Hypothetically speaking, if in the next 5 drafts, the BPA is a DT, do we draft a DT every draft? I just don't buy that you should draft the BPA regardless of need. We had too many other glaring needs to draft an injured DT.
Midwest fan, this was something I also thought about before the draft, when Ted was quoted as saying "we will draft the BPA".
Then I read Ted say they balance BPA with need, and that made me think they felt they had a need at DT.
We had Pickett, but truth is that he had a questionable work ethic while he was in St. Louis. We saw that questionable work ethic once again when he showed up to camp out of shape and unable to pass the physical.
Corey Williams had an injury prone short career before last season. Even then, his production was sporadic. If I'm not mistaken, of his 7 total sacks, 4 of them came in two games. That means in the remaining 14 games, he had a total of 3 sacks. He wasn't as consistent as you'd like a starting caliber DT to be. He will also be a free agent after this year.
Colin Cole is a great back-up, but he hasn't flashed anything of note that would suggest he'd be an outstanding starter.
John Jolly was an unknown that had potential.
We weren't exactly outstanding at DT last year. The Vikings showed how much two great DTs can improve a D, and given that there were questions (albeit not publicly) about our DT rotation before the draft, I think it is reasonable to say that Ted blended 'team need' and 'BPA' to pick Harrell.