I think there is a very good chance that this assessment ends up being accurate. No prospect is ever 100% guaranteed, but Gurley certainly has the potential to be a "transformative" player, and deserves serious consideration.
I have been as strong a proponent as anyone on this board about building around the lines, and about de-valuing the offensive "skill" positions. The offensive positions that I place the highest premium on are QB, OL (especially LT and OC) and TE. I've also said many times that I don't generally believe in taking a RB in the 1st round, and that good backs can be found later on - especially in a draft as deep at the RB position as this one.
But I also believe that it's bad practice to draft for need, and to attempt to only fill certain positions. As Seattle GM John Scheider put it:
http://espn.go.com/blog/seattle-seahawks/post/_/id/12036/john-schneider-likes-the-2015-draft-class
I certainly want the Pats to invest in OL and DL in this draft. But I think it would be erroneous to assume that we have to go OL or DL at any particular spot. With a likely 5 picks in the top 100, the Pats will have plenty of chances to add some talent on the lines. All things equal, I would tend to pick an OL or DL over other prospects that I have rated similarly, and my mocks tend to reflect that philosophy. But it's quite possible that someone like Gurley could end up being the best value at a given spot, and if that's the case, I wouldn't rule it out based on a preconceived notion that the Pats should focus on the lines. In general, I'd hate to turn down a clear 1st round talent at #32 in favor of a 2nd round talent who happens to fill a perceived "need".