Pompei: Bears Should Draft Best Player

[Halas85]

Chicago Bears should draft best player, not an available wide receiver
Old NFL axiom bromide usually the wisest choice

Dan Pompei, On the NFL
April 19, 2009

With regard to the Bears' first pick in the draft next weekend, their need is as transparent as a cell-phone screen protector.

They have to have a wide receiver, no?

Well, if the Bears play it smart, they will not go for a wide receiver at any cost. If a player is on the board with significantly greater value who plays another position, that is the player they should select—regardless of whether they need him.

"The temptation to go for need is always great, but it doesn't do any good to fill a need with a less-than-good player," said Colts President Bill Polian, who arguably is the best drafter in the NFL.

"I've always believed you should take the best player. If the need line and the playing-ability line cross, then by all means, go for the need. But in terms of trying to fill a need and ignoring better talent, I don't think that's a wise thing to do."

Case in point: In the 2001 draft, the Colts needed a cornerback badly. But they knew that to take one with the 30th selection in the first round, they would have to reach. So instead of drafting Ken Lucas, Fred Smoot or Andre Dyson, they took a player they didn't need at all but who clearly was the best available player on the draft board.

Since that draft, that player, wide receiver Reggie Wayne, has had five 1,000-yard receiving seasons and has made three Pro Bowls.

"It is enticing to take off need, no question," said Cardinals director of personnel Steve Keim. "But the problem you fall into in our minds is this: How many times is your need in April the same as it is in October? Because of injuries, contracts and other issues, your needs constantly change. But I know you can't have too many good football players, regardless of position."

Many teams talk a good game when it comes to drafting the best available player, but very few are true to their words. In the last draft, 67 percent of the teams used their first pick on a player at a position that profootballtalk.com had identified as one of their top three needs.

It is possible that, in some of the cases, the need matched the best available player. But those lines can get blurry. If a team is fixated on filling a need, it either consciously or subconsciously can rate the players who fill needs higher than those who don't. Then they can justify their pick—it was the best available player on our board, really it was.

"You can set it up so you know this is the player you are going to take because that's the way you have the board stacked," said Packers general manager Ted Thompson, who sticks to the best-available philosophy more than the large majority of his peers.

Picking for need may become more acceptable in the later rounds of the draft because the longer the draft goes, the less there is to separate prospects. But in the early rounds, there often can be a significant difference in the projected value of each player—and the stakes are higher.

"With your first [two or] three picks, you are looking for those guys to be with your organization for several years, so I think you should look at it like a long-term investment," Thompson said.

That means putting on blinders to needs that will come and go, and focusing on value that is enduring.

Disappearing tight ends: Teams looking for a healthy crop of old-fashioned tight ends in the draft next weekend are severely disappointed.

Colleges aren't producing them these days any more than electronics companies are producing cube-shaped television sets.

That isn't to say there aren't some prospects who could become NFL stars. It's that most of them are not traditional tight ends.

Most shouldn't even be called tight ends because they often lined up closer to wide receivers than offensive tackles. Plus, they have as much experience in pass protection as your average kicker.

Seven of the top 10 prospects in the draft played in a version of the spread offense in college, so NFL teams can't be sure if tight ends such as South Carolina's Jared Cook, Southern Mississippi's Shawn Nelson, Wisconsin's Travis Beckum, Rice's James Casey, Florida's Cornelius Ingram, Missouri's Chase Coffman or Ball State's Darius Hill can even get in the way of pass rushers.

"There are very few tight ends in this draft who can knock a defensive end off the ball," one AFC general manager said. "As long as they position and wall off, we'll have to live with that. It has become that type of game."

As long as the spread offense continues to gain popularity, the NFL will have to deal with this tight end dilemma.

Prime-time Bears: The Bears became a more marketable team with the acquisition of Jay Cutler. But NFL spokesman Michael Signora said Cutler's presence had nothing to do with the fact that the Bears will play five prime-time games—tied with the Steelers, Giants and Colts for second most in the NFL behind the Cowboys' six.

"[He] certainly generated additional interest and excitement," Signora said. "But the prime-time exposure for the team did not change as a result of the trade."

First round do-overs: Here is more evidence that the first round of the draft is way overrated, courtesy of NBC.com. Three NFL writers (including this reporter) were asked last week to "redo" the first rounds of the 2004, 2005 and 2006 drafts.

Of the 96 players they chose as first-rounders based on their NFL production, 46 percent of them were not originally first-rounders.

The Bears have had five of the "redo" first-rounders on their team: Cutler, who in the redo went first overall in 2006; Devin Hester, who went fourth overall in 2006; Tommie Harris; Nathan Vasher, and Bernard Berrian. Of the five, Harris was the only player the Bears actually chose in the first round.

dpompei@tribune.com

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

[Halas85]

Other than his use of PFT as a source, I thought this was a pretty good read.

"The temptation to go for need is always great, but it doesn't do any good to fill a need with a less-than-good player," said Colts President Bill Polian, who arguably is the best drafter in the NFL.

Great point from a guy who, IMO, blows all other guys out of the water when it comes to draft success ... no "arguably" about it.

[gaba]

I just can't agree with taking "best available." If you can trade down that's fine, but if you take a defensive end because he's the best available, instead of a wide receiver that might go 10 picks later, you're an idiot. It's just stupid to think a team with a glaring NEED would not want to fill that need with their highest pick. Sure, you can pick "best available" of the WRs and safeties in the second round, but if it's anything other than that I'm gonna be pissed. Trade around if you have to avoid "reaching" but I don't care if you draft the next Richard Dent, that guys' not gonna put points on the board like a WR will and that's what we need right now.


... and maybe the Colts wouldn't have had to endure the "can he win the big game" drama if, instead of picking ANOTHER offensive weapon, the decided to field a halfway decent defense 3 or 4 years earlier.

[Halas85]

I see your point, Gaba, but I also see the other side. Immediate needs come and go, often flipping from one position to another throughout the course of training camp and the season. A draft pick, though, is a long-term investment, a guy who's going to be around anywhere from three to five years, and somewhere through the course of that time (if he's the solid, "Best Available" player you anticipated) he's going to contribute toward a need on your team and perhaps be an upgrade. Yeah, we need a greater upgrade at the WR and safety positions than any other, but that doesn't mean an upgrade anywhere else wouldn't help. As far as trading down, that's always a great option so long as someone's willing to trade with you and the guy you're trading down to get is still there when the pick comes up ... a lot of ifs.

Of course, this is all a pretty moot point really. The NFL draft is such a roll of the dice sometimes that either way you choose to go -- position of need or best available -- you're never really sure what you're getting. Some said we reached for Forte last year rather than taking the "best available" approach, though in retrospect Angelo could argue that he DID make the best available pick. Same with Hester ... seems to me some thought we were reaching for a guy because we were hard up for a return man. Turns out he was one of the best available impact players of that draft. So it's all subjective really ... sort of a pointless debate in a way without truly knowing what's going through the mind of the GM.

[gaba]

There are some players you pick no matter what you might need, and if you really can't use him you either trade the pick or trade the player. In most cases though... "best available" is a crap shoot. I'd rather have a guy that's going to contribute immediately, even if he's not great he's more likely to play in a position of need than one where you have an abundance of talent. It also makes a difference where your team is... the Bears are so close that just a few key positions really could make the difference between 8-8 and a Superbowl. Trading for a guy like Cutler isn't going to do any good if he doesn't have decent weapons. One really good receiver could make all the difference in the world. A really good safety could have just as big an impact on the defence... I'm just not sure if there's one out there.