Read the last two pages...Now, I know why no one responded. Same 'ol ####, different day.
The draft is about value and there was none of that for the Vikings in the 2nd round in regards to offensive linemen. It's a theme across the board, fellas and Minnesota actually made out better than most. College just isn't developing the players people insist on. Dalvin Cook will help mask their issues on the offensive front. Great pick.
I think Spielman executed the draft very well. If you only draft for need, you get burned...Value, value, value. The Vikings will be just fine.
I don't think anybody said they should only
draft for need but if a team doesn't address needs in the draft they can get burned too because that neglect can lead to serious problems. They were trying to address a perceived need with the Cook pick anyway.
Reasonable people should be able to disagree about whether or not the Vikings should have drafted a tackle in the first 2 rounds. I think there are legitimate arguments for and against the idea. However, variations on the same basic theme keep coming up implying offensive linemen simply aren't worth drafting early anymore because they aren't safe picks, aren't "plug and play" starters or, as you put it above, because "college just isn't developing the players people insist on". None of those variations strike me as a convincing argument against drafting linemen early. Teams still need them and the OL players of the future are still going to come from the college ranks. If they need more development time than they used to need, that's simply a new reality and teams will have to adjust.
Logically, if the talent pool is getting thinner that seems like an argument for
drafting tackles in the earlier rounds when the best talent is still available. If players need more development time, that seems like an argument to draft them and get that process started while there are still qualified starters in place, to be proactive rather than reactive (ie: only drafting them when the need becomes overwhelming).