So you see my point about the numbers being...flexible depending on the parameters set?

Yes. Both the 3.3 year average career and the 35% of rookies making the roster are defendable based upon those set parameters. It just goes to show the importance of context.

It probably includes UDFA's.

I know profootballreference.com had a metric that measured success of actual draft choices called "draft value" or something like that. Here's some numbers from a 20 year study ending in 2017.

10.5% average
12.3% good
6.8% great
1% legendary

That leaves 69.4% that were rated below that.

There were at least 409 UFDA's last year. Combined with draft picks it would come out to around 650. 35% of that would be around 227, or a little over seven per team. Last year 246 rookies made NFL week one rosters.

That would make it 38% of rookies that were on 90 man rosters made it to the week one roster in 2020.

Here's an interesting chart. Only 34 UFDA's made rosters in 2020, way down from 78 UFDA's in 2013.

O, you missed the point. You went from 35% of drafted players to 35% of “rookies” which you loosely defined

Yes. Both the 3.3 year average career and the 35% of rookies making the roster are defendable based upon those set parameters. It just goes to show the importance of context.

No, I didn't miss your point. I researched to try to better understand that 35% number that I have seen and read many times over and reasoned out that the 35% pertained to draftees AND undrafted free agents. If you look back I did mention that the percentage may include UDFA's in my initial post. I also agree that the context is important.

The draft is completely separated from the free agency and undrafted folks. What we’re talking about right now is the success of the actual NFL draft. Actually drafting folks with selections through rounds in the draft. Debating the question of how important it is to have draft picks, during the draft, not diluted by the sheer number of players evaluated as UDFA. And OVERWHELMINGLY, those players, that are selected via the draft, are on rosters. Let’s look at the 2019 draft:

254 players were selected in the draft, 213 of them played in a game that season. That’s 83.85%, if my division is good enough. In rounds 1-3, only 1 player didn’t play due to a non-injury designation. That player was Jacha Polite, selected by the Jets at 68 overall who was cut in preseason, but was immediately signed by the Rams and placed on their practice squad. In rounds 4-5, again only one player failed to make an active roster, Clayton Thorson, selected by the Eagles didn’t make the active roster, spending the year on their practice squad. Of the 41 6th round picks, only 4 didn’t make their active roster, two of those being signed to their practice squads. 7th round was only 11 players not making a roster.

2020 is no different, check it out yourself:

https://www.pro-football-reference.c...2020/draft.htm

OVERWHELMINGLY, drafted rookies made their respective rosters and if drafted in rounds 1-5, played on their respective rosters at some point in that year.

So, the idea that only <insert arbitrary percentage here> of draftees don’t make their roster is just complete nonsense. And the actual facts dictate otherwise.

In rounds 1-5, the vast majority of draft choices make their team AND contribute on the field, at some point that year, if nothing more other than depth and giving a breather to the starting 11’s. That depth is critical!

“Average”, “Good”, “Great” and “Legendary” are subjective statements, and mean absolutely nothing to the fundamental statistics. And the fundamental statistics clearly indicate that drafted players make their rosters, and play during that year.

And that is exactly why the draft is so critical to be a part of, addressing team weaknesses and getting them filled.

I agree with almost all of that. Addressing weaknesses via the draft is critical. It is more critical for teams with more holes to be filled. Teams with deeper rosters and fewer holes to fill in my opinion are better served to attempt to get higher draft capital rather than more lower round picks that are unlikely to make their final roster. Quality over quantity. The numbers given prove that higher round picks are far more likely to contribute and at a higher level. There are always exceptions in both directions. A few late rounders contribute greatly and some first rounders are total busts.

Another way to fill those holes is with proven commodities via free agency. Look at what Tampa Bay did. They supplemented starting lineups on both sides of the ball with key FA's and other veterans that earned them the Super Bowl. Is it sustainable? No. Probably not, but you yourself have argued the importance of winning it all over sustained "goodnees".

And if you look back you'll see that the 35% number that I mentioned was discovered to be in another context to which I readily admitted.