tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post3886988672407206139..comments2009-04-20T21:45:25.234-04:00Brian Burkenoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-57537673645215932642009-04-20T21:45:00.000-04:002009-04-20T21:45:00.000-04:00Agreed. That's one reason I think 'yrs as starter' is a reliable measure for comparing players at different positions.<br /><br />On the other hand, teams are mostly selecting players only for the duration of their rookie contract.Brian Burkehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12371470711365236987noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-38600807.post-80756303622208125152009-04-19T18:50:00.000-04:002009-04-19T18:50:00.000-04:00For a comprehensive model of draft strategy, is it worth considering the duration of a player's contribution?<br />That is, if we expect certain positions to generally lead to longer careers than others, would it be a better idea to invest in players that you can keep around for 10-12 years rather than 5-7? Or does free agency and the salary cap render such analysis useless?<br /><br />I say this because I've never been a fan of drafting RBs or CBs early, particularly RBs. They seem injury-prone and just don't seem to last as long as, say, OL or QB or even DL. Plus, RBs seem to be more easily replaced than other positions, and DBs' contributions seem to be smaller than other positions- Asomugha can only help the Raiders so much.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com