Drafted players better than FA?
By Gregg Easterbrook
Special to NFL.com
(Feb. 7, 2006) -- So what did the Super Bowl prove -- that defense trumps offense? That roughneck football trumps finesse? That a team that loses three defensive starters during a game will fade in the fourth quarter? Yours truly thinks the larger lesson of this Super Bowl is that the team that starts the most originally drafted players usually wins. Pittsburgh started 17 players that it drafted and Seattle started 10.
Sports fanatics obsess over the top of the draft -- should No. 1 be Reggie Bush, Matt Leinart or Vince Young? -- yet it is the sum of a team's drafted players that matters. Being winners, Super Bowl teams normally start a high number of originally drafted players. On Sunday, 27 of 44 starters were originally drafted by Pittsburgh or Seattle. Last February when New England beat Philadelphia in the Super Bowl, 26 of 44 starters were originally draftees of the Pats or Eagles. Pick a game between weak teams and the equation is often different. This season when Oakland played Cleveland, 15 of 44 starters were original draftees.
Re: Drafted players better than FA?
personally i think a first rounder should be expected to start and be a future star sooner than others typically. other draft picks i think should be solid backups with potential to start. free agency i think is best used when you want an immediate impact player, i.e. we need a certain position to make a run like a quarterback or running back not referring to the vikings.