Cheating a bit because some questions have multiple parts. I would ask him about schemes and draft. Honestly I'd rather flesh out some open ended questions then have narrow and specific ones.
1) How has your drafting philosophy with Wide Receivers changed, what do you look for in each WR position, and why did you pick Harry vs Deebo and AJ Brown? Please explain why you thought Harry was going to be an X at the next level in your answer. Additional context: Usually you drafted X receivers who were athletic freaks like Chad Jackson and you told Dimitroff to not take Julio when he could get a Jonathan Baldwin later. From Holly's book:
He often says that the primary job of a receiver is to simply get open and catch the ball, and he doesn't like what he sees from Jones in either department. He thinks the receiver struggles to get open on intermediate routes, doesn't play as fast as his superb timed speed suggests, and too often displays inconsistent hands. There's also the issue of value. When Belichick began studying the 2011 draft, he saw great depth at the receiver position. Why go all-out for someone like Jones when you can likely have a Jonathan Baldwin, who, as far as Belichick can see, is just as good if not better than Jones?
Seeing Harry as the pick makes me think this changed as he was schemed open, had tons of manufactured touches, and getting open was his biggest issue as a receiver in college.
2) You guys have traded up and/or selected some lesser known names during day 2 like Vollmer and recently Dalton Keene (aka Rambo). I know this is covered in books about you but do you have a general idea of when you have to take those guys and who else might be very interested in them? How much do you know about other teams and their boards now that you are on truth serum?
3) It seems like your philosophy of investing heavily in the front 7 and in particular the DTs and has shifted to investing more in the secondary and scheming up pressure through a multitude of stunts, exotic blitzes, not traditional edge rushers winning 1v1. Why is that the case - is it based on your resources, draft slots, costs, a way to save money and have similar production, a reason I am not thinking of, and/or a combination of a lot of these? To add more context to that, Mike Lombardi mentioned that if you had early picks you build a defense through elite IDLs. Early in your tenure when you picked earlier in the first round you picked Richard Seymour and Ty Warren. Since Malcom Brown you haven't selected any DTs but Vincent Valentine in the top 3 rounds. To continue that theme you only drafted one edge in the top 50, Chandler Jones, HT
@Super Nomario who is on his way to the HOF... Warren and Seymour were both pro-bowl caliber types with Seymour also on the way to being a HOFer.
4) We recently saw your 1990s related scouting profiles on what you wanted per each position. While it is apparent that there are a lot of things that haven't changed in terms of what you look for in each position can you take us through each position and update it as well as let us know which position changed the most for you?
5) Can you take us through some of your draft misses and hits and give us central themes if there are any aside from injuries? Given that most draft prospects do not work out but you are drafting as both a coach and a GM so you know how you want to use the player and have a plan for them is there anything as a drafter over the years you've learned that you think is not random? For example with Ron Brace and Chad Jackson maybe you listened to coaching friends you respected and went against your own scouting? Are there any common themes with the draft busts aside from injuries? Did you have any close calls between 1-3 prospects that you wish you went with the different guy and vice versa where you had it between two and you picked the right one and the other guys turned out to be a bust? And continuing on that path what are some of the common traits that are either exclusive to or that were featured by your draft successes? This is the most open ended question but also detail oriented question.