Why do NFL teams value draft picks over Restricted Free Agents or Proven Players

Originally posted by Sinsation:

Originally posted by LB49ers:

Originally posted by Sinsation:
its simple, draft picks are cheap. RFA's are not. You generally have to overpay a RFA because you dont want their current team to match your offer so u have to make sure its bloated AND you then have to give up draft pick(s). so not only do you miss out on having some young cheap players, u essentially overpay for another. U do this enough and your entire roster will be bloated and you'll be fighting the cap.

What cap? It is non existent. And your telling me that Brandon Marshall is worse than the best WR prospect in the draft who will get big money. At least with a RFA you will be paying for a guy who will actually be on the field unlike the guys like Rashuan Woods, Matt leinart I could go on if you like.

there might not be a cap next yr, but there will be a cap again. And yes what i'm saying is I'd rather have my 1st rounder, than to overpay Brandon Marshall or some other RFA. It'd be an entirely different story if he was just a free agent. but to overpay AND trade your draft picks, is just crazy.

I disagree with your assertion. By overpatying a RFA at least you know what you're getting. Whats worse? Overpaying a RFA who comes in and performs for you, or paying a rookie a 1st round contract and have them bust outright?

I understand that if you get crazy with contract offers, then RFA can hurt you, but whats to hurt if you offer a RFA a contract thats slightly above market value. If the RFA's original team matches, then they do. No biggie. If they don't then you get your proven player while only slightly overpaying. A plyer with a proven history of being able to play in the NFL.

potential and cheaper

Here is the thing. There is no wrong theory. There really is no right or wrong answer here. How your draft goes is the only way you can then retroactively judge which theory would have been better.

To me it is simple.

You expect your team to draft 50%-75% all pro's and solid starters. I would say don't sign any high priced FA's. There is no reason to

You expect your team to draft draft about 50% mostly solid starters, with a pro bowler here and there. Use FA sparingly to moderately

You expect your team to draft 50%-75% busts and complete non contributors. Sign every big FA you can and trade and picks.

So, whatever philosphy a team has is going to be directly related to how much faith they have in their GM and scouts. This pretty much eliminates the last option as a teams official philosophy. Because if there is no confidence, the owner would simply have them replaced.

Fans, who can be more forthright about the the track record of a GM will lean towards the 3rd option. Which is appropriate, because they expect the picks to be wasted anyway

[ Edited by danimal on Mar 23, 2010 at 12:40:35 ]

Originally posted by LB49ers:
I just don't get why they hold draft picks like they are gold. Look at the RFA list there are tons of proven NFL players who would start for most teams why not take a guy you know how they would perform in the NFL against NFL talent. I guess I always thought a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

I agree with this. I am particularly confused when people want to trade draft picks for players, and act like McNabb wouldn't be worth more than a 3rd rounder. Building through the draft is something that teams sell the public when they don't want to spend. Draft picks are overvalued, especially on this board. We were well under the cap last year, and would be again this year if there was one.

I like to see players we draft do well and stay with the team for a long time . . . but that is an emotional response. In reality, we would probaly have been better off trading some of those pics for proven role players, if not starters.