RUMOR: Panthers looking to move up to 16-20th pick

[Bartin]

Think about it.  Would any GM ever admit that the player he took wasn't the guy who he thought was the best player on the board?

 

No of course not, but that's just one way they justify a primarily need based pick to fans who think they reached. That doesn't mean the player was on the top of their board though.

[pantherclaw]

Think about it. Would any GM ever admit that the player he took wasn't the guy who he thought was the best player on the board?

I have often thought on this subject.

I do know most teams draft boards have multiple players at same/similar values.

I also know how the team values players, often isn't the same as most fans.

So after careful consideration, I conclude that the GM that swears by BPA, will always draft BPA. According to their board, said player was BPA in their minds.

Why would a GM lie about BPA?

I believe the suggestion that they would lie is just a convenient excuse one comes up with so they can fathom why their team drafted a player they didn't expect, or value as highly.

Keep in mind, we're all humans, prone to making mistakes from time to time. This includes GMs and the personal that help set their board up.

[Mr. Scot]

Drafting a player where you have a need is not a bad thing in and of itself.

It's when you draft a guy who's really only good enough to be taken in the 2nd or 3rd round in the first because you 'need that position' that you screw up.

[EightyNine]

true but why else would you trade up? IMO it's to get someone we /want not move up to take the bpa(which on our boards he could be the bpa).

 

for example: if we trade up and get a Wr like White,instead of sitting at 25 and getting the bpa who could be gurley.By trading up,we address a position of need and we get our guy, instead of if we sat at 25 and got gurley,which isn't as big of a need as wr IMO but i can see why we wouldn't pass up on him.

 

I think i have explained what I believe BPA means the best i could have..

 

The problem is that your statement assumes that BPA and "the player that we want" are mutually exclusive from each other..like you think we cant get both.  If we traded up to get White and he was the highest player on our board, then we would be sticking with the BPA philosophy.  If we sat at 25 and took Gurley because he was our BPA, we would still be sticking with the BPA.

[thefuzz]

Drafting a player where you have a need is not a bad thing in and of itself.

It's when you draft a guy who's really only good enough to be taken in the 2nd or 3rd round in the first because you 'need that position' that you screw up.

 

Peppers and Brown

[Mr. Scot]

Peppers and Brown

Everette Brown, my word

That's one of those names I don't even like to be reminded of.

[jdpanther5]

Gettleman also said he considered taking a WR in every round last year. BPA isn't as simplistic as some think, especially when comparing across position groups.

[Bartin]

true but why else would you trade up? IMO it's to get someone we /want not move up to take the bpa(which on our boards he could be the bpa).

 

for example: if we trade up and get a Wr like White,instead of sitting at 25 and getting the bpa who could be gurley.By trading up,we address a position of need and we get our guy, instead of if we sat at 25 and got gurley,which isn't as big of a need as wr IMO but i can see why we wouldn't pass up on him.

 

If we trade up to #18 and get the 4th best player on our board then that is absolutely BPA.

 

If we trade up to #18 and get the 18th best player on our board then that is still technically BPA, but it is stupid because we gave up valuable picks to get someone who is probably not much better than what would be available at #25.

 

If we trade up to #18 and get the 20th best player on our board, but feel we have to because he is the only player left at his position with a 1st or 2nd round grade then that is not BPA.

 

 

The act of trading up or down does necessarily mean the pick is BPA or not.

[CelticCat]

How mad would you be if Gman went all in and made a Julio Jones type trade to get Amari Cooper?

[thefuzz]

Everette Brown, my word

That's one of those names I don't even like to be reminded of.

 

Hurney routinely drafted for need instead of BPA.  He also seemed to favor the type picks that translate quickly to the NFL.

 

OT, RB, LB.  Many of those positions, if high rounders, play right away.

 

 

This is the absolute worst way to run a team, but a very good way to ruin one.

[Mr. Scot]

How mad would you be if Gman went all in and made a Julio Jones type trade to get Amari Cooper?

You'd have to ask me again once I got over the shock.

That would be a huge surprise.

[thefuzz]

How mad would you be if Gman went all in and made a Julio Jones type trade to get Amari Cooper?

 

I don't think they are the same player, nor are we as close to a ring as the Falcons thought they were back then.

 

 

David is no Thomas.

[SOJA]

How mad would you be if Gman went all in and made a Julio Jones type trade to get Amari Cooper?

 

 

 

pretty mad

 

That trade certainly destroyed their chances of a Superbowl, they got beat by a deeper 9ers team and once they started aging they had no quality depth. Don't get me wrong Julio is an awesome WR, but even for that it STILL wasn't worth it.

 

Now imagine if Cooper is a bust or not even 75% as good as Julio (very real possibility)

[EightyNine]

Hurney routinely drafted for need instead of BPA.  He also seemed to favor the type picks that translate quickly to the NFL.

 

OT, RB, LB.  Many of those positions, if high rounders, play right away.

 

 

This is the absolute worst way to run a team, but a very good way to ruin one.

This may or may not be true.. Luke, Kalil, Beason, Stewart are some names that come to mind that probably werent our biggest needs at the time.

 

I've actually wondered if our drafts would be much different if Hurney were still here..  With Don Gregory and the other scouts still here, I've wondered how much they factor into the decision that gets made.  I remember an interview with Gettleman saying that Don Gregory was a big part in the KB pick, and he predicted that KB would be available.

 

I'm not saying Gettleman isn't light years ahead of Hurney because I think that he is.  Obviously, Gettleman is so much better at evaluating talent, not overpaying, building for the future, and building the lower half of the roster (which in my opinion is the biggest part of being a good GM), as well as every other aspect of being a GM.