No!
I do feel the RB group needs the most help.
I'm not a fan of magic wands and hero types unless Harry Potter is the Coach
I believe in building the offense from the ground up with a sprinkling of Vets on 1 year prove it deals to help as short term fixes. If a Vet really steps up, rehire him at a reasonable salary or draft a replacement.
I'm not "wound around the axle" for any given player at any given draft position. I would like to see the "BPA" for a given position, but the range of good players at different positions should be addressed by where we need the most help in conjunction with how much any particular selection improves the team as a hole.
This means that if the FO decides that our best use of our first 4 picks to improve the entire team goes WR, Edge, RB, C, then that's OK with me. It also means that if the FO decides that our best use of our first 4 picks to improve the entire team goes RB, OL, WR, QB, then that's also OK with me.
The best "bang for the buck" has to be looked at as the entire collection of draftees in a given year; not who went at which pick, but will who we picked play well and add to the teams overall performance.
Football is a team game and the draft is in a very real sense an extension of that philosophy.
Here is hoping that our scouts did a good job this year in accurately identifying Players strengths and weaknesses in both football and their personnel lives. We are not helping ourselves or any player by paying him 10 million dollars a year to support a drug habit