First, I clearly am not advocating pure bpa. As I said, relative to your current team and scheme. But there it is never a good idea to say "we must have this position" or "we must have this player" unless you are a true contender with a short window, and even then it's questionable.
You're arguing a general principle in a field where the specifics are everything. It's a bit like the old chess saw that occupying the center is a good thing. In the 19th century, it was good advice. Get to the mid 20th century, and there are plenty of defenses that give up some center control for dynamic piece play.
Go back to that draft. It was a weak draft. There was a run on guards, and the one safety who looked good was gone by the time we drafted. In fact, people were tweeting that Dallas was trading down the moment the top safety dropped off the board. We needed an interior lineman and he was the best available. What's so hard to "get" about that?
The one thing I notice about the bits and pieces of real draft boards that I see is that they are far more diverse than the consensus-driven narrative that comes from listening to too many television and mail order draft pundits. They tend to hedge their bets by splitting the difference with each other and further, modifying their genuine opinions to match what rumors they hear out of various front offices.
For that matter, look at the general reaction to Seattle Seahawks drafts over the past few years by those self same pundits. You would think that team not fit for the washroom, much less considered one of the top three or four teams in the NFC.
It's all about building a team, and it's not about scoring 95% on Mel Kiper's post draft "value" chart. After all, wasn't he the one who said we missed out when we didn't draft Shawn Merriman?
If the guy plays with us for 10 years at a solid starter level, we won. It's that simple. If we get some All-Po years out of him, then it is gravy.
D-
