top dawg

Curious as to why no one has mentioned this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=fHfrVIrUOMfdoATOv4HIDg&url=http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000473451/article/vic-beasley-puts-on-combine-show-shaq-thompson-disappoints&ved=0CCAQqQIwAA&usg=AFQjCNE2td90NfxawzeGGZlOtUKQcj1Q5w&sig2=Mc-DmHrI8_nCdb2bKMa5-g

You must have missed this part: "To me the Maclin comparison looks to be more than just a physical one."

The fug is this? Grown men succumbing to superstition? The Gettleman era is here. I suggest that all you bitches think of G-man as your rabbit's foot---your lucky horseshoe.

There would have to be a run on WRs and OTs for us to probably even consider taking him in the first, and so far Agholor doesn't have a first round grade. It's still early though, so who knows what will happen?

I saw the computer comp on NFLN, and Mike Mayock said it was an interesting comparison---his tone giving me the feeling that he was actually considering it to be somewhat true, so I looked him up, and maybe... Nelson Agholor looks fairly smooth and looks to be a threat on punt returns. An unnamed NFC scout apparently believes that his ceiling is as a slot receiver. Perhaps the scout is right, but it sure does look like he can play on the outside when I look at his highlights, and he looks fairly physical. As for speed, he ran a 4.42 which is almost identical to Maclin's 4.45

No way. He is gonna be in at least the same range as these guys: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/sports/7-nfl-quarterbacks-who-are-really-making-the-most-money.html/?a=viewall Being that he is young, up and coming, and basically better than Kaepernick, his contract---that is his guarantees---could easily be more.

And Mayock said the same thing on NFLN. This was expected. This is the perfect example of fans going Chicken Little because of limited information. Sometimes you have to let the experts be experts, and actually listen to them.

On that we can agree. If I am right, we will eventually get to the point where we have consistent quality depth. This will not only mitigate the effects of injury, but it will also free the FO up from being held hostage to overpaying players come contract time. In that sense, I think that we will be a better version of the Patriots, because G-man may be a better evaluator of talent than BB, but just as shrewd when it comes to drawing economic lines in the sand. "Next man up!"

I think I see what you did there.

I knew that I was comparing apples to oranges, that's why I said "I get what you are saying." I am not confusing immediate need with eventual need. My OP speaks basically to immediate need as it pertains to missing out "immediately" due to being imbalanced at a---that---particular point in time. I can easily argue that eventual needs are always needs, which was (in a way) already suggested by MHS831.

Don't worry, BPA will meet need. This draft is too deep. Plus, free agency hasn't even started yet.

That's a valid point. I just wish that someone would try and get into his head and ask him to actually define what "best" means to him, and give him some different scenarios. He probably would give us the same old answers without answering the question. I believe that there is a certain amount of "smokescreening".

I believe that there are in fact many studies in reference to what you're saying. There are also studies that suggest once people make up their minds about something, they refuse to change even when there is obvious evidence contrary to their belief. In essence, people stick to their beliefs to save face. But I get what you're saying. Again, I would argue that G-man does exactly what he says, and that his drafting of players ( arguably Ealy and Gaffney) who we don't necessarily need are indicative of that fact.

That's one way to look at it, but he knows that he is basically talking to the fans via reporters. I really don't see drafting services having anything to do with it. I actually take him at his word, and I believe that it is in fact his way of making a distinction between BPA and need. As for his picks, sure "many" have been at positions of need, but they have arguably been exactly what he says they have been: the best player available. It's not that serious though. I am just having fun. On draft day(s), you know that there is going to be some pick that is going to blow a large contingent of the Huddle's minds, and I am going to be sitting back smiling and laughing my ass off because people didn't take G-man at his word. It will be very entertaining. You can bet the house that I am not going to be one of them, because I've learned my lesson (and his lesson).

If G-man was drafting in such an easy way that some are suggesting, then there would be no need for him to joke about the BPA and explain his philosophy like it's difficult for people to wrap their heads around. In fact, if it was as some of you say, as opposed to what he is saying, then there would be no reason to even discuss BPA versus need, because they would be effectively one and the same.

You are assuming that his board leaves out certain positions. I have never heard Gettleman say that. In fact, I have heard him suggest differently by how he jokes about people thinking that he is doing something outlandish by sticking to his philosophy. If it was as you make it, then there wouldn't be any need for him to joke about it because it would be a foreign concept at all.

Every year someone says this, but the fact of the matter is that you really can't have five studs at a position, unless you for some odd reason keep drafting that position---in the same draft, or, more likely, different drafts. You really think that G-man is going to pass up a chance to select a quality D-lineman, including DT---if that person is still available when he is on the clock? No. If it were as simple as you're making it, then why would people think that he has "brain damage" like he quipped about regarding this same issue? This suggests, and he suggests, that maybe the BPA is actually the BPA.

Perhaps, but I have always thought that taking the BPA is sound through round 4, but I sometimes think that in rounds 5 through 7, it may be prudent to give the need part of the equation a bit more deference

I just thought it would be an interesting discussion.

That's great, but what about the balance of the team as it relates to always drafting the BPA, irrespective of perceived or real strengths and/or needs? It's going to take more than a couple of drafts to answer that question.

Anyone who has listened to Dave Gettleman discuss his draft philosophy, and has seen him in action, knows that he is adamant about drafting the best player available---without deviation---every single pick. He has said it many times before, even in his latest presser at the NFL Combine. He not only repeated it, he repeated it with emphasis. He basically said that he doesn't care if there is a perceived strength at a certain position, or if he ended up with five studs at a position, he is going to draft the BPA. And...he said it's not going to change. G-man said that this breeds competition, which is a good thing. I wonder if his philosophy works to the detriment of having a balanced team. Moreover, does it facilitate striking while the iron is hot? I mean, the window of opportunity doesn't necessarily stay open too long. Winning championships seems sometimes like Whack-A-Mole (if you know what I'm saying). Being imbalanced at the critical moment(s), and you miss out. Now, I sometimes think that he is still basically a new GM, "Does he have a good handle on what he's doing?" Then, I remember, he played a key role in helping the Giants bring home multiple pieces of hardware, so "Maybe he is absolutely right." It's hard to argue with success. But then I think, "Was it really his success? I mean, what part did he really play? Perhaps he was just lucky." But then I must admit to myself that so far G-man has been pretty successful here, all things considered. He also has plenty of experience and outstanding football acumen as it relates to personnel matters. I just don't believe that he came up with such a rigid philosophy on an island, but that it comes from his own experience, the lessons of others, and success on a fundamental level. I guess I have to believe that his draft philosophy is sound. Thoughts?

Perhaps you are absolutely correct about DGB being too raw to get on the field early for any appreciable amount time, but it's pretty much standard business for more than a few first rounders to start right away. I just don't get the we-can't-wait for a player to develop sentiment, especially considering the supposed talent level and/or upside of the next best receiver since Calvin Johnson or Randy Moss. In the old days, it may have even been the expectation to allow for a gradual transition, and I don't see anything wrong with that course of action now, depending on the situation. When G-man spoke about a player getting on the field, he didn't say you had to get a player on the field right away, he said that you had to know how quickly you can get the player on the field, the implication being (at least in my mind) that as long as the player isn't going to take an inordinate amount of time that is outside the norm---and actually has a chance of seeing the field---then that player is fair game to draft. Inherent in that is meeting whatever expectations you have for that player and the team. G-man has basically come out and said it in his presser at the Combine (you need to listen to it), and I absolutely believe that he will "stockpile" talent as you put it, because really that's what he has shown to some degree with his last couple of drafts, and more importantly (in his perfect world), he uses free agency to set up the draft in such a way that he can take the most talented players because drafting based solely on need does not lead to sustained success. In fact, passing up on talent that you have graded highly on your draft board for a less talented guy just because the less talented guy can play right away doesn't jibe with with Gettleman's overall philosophy. My thoughts on this are not exclusive to DGB, but anyone. It all depends on going in with your eyes wide open about what you feel the talent level and potential of the prospect is, and whether the amount of time that it will take to develop and fulfill that potential is worth drafting at whatever time you are on the clock. I didn't mention character concerns (because it didn't appear central to your point), but if they are present you take that into account and factor that in either before or after everything else, depending upon your philosophy. And, just like many have said, character concerns may completely trump anything else, leaving an option off your draft board altogether depending on your philosophy. Edit: G-man said several times that he will pick the BPA, regardless if there is a perceived strength at the position---regardless if you think that he is "brain damaged", because it creates competition, and that's what you want.

Not really. You can't paint every athlete with a troubled past with the same broad stroke. Sometimes the risk is worth the reward. Sometimes, not all the time. Evaluate your hand. Weigh your risks. Either you want to play, or you don't. If you don't, then fold. This is not a case of making it to the third hand. But don't be surprised when someone else gets the winnings. That being said, I will be fine with whatever we do regarding DGB. I would be ecstatic with Megatron, but will accept DeSean or Alshon with a smile (if you get what I'm saying).

Funchess will more than likely be there too.

Our roster is better than a couple of years ago, if for no other reason than we are younger and more talented, not to mention have more depth. The window to sustained excellence is opening, and the roster isn't predicated upon aging vets who were just happy to be here, and/or arguably on the decline. Along with that is the value-production perspective. We have younger and cheaper guys, but haven't necessarily seen a huge dropoff in production. With another year of experience and teaching, we should only improve that much more. Moreover, if you go down the line, position by position, we should simply be more talented on paper (but, like I alluded to, it's translating to the field. All of this is the result of our FO, so we are obviously headed in the right direction. Of course we need a solution at LT, but that will be addressed and should have an even more prolific and positive effect on the entire roster and direction of the team also. As for coaching, it is always a dynamic and fluid process that is largely predicated upon the level of talent at a coach's disposal. With the level of talent on the line and/or the little experience that we had, not just on the line, but overall (which was really the result of a bad cap situation and making sacrifices for a better future-), as well as the unforgiving injuries that took a bite out of our chemistry and continuity, the coaches did a great job last season. And last season was arguably better than 2013 considering all the circumstances. Is the coaching perfect? No. It is still evolving, but it's hard to argue with two history making seasons from such a relatively young coaching staff that has had to deal with all of the above.