Because their jobs are so much different. A 1 technique does not make a great 3 technique and a 3 technique does not make a great 1 technique. They aren't interchangeable the way that DE's are. So essentially you're making a guy play something he isn't good at just to justify getting him snaps.
LE and RE have very similar responsibilities and are more interchangeable as a result.
Sure, but what I'm saying is that adding another top interior rusher is enough of a priority that I'd be willing to spend that 19th pick on a guy with Hurst's ability even if he is only playing about half of the snaps as a rookie. If our rotation at DT is Collins (who can and has played 1-T also), Irving (who will inevitably also take some snaps at DE, especially once Crawford is cut), Hurst, and a big plugger/1-T type who we find off the scrap heap because that's how we operate, then I'm perfectly fine with it.
The fact that the team seems to be iffy on Irving only makes it more sensible.
You get way too caught up in "starters" and positions of need. I've argued with you for the last 2 offseasons about taking an LB in the 1st where you thought it was totally unnecessary, and where do we find ourselves now?
Hoping someone like Roquan Smith falls to us.
Just because a starting spot seems shored up today doesn't mean it will be tomorrow, and building a strong, deep rotation on the DL should always be a priority. I'm not sitting here talking about drafting a 2nd RB or 4th CB or backup C in the 1st, every team can use pass-rushers and building that rotation is of utmost importance.
Just because in your mind our starters are Collins and Irving doesn't mean Hurst couldn't upgrade the pass-rush in nickel/dime right away, or significantly strengthen our pass-rush depth to where we aren't so reliant on just Irving/Lawrence, and then he could easily become a starter in Year 2 or 3.
If he's the BPA that's more than enough of a justification for taking him.
