EightyNine

​Is Percy their 4th WR on the depth chart? Also, please give specific names..not just one.

​Can you give some examples of WR4s around the league that have the type of talent you think we need at that spot?

​The list is ordered by people who have caught the most first downs.. Bersin's 84% first down percentage is a great number.

​How many WR4s can you name that satisfy those three criteria?

​Sounds like a typical evaluation of a white receiver..No speed but a great work ethic.. No wonder he has trouble separating vs talented corners..

​Cause he's white

​Welker and Edelman are great at getting separation.

​I think everyone is hoping that Funchess will be a dynamic playmaker.. and that bringing back Ted and the development of Corey Brown will provide the offense with enough weapons. I wouldn't say we have GOT to get better options. The answer might already be on the roster.

​ ​ ​You are basing the idea that Bersin should never be a primary read off of one play.

It was hard not to react harshly after the playoff loss to Seattle..thats just apart of what comes with losing any game..You begin to question EVERYTHING.. I do believe that the play where Bersin was the number one target, got jammed up, so Cam had to look the other way to Dickson and threw a pick 6, played a huge part in people having doubts about Bersin.. People STILL wonder why on earth he was the first option on that play..But i think those people were just so upset about the outcome of that play, that they over reacted. They replayed that play in their mind over and over and tried to pick apart everything. But the truth is...if Cam wouldnt have thrown that pick, that is a play that everyone would have completely forgotten about. How often does Cam have to go to his 2nd and 3rd options? Do we criticize the first option when that happens? No. Its just apart of football. You cant always throw to your first option. Especially against one of the best defenses in the game.

​Not sure if you thought I was saying that Cotchery hasnt produced or cant produce. My statement was simply a response to others assuming that Cotchery will make the team based on the reasoning that he is our veteran presence for the WR group. I think that if he is going to make the team, it will be because he is better/more dependable than some of the younger guys. Not just because he can give the younger guys some tips or guidance.

​I completely agree that veteran leadership on the field is extremely valuable..provided that those vets are able to produce as well as the younger guys can.. If you have a vet that can still play at a high level, then he becomes even more valuable.. But if they cant produce like the younger guys, is it really worth it? Very rarely do you hear of a team that is trying to get older.

​I hear this a lot...that Cotchery's veteran presence is going to help him make the team, since we dont have other receivers with his kind of experience.. How far can being a veteran presence really take you? If it comes down to him and one other guy, how much better does the other guy have to be before that outweighs the value of being a vet? I feel like being a vet shouldnt make much of a difference..maybe if they are about equal, that could be the deciding factor.. I'd rather take the guy that has a better chance of catching the ball when you throw it to him. Can't Ricky Proehl just be our vet presence for the group?

​Ideally, the defense dictates who they target. You start getting into trouble when you try to force the ball to a specific person. Im not saying that having favorites has no effect.. but it shouldn't have a big one. Also, coaches must have a way of preventing that from happening. They must have a way of evaluating receivers without letting the quarterback decide who makes it based off of who his best friends/favorite receivers are.

I am also skeptical of players put on the trading block.. But I wouldnt write them off. It worked with Olsen, right?

So that will be his first game back? damn..

There have been a countless number of tall receivers that haven't worked out so well. I just want a receiver that can get open and catch the ball.. If anything, I actually think I like the idea of having receivers with different skill sets.

Once you understand the concept, all of those questions can be answered very easily, and you wont get confused by semantics.

You are right...there is no way to know for sure. I'm just saying that I hope Kugbilla was the highest rated player on our board, because that would mean that Gettleman has a strong conviction in his own philosophy and is a man of his word. So far, I have good reason to believe him, because his actions so far seem to back up his words (not taking an OT when it was a HUGE need, doubling up on DTs in rounds 1 and 2, not overpaying in FA just to fill a need, etc.). You dont have to reach when you are good at finding talent and good fits in the lower half of your roster. He has shown he can do just that.

I dont think its difficult to pinpoint the concept at all. For some reason, people are making it much more complicated than it needs to be. In regards to Kugbilla, I'd like to think that he was the highest rated player on our board at the time.. if not, then Gettleman would be going against his own philosophy, and show that he doesnt have a strong conviction in his own beliefs. All GMs say they will take the BPA...but its much easier said than done. I hope our GM is one of the few that is not afraid to stick to his guns. On a side note: its very easy for you to say Kugbilla wasnt the BPA... He hasnt even been healthy enough to play so you have nothing to base that on. Hopefully, our scouts knew what they were doing when they rated him. Remember, no one hits on every pick though..

Yes, well..be that as it may.. I'm still gonna argue that "tomatoe" is incorrect..because it is.

I don't understand your explanation of why trading up goes against BPA. Trading has no effect on whether you select the player at the top of your board, or reach for someone that is lower on your board because they fill an immediate need. I guess what you're saying is that by trading up, you arent selecting a player that would have been "available" to you. But thats why you trade up.. So that those players would become available to you. You move up because you think the value of the player you traded for is greater to your team than what you gave up to move up. It still has no affect on whether or not you take the player at the top of your board. All BPA means is that when youre on the clock, you arent going to pass up on your highest rated player just because you want someone who is rated lower that fills a need. It would be possible to trade up and still not take the player at the top of your board because you want someone that fills a need and you think they wont be available when you pick. That would go against BPA. But as long as you take the player at the top of your board, you are sticking with the BPA philosophy. If you are able to, try to give me an explanation of how making a trade would prevent you from taking the player rated highest on your board.

Yeah, you're probably right. I'm sure the more your team loses, the harder it is to stick with the BPA philosophy.

This may or may not be true.. Luke, Kalil, Beason, Stewart are some names that come to mind that probably werent our biggest needs at the time. I've actually wondered if our drafts would be much different if Hurney were still here.. With Don Gregory and the other scouts still here, I've wondered how much they factor into the decision that gets made. I remember an interview with Gettleman saying that Don Gregory was a big part in the KB pick, and he predicted that KB would be available. I'm not saying Gettleman isn't light years ahead of Hurney because I think that he is. Obviously, Gettleman is so much better at evaluating talent, not overpaying, building for the future, and building the lower half of the roster (which in my opinion is the biggest part of being a good GM), as well as every other aspect of being a GM.

I think i have explained what I believe BPA means the best i could have.. The problem is that your statement assumes that BPA and "the player that we want" are mutually exclusive from each other..like you think we cant get both. If we traded up to get White and he was the highest player on our board, then we would be sticking with the BPA philosophy. If we sat at 25 and took Gurley because he was our BPA, we would still be sticking with the BPA.