Quote:
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins
There were 84 UDFA who graded out. Teams signed an average of about 15 UDFAs. So 1/6 UDFA played enough to even be graded. In the 5th-7th round, there were 118 players taken, of which 67 graded out, roughly 57%.
That means your late round picks are 3.5 times more likely to provide value than an UDFA. That is definitely not worth punting on.
|
Raw numbers are more critical than ratios with UDFAs because you can just sift through them. You can bring in a slew of those guys; you cite the average but I'm saying that just being average in that regard is under-utilizing the process. That's precisely my point - the denominator can just be made large enough to wash out the ratio.
It's not that they're more likely to hit but rather that they're easier to throw numbers at. You can take your 3 picks in the 5th, 6th and 7th if you want. I'll take those 3 picks, bundle them into a 4th rounder (roughly equal 'draft chart value') and then use the remaining roster spots and practice time to go get UDFA's and sift through that pile to find someone that can be just as productive.
My 4th rounder and spare UDFAs is going to be more likely to contribute than your 5-6-7 rounders IF I'm willing to do the spadework of sifting through that pile and finding someone. And I know that's more difficult than ever given the limits on practice time but I think that's an area where an experienced, excellent coaching staff can be further leveraged to a team's advantage. I think our staff can/should be better at finding the gems in those pools than most and with that being the case, I think we should be more aggressive in pursuing those kinds of guys.