The media pushes an evaluation system of rating the players in the draft against each other. And, they largely ignore the financial investment required based on where a player is drafted. So it is an unnaturally narrow context that is designed to create hype and excitement and to make everyone forget that they have a budget, in order to generate sales (advertising revenue) for the draft (media outlets and the NFL). The most highly hyped players in the draft are marketed as celebrities, and with the promise of the latest politician who if elected will solve all our ills. So unrealistic expectations are part of what's being sold, and former super star players who are ego-invested in the super star system of team development are brought in as celebrity spokespeople for this way of thinking. That's why Deon Sanders, Michael Irving, et al are on your TV. Alternatively, the Pats rate the players in the draft against all of the players available for a role on the team - current players on the roster, free agents, probable free agents, and kids coming out of college in the following year. This rating is done within the context of how much money they have to spend on every position, and the value of each position. It doesn't matter how good a player is if the cost of having that player on the roster exceeds the value of that position on the field. Sometimes, the Pats' evaluation is aligned with the media-NFL hype, and we draft a Nate Solder. He was on my list of players I didn't want, because I thought he was mostly a product of the hype. So what do I know? Not much. Often, the Pats' evaluation doesn't match the NFL-Media hype, and the Pats pass on Cameron Jordan, Mike Ingram, et al even if they are the best players available at that position in the draft. They just aren't the best players available among all of the players available, at that position, for that price.