Past 10 Super Bowl champs, % by Draft/Free Agency

[honyock]

I just heard this stat on NFL Radio on the way to work. It was called in by a fan, so take it with a grain of salt. But I thought it was interesting enough to pass along. He said he'd gone over the rosters of the past 10 Super Bowl winners, looking for how the teams were built, expecting to see a very high percentage of their teams were built through the draft. Here's what he found:

Entire 53 man rosters:

48% drafted
48% free agents
4% acquired in trades

So he also broke down just the starting rosters, assuming that would be much a higher % draftees. Here's the starters in those teams:

53% draft
43% free agents
4% trades

One exception to this is the quarterback position, not surprisingly. Of those winners, 7 of the 10 quarterbacks were drafted the the team. Two were acquired in trade (Eli Manning, twice. Technically he was drafted by San Diego then immediately traded to the Giants). fad one through free agency - Drew Bree's.

Anyway, I don't have any immediate conclusions from all that, just that it was surprising to see the draft percentages that low and free agency percentages that high. I guess you build through, well, everything.

 

[Nova]

Really, really interesting stuff.

You would think the % of drafted players would be higher as well as the % of players acquired in a trade.

I wonder if Free Agents also includes Undrafted/Rookie Free Agents. Could be a wrench in the eye opening stat.

 

[Future]

The problem with data like this is that it doesn't count for the impact of certain players. You could have your bottom ten players hardly ever see the field and all be drafted, while your RB who gets 20 touches a game came from elsewhere. The % will be overwhelmingly draft heavy, but in terms of impact, not so much.

 

[Nova]

The problem with data like this is that it doesn't count for the impact of certain players. You could have your bottom ten players hardly ever see the field and all be drafted, while your RB who gets 20 touches a game came from elsewhere. The % will be overwhelmingly draft heavy, but in terms of impact, not so much.

That's true. But I think it's usually the other way around. Superbowl winning teams will have more players drafted making impacts and FA pieces filling the gaps here and there.

I mean, how many superstar FAs have superbowl rings in the past 10 years?

I can only think of 3 at the moment. Drew Brees, Charles Woodson, and Plaxico Burress.

 

[Future]

That's true. But I think it's usually the other way around. Superbowl winning teams will have more players drafted making impacts and FA pieces filling the gaps here and there.

I mean, how many superstar FAs have superbowl rings in the past 10 years?

I can only think of 3 at the moment. Drew Brees, Charles Woodson, and Plaxico Burress.

There aren't really that many superstar FAs out there, so that number is always going to be low.

But just look at Seattle. They have hit on draft picks, but that team is built on the running game (Marshawn) and an aggressive DLine (Avril, Bennett, Clemons) that are constructed entirely around guys they didn't draft.

 

[Longboysfan]

The problem with data like this is that it doesn't count for the impact of certain players. You could have your bottom ten players hardly ever see the field and all be drafted, while your RB who gets 20 touches a game came from elsewhere. The % will be overwhelmingly draft heavy, but in terms of impact, not so much.

Maybe go back and look at the % on starters only.

 

[bsheeern]

Maybe go back and look at the % on starters only.

I believe the OP says he did

 

[Nova]

There aren't really that many superstar FAs out there, so that number is always going to be low.

But just look at Seattle. They have hit on draft picks, but that team is built on the running game (Marshawn) and an aggressive DLine (Avril, Bennett, Clemons) that are constructed entirely around guys they didn't draft.

Lynch is a pretty big impact player. He was traded for, which I'm sure you know, but I don't really count that as being a FA. The reason being, you usually do not end up overpaying for guys you pay with which is a big underlying issue with building your team up via free agency. In the end, the Seahawks took a draft pick and turned it into a player for them. Just my way of thinking.

Avril and Bennett were impact players, but I wouldn't say the team was built around them. The defense was largely built from the back up. Chancellor, Thomas, and Sherman were already there and playing at a top level for a few years before then. And it's not like Bennett, Avril, and Clemons were the only guys wrecking shop on the DL.

 

[bsheeern]

I feel the most important thing is that there's no "correct method" vs draft or free agency only correct results.

1. Meaning you must draft Well, It creates inexpensive depth & young hungry competitors.

2.You must be fiscally responsible & selective when Signing FA's whether they are your own or from another team.

Denver, SF & Seattle all have key components from both the draft & FA.

Bottom line you have to be great in a lot of areas to compete for a Title. But all those areas have to be balanced to produce the ultimate result.

 

[daveferr33]

Those percentages makes sense.

As a great football coach once said, the NFL is the talent acquisition business. Free Agency is an opportunity to acquire talent, you just have to do it wisely.

Last season, Seattle did a great job in free agency and it put them over the top. For example, Seattle acquired two edge rushers for the same price a certain franchise paid just to keep one (who failed to contribute because of injury).

The bottom line is this: just like everything, acquiring talent through free agency is not bad in itself. It only becomes bad when the wrong people do the acquiring.

 

[Future]

Lynch is a pretty big impact player. He was traded for, which I'm sure you know, but I don't really count that as being a FA. The reason being, you usually do not end up overpaying for guys you pay with which is a big underlying issue with building your team up via free agency. In the end, the Seahawks took a draft pick and turned it into a player for them. Just my way of thinking.

Avril and Bennett were impact players, but I wouldn't say the team was built around them. The defense was largely built from the back up. Chancellor, Thomas, and Sherman were already there and playing at a top level for a few years before then. And it's not like Bennett, Avril, and Clemons were the only guys wrecking shop on the DL.

Eh, I don't really differentiate between FA and trade for this argument, same difference to me.

I don't agree that the defense is built from the back-forward. You can't play a press cover defense like that and not get burned if you don't get consistent pressure. Bennett and Avril led the team in sacks by a wide margin.

 

[casmith07]

The problem with data like this is that it doesn't count for the impact of certain players. You could have your bottom ten players hardly ever see the field and all be drafted, while your RB who gets 20 touches a game came from elsewhere. The % will be overwhelmingly draft heavy, but in terms of impact, not so much.

Not only that, in the free agency era, it's impossible to have your team be 80% built through the draft and still be successful. The numbers don't make sense -- you only get generally ONE first round pick, and if we're using the idea that a first round pick is more impactful than others, in a 5 year span you only have 5 "impact players" added to your roster out of 53, with some of those individuals possibly leaving through free agency after 4 years without the fifth year option being picked up, or busting completely out.

Lots of statistical/analytical questions, but it ultimately confirms what we think: generally, balance wins.

 

[bsheeern]

Eh, I don't really differentiate between FA and trade for this argument, same difference to me.

I don't agree that the defense is built from the back-forward. You can't play a press cover defense like that and not get burned if you don't get consistent pressure. Bennett and Avril led the team in sacks by a wide margin.

I would say the defense was built more by the draft on the backend & built more via FA up front.

 

[bsheeern]

Not only that, in the free agency era, it's impossible to have your team be 80% built through the draft and still be successful. The numbers don't make sense -- you only get generally ONE first round pick, and if we're using the idea that a first round pick is more impactful than others, in a 5 year span you only have 5 "impact players" added to your roster out of 53, with some of those individuals possibly leaving through free agency after 4 years without the fifth year option being picked up, or busting completely out.

Lots of statistical/analytical questions, but it ultimately confirms what we think: generally, balance wins.

And just to add to that, most know that Balance has to consist of good players & players that fit your team makeup equally as well or as close to it as possible.

 

[Jstopper]

So this data basically shows that its about an even split. You gotta get good FA for value, as well as have draft picks pan out successfully. It also helps to have a top 10 pick many of those years by sucking (Seahawks)

 

[Nova]

Eh, I don't really differentiate between FA and trade for this argument, same difference to me.

I don't agree that the defense is built from the back-forward. You can't play a press cover defense like that and not get burned if you don't get consistent pressure. Bennett and Avril led the team in sacks by a wide margin.

The only reason I differentiate the two is because you could absolutely build a team in FA if it weren't for the salary cap and you had the money to spend. But with the cap being restrictive you can't just go out, wreck shop and sign top players at most positions-- that would leave you with less resources to sign at least mediocre players at other positions creating a huge imbalance in talent... trades usually avoid that. Usually you're getting a player at a set value for either a player you drafted or future pick. I think that's also why the person who created the data distinguished the difference between FA and trades.

Seattle enjoyed a boost from the DL, but they had opp passer rating of 74 in 2011 and 72 in 2012. Their secondary has been strong for years while the front 7 was catching up.

Here's a pretty interesting article kind of supporting the OPs numbers as well as differentiating % of starters that are FA, Drafted, or trades vs the entire ball club.

This chart (from the article) pretty much sums it all up though.

So for the most part, FA players have been fill ins while the important impact players have been drafted.

 

[Future]

The only reason I differentiate the two is because you could absolutely build a team in FA if it weren't for the salary cap and you had the money to spend. But with the cap being restrictive you can't just go out, wreck shop and sign top players at most positions-- that would leave you with less resources to sign at least mediocre players at other positions creating a huge imbalance in talent... trades usually avoid that. Usually you're getting a player at a set value for either a player you drafted or future pick. I think that's also why the person who created the data distinguished the difference between FA and trades.

Seattle enjoyed a boost from the DL, but they had opp passer rating of 74 in 2011 and 72 in 2012. Their secondary has been strong for years while the front 7 was catching up.
.

The opp passer rating last year was under 70...so the improvements on the dline made them that much better.

And regardless of the past years, they didn't win the Super Bowl before last year. I know its more nuanced than this, but essentially, they added FAs and then won the Super Bowl immediately.

Plus, this thread is only about Super Bowl winners. It doesn't include guys like Peyton who turned Denver around. He's 1 FA but worth probably a dozen draft picks lol.