused them to become enamored with them.

Yes, in checking, it is only 13.2 miles from Stanford Stadium to Levi Stadium.

Palo-Alto.10.gif

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/600901https://brownsboard.com/post/600901Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:57:48 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Biggest Reaches/Biggest Underdrafted on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:57:15 GMT]]>

@tour2ma said:

Hard to see a reach bigger than Garnett considering his position and the trade up to grab him.

The team traded their 2nd, 4th (105), and 6th (178) round picks to move up into the back end of the 1st round (and net a 7th (249), and then selected Stanford offensive guard Joshua Garnett.

"The chart" favors SF's end of the trade slightly (661 vs. 634), but SF is idle until pick #68 and then idle until R4 Comps.

Yes a player likely to still be there at their 2nd rd pick. HUH!??

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/600900https://brownsboard.com/post/600900Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:57:15 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Biggest Reaches/Biggest Underdrafted on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:35:35 GMT]]>

@texasag1969 said:

Biggest headscratcher for me was Houston Trading up one spot to take a wr and then the team they did the trade with takes a better wr. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

Pretty sure WSH was deeply in love with Fuller pre-trade... 🙂

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/600892https://brownsboard.com/post/600892Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:35:35 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Biggest Reaches/Biggest Underdrafted on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:31:20 GMT]]>

@the-gipper said:

3. 49ers choice of Joshua Garnett. Rated #50....chosen at #28. a 22 point jump

Hard to see a reach bigger than Garnett considering his position and the trade up to grab him.

The team traded their 2nd, 4th (105), and 6th (178) round picks to move up into the back end of the 1st round (and net a 7th (249), and then selected Stanford offensive guard Joshua Garnett.

"The chart" favors SF's end of the trade slightly (661 vs. 634), but SF is idle until pick #68 and then idle until R4 Comps.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/600888https://brownsboard.com/post/600888Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:31:20 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Biggest Reaches/Biggest Underdrafted on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:28:59 GMT]]>

@texasag1969 said:

Biggest headscratcher for me was Houston Trading up one spot to take a wr and then the team they did the trade with takes a better wr. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

Pretty simple.....Houston wanted Fuller over Doctson. They disagree with you that Doctson is better. The Redskins likely had both of them rated the same.....and could have taken either of them. So, for the DATs to get their man, Fuller, they agreed to go up a spot to get him, and give the Redskins something back.

Its like they only gave up a 6th rounder, didn't they?

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/600886https://brownsboard.com/post/600886Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:28:59 GMT<![CDATA[Reply to Biggest Reaches/Biggest Underdrafted on Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:33:44 GMT]]>Biggest headscratcher for me was Houston Trading up one spot to take a wr and then the team they did the trade with takes a better wr. WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?

The Seaquawks actually made sense. They knew their target was an OT who would be gone by their 2nd round pick, so they got extra value with a trade down to their biggest need. So two players for 1 pick and highest need met.

]]>https://brownsboard.com/post/600883https://brownsboard.com/post/600883Fri, 29 Apr 2016 17:33:44 GMT