Does everyone think Gettleman is smoke screening by saying BPA

[sml1950]

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.

[CRA]

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.

[panthers55]

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

[CRA]

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.

[Growl]

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.

[poorboysrev]

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.

[Keith Moons Liver]

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.

[panthers55]

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.

[panthers55]

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.

So you are voting for smokescreen.

[CRA]

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.

I have never heard a team claim they weren't going to draft he best player available

[Growl]

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.

No he didn't say that at all. He said that you add players in free agency (meaning you add actual starter level talent in free agency) so that you aren't forced to go with your biggest needs come draft time, therefore giving yourself options.

When you have the luxury of being a good team that has been well run, you have the ability to be more liberal in your draft pursuits

When your a garbage organization who has been ran horribly for a decade, you don't have such freedom and are forced to do what you can in FA and the draft in an effort to field an NFL-tier roster

and disconnected from the topic but I'm throwing it in anyways-what made Hurney so horrible is that he didn't do any of these things. He had a disdain for free agency and then still wanted to go BPA when draft time came. He looked at the marks and philosophies of "successful" organizations but was either too dense or too dumb to ponder what made building a team via their philosophies successful

Yes. The Patriots stockpile draft picks. They also routinely add big name players in free agency and don't spend money on useless positions and old players.

Yes, the Steelers and Packers build through the draft as well. You know what they also do? They draft players to fill positions on their team where they are weak and also don't invest major resources on aged players or meaningless positions like RB

[panthers55]

No he didn't say that at all. He said that you add players in free agency (meaning you add actual starter level talent in free agency) so that you aren't forced to go with your biggest needs come draft time, therefore giving yourself options.

When you have the luxury of being a good team that has been well run, you have the ability to be more liberal in your draft pursuits

When your a garbage organization who has been ran horribly for a decade, you don't have such freedom and are forced to do what you can in FA and the draft in an effort to field an NFL-tier roster

and disconnected from the topic but I'm throwing it in anyways-what made Hurney so horrible is that he didn't do any of these things. He had a disdain for free agency and then still wanted to go BPA when draft time came. He looked at the marks and philosophies of "successful" organizations but was either too dense or too dumb to ponder what made building a team via their philosophies successful

Yes. The Patriots stockpile draft picks. They also routinely add big name players in free agency and don't spend money on useless positions and old players.

Yes, the Steelers and Packers build through the draft as well. You know what they also do? They draft players to fill positions on their team where they are weak and also don't invest major resources on aged players or meaningless positions like RB

You like most people here are giving your bend or interpretation of what you think he said, not what he said. And that is fine, everyone should be free to express their opinion. But in lieu of you having private conversations with him, this article and video is about all he has said on the subject.

Here is a quote:

"The way I look at the whole picture is, free agency is the opportunity to set your draft up," he said. "You want to be in a position where you can take the best player. Nine times out of 10 you get in trouble when you draft for need. It's a problem. You can have a top 10 pick and make up your mind you're going to draft for need, and if he's not there, then what do you do?

"With the Giants, people thought we were crazy for drafting defensive ends. We drafted (Mathias) Kiwanuka and we drafted JPP (Jason Pierre-Paul), and everyone's saying, ‘My God, when's it going to stop?' But if that's the best player available, you take him. Nothing like competition."

I understand your frustration about the organization and what you feel has been Hurney's mismangement. What do you think about Gettleman saying that Marty was right in how he drafted for BPA? Other than how he says he will use more 1 year contracts and not sign guys to big money contracts, how different will he be in the draft than Hurney??