-Have the Dolphins put themselves in a spot where they can go BPA with their first two picks?
I think give or take close enough, need might over-ride something if their board has a guy rated 91 at a higher position of need, and the BPA is a 93 at a lesser position of need, they might go with the 91. But I think they are at the point where if the higher position of need is an 85, and the BPA is 93, they would take the BPA. Net/net after putting themselves in a really bad spot before FA with the cap jam they were in, they have navigated reasonably smartly and I think with purpose so they don't have gaping holes they are forced to fill in the draft. It seems they kind of did have an actual strategy to plug the holes prior to the draft and put themselves in a spot to go BPA.
-Hypothetical question. Using these players only for illustrative purposes only, it could be player A versus B to take the names and positions out of it. If the Dolphins drafted Graham Barton, and he filled a need at guard (low positional value), and turned out to be a good and productive NFL player, but not elite, while skipping over a guy like Laiatu Latu, who turns out to be an elite edge rusher (high positional value), would Barton still turn out to be a good draft pick in retrospect?
I honestly go back and forth on this. Am curious what other people think? Where I am coming out now, before other thoughts, is Barton would still have been an OK pick. Simply, you can do a lot worse, and draft a bust. At least he was pretty good. You will never be perfect all of the time. If these kinds of mistakes are your worst mistakes, you will still be pretty good.
Thoughts on both issues?
PS this is a late edit moving this here, maybe should have included it up front in the original OP:
FWIW this blurb on ESPN (full article paywalled) is what prompted me to ask the questions in the OP. I didn't want to lead with the article because I thought it might influence the responses, so I tried to ask the questions a bit more generically. ESPN is stating the Dolphins will take Barton, because of need, but Latu is the better player. No idea if positional value is also part of their calculus (edge more valuable than guard), or if they just believe Latu is straight up better. My guess is probably both, but that is not clear from the ESPN text alone. In their article, for some of the other teams, the player that fills the need is the same player as the one that gets best value. Below the Dolphins blurb is the Seattle blurb, late pick, same guy for both categories. Sadly he probably will not be around for us:
Reid's pick that fills a big need: Graham Barton, C/OT, Duke
After losing two starters from the interior offensive line --
Robert Hunt and
Connor Williams -- this offseason, Barton would slot in well; he's capable of playing all five positions up front.
Miller's pick that gets best value: Laiatu Latu, EDGE, UCLA
Latu is the cleanest pass-rusher in the draft with pro-ready hands and tools. He's No. 22 on my board, and while
medicals will determine his final draft stock, he's a plug-and-play rusher.
Reid's pick that fills a big need: Troy Fautanu, OT/G, Washington
Charles Cross and
Abraham Lucas are the clear starters at tackle, but the interior is an issue, especially after
Damien Lewis signed in Carolina. Despite being a college left tackle, Fautanu could play inside; he's an agile and aggressive blocker with easy movement skills.
Miller's pick that gets best value: Troy Fautanu, OT/G, Washington
Needs and value are in agreement here. Fautanu would be a great pick in Seattle. He'd also be a really good scheme fit, and I'd plug him in at guard from Day 1.
Fill a need? Best player available? We played out both strategies for all 32 first-round slots in the 2024 NFL draft.
www.espn.com
