LOL! Of course not. BPA and Need alone are bad strategies that don't work. Let's take our current situation. We have strong needs at DL, EDGE, WR, IOL and upgrade or near future needs at TE, DL, EDGE and potentially OC, CB, ILB. You have a plan based on your board...we have 1 DT and 2 EDGE we value as top 5 picks. They go off the board in the top 5. No one falls out of our top 10 group either. Between picks 10-20 we like 2 EDGE, 2 OL, 1 WR, 1 TE and 1 DT. After those guys, our next group of players have 2nd round grades on them so we either want one of these guys or want to trade down. Let's say we get to pick 15 and only 1 guy is left...you try and see who is likely to take him so you know who you have to jump ahead of...then move up to get him. Or if it's cost prohibitive, you try to trade back to better match taking 2nd round pick graded players with 2nd round picks. The last thing you want to do is take a 2nd round graded player in round 1. The other option is we get to our pick and we have 1 EDGE, 1 TE, and 1 OL of the group we like. You look at the highest graded player out of that group. If you have them all graded the same, you take either the player you like best, the most scarce position player (if I can get a C almost as good next round but not EDGE, you take the EDGE), or...you see if you can move down 2 spots guaranteeing you still get one of those players and more picks later. You never just take positional need without matching the value of the draft pick (#19 in round 1) with the grade value. Ideally, we match grade of player with where they get drafted with need of position. Even better if you can do this throughout the draft and cover all your biggest needs at the same time.