We can all agree the coverage during the lead-up to the draft is, more often than not, senseless. Months of incessant mock drafting when little changes from January to April May besides the media’s perception of players. Non-stop rumors and speculation about who teams like or don’t like, trades that will likely never come to fruition. Most of the time, nobody really knows anything.
I’ve come to discover though that by far my biggest pet peeve about the draft is a sentiment that I see echoed by many fans. And while it certainly didn’t start just this year, I feel as though it may be getting worse.
It’s the suggestion that the Philadelphia Eagles, or any team for that matter, should target a specific position with their first-round pick, or in any round for that matter.
The question is the topic of an exceeding number of poll questions, talk-radio discussions and staged televised debates, a conversation on bar stools and internet forums such as this one. Which position should the Eagles target in Round 1? Should they target a wide receiver or a defensive player?
Seriously, is it even possible to dumb down how we think of the way teams draft any further?
I don’t care what you believe the Eagles’ biggest need is. When they’re on the clock, that canned talk-show crap and clickbait is totally irrelevant. The draft is about choosing the best player available, regardless of what position he happens to play. Period.
Are there exceptions to the rule? Sort of. If the Eagles are on the clock with the No. 22 pick, Johnny Manziel is available and he happens to be the best player on their board, they probably shouldn’t take him. No, not because Manziel is going to be a bust, because with Nick Foles firmly entrenched as the starting signal-caller, they probably can’t use another quarterback.
But at how many other positions could we say the same for? Last I checked, Philadelphia has more needs than picks in this draft. Six selections are currently all the front office has to address wide receiver, offensive line, defensive line, outside linebacker, inside linebacker, cornerback, safety and kicker. In several cases, they could afford to add more than one prospect. Even at tight end and running back, I’m not entirely convinced Chip Kelly is perfectly content with the weapons he has.
Given all of those needs, why on earth would the Eagles limit themselves to any one of them in the first round? Even if they had one and only one need, why would they limit themselves if there are better prospects available?
This Neanderthal line of thinking about filling a highly specific need is not how well-run organizations conduct their business. It’s precisely what brought Danny Watkins and Jaiquawn Jarrett to Philadelphia in consecutive rounds in 2011, easily one of the worst drafts in franchise history.
Yet people continue to buy into this notion that the Eagles’ decision on Thursday night will be between wide receiver and defense, when whichever one they wind up with, nothing could be further from the truth.
It’s merely a matter of which athlete the team likes best.
Sure, there are other variables at work. If two players are rated closely, the decision could be based in part on whether there’s value at a certain position later on. Why take a wide receiver at No. 22 when the prospects available then aren’t far superior to who will be on the board with the Eagles’ next pick, No. 54?
Then again, if the impossible happened and Sammy Watkins or Mike Evans miraculously are there at No. 22, the question of value is out the window—debunked once again by three simple words.
Best player available.
I know, it’s so cliché, but that’s all that matters on draft day. It’s not a question of did they focus on filling what are perceived as the biggest holes. At the end of the day, it's as basic as did they come away with the right guy for that spot in the draft.