Jimmy, You are confusing points in your posts...The bottom line is that OL WAS the biggest need on this team and the 3rd best tackle prospect (by most professional publications, although I dissagreed) was available when we picked (the other two players were already gone). We had 2 other players on our targets as well that were gone. The FO did what was best for the team and took the BPA in a position we needed. It makes no sense for ANY GM to take the pure BPA when drafting after the top 5 or 10....even those teams, (Giants, SD, Raiders, Washington, etc) all took BPA, that corresponded to a need. The only one, IMO that took their BPA that didn't correspond to their direst need is the Cardinals, but that was more of a gut move on Denny's part....which is the guys perogative. When you are not in the top tier of the players available, then you take for BPA in your need areas. As someone else indicated....Jackson was the true BPA at 19 (according to the draft gurus), why would we take him, and if RS had you would be the first to condemn him...(I would have too).
Carey may not be a pro bowler this year, but we would have looked pretty silly, following your guidelines with RW and SJ and still a hole in the OL.....BTW, the other thing that you have to keep in mind is that RSs board and S. Pioli's (for example) board probably looked a lot different. The Fins had Carey ranked higher because we were looking at him as a tackle....He played tackle position much better than guard (for a variety of reasons). The Pats wanted him as a guard and he probably was the best "guard" in the draft.
There is too much cynicism in your remarks about something that you (and I) knew too little about as far as details between the different teams draft rooms to decide that Wilfork was the BPA and the Fins were "dumb" to not draft him...Personally, I think Philly is the team that is "dumb". Andrews was not the BPA at #16 nor was he their greatest need position.
