VT_BABY

Clearly you just like to argue. So I'll leave after this. My point has nothing to do with Mel Kiper, John Gruden, Trent Dilfer, or any other analyst. My point is that the BPA argument is overly simplistic if you can't understand this example: -you see an under-the-radar player that you LOVE -he fits your system perfectly, he tests well with you, you live his upside...you WANT this guy -he has very little buzz, the "analysts" aren't talking about him higher than the late rounds, none of your peers seem to be crazy about him either -so he's super high on your board...and he's your BPA in the 2nd. You take the guy in the 2nd? Our do you look around, see what others are saying, what the analysts are saying, what the other scouts are saying? Do you draft a guy in the 2nd if there is a reasonable chance you could get him in the 5th? That is my only point on the BPA stance. I would've been very happy with Shaq and Funchess if we didn't give up that 3rd.

Still available at that spot in the 3rd round: La'el Collins OT - LSU T.J.Clemmings OT - Pitt A bunch of good RB's (hopefully we can still grab one late)

I'm not debating talent evaluation. I'm debating draft positioning. We got two guys that very few thought were 1st round talent, but most thought solid 2nd round talent. We paid a late 1st, late 2nd, late 3rd, and late 6th for that. I'm happy with the players, I just think in this case the focus was too much on who *we* wanted than where those guys were likely to go on the draft board. For exams, who in front of us was going to take Funchess? None of those teams really needed WR, many took WR in the 1st, and none ultimately went WR. So were those 2 picks ultimately necessary? I'm rarely a Monday Morning Quarterback, and I like the guys selected...but I just question the logic and the extra picks. I think we could've actually gotten both guys by trading DOWN and getting EXTRA picks. Not giving up picks.

If you're an NFL GM you should be paying attention to *every* opinion you can get your hands on. How do people not understand that *other peoples opinions determine where players will be drafted*. If you have a guy rated as a #2 and everyone else says he's a #4...I'm not debating your assessment whatsoever, but if you take him in the 2nd, you're not a great drafter. Why not try to nab him in the 3rd and get a steal vs reach because he was your BPA. Anyone who's done a Fantasy Draft knows the scenario. That one guy who is convinced Matt Ryan is going to be a stud this year...and drafts him at the top of the 2nd. When he probably could have gotten the same guy in the top of the 4th. Look at that board again, and tell me how we couldn't have traded DOWN...giving up our 1st...gotten both Funchess and Shaq...and still kept our 3rd and 6th? I like both guys and am a big DG fan. But he did not manage those picks well.

We likely could have stayed where we were and gotten the guy we got. But we gave up a very valuable 3rd to move up. Gettleman may well be an above-average talent evaluator, but he's below average at overall draft strategy. If most of your peers and the media think a guy is a 2nd or 3rd rounder...don't take him in the 1st. THAT's when you trade up in the 2nd. Who in front of us at 57 was even going to take Funchess? None of those teams needed WR and many of them actually went WR in round 1. Why not wait, and if you're wrong you take Strong or your BPA? Why trade multiple picks for someone it wasn't even clear others were contemplating? Hopefully DG is right on these evaluations, but my issue is his overall draft strategy. You can't completely ignore what everyone else (your peers and the draft "experts") are saying about a player - if you do, you can end up drafting players at the wrong time.