I don't think it matters how you draft if you can evaluate talent.

 

Everyone cries foul over the Matt Jones pick (How could you take a receiver that high???) and compares him to who we DIDN'T draft (wasn't it Rodgers that year?), but if he had hit his ceiling and become a dominant, top-5 WR for ten years, nobody would've cared.  There was NO WAY he was BAP; our FO just sucked as evaluators.

 

If Alualu was a force in the middle and was destroying opposing OLs, Smith would probably still have a job here, regardless of JPP's success in NY.

 

If Gabbert was throwing for 3500+ yards and 30+ TDs, who cares who we DIDN'T draft?

 

That's the thing here with BAP, and forgive me, but everyone is up in arms about Clowney vs. Bridgewater.  If our team has that choice, BAP would be Clowney without a doubt.  However, if Teddy becomes a HOF QB, nobody is going to care that we missed the most dominant DE of a generation. 

 

It's about evaluating talent.  Obviously you don't take a CB with a 74 grade on your board over an OG with a 94 because you don't need an OG.  But if you have two players that are graded similarly (I'd say withing 7-8 points) and one is at a position of need, you take the need.  The issue comes down to the question of whether you've evaluated properly.

---