NFL Draft Analytics: Is a 7th Round Pick Worth More than an Undrafted Free Agent?

It might be that Undrafted Free Agents (UDFAs) are worth more than a seventh round draft pick.  What?  How can that be, you may ask,  since the seventh round pick is chosen ahead of all the undrafted players?   

Well, hear me out.  AN NFL team adds about ten undrafted guys upon conclusion of the NFL draft.   That number is a little imprecise because teams rapidly cut players and other teams re-sign them tried to figure out.  But the talent pool is roughly 320 players, give or take. 

I found a 2014 article by Gerry Dulac of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette Free agent numbersthat says that 64 players made the opening day roster, or two per NFL team.  That's about 2 per team out of 10 candidates.  There's a 20% success rate for UFA, but 7th rounders are not a 100% but I hardly ever hear of a draft pick failing to make the roster.  So let's say the typical NFL team roster has 1 (new) seventh round guy, and 2 new UFA's.  

But how many of those are actually good players?  To answer that question, I rely on a small study by Forbes  Magazine (Patrick Wishe via RIchard Thaler) and tells where NFL starters came from circa 2014.  Using  60% as a crude estimate for the probability that a round 1 draftee becomes a starter, I estimate the success rate for other rounds as being scaled back from 60% by the number of starting players from each round, divided by the number of starters from Round 1.  That is, 

Success Rate  = 60%*(number of nth round starters)/(number of 1st round starters). 

So I added a column to the table that estimates what the chances are in each round for getting a player who becomes a starter during his career.

Source of Players	Number of Starters	Success Probability
Round 1	178	60.0%
Round 2	105	35.4%
Round 3	75	25.3%
Round 4	64	21.6%
Round 5	38	12.8%
Round 6	29	9.8%
Round 7	25	8.4%
UDFA per tryout spot (10)	81	2.7%
UDFA per 53 roster spot (2)	81	13.7%
UDFA total	81	27.3%

Note that only about 8.4% of NFL starters come from Round 7.   Yet three times as many come from UDFAs.  How can that be? Probably it's because you get to audition about ten guys, and usually pick about 2 for the 53 man roster. So even if the average talent level is lower, you get to identify the standouts in Training Camp.  On the other hand, teams almost never cut the seventh round pick in Year 1, so like it or not you're stuck with him.  Put another way, you have a roster spot that is 92% likely not to produce a starter.  For your two UDFAs, there is a 27% chance that your guy eventually becomes a starter.  That's about the same as Round 3!  Again, it's not because the talent level is so high, it's because you get 10 chances and weed out 8 of the 10 during summer camp.

It's a small data set, and the definitions and categories need to be more rigidly quantified before reaching a definite conclusion.   But it appears that the roster spot occupied by the seventh round draft choice may be less productive, on the average, than the roster spots occupied by UDFAs.  The reason is that ten players compete for two roster spots for UDFAs, whereas the 7th round draft pick is usually given a roster spot without having to compete for it. Hmm.  

For further review:

Forbes Success rate vs draft position

ALL 21 Year Old NFL Quarterbacks are Terrible

     All 21 year old quarterbacks are a new phenomenon because of the change in draft rules.   In 2017 DeShone Kizer of the Cleveland Browns became the the third youngest NFL starter of game 1 in league history.  The others were Drew Bledsoe and Matthew Stafford.   Bledsoe completed less than 50% of his passes in his rookie year, though he won 5 games, which I believe is the record for a 21 year old.  Stafford went 2-8, which is more typical.  Other 21 year olds included Bernie Kosar, Alex Smith, Tommy Maddox, Blaine Gabbert,  Johnny Manziel and Fran Tarkenton.   Some of them were legitimate stars over their total career.  But not at age 21.  

Johnny Manziel was horrible as a 21 year old, okay at age 22, but improved significantly in his second year before substance abuse ended his career.  You would think that the Browns might have learned something from this experience, but no, they had to start DeShone Kizer at the same age.  What could possibly go wrong?  

As far as I am aware, every single 21 year old starter in NFL history has had a losing  rookie season, unless you count Jack Concannon, who went 1-0 in 1964.   Other than that, EVERY SINGLE ONE has been a loser, and most have been terrible.  Tarkenton made the Hall of Fame, but not for his rookie season at 2-8 followed by a 2-11-1.  

The historical record tells us that it is stupid to start a 21 year old in the NFL.  Still, teams are going to continue to do it, thinking it will lead to a quick turnaround.  In 2018, there are a couple 21 year olds with great ability in Sam Darnold, Josh Rosen, Lamar Jackson will all be 21 years old at the start of the 2018 season.  Mason Rudolph and Baker Mayfield have had four years of major college ball and will be 23.   Josh Allen will be 22.   You might have a shot starting one of the older guys.  And I might think a little about Lamar Jackson because he is a running quarterback.  But the odds are against it.  I don't expect to hear from Darnold or Rosen till 2019 at the earliest. 

Look, draft the guy if you think he's that good, but keep him on the bench for a year or two to learn the offense. THEN you will find out whether you've got something.  You learn nothing by sending him out too soon and getting his head bashed in.  

    By the way, in case you were curious, rookies Mitchell Trubisky, Deshaun Watson and Patrick Mahomes were all 22 by the start of the 2017 season, and they all had 3 years of college football versus 2 years for DeShone Kizer.  So it should not come as a shock if DeShone Kizer is a year behind the others.  If you believe that football quarterbacks are normally not very good until their sixth season out of high school, then Kizer might assert himself in 2019.  I would not assume he is ready to start in 2018 since he will be only 22.  

    

    Watson was a legitimate star in his rookie year, although I would argue that a lot of that had to do with his ability to disrupt defenses with his running ability, rather than strictly his ability as a pocket passer.    But okay, he was a legit star at age 22.   As for Trubisky and Mahomes, neither of them in their short careers has a higher NFL passer rating than Colt McCoy.  They might be great later on, but in 2017 they were not outstanding....yet they are a year older than Kizer.  You just have to wait until they reach age 23 till you can get an idea what they can really do.  

Why didn't the Patriots Franchise Jimmy Garoppolo and Trade Him (to the Browns?)

       

      Now, everyone knows that Jimmy Garoppolo is a franchise quarterback.  Fans wonder why the Patriots didn't franchise tag Garoppolo and then trade him to a qb-hungry team like the Cleveland Browns for a first round pick.  Instead, they now have a second round pick, and no logical successor to Tom Brady. Stupid Patriots! Well, maybe not so stupid.  First of all, if you wind the clock back to the trading deadline in November, everyone suspected Jimmy G was a franchise qb, but they weren't sure.  NOW they are sure.  

       So, if the Patriots figured they liked Jimmy G but couldn't afford him in 2018, why not just keep him through the season, franchise tag him and trade him for a first round pick?  The "franchise tag" would have allowed the Patriots to keep Jimmy for one year, but they would have to pay the average of the top 5 players at his position.

         Sounds like a great plan, but it would not have worked.  First of all, do you realize that the Franchise Tag for qbs is going to be around $23 Million dollars in 2018?  The perception was (probably still is) that there are at least five first round quarterbacks in the 2018 draft.   Now, why should I give the Patriots my first round pick and also pay $23 Million dollars for an unproven quarterback who isn't necessarily better than the rookie?  Remember, this was back in November, so we hadn't seen him lead a weak San Francisco team to five straight wins.   In particular, the Browns would predictably want to draft a quarterback rather than let someone else draft one.  Shades of Brock Osweiler!  
      Instead, use that pick on a quarterback, and take the $23 Million dollars and get, say, Le'Veon Bell plus a decent offensive lineman. 
     If you wanted to trade Garoppolo to Cleveland instead of New England, you don't get Brian Hoyer who was a Patriot for several years under Belichick and McDaniel and already knows most of the offense.  Instead the Browns cut Kevin Hogan or Cody Kessler, and that would have been Brady's backup.  What's smart about that?
     No, the Patriots knew what they had in Garoppolo and kept him as long as they could, as insurance for Tom Brady.  By trading him to San Francisco, they got the best possible deal they could from San Francisco, and get a second round pick plus a very credible backup in Brian Hoyer, for a guy they were not going to be able to keep.  Plus, this is the Patriots.  Some qb is going to slide to the second round, and they might nab him at that point.  One scary thought is what if they get Lamar Jackson, and he has the opportunity to learn about being a pocket quarterback from Tom Brady?  

     

The Cleveland Browns are the New England Patriots of the Off-Season

   The Cleveland Browns were not build to win in 2017.  They were built to get draft picks, draft position and salary cap.  So while they were the worst in the NFL on the field, they will dominate the 2018 off season, for what it's worth.  The Browns will be the team that adds the most talent via Free Agency, and they will also be the team that adds the most talent via the Draft.  

   Tanking is becoming a new fashion in the NFL, as bad teams realize that there is a payoff for being really bad.  Conventional theory (developed by Brandt & Schramm of the Cowboys 25 years ago) is that the first overall pick is worth three times the mid-first round picks.  So cut some expensive talent, make sure that you are awful and in theory you get much better personnel for the next few years.  The Browns took that to an extreme by getting rid of players who were still very viable and paring down the salary cap to among the lowest in the NFL.  Meantime they accumulated draft picks, including the fourth overall pick from the Texans, and 36th overall from the Texans.  

    Other tanking teams included the San Francisco 49ers and New York Jets, both of whom have accumulated draft picks and salary cap space.  On paper, the 49ers seem to have a smaller payroll than the Browns.  But, they have to sign Jimmy Garoppolo and they are potentially losing 18 players to free agency, representing 2017 salaries of $21 Million. If they franchise tag Garoppolo ($21 Million dollars at least in 2018, compared to his 2017 salary of $871 thousand).  Plus, don't you think they should leave some money to sign draft choices? All told, they need to spend about  $50 million dollars just to stay even.  Their net payroll will probably go up about $25 million dollars.  
    The Jets are in a similar situation, having to replace departing players currently earning $25 Million.  

   The Browns are losing only three: Isaiah Crowell, backup OL Marcus Martin and backup  DL Lavar Edwards, total 2017 salaries less than $5 million dollars.  Frankly, I don't think Marcus and Lavar are going to be able to make the team. 
    Forget about the inflated "total cap room" which is the maximum possible money a team can spend, meaning they sign no draft choices, re-sign none of their departing veterans, and use all of their saved-up carryover money this year.  That's totally unrealistic.

   The real stat you need is the "expected salary differential" or the estimated amount of money that will be added to the previous year's payroll, after replacing departing free agents, and includes a budget for draft choices, and paying off "dead money."  Carryover salary cap should is not included, because that is unlikely to be spent unless the team is a playoff contender.  "Carryover" money is like the team's savings account, usually not spent unless there is an emergency.  

   

Cleveland Browns:

Base cap...........................................................+ $178 Million

Active Player salaries.......................................- $117 Million

Departing player salaries to be replaced..........- $    5 Million

Dead money (inactive players)........................- $  10 Million

Draft pick salaries (13)....................................- $  18 Million
Value of players replaced by draft pic (13).....+$     7 Million

Net    differential..............................................+$  35 Million

So, I come up with about $35 Million, which is the amount of money that can realistically be used to sign new players.  That's enough to afford 2 or 3 very good players.  I believe they will sign a veteran, probably A. J. McCarron, and likely they will draft a qb as well.  

Does that mean that they will be a good team?  I think they will have playoff caliber personnel, but with no experience at how to win.  The computer doesn't realize that that is a problem, but my feeling is that it may take quite some time to develop a winning culture in Cleveland.