The Draft - Need or Best Talent

[AR Husker Fan]

Blackshirt made a comment in the "Chief's Draft Picks" thread that got me thinking on this - "Based on the free agent acquisitions -- Kendrell Bell, Sam Knight, Carlos Hall, Pat Surtain -- do they still go strictly D with their 1st rd pick no matter who is available, or do they take the best "talent" on the board?"

 

So, which is the best route - need or best talent? The purpose of the draft is, generally, to fill needs. But it seems to me that when teams do that, they often - maybe inevitably - "reach". Given free agency, shouldn't a team draft for the best talent available, and then work a trade?

 

But what about a team that feels that it's just a player or two away from the Super Bowl? Isn't that the time to draft for need?

 

So...which is best, and why?

[DJR313]

You gotta go with the best available player. Some "need" picks in past drafts have been some of the worst picks ever. Good quality depth never hurts at a position and trades and free agents can always be picked up to fill in the holes that are needed. 2 years ago the Chiefs took Larry Johnson as a first rounder, I first thought that was a horrible pick because of the contract they gave Priest Holmes. When Priest went down last season, I realized why they did that. Wasn't necessarily a need, but probably the best player at that spot in the draft.

[Eric the Red]

Can't coach pure talent and athletism. You can do so many things with that player. And if that player doesn't work in your system, you can trade them for whatever.