Drafted in

I was struck, when reading scouting reports last week on the Rams' receiver selections in the draft (Austin Pettis in Round 3, Greg Salas in Round 4), that the two shared a strength, one of the only tangible strengths on either of their reports: height.

This is not an analysis of either player, though I happen to like Pettis. I do question, however, the tendency for teams to try to leg out singles late in the draft — rather than swing for the fences.

This happens at some positions more than others, perhaps, and receiver is an easier one to categorize. The logic on the side of the teams is fairly transparent: cheap backups who can step into a spot if a starter goes down. Often, these players (like Pettis or Salas) are relatively polished coming out of college, with "a high football IQ," and have nearly reached their potential — NFL coaches know what they'll be getting, and these players can serve as training camp fodder, if nothing else. In these times of labor uncertainty, the logic may be especially ubiquitous; if you can't guarantee signing a free agent for that backup outside linebacker spot (because you can't have any contact with players during the lockout), then you're forced to draft a backup outside linebacker to ensure all your needs are met.

I get it. I do.

But it does strike me as odd that with relatively low-risk picks (e.g., contracts for players picked in the later rounds are low) teams often take low-reward players.

Players with excellent college track records (like Pettis) get taken in these rounds despite their limited physical tools; it seems part reward for their success, part hope that they can replicate at least some of it as a longtime NFL backup.

But isn't it strange that, in anteing up very little, more teams aren't willing to chase the big prize? Sure, you can point to the speedy bad route runners or the character-issue guys who are taken as examples that this kind of logic isn't entirely pervasive. But the question isn't necessarily why they're getting taken or why Greg Salas is getting taken; it's why they're getting taken where they are.

I think what this essentially boils down to is that teams overvalue draft picks. Think back over the years: New England acquired Randy Moss for a fourth-round pick (used on John Bowie, now of the UFL's Hartford Colonials); the Rams acquired Marshall Faulk for a second-round pick and a fifth-round pick (Mike Peterson and Brad Scioli, respectively); the Steelers acquired Jerome Bettis for a second-round pick and a later fourth-round pick (Ernie Conwell and Ryan Tucker); in a different kind of trade, the 49ers acquired an untested Steve Young for a second-round pick and a fourth-round pick (Winston Moss and Bruce Hill). Sure, those trades look more lopsided with the benefit of retrospect. But most of them didn't generate a batted eye in their day (and some may have even been decried as too big a price to pay).

Those trades did generate a few nice role players (e.g., Tucker, Peterson). But in what world do any of those trades seem fair in retrospect? These are Hall of Famers! The problem is that teams should have predicted they'd turn out that well before they made them. How many fourth rounders turn out to be as good as Randy Moss? One in a hundred? In a thousand? Hell, Randy Moss right now, ostracized by teams league-wide, could probably help a team more than most fourth rounders. Right now, there is a rumor going around that Carolina Steve Smith could be traded whenever trades can resume; whatever you think of Steve Smith, I'm sure there are few players in the coming draft who could outperform him in their rookie years or in the next several.

Of course, there are limits here; I don't think anyone would advocate trading seven picks for, say, Herschel Walker. But the fact is that NFL teams seem to prefer rookies to proven veterans because of their youth, their contracts and their potential — and also because of the old axiom that champion teams are built through the draft. I suspect, though, that this last fact is as much correlation as causation.

To get back to my earlier point, I think the issue is that teams don't regard late-round picks as the low-risk opportunities they really are and thus are worried about making sure that the picks are the kind of players who will stick on the roster for the next decade — even if they'll never make a contribution in a game.

Editor's Note: I found after I published this post that Bleacher Report had published a post that makes several similar points and uses the Jerome Bettis example. Obviously, I agree with a lot of what they have to say.