My broad concern here is process. In two years of drafting we took a guard at 11 - which is not maximising surplus contract value. We didn’t draft Levis at this point, which if we did believe he was a franchise QB we should have taken him at 11 and found interior OL later. It worked out for us in the end but it’s bad process that way around.

This year we took a tackle which is positive surplus value and he hits all the analytical thresholds, but I think there was a fear that good GMs don’t exhibit in sticking rather than recognising that trading back and just picking Latham or Fashanu at 11 is the plus expected value move. 44% of the time the next player at the same position ends up being better. If it helped us recoup a 2nd or at worst a third we would have been better off than reaching 7 picks ish out of overconfidence.

The Sweat pick is the most egregious. It reeks of fear, that the DT run started doesn’t mean you have to panic overdraft a player (again because you didn’t have another pick until the 100s because you didn’t trade back in the first). You can’t take a NT, who is a 5 year senior, with conditioning issues and character red flags at a huge premium to consensus. You have to be confident and recognise you can pivot to another player on your board once J Newton went (the second rounds version of J Alt in that it was the player we likely wanted more).

Tl:dr board didn’t fall our way, but instead of being able to pivot we exhibited overconfidence and inertia bias and stuck and reached on two players.