Listen, I get that there are plenty of other factors at play here other than just picking defense for the hell of it. But with us finishing at the bottom of the league and getting spanked on the biggest stage of the game, I was hoping for a more aggressive approach to defense. You can't tell me we have a better or equal chance of drafting a defensive player that is capable of helping the team in its most dire positions (LB, edge defender, possibly secondary) in the 2nd and 3rd rounds than we have in the 1st round, especially with our draft capital. That's not to say OL and RB weren't needs and that the picks were a waste or awful, just that IMO (and the opinion of plenty others) it wasn't as critical of a need as fixing a defense that allowed 40+ points in their first and last game of the season
What I'm saying is that generalizations about the draft simply don't work.
First of all, there's just way too much variability position-to-position and year-to-year. The "best" ILBs or CBs or OTs who are left on the board when the Pats pick in a given year may totally suck compared to those who may be available in the next draft, or at least, may be no better for the Pats than guys who would be available a round or two later -
in that particular draft.
Secondly, it's pretty clear that the Pats view the value of prospects differently than the media "draft experts" do. For example, they're constantly mocking "elite pass-rusher" prospects to the Pats in the first round who are one-trick ponies who absolutely suck at run-D - because that's the kind of player that most
other teams seem to want. Edge prospects who are solid run-defenders, but not great pass-rushers are the guys who get pushed down into the 2nd and 3rd, but those are precisely the guys who fit the Pats' schemes the best.
So, in
this draft, it may well be that the prospects they could've chosen at #23 and #31 wouldn't have helped "fix" the problems with the defense any more than the prospects who will likely still be available at #43, #63 and #95, whereas Wynn and Michel may be way more capable of fixing/improving things on the offensive side of the ball than the prospects who will be available later.
However, applying the generalization to
this particular draft and the Pats specific roster situations this year, the Pats perhaps wouldn't have helped the defense any more than they still can, and, in so doing, may have passed on maybe the best guys to make improvements on the offense.
Given that the biggest problem in 2017 was the run-D, and the the primary sources of the problem were (A) a lack of healthy bodies, and (B), a severe lack of NFL experience among the guys who
were healthy, it's entirely possible that there were very few defensive prospects available in the draft who could fix much of that to begin with.
