Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does everyone think Gettleman is smoke screening by saying BPA


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#31 L-TownCat

L-TownCat

    Baptized In The Blood Of Saints

  • ALL-PRO
  • 5,074 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:35 AM

Gettleman saying we're going to go BPA is a complete smokescreen.

In reality, we're actually going to take the WPA (worst player available)

Nobody is gonna see that coming.


You just unintentionally explained what BPA means to a lot of our resident geniuses here at the huddle.



#32 BelgianPantherFan

BelgianPantherFan

    MEMBER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 488 posts
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:44 AM

Could be an invitation to teams who want to trade up. It's like saying: watch out, despite we have no need at that position, we might take your guy.

#33 pantherclaw

pantherclaw

    Wise Ass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,636 posts
  • LocationGalveston

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:46 AM

Mocks will always project for a teams needs.
Doesn't dictate what we'll do.

#34 pantherclaw

pantherclaw

    Wise Ass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,636 posts
  • LocationGalveston

Posted 28 February 2013 - 09:51 AM

Keep in mind, the Panthers board will look different than most mock drafts.
Some players will remain in similar slots, while others will be blotted differently based on how they fit with the Panthers, and our needs.

#35 Growl

Growl

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,868 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:29 AM

Years of poor Hurney drafting have led people to believe that BPA isn't directly influenced by your need. It is. Competent teams don't just up and take players at positions of true strength when they have holes as large as the ones we have in so many places. It just doesn't happen.

#36 methodtoll

methodtoll

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,211 posts
  • LocationToccoa, GA

Posted 28 February 2013 - 10:43 AM

Who's to say we wouldn't trade down if Geno or Matt are still on the board? This would be a good leverage tool for a QB needy team.

#37 Peppers90 NC

Peppers90 NC

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,699 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:12 AM

bpa is too vague to be a smoke screen

#38 Rubi

Rubi

    Squid Smasher

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,306 posts
  • LocationCharlotte

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:13 AM

It's not necessarily easy. Let's say Sheldon Richardson, Keenan Allen and Ezekiel Ansah, Kenny Vacarro and Chance Warmack are still on the board. Who do we pick?


Warmack the rhino

#39 TheRumGone

TheRumGone

    mountain man

  • ALL-PRO
  • 9,395 posts
  • LocationAsheville, NC

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:36 AM

Gettleman said we would pick BPA that is a fit with our team. So obviouly QBs, RB's would be off the table. And besides are any QBs or RBs going to be the BPA at our pick. No way.

#40 pantherclaw

pantherclaw

    Wise Ass

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,636 posts
  • LocationGalveston

Posted 28 February 2013 - 11:55 AM

bpa is too vague to be a smoke screen

dirka dirka

#41 Dash boulder

Dash boulder

    NEWB

  • NEWB
  • Pip
  • 10 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:34 PM

It's a mistake to choose based on one consideration. You have to consider BPA, Value and Need. These are not absolutes, they are all considered to some degree. Early in the draft, you are you are going to put more weight on value and BPA . The later you go, need has more weight. As others have said, these mocks tend to look at need to make up their mocks. So to answer the OPs question, No.

What Gettleman is saying is he is putting more weight on BPA rather than need. It might not be literally word for word what he said, but when you have a bunch of reporters with mics in your face, your just trying give answer that most will understand.

#42 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,719 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 28 February 2013 - 12:36 PM

Gettleman said we would pick BPA that is a fit with our team. So obviouly QBs, RB's would be off the table. And besides are any QBs or RBs going to be the BPA at our pick. No way.


That does not rule out QBs or RBs. Saying we want a fit means we won't pick guys who would be best in a WCO offense versus a vertical passing game or we won't pick a LB who is projected to be best in a 3-4. But as you say, I doubt that a QB or RB would be BPA at 14. The whole issue is interesting though because he said specifically that we would go BPA regardless of need. He said you get your needs met in free agency so you can pursue BPA in the draft. He specifically mentioned when the Giants went with Pierre-Paul, they didn't need a DT/DE but they picked him because he was BPA.

#43 sml1950

sml1950

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 384 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:06 PM

Gettleman could be planting the idea that we will take Ansah @ 14 despite having no need at DE, as the Giants did withJJP. If a team wants him they'd have to trade in front of us or with us.

#44 DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

DeAngelo's #1 Fan(CRA)

    Senior Member

  • Moderators
  • 25,271 posts

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:08 PM

That does not rule out QBs or RBs. Saying we want a fit means we won't pick guys who would be best in a WCO offense versus a vertical passing game or we won't pick a LB who is projected to be best in a 3-4. But as you say, I doubt that a QB or RB would be BPA at 14. The whole issue is interesting though because he said specifically that we would go BPA regardless of need. He said you get your needs met in free agency so you can pursue BPA in the draft. He specifically mentioned when the Giants went with Pierre-Paul, they didn't need a DT/DE but they picked him because he was BPA.

postion matters though....did for JPP. You can stock pile DEs as you need at least 2 on the field every down. Important position. They then don't have to pay out a Charles Johnson contract. For example, they could play hard ball with Osi.

If Carolina had the number overall last year.....they could of drafted BPA (but still simply not put Luck or Griffen on there board at all). Trade or go BPA excluding QB.

You are taking to strict and literal meaning of BPA. Teams who draft BPA still make exceptions and take guys off the board.

#45 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,719 posts
  • LocationAt the lake

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:15 PM

postion matters though....did for JPP. You can stock pile DEs as you need at least 2 on the field every down. Important position. They then don't have to pay out a Charles Johnson contract. For example, they could play hard ball with Osi.

If Carolina had the number overall last year.....they could of drafted BPA (but still simply not put Luck or Griffen on there board at all). Trade or go BPA excluding QB.

You are taking to strict and literal meaning of BPA. Teams who draft BPA still make exceptions and take guys off the board.

I wasn't the one saying it, Gettleman went out of his way to say it. And whether he means BPA regardless or BPA based on need is the whole point of this thread. And yes you already made it clear you think it is BPA based on need. No need to argue back and forth. And please don't start arguing about whether you argue or not...................


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com