Is 'BPA, or be damned' a flaw with Gettleman's draft philosophy?

[panthers55]

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.

Your reference to those studies are apples to oranges comparisons.. I am talking about whether people actually practice what they preach which in a vast majority of cases is not the case. You are talking about people being stubborn and unwilling to change despite reasons to do so. The only way thy could be related is if you think that once Gettleman says he is going to draft BPA he feels a need to do it regardless of the circumstances in order to save face. But that negates the whole concept that he can always say whoever he picks was BPA at that position so there is never a situation where someone would call him on it or he would feel a need to defend his position since most folks factor need into any decision the team makes. When he picks someone who is not at a perceived need of position he just reinforces what he says. Otherwise he can always say he did exactly what he said and who would argue. Secondly you confuse immediate need with eventual need. Gettleman does have a long term perspective so he looks at now and in the future since he is looking down the road. He has never planned to keep Hardy so for him there is a need for Ealy. He knew that he won't have both Stewart and Williams on the team down the road so Gaffney was a need.

[top dawg]

Your reference to those studies are apples to oranges comparisons.. I am talking about whether people actually practice what they preach which in a vast majority of cases is not the case. You are talking about people being stubborn and unwilling to change despite reasons to do so. The only way thy could be related is if you think that once Gettleman says he is going to draft BPA he feels a need to do it regardless of the circumstances in order to save face. But that negates the whole concept that he can always say whoever he picks was BPA at that position so there is never a situation where someone would call him on it or he would feel a need to defend his position since most folks factor need into any decision the team makes. When he picks someone who is not at a perceived need of position he just reinforces what he says. Otherwise he can always say he did exactly what he said and who would argue. Secondly you confuse immediate need with eventual need. Gettleman does have a long term perspective so he looks at now and in the future since he is looking down the road. He has never planned to keep Hardy so for him there is a need for Ealy. He knew that he won't have both Stewart and Williams on the team down the road so Gaffney was a need.

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.

[panthers55]

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.

One of the things I like about Gettleman is that he looks down the road and is building for the long term. that is the complete opposite of Hurney who always gambled tomorrow away for rewards immediately. I think everyone would agree that Gettleman has a much better approach so that means that we have to take the immediate shortcomings like no left tackle in stride while we build for long term success.

[top dawg]

One of the things I like about Gettleman is that he looks down the road and is building for the long term. that is the complete opposite of Hurney who always gambled tomorrow away for rewards immediately. I think everyone would agree that Gettleman has a much better approach so that means that we have to take the immediate shortcomings like no left tackle in stride while we build for long term success.

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!"

[pantherclaw]

Why would ya want to ignore the best player available?

I'd rather him go BPA, than reach.

Period.

End of story.

[PantherFanOne]

I bet Gettleman sets his draft board up, depending on who he thinks is the best player available, with it slanted toward our needs.It would be foolish to think he would select a QB in the 1st rd or 2nd, if they were the best players available,considering all our other needs and Cam already the starter..