Alright, this is really apropos of nothing, but it's not like we need another Patterson or Austin thread. Let's say as a team (it could be any generic team) you identify your two biggest needs at CB and WR, or any combination of two positions. For this scenario, let's say it's a team ithat picks 1-16. Let's also say you have 8 (again generic) picks. Here's what a potential draft could look like.
1. Xavier Rhodes (CB)
2. Stedman Bailey (WR)
3. Robert Alford (CB)
4a. Kenny Stills (WR)
4b. Leon McFadden (CB)
5. Cobi Hamilton (WR)
6. DJ Hayden (CB)
7. Denard Robinson (WR)
Yes, that's 4 CBs and 4 WRs. The point isn't whether those guys would be there or not, it's the idea behind it. Let's assume that each draft has a 50% bust rate and half of those guys won't work out. In an ideal world that means you'd get 2 solid wide receivers and 2 solid corners from this draft.
If you're the Chiefs, or anyone picking in the Top 10, let's say you have a three year plan. Each year you do this, but with different positions. That means, in an ideal world, you'd have 6 positions definitely shored up over 3 drafts. You may even have some players you don't need and are able to trade for draft picks or other players.
I realize it doesn't work for some positions, QBs or OCs for instance, but for the vast majority of positions you need more than one player. The problem being, of course, that if you have 4 CBs, it's hard to develop all of them or see the potential in all of them. If the Dolphins drafted this way for three years, theoretically they could have OT, DE, CB, WR, S, and OLB completed for the foreseeable future. Obviously I'm not advocating it, but it's interesting to think about.
Would you ever draft this way? If you had nine picks, would you draft 3 players at 3 positions? I'm curious for people's thoughts. Do you trust the odds of throwing darts at a board (with some semblance of logic) and seeing if they stick or do you go with "your guys".