Unless you want Carson Wentz under center for the Eagles this season purely for your own amusement, the debate over whether the second-overall draft pick should play is frivolous.

Frankly, it probably doesn't matter at all either way whether Wentz gets in a game in 2016. As much as everybody likes to have an opinion on the subject, there's little to no definitive evidence the decision to redshirt a quarterback has any short- or long-term impact one way or the other.

We know how Doug Pederson feels about it, and his is really the only opinion that's relevant. The backup signal-caller turned Eagles head coach believes sitting and learning can be beneficial to a player's development.

In the interest of fairness, there are enough examples of outstanding franchise quarterbacks — some even still playing in the league today — who were top prospects that began their careers glued to the bench. Carson Palmer, Philip Rivers and Aaron Rodgers come to mind. To the extent that experience helped them is impossible to say, but there's never been a quarterback or team you can claim was harmed by the decision to wait, whereas you can certainly make the case there are players whose growth was stunted from being rushed into the lineup.

Of course, this isn't exactly a Michael Vick situation, where we're talking about somebody who played in an option offense in college and is more developed as a runner than a passer. Plus, regardless of what you think of the Eagles' chances in 2016, this isn't exactly a David Carr-expansion Houston Texans situation here. Wentz comes from a pro-style offense and there's little reason to worry his potential would be irreparably damaged by playing with the talent that's on this team now.

That's partially what makes this such an unorthodox move in today's NFL. Most blue-chip quarterbacks play from Day 1 or close to it. Even quite a few of the lesser prospects do, like Andy Dalton or Derek Carr. If it was such a destructive idea, then how is it roughly half the league's starters played extensively as rookies? Pretty sure Peyton Manning and Ben Roethlisberger turned out OK too.

Whether a rookie quarterback should or shouldn't play is best decided on case-by-case merit, while also taking stock of the depth chart at the position. Could Wentz play? Maybe. The fact that he doesn't have to because Sam Bradford is hanging around isn't a bad thing either.

That's where many detractors would strongly disagree. Some argue getting a taste of the NFL this season would be positive for the team or Wentz's development. Some fear whenever he finally does see the field after a redshirt year, it will amount to a wasted season. And others still suggest his rookie year is important for the Eagles' evaluation process, specifically as it relates to how quickly the clubs needs to extend his contract or move on.

Let's look at all of these.

First, with respect to the evaluation process, it's unclear why Wentz's rookie season would factor in much to the Eagles' decision down the road. Unless he was a total abomination, the results of his first year should be taken in stride anyway. In the overwhelming majority of scenarios, the Eagles won't be basing any decisions to work out a contract extension or pick up the fifth-year option after Year 3 or begin searching for a replacement based on what the No. 2 pick does in 2016. After all, being named Rookie of the Year hasn't exactly done wonders for Bradford's career.

As for the idea that whenever Wentz finally does hit the field, it will be as if he were still a rookie, history suggests that's not necessarily true, either. Guys like Rivers and Rodgers were outstanding in their first year on the job despite little to no experience. In fact, Rivers guided the Chargers to a 14-2 record in his first run through the league as a starter, which just goes to show if the team is good and the quarterback is the real deal, everybody can hit the ground running. Hell, not a top prospect obviously, but Tom Brady won the Super Bowl his first year. You can't necessarily compare Wentz to a rookie just because he's a first-year starter.

All of which speaks to idea that it's somehow important for Wentz to play as a rookie. Unless you honestly believe he gives the Eagles the best chance on Sundays (somewhat unlikely), there's no real reason to force anything. Clearly, it's not pivotal to his development or even giving the team a chance to compete in 2017. There's no evidence that quarterbacks who play right away fare measurably better for having done so compared to those who don't.

In other words, you can argue this topic every which way, and nobody is going to be right. Play him, don't play him — at the end of the day, it's almost certainly irrelevant. The Eagles have a plan, and it may not pay immediate dividends or be the source of tremendous enthusiasm, but the only thing that's going to matter is whether Wentz can play whenever he's finally called upon.