Once again I will repeat something no one has been able to challenge......................having a higher pick doesn't equal getting the better player nor does it ensure the team will be better next year.
There is no logic or common sense in saying that a higher pick will make the team better.
Proof: look at the hall-of-fame players and the largest percentage comes from picks 1-5 in a draft. After that, the percentages drop. There is a difference in a player picked from 7 to 10 and a player picked after that (look at the hall-of-fame numbers). However; there is not that great a difference in a player picked 15 to 20 and one drafted around 50.
The Tom Brady's and Richard Dent's of the world are few and far between, so it is not worth talking about them in the equation.
There will always be busts high in the draft, be it due to over-hype, injury, or character issues. The reason that GMs want to draft higher is because the higher they draft, the more chance they have of picking someone who does not have any of these issues. As you get later in the 1st round, you are willing to overlook some flaws, hoping to not be bit by that flaw (Chris Williams' back because Clady was drafted before the Bears picked).
Was Warren Sapp not talented enough to be a top 5 player? Of course he was, yet he fell due to perceived character issues. Randy Moss? Same thing.
The Draft is great because GMs can risk drafting someone with a red flag but a ton of talent or risk not drafting the same person and having him become an all-pro.
Often a GM will pick a "safe" but less talented player because he is scared of the better player's flaws. In a few years, the player that was passed up is a pro-bowl regular and the "safe" player is ... a safe player, not terrible but not great.
