In the NFL, there are ways which teams conventionally acquire players: trades, free agency, and the draft. Players are drafted into the league through a seven round process, and those not drafted become free agents, free to sign with any team. Teams can employ a variety of techniques such as applying the franchise tag to a player to prevent them from leaving, but in reality all players drafted eventually wind up being free agents as well. There are numerous thoughts on the matter of acquiring players via the draft or free agency, but is there hard evidence that says one way is better than the other?
In general, free agency involves players who have played out their rookie contracts and are looking to be paid more in line with their skill set. In order to acquire top players in free agency, teams will often find themselves in bidding wars with other teams for the player’s services. This results in players signing contracts for far more than they are worth.
The other factor that drives up players’ value is the market they are in. Kurt Cousins is not a star quarterback. He had a tremendous second half of this past year, but he has not shown over time he can be a star. However, Cousins’ breakout came at the most opportune time possible: he is a free agent. In reality, Cousins is probably worth $10-12 million a year, largely in part because he has yet to put up starter-quality numbers for more than half a season. But because star quarterbacks rarely hit the open market and there are a dozen teams without franchise quarterbacks, Cousins showed enough potential that he will likely sign for upwards of $15 or even $17 million a year.
Obviously, free agency is expensive. However, you also have a pretty good idea what you are getting when you sign a free agent. Drafting involves much more variance and risk, but also more reward. Teams likely have needs they want/need to get filled this offseason, but also want to keep themselves in a good position for the future. So, in getting to my point, I would like to propose a solution to the problem at hand: as a general rule of thumb, teams should never acquire the top free agent option for a position in any given year. The best player will always get the most expensive deal, which they should. However, you can often get a player of just slightly less ability for significantly less money. Last year, the Philadelphia Eagles signed DeMarco Murray for an average of $8 million a year. They also signed Ryan Mathews for less than half of that per year, and Mathews averaged 1.5 yard per carry MORE than Murray. Murray was the top option, and got paid like it. It’s rare that we get a sample like this because a less expensive option was actually running behind the same offensive line and still out-performed his more expensive counterpart.
The draft is where building blocks are found. When scouted well, early picks can turn into starters and late picks can turn into special teams stars and quality backups, with a few gems here and there turning out to be far more valuable. The Green Bay Packers have done a phenomenal job of drafting over the years. Of course, this is a lot easier when you already have a franchise quarterback. But the Packers often times only resign their own players in free agency, or even smarter they give their current players extensions before their contract fully expires. Teams that build through the draft and sign short term deals in free agency for players who can come in and be a stopgap solution are far better off in the long term. Just ask any Chicago Bears fan how they feel about Jay Cutler and you’ll understand.
nfldraftamateur 