I understand what is being said.

But the stats are (and I'm doing this from memory) that it is around 70% of 1st round picks become starters. 50% of 2nd rounders. 25% of 3rd rounders. 15% of 4th rounders. And from the 5th on it gets REALLY ugly (single digits).

So........this theory that the MORE draft picks the better (even if they are 4th round and later) doesn't work.

The best chance to get it right is the higher picks. The notion, for instance, that three 4th round picks of 15% each somehow gives you a 45% chance when combined is not so. Otherwise, it would mean it would be close to even to trade a 2nd for three 4ths and you'd have an approximately equal chance of getting a starter.

That completely ignores one of the rules of statistics that is called "Equally likely outcome".

For example. If there were 10 Lottery tickets and I bought 1, I have a 10% chance of winning. If I bought 3, I'd have a 30% chance. If I bought all 10 I'd have a 100% chance. That is because there is a definite amount of possibilities and outcomes (10).

However in the NFL draft, that is not the case. Because if it was, then having two 2nd round picks means you have a 100% chance of getting a starter ( two times 50%), which we know is not true (especially if you are a Ram fan!). That is because of the principle of "Equally likely outcome" in a non-definite pool of possibilities. And there is NOT a definite pool of equal possibilities in a player draft and even more the human variables are large.

The reality is that EVERY pick carries the same statistical percentage chance within the same range of picks. It does NOT improve your chances to have multiple picks in the same range except in small nearly incalculable way. Each 4th round pick carries the same statistical chance; whatever improvement by having multiple picks within the same range (round) has a much smaller statistic variability than simply multiplying the odds times the number of opportunities.

However; if you have a GREAT evaluator of talent who statistically drafts better, then you will have a greater chance of hitting on a starter. If you have a POOR evaluator of talent who statistically drafts worse, then you will have a lesser chance of hitting on a starter. When you combine them and divide by the number of evaluators you get an average performance that isn't necessarily even a real number.

Bottom line: higher picks are always better and lower picks are always worse when it comes to odds. No matter how many of each you may have.