This has been studied to death a million times over, and every single data point suggests that all NFL teams tend to draft more or less with the same degree of accuracy. Some teams get hot for three or four years at a time, which is just how random chance works. Teams with good coaches and good QBs can capitalize on that, but most QBs, head coaches, and front offices aren't together long enough for "regression to the mean" to kick in and show it for what it actually is. Belichick and Brady are the obvious exception here, who continue to win despite very average drafting year after year.
Reality being what it is, the only way to effectively "build through the draft" is to stockpile as many premium draft picks as possible, like what the Browns started doing last year. If you don't do that, you are basically guaranteeing that the talent on your roster will be roughly league average every single year. I don't need to beat a dead horse and point out how many times this team has ended up 8-8 under Garrett's process. It's not a coincidence.
You can also point to things that this team does that are statistically shown to reduce your chances of success in the draft, like trading up in the higher rounds for a single player who could end up busting or being injured for long periods of time. Or picking for need rather than trading down for more picks. You could probably argue that drafting a RB with the fourth pick in the draft also counts, since the difference in production between a back drafted that high and one who is drafted later or signed as an inexpensive FA is pretty negligible overall.
The whole concept of building through the draft is supposed to be cheaper and more efficient, since signing your own free agents is supposed to be "safer" than signing one from another team. I'm not sure how much I buy that argument, given how many bad contracts this team hands out to its own players.