Originally Posted by Speedy
There's no science to this. Yeah, you're chances of hitting on a player may be better with a 1st rounder, but a 1st rounder can bomb just as easily as a UDFA makes it no matter what the scouts say, what info you have or anything. You don't know 'til you get on the field and play with the big boys, the pros, the best.
Show me where I have refuted this. Again, I ask you- would you rather make a blind pick out of all the first round QBs of the last 10 years, or a blind pick of all the UDFA QBs who have gotten a chance in an NFL training camp over the same time period?
Originally Posted by 76Texan
I was going through the NFL rosters from A to I, and even I was surprised at the number of starters on all these teams.
You figure with 22 starting spots on each team, one should find just one or maybe two UDFA starters, but nope. Teams have two, three, and even four of them. Many of them have been long-time starters; some have turned in good season(s) recently. I was surprised at many of the names as they are really good players or budding young talents.
Interestingly, the Browns were the team that had no UDFA as starter.
Yes, I am going to say coincidence. There is no reason why the lack of a UDFA starter would be the reason why the Browns suck. You guys are getting ridiculous in your attempts to defend Keenum. Keenum's play is defending him, not some silly-ass half-cocked circumstantial arguments.