It is only a strength if there is a player in the draft that fits the bill and the opportunity arises to get that player.
90% of people who advocate to cut players and "replace them via the draft" wouldn't even know most of the players of a first round mock.
If one of those actually would give a name of a draftable player that they consider a good prospect at least this encourages discussion. But waving the magical wand and say someone is too expensive, lets cut them and replace them via FA or draft just shows that the poster is lazy and has no clue how roster building works.
From what little I've been able to observe, what we do goes something like this:
1) Do something nobody's expecting, and stick to
our evaluation for how we can use
this player.
2) When league catches up, draft value until/unless we look to trigger another run on where we're going next.
2a) So the "Gronk/Hernandez" draft never happens again, even approximately -- because rather than shrug, raise their eyebrows, and say "well that's the Pats, always reaching for TEs," they'll be worried about it. We generate our own competition in the "last niche."
3) (Countervailing, TE history only): Watson and Grahambo weren't exactly strikeouts either. So a bonanza at TE might not happen, unless the guy
we want is truly not what anybody else wants, but this crew can draft TEs between serviceable and star.
That said - all else being equal, were I to say "The Patriots draft this position well" about any given position, I'd say TE is one of the better percentage bets.
Your points are all taken. I frankly don't follow college ball, and draftnik stuff just cracks me up. I usually grab a binkie or two to get through the off-season, watch what's being said, and usually do a "Mock Grade" for the Pats draft, where I talk about how horrible every choice is and for what reasons.
I've actually come up with some gems on that thread, but nobody ever reads it, and if they do, 9 out of 10 are earnest doctrinaire draftniks "disagreeing" with my parody opinion.
