Patrick Causey, on Twitter @PhillySportsJD
It's an argument that has been settled for years, and yet it continues to be debated among sports fans and team executives alike.
Draft for need or best player available?
No matter the sport, the answer is clear: you take the best player available.
It takes discipline sticking to your draft board. Even the most seasoned general managers and coaches have fallen victim to the allure of plugging a clear need over taking a superior player at a position of strength.
However, we have seen time and time again that taking need over a clearly better player is chasing fools gold. History is littered with general managers and coaches that have lost jobs drafting for need.
One of my favorite examples is the Portland Trail Blazers decision to draft Sam Bowie over Michael Jordan. Everyone knew that Jordan was a sure thing. The Portland Trail Blazers knew it. But they had Clyde Drexler at shooting guard.
Bobby Knight had just finished coaching Jordan during the USA's gold medal run in the 1984 Olympics. He saw first hand how special Jordan was, and implored his close friend Stu Inman, who was Portland Trail Blazers General Manager, to draft Jordan.
"But we need a center," Inman said.
"So play him at center!" Knight yelled back.
Inman never listened. The Blazers drafted Bowie, whose career was cut short by debilitating injuries. While Jordan was…. well… you know already. And the rest, as they say, was history.
Andy Reid succumbed to the temptation to draft for need over best player when he thought the Eagles were thisclose to winning a Super Bowl. He drafted Brandon Graham over Earl Thomas because the Eagles needed a pass rusher, and compounded that mistake by reaching for Nate Allen over Rob Gronkowski. The following year the Eagles needed an offensive lineman, so he reached for Danny Watkins over all-pro Muhammad Wilkerson and Cameron Jordan. Needing another safety, they took fourth round prospect Jaiquawn Jarrett in the second round over Randall Cobb and Justin Houston.
Reid was fired one year later.
Which brings us to the Sixers. They have spent the last two years tearing down the Sixers roster in an effort to obtain that elusive franchise caliber star. Three of their last four first round draft picks were spent on big men: Nerlens Noel, Joel Embiid, and Dario Saric. But Kentucky's Karl Anthony-Towns and Duke's Jahil Okafor — both 6'11 centers — are widely considered the best prospects in this draft.
If the Sixers get the top overall pick on Tuesday night, should they really take another big man?
If — and only if — the Sixers have them ranked as the top prospects, then, yes.
The fans and media are getting impatient at the time in which this rebuild is taking. They could understandably get frustrated if the Sixers take Towns or Okafor, which would ostensibly leave two of their last four top picks on the sideline at all times. Or worse, force the Sixers to trade one of their bigs for a future draft pick.
They would much prefer the Sixers to take Ohio State's D'Angelo Russell or Emmanuel Mudiay. Both are top prospects. Both play point guard, a clear position of need for the Sixers.
But if the Sixers truly rank Towns and Okafor as the best players, and they are available when the Sixers pick, they need to take one of them.
If not, imagine this scenario. Armed with the first pick, the Sixers take Russell to pair with Embiid, Noel and Saric. Russell doesn't pan out — at least in relation to his lofty draft status. Embiid's already fragile body breaks down. Noel never develops an offensive game. Meanwhile, Towns and Okafor develop into perennial All-Stars.
All this losing, all this tanking, would be rendered meaningless. Now THAT, ladies and gentlemen, would be frustrating. And THAT is why the Sixers must take the best player available. Regardless of need.
