Well, we're never going to agree here and that's fine. I get what you're saying but I just don't agree on a few things which is fine. You've at least been very respectful.
Here's a few things. First, when you say that Sewell would make 3 positions better, I didn't read your earlier post but if you mean moving Jackson to another position we don't know if Jackson would be better at another position. I agree that Sewell would make the LT position better while I'd argue that a WR like Smith can make the whole offense better and here's why I say that.
Lets say on any given play Tua goes back to pass and Sewell doesn't allow Tua to get sacked but the RG did. So Sewell did what he's supposed to do and it's not his fault the RG allowed a sack but Sewell didn't make 3 positions better and didn't make the offense better on that play.
Now lets say another play Tua goes back to pass and he's under pressure but gets a 5 yard pass off to Smith who takes it 50 yards. The O-line allowed pressure on Tua but Smith made the offense better because he can take a very simple short pass and take it 50 yards.
I guarantee you one thing, the other team's DC will have to prep for a WR like Tua or Waddle or any top WR that can make plays. The other team's DC won't be telling his player, "we need to worry about keeping their LT under control if we want to win.
I agree with you that we need to have a good O-line in order to win. I'm just saying drafting a LT at 3 is not a must. I also agree that moving down would be great but if we're stuck we'll have to decide do we go for a LT or for a top playmaker that can make big plays and score points for you? You're saying never to the playmaker at 3 while I'm not saying never to a LT......I'm only saying no to a LT in this one draft but don't worry, I don't get to make the decisions and you might get your wish. Regardless of what we do I'll be rooting for it to work out for the best.