Brandon Marshall anyone

[ethat001]

So by the numbers above, you'd be wasting a potential $30 million guaranteed money on a QB, RB or WR who only has a 50 PERCENT chance of making it in the NFL. Makes someone proven like Marshall seem worth it.

Signing a YOUNG vet like Haynesworth to $40 mil guaranteed, Hall to $20 mil guaranteed -- I think these make more sense for young proven stars. I don't disagree with the front office with this strategy. It's more expensive, but maybe more worth it. It seems like the draft is a better deal for low round picks if you can pick a gem like Horton.

"The bottom five will surprise fans most. The worst drafting team in the past three years, holding on to only a little more than half of its drafted players: the New England Patriots. With three Super Bowl wins since 2001, the Patriots are the team of the decade so far. They boast a 39-9 record in the past three years. How have they maintained that excellence? Though saddled with low draft picks, the Patriots have been the masters of picking up useful veterans via trades to fill holes in their lineup (see: receivers Randy Moss and Wes Welker).

Third worst is another surprise: the world champion Pittsburgh Steelers, with only 58% of their drafted players still on the team and no All-Pros among them. Like the Patriots, the perennially contending Steelers usually have a low draft spot, but they have fulfilled their needs by finding and developing excellent undrafted rookies over the years, like running back Willie Parker and linebacker James Harrison, the 2008 defensive player of the year.

The bottom line: Drafting NFL-caliber players is very important, but it doesn't necessarily equal success on the field. Finding other strategies to plug the gaps, like the Patriots and Steelers have done, is essential. So don't judge your team's success at the end of draft day. Wait to see how it all plays out--and watch for what your team does to boost draft deficiencies."

forbes.com/2009/04/08/nfl-draft-teams-lifestyle-sports-nfl-draft.html