Quote
(On if the intent was to get guys who might be able to step into the roles of the guys they lost)
Snead: “I would say yesterday a lot of it had to do with that. Any time you draft, and it happened a little bit today, there’s moments where the board may dictate doing something or making a plan b other than what you set off to do just because of, ‘Hey, wait a minute, a player that we had rated well, a (TE) Brycen Hopkins was an example.’ We really like our tight end room right now, but we had him highly rated and felt like he could come in and carve out a role early but also later. We didn’t have to make that pick, but sometimes when you make those types of picks, there’s an element of drafting in a microscope, but also with a telescope and you feel like, ‘Hey, the guy can make plays.’ We started the weekend with positions that we definitely wanted to add players that we felt like could come help us win and you kind of rate those positions. Which ones we may need to most or want the most or could use the most. Then, you let the board kind of tell you to pick the player to fit into those roles.
The question wasn't even that good (most of the questions asked by our beat reporters are rather lame), but Snead gave a revealing answer anyway, to his credit.
Hopkins wasn't targeted, but he must have had a much higher grade than late 4th round. I love that approach. When you trust your board and a guy drops dramatically and right into your lap you take him no matter what. I remember Tom Landry saying the only time he violated that principle was when Joe Montana dropped to him in the 3rd round, Montana was by far the highest rated guy on his board, but Landry felt he had too many QBs already on the roster.
~ max ~
“The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity.” - Alexander Hamilton
