Jump to content

So... Did we go BPA or Needs?


So... Did we really go BPA or Needs?   

88 members have voted

  1. 1. Did we go BPA or Needs-based?

    • BPA
      71
    • Needs-based
      17


Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, NorthGaBoy said:

Interesting.  I combine ability, talent, mental acuity, and attitude in total value, or contributes to BPA.

I'm sure they were too...not sure what you're point is. All of these guys have flaws. Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't have value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Realsurfin said:

We picked up Davis... there are still RB's out there.

Davis and Patterson don't thrill me, AS here or not. I woulda preferred just getting mark Ingram. But woulda imagined a rb in the draft, with the trade back and comps. 

 

Still think we we shoulda kept our 6th from our trade up. Just another opportunity to add that rb depth after these fa signings leave 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say both. It looks like Fonty gave in to the coaches a bit, but he always said it was a total staff decision. 

I would've done it differently, but I'm not on the staff. I think we left some BPAs on the board. Could be wrong.

It appears we were out drafted by a few teams with lesser draft capital, but we shall see in a few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...