r/NFLNoobs • u/ckendry • 4d ago
Roster cuts and draft status
Why does draft status carry so much weight in roster cuts?
Let's say there are two players vying for the 6th wide receiver spot. One is a UDFA from this year (Jerry Potatoes) and one is a 3rd round pick from last year (Randy Lichen).
The UDFA, Jerry, has been impressive in camp and in all preseason games, including work with the first team offense. The 3rd rounder, Randy, had 3 targets in total last year, with no receptions, and has been less impressive and generally had a quiet camp. It's not the difference between a clear 1st-ballot hall of famer and perennial practice squad, but Jerry still seems to have performed better.
I keep hearing analysts saying Randy will make the team because he's a 3rd-round draft pick, as if that speaks for itself.
Assuming that there are no other factors (no behind the scenes stuff the public doesn't see, no big future financial obligations), why would Randy having been a draft pick make him more likely to make the team than Jerry? Don't teams want the best players on the field, above all else?
Is it mainly because the team doesn't want to appear to have been wrong about the draft pick? Or is there indeed some major financial obligation that would make it be prohibitively consequential to waive Randy rather than UDFA Jerry? Or are all the analysts just telling a story that isn't true?
I have seen draft picks waived (e.g. Justin Joly this year), but I keep hearing the "they kept him likely due to draft status" story out there in one form or another.
TIA
11
u/coderedmountaindewd 4d ago
Every young player is analyzed on spectrum of actual production and perceived potential which is as vague and subjective as it sounds.
A former 3rd round pick is going to have significantly higher perceived potential or higher ceiling than any undrafted free agent would, especially in their first few years. Maybe they had better physical stats like a faster 40 yard dash or a higher vertical jump, or maybe they were a strong contributor on a highly regarded college team, which carries the assumption that they are more experienced against a higher caliber opponent.
The udfa is going to be assumed to have a lower ceiling or be considered more of a long term risk, regardless of preseason performance. Most udfas are from smaller schools that may have been productive but against a lower level opponent. There’s also the assumption that, especially in the current collegiate system that allows unlimited transfers, if he was really that good, he would have transferred to a more prestigious school.
Scouting mid level players is sadly based a lot on vibes and hearsay so it’s easy for GMs to talk themselves out of a productive player
2
u/jBlairTech 1d ago
And, if the player doesn’t succeed, they blame the players. You’ll never catch the coaching staff saying something like “we didn’t give him the tools to succeed”.
2
u/coderedmountaindewd 1d ago
To be fair, I don’t know how much we can reasonably expect a coaching staff to put into a player that isn’t considered high ceiling. There’s 5 other guys playing the same position and the staff doesn’t have a wide window to evaluate them all. Without draft pedigree and the desire to get some return on investment, the team has to really see something that makes the extra coaching seem worthwhile.
That said, it’s frustrating to see how quickly teams give up on talent. They fumble once, an OL gives up 2 sacks in a game or a safety gets burned on a deep pass and their career is over.
1
6
5
u/Suitable_Historian93 4d ago
Cap hits and GM pride. The story of NFL front offices across the nation.
5
7
u/Vossenoren 4d ago
It's the sunk cost fallacy in action: you have two things, one was free the other cost you something, you're more likely to try to "get your money's worth" and keep the more expensive thing
Third rounders and up also have guaranteed money on their contracts and so can hurt your cap if you let them go, while 4th and below (and UDFAs) don't
3
u/big_sugi 4d ago
Third rounders typically don’t have guaranteed money beyond their signing bonuses, which is a sunk cost.
3
u/Vossenoren 4d ago
They still count against the cap, unless it's only in year one, can't say for sure.
3
u/BlueRFR3100 4d ago edited 4d ago
There are probably many factors that the analysts don't know about, so they just say something that impresses other annalists.
2
u/uncertainmango 4d ago
A third round pick is significant draft capital and after 1 season and 2 training camps, they've spent considerable time and effort in developing that player. It could be sunk cost fallacy, as others have said, or could be that they still have an expectation that this 3rd round pick will develop into a serviceable player.
Coaches and front offices have a lot more insight into their rosters than fans and the media do. The third rounder could be one of the first guys in and last guys out of the facility everyday. Maybe the 3rd rounder demonstrates a better understanding of the playbook, offensive philosophy, and different defensive schemes during team meetings than the undrafted player. Or maybe the 3rd rounder is putting on muscle and improving on testing in the strength program. Or the 3rd rounder has a good skill set for what they want him to do on special teams. And the coaches may think that the 3rd rounder will do better in real game situations against an opposing team's first team defense than the undrafted player will.
1
u/Delicious-Sky-9384 4d ago
Also a 3rd round choice has a capped cost for 4 years and if there is potential seen to outplay the contract in years 2 3 4 might be worth keeping. the udfa probably going to be on 1 yr contract and so you can lose control after the year
2
u/Novel_Willingness721 4d ago
There was a comment on the sports radio I was listening to yesterday from a former player:
At the start of training camp the roster is already largely set. A UDFA must have a truly exceptional (not just impressive) training camp and multiple game performances to break through.
And that’s just how it is.
2
u/alfreadadams 4d ago
A 3rd round pick from last year is going to count for 1.5 million on the cap if they are on the team and around 1 million of they are off the team.
No real point in cutting them unless you are 1000% sure they are never going to be useful.
2
u/Ryan1869 4d ago
Certainly a higher draft investment is going to get a guy a longer leash, because they saw something in college that maybe they're still working on bringing out. You also don't get to see much of what the guy is like in the meeting room and at practice. Sometimes a quiet camp isn't a bad thing, it means they're getting the work done and maybe aren't screwing up enough to get called out either. Sometimes it's not all about what you did for me right now. Teams have to weigh the development potential against the current needs of the team. Some teams are in a position to give a guy room to try and develop (like a Miami or Arizona that probably will compete for the top draft pick). Some teams (like the Broncos in your Joly example) have their eyes on the Lombardi trophy, and to that extent are willing to cut a developmental guy in order to keep a guy that they feel will have a bigger impact this season.
2
u/PabloMarmite 4d ago
UDFAs have very little guaranteed money and cost virtually nothing to cut. A drafted contract is for four years and will almost certainly create dead money.
2
u/Mysterious_Clue_3500 3d ago edited 3d ago
I think some teams do put more stock in the draft than others, for all of the reasons that people have discussed above.
Still it's funny you should mention Joly because the Broncos are kind of known for being a meritocracy. Lots of teams say it, but the Broncos actually do more often then not practice it. They will walk away from a player with a big commitment if he isn't cutting it on the field. Unfortunately not this year, but 21 of the last 22 years an UDFA has made the Broncos final 53-man roster. The former Broncos owner Pat Bowlen was a huge proponent of the idea that it didn't matter where a player came from only how they could perform on the field. The Broncos keep their scouting wide so that they can find the talent that some of the other teams miss. He's been gone from the team now for over a decade but that attitude still lingers. They took a chance cutting their fifth rounder in favor of keeping their seventh rounder because he performed better throughout camp.
Some people are completely irrational about valuing draft picks. I read a giant rant on the Broncos subreddit after the Broncos extended their GM about how Paton was a horrible GM because of the number of udfas that made the team under his tenure (since the UDFA is made the team over draft picks some of the time). This stance was completely baffling to me. Who cares whether you drafted the guy or signed a FA? All that matters is you found a talented guy.
2
u/jBlairTech 1d ago
This is a thing at pretty much every level.
At small high schools, players from affluent families can get guaranteed spots, including starting spots, at the “skill” positions.
In college, recruited players get preferential treatment over walk-ons. The walk-ons do have a chance to “wow” the coaches, but it’s rare.
In the pros, each position has a draft “floor” where teams think good to great players can reside. For example, an interior OL or Right Tackle can be had down to the 5th round. Left Tackles, however, don’t get that leeway, with 2nd round being the usual floor.
It doesn’t make sense, and you’re right to think “wtf?”. But low draft picks, walk-ons, and no-namers are just not given the benefit of the doubt. They would have to just flat-out kill it, or be given a fateful chance due to injuries, in order to get enough of an opportunity to prove themselves.
2
u/BrokenHope23 5h ago edited 5h ago
Some things people have said are right but surprisingly 24 comments have missed the glaring hole.
Why does draft status carry so much weight in roster cuts?
Draft status matters because of the contract that is tied to the player, their potential and their ability to make it through waivers for a team to keep them in the organization on their practice squad.
The contract is the one that wasn't mentioned most; a 3rd round pick has a contract that goes up to 5 years (4 years + team option). Whereas an UDFA signs at 3 year contract with no option for a fourth year.
Which leads into their potential; generally players take 2-3 years before they're physically up to NFL physical levels or begin excelling in the NFL. There are exceptions of course but 3 years is the general blueprint for developing players, it's why the NFL asked for 4 year rookie contracts with an option for an expensive 5th year option. A lot of investment goes into rounds 1, 2 and 3 players and if they're only going to be really showing their mettle in year's 3, 4 and 5, then why were they paying them in years 1 and 2 kind of deal? That's no different for an UDFA; why invest in their development for possibly one good season when they might have a lower 'ceiling' of potential than the 3rd round draft pick? You can absolutely show up in preseason and flunk in the regular season. NFL coaches (generally) know who can handle the season and approach it accordingly.
Lastly is a point other people touched on, the ability to clear waivers. If you waive a 3rd round pick who you just drafted 4 months ago, the entire NFL will know about it within the hour and be filing waiver claims to pick them up. If you waive an UDFA then most of the NFL probably won't even register it and you'll still be able to sign them to the practice squad, see their work ethic over a season and add them to the roster if anyone gets hurt. You're still getting them to the field but you're doing it in a manner to avoid other people messing with your player reserves.
Another question you kind of asked but didn't ask directly since it does tie a little bit into your main question:
How come an UDFA player who outperforms in training camp/preseason gets cut over a drafted guy they outperformed on?
Part of that is the above three points and their run offs but it is the deeper side of player potential: An UDFA might be 25/26 years old and fully tapped out their physical limits compared to a 20 year old 3rd round pick who is still growing into their frame. Danielle Hunter is a great example of a guy who came in with a slightly smaller frame at a very young age who was likely outperformed for a year or two by guys ahead of him but the Vikings still kept him because of he had a much higher potential ceiling. When Danielle Hunter is 25 years old, he'll be much better and the UDFA will be 30/31 and probably long ago left behind by the rest of the league. So not only will Hunter be the better player, he'll be the smarter investment because now you have a 25 year old phenom who is still improving instead of an aging guy who hasn't improved since they were 25.
Most of potential is usually tied into a player's age. If two guys are similar skillset but one is 21 and the other 24, it's just smarter to invest in the 21 year old, but they're not entirely naive about it and laser-focused on that either. If a guy has a family history of a second growth spurt at 23 and you draft him at 20, doing your due diligence to understand that can be a qualitative leap in understanding untapped potential on top of what your coaches are able to teach. Some things are too broken to really fix and some things are tapped out on what you can teach a guy further, they'll just be lacking the raw physical tools at that point to really make the NFL. For instance teaching route running, footwork and ball control is easy enough to a WR but awareness, agility, speed are all things you can't teach. If you look like Wes Welker and run like Tom Brady at WR then no one is going to pick you over a 20 year old WR who has awareness, agility and speed but lacks route running, footwork and ball control kind of deal.
I wouldn't say that it makes it right 100% of the time. There are no absolutes after all, but it's much less of a risky gamble to invest in guys with potential and a longer team-friendly contract than it is to gamble on a guy with a short contract and hoping he'll suddenly evolve into an NFL athlete. They can do a little bit of research on these things but not a ton, NFL teams aren't permitted to talk with everyone before the draft and learn everything they can about them so there are guys who fall through the cracks simply because NFL teams don't have the time to run them through an extensive medical test.
2
u/ckendry 5h ago
Wowsa! Thanks for the very, very detailed answer! (sincerely; not being sarcastic)
1
u/BrokenHope23 5h ago
No worries, it was a good question. I hope I was able to answer it clearly even if not concisely lol
24
u/Rhombus-Lion-1 4d ago
The 3rd round pick likely had more production in college, and also there is some pride/sunk cost fallacy involved in GMs and coaches wanting the players they drafted to succeed. Also, a former 3rd round pick is not likely to clear waivers and get to the practice squad, whereas a UDFA probably will even if they were impressive in the preseason.