Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Does everyone think Gettleman is smoke screening by saying BPA


  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#41 Dash boulder

Dash boulder

    NEWB

  • Joined: 11-November 12
  • posts: 10
  • Reputation: 1
ROOKIE

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,421
  • Reputation: 2,152
  • LocationAt the lake
HUDDLER

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

  • Joined: 03-March 09
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 392
  • Reputation: 60
HUDDLER

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 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,137
  • Reputation: 5,289
Moderators

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

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,421
  • Reputation: 2,152
  • LocationAt the lake
HUDDLER

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...................

#46 CRA

CRA

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-November 08
  • posts: 27,137
  • Reputation: 5,289
Moderators

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:25 PM

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...................

BPA is influenced by need at certain spots.

Solution is simple, if you don't want to engage in back and forth discussions. Quit doing it.

#47 Growl

Growl

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • Joined: 21-March 12
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 7,697
  • Reputation: 4,099
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 01:28 PM

There's no "doubting" that we take a QB or RB at 14. It's no, we're not going to. It doesn't matter how good one might be. It could be a DNA clone version of Walter Peyton and we wouldn't take it. You know why? Because their ability has nothing to do with our selection.

Position matters, no matter how much you may try to convince yourself it doesn't. You don't build a successful football team by drafting exclusively on BPA, no matter how trendy some of you think it is to say.


Need at position shapes value. It is that simple.

#48 poorboysrev

poorboysrev

    Junior Member

  • Joined: 17-March 11
  • PipPipPipPip
  • posts: 313
  • Reputation: 56
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 04:35 PM

Some of yall are being waaAy too literal. No GM is going to say "we are going to take a Dt in the 1st, oline in the 2nd". Certain positions trump need because they arerare and expensive in FA. Meaning Franchise QB(if you aren't sure you have one), #1 WR, passrushers, LT, and elite cover corners. you rarely see those in FA and if you do they are expensive as poo. You can find good cheap vets at DT, safety, #2 or 3 wr, OG, LB, rb and TE. So unless one of those are truly elite you would rather use a high pick on one of the premier positions.

#49 Keith Moons Liver

Keith Moons Liver

    Senior Member

  • Joined: 25-September 11
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 1,733
  • Reputation: 498
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:20 PM

I think it's insane to put any stock at all into anything any team official says this time of year. It's either going to be an outright lie or meaningless buzz words and cliches.

#50 panthers55

panthers55

    Starting all over again

  • Joined: 24-November 08
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • posts: 17,421
  • Reputation: 2,152
  • LocationAt the lake
HUDDLER

Posted 28 February 2013 - 06:23 PM

There's no "doubting" that we take a QB or RB at 14. It's no, we're not going to. It doesn't matter how good one might be. It could be a DNA clone version of Walter Peyton and we wouldn't take it. You know why? Because their ability has nothing to do with our selection.

Position matters, no matter how much you may try to convince yourself it doesn't. You don't build a successful football team by drafting exclusively on BPA, no matter how trendy some of you think it is to say.


Need at position shapes value. It is that simple

Tell that to Gettleman. He said needs are best addressed in FA not the draft. Need tends to make you reach and overvalue guys instead of using BPA. Everette Brown and Jimmy Clausen comes to mind.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users