Would this be a Reasonable Draft Strategy?

SissyBoyFloyd

Pawnee, Skidi Clan
Joined
Feb 1, 2012
Posts
5,077
Reaction score
2,384
Location
Mesa, AZ
Since there are 5 or 6 positions at most (WR, OLT, DE/Edge, DT, OLB, CB) that demand considerably more $$ on average over the others, would it not make sense to use all draft picks on them, leaving the other positions for FA acquisition. I left QB off since you would never want to replace a franchise QB once you find him.

It just seems in a perfect rotation a team could be replacing a lot of those high priced players every 6 or 7 years or so, rather than pay those exorbitant salaries once their rookie &/or first extended contract expires. Are teams already doing this for the most part?

I suppose you could flip this strategy around and just limit your acquisiton of players at RB, RT, OG, TE, C, ILB, S to FA alone since they can be had as veterans for so much less than the other positions. And since you wouldn't be wasting draft picks on them, you could have a larger fresh stream of the highest priced position players constantly renewed through the draft.

Maybe I am simply last to give this much thought and all teams do this already. Is that the case, or should some teams be doing this way more often? It seems to me that when a team gets put into a position of having to pay really high prices to resign their best players every 4-6 or 7 years that they didn't plan properly and draft accordingly. They should have used their R1/R2 picks from the previous year or two on players to replace him.
 

Krangodnzr

Captain of Team Murray
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Posts
35,787
Reaction score
32,941
Location
Orange County, CA
Since there are 5 or 6 positions at most (WR, OLT, DE/Edge, DT, OLB, CB) that demand considerably more $$ on average over the others, would it not make sense to use all draft picks on them, leaving the other positions for FA acquisition. I left QB off since you would never want to replace a franchise QB once you find him.

It just seems in a perfect rotation a team could be replacing a lot of those high priced players every 6 or 7 years or so, rather than pay those exorbitant salaries once their rookie &/or first extended contract expires. Are teams already doing this for the most part?

I suppose you could flip this strategy around and just limit your acquisiton of players at RB, RT, OG, TE, C, ILB, S to FA alone since they can be had as veterans for so much less than the other positions. And since you wouldn't be wasting draft picks on them, you could have a larger fresh stream of the highest priced position players constantly renewed through the draft.

Maybe I am simply last to give this much thought and all teams do this already. Is that the case, or should some teams be doing this way more often? It seems to me that when a team gets put into a position of having to pay really high prices to resign their best players every 4-6 or 7 years that they didn't plan properly and draft accordingly. They should have used their R1/R2 picks from the previous year or two on players to replace him.
No this would mean you are overpaying for nonpremium positions.
 
Top