Thats actually a pretty interesting article, really interesting to see their results for each position
Great article. The problem is it seems to glorify UFA's because of their "success". The UFA pool is proably about 5 times the size of an entire draft class. Out of those 1000 or so guys, only a handful will pan out. Sure, we have guys like Diggs, Scott, Devito, but think about the 25 UFA that we say goodbye to each year. I like seeing the success per round though-- very interesting.
Yep. Among the things that surprised me most were that there are more UDFA LBers starting and/or second on the depth chart than even 1st round picks, and more UDFA CBs first or second on the depth chart than 3rd or 4th round CBs (or lower).
I don't see any intent to glorify UDFAs. I think it just shows things as they are, that at some positions UDFAs are just as successful or more successful than drafted players. Yes, the UDFA class is bigger, but still when one thinks of 32 teams, with 25 different positions, plus multiples for some positions, that a lot of UDFAs not only make rosters but wind up starting or being second on the depth chart. IMO, it shows what a crap shoot the draft is. It's still as much an art as a science. Still, the odds are better to find good players for those teams who have more draft picks as well as sign UDFAs, than they are for those teams with fewer draft picks.
That's because there may be three 1st round LB's picked each year, compared to about 100 UFA LB's to choose from. The success rate for a 1st round LB might be 2 out of 3, compared to the success rate of an UFA which might only be 4 out of 100 but it yields a higher total number of players.
We have a GM who likes the rifle approach, and does well with it. Take a few carefull shots, and hit at a higher percentage. We happen to be fortunate that he's done well with the shotgun approach also, and we've landed a few solid UFA. If you can find one UFA every year who can make your 2 deep, I think you're doing pretty well.
