top dawg

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.

I have already explained the "hate" thing. That really shouldn't be a point of contention, but let me apologize for using a figure of speech. You love the thought of drafting DGB in the third round, even though you implied that he isn't doing all that he can to put his best foot forward because he is fat and lazy, and that he must be fooling people purposefully, himself or both about turning the page from his past transgressions. The thing is (as I attempted to explain to you in another thread, and this one actually) is that it is somewhat incongruous to suggest that a guy that you know has first round talent is not worth drafting in the first because of character concerns, but is worth drafting in the third---or any round. If you think that he has bad character and a lazy work ethic, then I can easily argue that he is not worth drafting at all. Basically that's what you are saying in effect anyway because the likelihood of him lasting until the third (if all goes well with his interviews and workouts) is slim and none. So either he is worth taking a chance on in the first or second, or he will not be on the team. Moreover in light of the "new" CBA and our personnel-guru GM, all of this risk about not drafting him in the first or second is largely overblown, because I am nearly 100 percent sure that the Panthers will not suffer long term effects if the worst case scenario would happen. Sure, it wouldn't be good in the short run because we may miss out on another player (particularly a worthy OT or WR, but the draft is relatively deep at both positions), but I personally don't believe that we are going to turn into the Browns or Raiders. Moreover, I would think that as far as guys with the realistic possibility to play in the NFL, that you actually have more guys with troubled pasts who do "turn it around" than don't, but perhaps I am being optimistic. I do know that not everyone is Josh Gordon and Justin Blackmon. Money and reaching a goal makes a lot of guys more settled and secure, and at many times it makes them more introspective and appreciative, particularly if they have good counsel (which I am absolutely sure that this team and locker room will provide).

Just like you aren't in love with the idea of the Panthers drafting this guy, neither is Tiger, but there is no reason to reach for weak reasons to knock the guy who has already admitted to his own mistakes, and by all accounts has done the right things for the past few months to leave his past behind. The implication that he is out of shape, and not just adding muscle and bulk, is really unfounded at this point (before he actually competes no less). This does not bespeak "hate" in the literal sense of the word, but does connote a certain amount of disdain, or unfairness at the very least. Moreover, this is the second time this week that I have "chided" you for using hyperbole to support a largely overblown concept; first that the scope of DGB only relates to business, and the second being that the Huddle is rampant with members that think only in what I will call "hyperbolic extremes". Sure, some may, but I don't believe that it happens as much as you perhaps believe (or would like others think that you believe in order to "clown" someone), and it's certainly not true in my case.

Of course, but his question was to me, and you took it upon yourself to answer it.

I never took you for the peanut gallery.

Another red herring. You already know that's just a figure of speech. You have said a little more than that. Even still, sometimes it's not what you say, but how you say it. And sometimes it's saying something without really saying it.

I know that you hate the guy, but this is a red herring. You're better than this.

You may have just answered your own question.

Yeah, he can probably find an old Delhomme jersey in the Goodwill if he is persistent enough.

I would almost rather he be gone so that we don't even have the option rather than pass on him outright. That way I don't have to listen to (or join in) the resulting collective Huddle implosion.

Take another look and try again.

I can see someone not wanting DGB strictly for the off-field issues (I really can), but there is no way that you're telling me that you find a 6'6" freak with soft hands and damned near elite speed that strides like a deer everyday. You just don't, and that's why people are so excited about his upside. He hasn't even been coached up yet. His upside is tremendous. Who cares about a Megatron comparison? Even if he has the skill set and upside of A.J. Green, you have yourself a keeper.

All of these coaches, scouts and analysts are hyping this guy for a reason. I could see if it was just one or two, but DGB apparently has something that all of us plebeians aren't privy to, and I am going to take their word for it until I see different.

They may. But remember that lack of team speed was a primary theme going into this off-season. That, and looking to upgrade any position are the things that I remember the most. I think that Philly is by no means the default speed merchant. He will have some serious competition.

We still need that speed, take-it-to-the-house guy. Funchess is big, strong and athletic, but he is not particularly elusive. His YAC will probably be minimal. People are already speculating that he may play some TE. Don't get me wrong, I'd be happy to have him, but we'd need someone else in addition to Funchess (and Benjamin).