if the players at each position were all graded the same, id go with a DE.
but, im up for taking the best available player if there is a significant gap between he and the next, even if hes not a position i necessary covet
id like to obtain an OL, DE, OLB, S in the first 2 rounds. dont care what order.
I pretty much agree with all of this.
My reason for preferring a 3-4 DE (as distinct from a DE/OLB hybrid) is that I just mapped out the sack totals by position for Pats defenses going back to the 2000 season. Assuming that sack totals are at least somewhat indicative of QB pressure/backfield disruption, it turns out that the Pats' worst seasons are those in which they get below average production out of 3-4 DE and/or interior D-line positions, pretty much no matter how much production comes out of OLB/ILB spots (or how "good" the rushers are). And OLB/ILB production is notably over average when there's average or better production from 3-4 DE and interior D-line.
For the past three seasons, total sacks have been down in precisely that pattern (low D-line production). Currently, after 14 games, sack production is roughly equal to 16-game averages for OLB/ILB, but has been nearly non-existent from 3-4 DE, though the interior D-line is doing okay (or WAS doing okay until both Wright and Pryor went out with injuries).
This tends to support my hypothesis that acquiring an elite 3-4 DE is likely to help the pass rush considerably, even if NO changes were made at OLB, and would certainly augment any upgrades at OLB. BTST, ignoring 3-4 DE in favor of a "pass-rush specialist" OLB seems far less likely to be productive wrt the pass rush.