2019 NFL Draft epitomizes best player available myth

We’re fed the same lines every year, but the 2019 NFL Draft epitomizes this lying culture among NFL executives and the best player available myth.

Every year before the NFL Draft, we are fed this line about how teams are always looking to draft the best available player. They won’t cater to positional needs or reach for players rated outside of their picking area. The best way to build a roster is by adding the best players, regardless of position, and filling in where needed. Too much is unknown in the draft to attempt to work around in any other fashion.

Every year we are told this. Every year, the NFL front offices seem to rub in our faces how untrue this statement is. This has nothing to do with mock draft projections being off or scouts’ grades differing greatly from where a player is selected. You know how we know that front offices lie about this sentiment? There are so many draft pick trades! The 2019 NFL Draft epitomized this lying culture.

Two brothers from New York, Dan Salem and Todd Salem, debate the NFL Draft 2019 in today’s NFL Sports Debate.

Todd Salem:

There are only two reasons to trade a draft pick: to move down to acquire more assets or to move up to acquire a specific player. Yet these two moves can only happen in concert. Every move down requires a different team to want to move up. In other words, every draft trade includes a team that is targeting a specific player in a specific spot.

It isn’t fair to categorize every trade as a front office lie. Sometimes, perhaps even the majority of times if you want to be kind, a team will trade up if they see a “best player available” still available at a surprising spot. But I would guess that the actual majority of deals involve a team targeting someone at a position of need.

Every one of our first-round trades during the NFL Draft 2019 saw a team move up to fill a need. Pittsburgh grabbed its inside linebacker, the Packers and Giants added secondary help, Philly and Atlanta addressed the offensive line and Washington moved for pass rushing. There could be an argument that at least some of these chosen players were also the best available player at that spot, but it’s kind of irrelevant to the exercise. Teams draft for need.

I have an issue with this. The dichotomy between what general managers say and do doesn’t bother me. But the actual actions feel wrong. The reason GMs say they are going to draft the best available players is that’s what they should be doing.

There are too many failed draft picks each and every round to be hunting for specific needs. It is too hard to find a good player, let alone a specific good player when you limit your options. Add in the turnover on rosters, and it feels inevitably silly to fill out any depth chart with draft picks.

The qualification I will add to this is teams drafting players that fit their system. This makes sense. No one who runs a 3-4 should feel the need to draft a 4-3, hand-down defensive end just because he’s the best player available. No one that plays zone coverage should draft a press cover corner who can’t tackle. Other than scheme exceptions, why are teams still forgoing better prospects in an attempt to briefly fill one specific roster hole?

Dan Salem:

I believe there is a simple, albeit dissatisfying, reason why NFL general managers draft for need, rather than always taking the best prospect available. Every NFL GM has a roster sheet full of positions and players. We call these depth charts.

Every team’s depth chart has holes, or at least positions that lack a starter and are currently occupied by a backup. Unless that “hole” is filled, the backup will become the starter whether or not he’s good enough to warrant the promotion. Every spot on that depth chart must be filled before the season begins.

I firmly believe in drafting the best player available in 9-out-of-10 instances. The exception is when your team needs a quarterback and there is one you deem worthy, yet he’s not quite as good as the best available player. Quarterback is always the exception and every rule has one exception. That being said, the New York Giants did not follow the rule or use this exception when drafting Duke’s former quarterback. They simply filled a need.

Last year, both the Cleveland Browns and New York Jets used the exception and took starting quarterbacks. During the 2019 NFL Draft, we saw no exceptions and plenty of teams drafting strictly for need.

You can’t tell me Oakland thought Clelin Ferrell was the best player available with the fourth overall pick in the draft. Josh Allen was the consensus third best player, yet he was drafted seventh by the Jaguars. Arizona went as far as to ignore the three best players in favor of another quarterback when they did not have a need for one. Perhaps you will caveat that as a scheme fit, but I’m dubious of the logic. It’s flawed.

Many people dislike the track record of Jets’ general manager Mike Maccagnan, but he consistently drafts the best available player, especially with his first-round picks. The real problem is that GMs are promptly fired if their draft picks don’t pan out, regardless of whether they employed a solid strategy of drafting the best available players.

You keep your job if your players perform well because you are a talent evaluator and team builder. Too many teams fall into the trap of team building that depth chart, forgetting that teams must be built around the best talent available. One great player makes everyone around them better.