People bring up that it would be idiotic to pass on a position of need at C for a winger, but historically, you're not getting a franchise C at 3 or 5.
Draisaitl, Toews, and maybe Pettersson (Still a bit too early to call him a franchise C) are the exceptions to the rule.
Again, these are generalizations, and maybe this current crop with Stutzle/Byfield is the year where there is an exception to the rule about 3+5 being less valuable than 1. I haven't seen enough to know. I will defer to the regular guys in this thread who are plugged into prospects, because each year's draft crop at the time of the draft is not something I've spent time on learning about.
On paper, you do 3+5 for 1 every day of the week. You also are more likely to get a Dubois, Kotkaniemi, Strome, Schenn, Duchene, Johansen, Turris, Monahan, Galchenyuk, other Strome, Gagner, Brassard etc if you're LUCKY in the 3-5 ballpark than a Toews or Draisaitl. Not all those guys went 3-5 exactly, but they were Cs who were on the board.
1st overall isn't perfect either, it's not like there haven't been a few disappointing 1st overall picks, but there is a high chance of getting a superstar or franchise player. Which, is impossible to get otherwise. A bunch of those C's on the list above have been made available in trades. If you have the assets, you can get top 6 forwards in trades. If you have the assets, you can't get superstars or franchise players in trades, and if you do, they have limited term left and are difficult to extend.
I don't think the positional argument holds up because the odds of us getting our top C with 3 and 5, at least in general/on paper terms, isn't great enough to pass on the high odds that Lafreniere is a superstar who we'd otherwise not be able to acquire elsewhere.
The above is also why, 9/10 teams would turn down 3/5 for 1.
