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

[Byrdman4real]

As is the case every year, going BPA isn't some random fortune cookie sliver of ancient football wisdom that most of this board seems to think it is. It's a reference to picking the best player available *on your board* A board that is assembled through a variety a of factors-one of those factors being gasp! Need.

This

[thunderraiden]

I mean, how many teams had ODB as the 3rd best WR?

 

BPA is subjective as hell.

 

Yea, dude is definitely #1 pick this year in a redraft.

[top dawg]

. I would argue that you are trying to polarize the argument into BPA versus need and I think that need is a factor but not the main issue. I think gettleman's comments are more related to various drafting services who tend to put people at certain positions and teams solely based on need and he is saying that isn't how he rolls. But If you look at his drafts instead of what he says you can see that many of his BPAs have been at positions of need. Pure coincidence? I don't think so.

That's one way to look at it, but he knows that he is basically talking to the fans via reporters. I really don't see drafting services having anything to do with it. I actually take him at his word, and I believe that it is in fact his way of making a distinction between BPA and need. As for his picks, sure "many" have been at positions of need, but they have arguably been exactly what he says they have been: the best player available.

It's not that serious though. I am just having fun. On draft day(s), you know that there is going to be some pick that is going to blow a large contingent of the Huddle's minds, and I am going to be sitting back smiling and laughing my ass off because people didn't take G-man at his word. It will be very entertaining. You can bet the house that I am not going to be one of them, because I've learned my lesson (and his lesson).

[panthers55]

That's one way to look at it, but he knows that he is basically talking to the fans via reporters. I really don't see drafting services having anything to do with it. I actually take him at his word, and I believe that it is in fact his way of making a distinction between BPA and need. As for his picks, sure "many" have been at positions of need, but they have arguably been exactly what he says they have been: the best player available.

It's not that serious though. I am just having fun. On draft day(s), you know that there is going to be some pick that is going to blow a large contingent of the Huddle's minds, and I am going to be sitting back smiling and laughing my ass off because people didn't take G-man at his word. It will be very entertaining. You can bet the house that I am not going to be one of them, because I've learned my lesson (and his lesson).

So let's start by saying that there is a whole field of research that looks at what a person says they do or will do compared to what they actually do and the results suggest they are often not the same or certainly not as delineated as they said.

Secondly if you look at what he does and not what he says which is a much better predictor or what he will do in the future he surely drafts at positions of need as often as he drafts a player at an area of low need. He simply says that he was BPA regardless of need. But most times it isn't as if one player stands out head and shoulders above the rest like Star did in 2013.

[SCP]

In a vacuum, that philosophy might have flaws. However, when you factor his free agency philosophy into the equation it makes sense.

[panthers55]

Exactly what position has Gettleman drafted at a position of no need last year? Benjamin? Big need. Ealy? Given he wouldn't pay Hardy big money and didn't trust him and Johnson is costing almost 20 million a year it was a position of need in a year or two. Turner? With Wharton on the fence and Silatolu so up and down it was an immediate need. Boston? Of course we needed a safety. Benwikere? No question it was a need? . Gaffney? You could argue no need but with Williams and Stewart costing so much having a lower priced option would be necessarily down the road.

So if we are looking long term instead of short term where are all these players who are at positions of no or little need. Gettleman may not be selecting at positions of what people think are our biggest needs but it is hard to say they are at positions of little need.

[Mol3m4n]

Exactly what position has Gettleman drafted at a position of no need last year? Benjamin? Big need. Ealy? Given he wouldn't pay Hardy big money and didn't trust him and Johnson is costing almost 20 million a year it was a position of need in a year or two. Turner? With Wharton on the fence and Silatolu so up and down it was an immediate need. Boston? Of course we needed a safety. Benwikere? No question it was a need? . Gaffney? You could argue no need but with Williams and Stewart dating so much having a lower priced option would be necessarily down the road.

So if we are looking long term instead of short term where are all these players who are at positions of no or little need. Gettleman may not be selecting at positions of what people think are our biggest needs but it is hard to say they are at positions of little need.

In all honesty, the team was full of holes last year and it would have been hard NOT to have drafted a player that fit a need.

[panthers55]

In all honesty, the team was full of holes last year and it would have been hard NOT to have drafted a player that fit a need.

Exactly. So why all the debate about BPA versus need when most teams have significant needs at many positions. The issue comes up when we don't draft at a position at what everyone thinks is our biggest need this year like an offensive tackle. If we draft a quarterback in the first 3 rounds then I will think Gettleman is BPA no matter what..

[MHS831]

Gettlemen is no fool.  What does he mean by "best?"  Here is what I think "Best" means to a GM:

 

1.  Most Talented

2.  Rarity of Talent at position

3. Need

4. Ability to learn-get on the field early

5. Upside

6. Character

7. Versatility (multiple positions; multiple skills at one position; 3-down player?)

8. Special teams ability

9. Injury history

10. Attitude

[top dawg]

So let's start by saying that there is a whole field of research that looks at what a person says they do or will do compared to what they actually do and the results suggest they are often not the same or certainly not as delineated as they said.

Secondly if you look at what he does and not what he says which is a much better predictor or what he will do in the future he surely drafts at positions of need as often as he drafts a player at an area of low need. He simply says that he was BPA regardless of need. But most times it isn't as if one player stands out head and shoulders above the rest like Star did in 2013.

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.

[MHS831]

Exactly what position has Gettleman drafted at a position of no need last year? Benjamin? Big need. Ealy? Given he wouldn't pay Hardy big money and didn't trust him and Johnson is costing almost 20 million a year it was a position of need in a year or two. Turner? With Wharton on the fence and Silatolu so up and down it was an immediate need. Boston? Of course we needed a safety. Benwikere? No question it was a need? . Gaffney? You could argue no need but with Williams and Stewart costing so much having a lower priced option would be necessarily down the road.

So if we are looking long term instead of short term where are all these players who are at positions of no or little need. Gettleman may not be selecting at positions of what people think are our biggest needs but it is hard to say they are at positions of little need.

 

Good points.  As fans, we forget that the best player could be the player that creates cap space by allowing the GM to cut players and enter negotiations with other players with options.  Ealy was a great example of this.  However, we all feel rather confident that Hardy was not going to be on the roster in 2015 when he was franchised, so need does not have to mean this year.  When you consider how productive rookies are in their first years, it is almost stupid to try to meet 2015 needs in the draft.

 

Our scope is narrow and short.  A GM has to have vision that extends the length of contracts and he has to know what costs are ahead.  So, to extend your excellent points, "Best" does not mean to us what it means to Gettlemen. 

[top dawg]

Our scope is narrow and short. A GM has to have vision that extends the length of contracts and he has to know what costs are ahead. So, to extend your excellent points, "Best" does not mean to us what it means to Gettlemen.

That's a valid point.

I just wish that someone would try and get into his head and ask him to actually define what "best" means to him, and give him some different scenarios. He probably would give us the same old answers without answering the question. I believe that there is a certain amount of "smokescreening".

[GoobyPls]

All I know is when Byron Bell is your LT and your number 2 WR is a 32 year old no other team wanted, you draft for need.

[top dawg]

All I know is when Byron Bell is your LT and your number 2 WR is a 32 year old no other team wanted, you draft for need.

Don't worry, BPA will meet need. This draft is too deep. Plus, free agency hasn't even started yet.