I've always thought that the way to build an NFL team is to draft bulk (mostly lineman) and sign skill players ( mostly quarterbacks) in free agency. Players who depend on size and strength are easier to quantify. While for skill players the traits that make them successful are harder to measure.

This notion would seem to be reinforced by an article I came across on education in the New Yorker  which quotes a study done by two economists:

"In fact, Berri and Simmons found no connection between where a quarterback was taken in the draft—that is, how highly he was rated on the basis of his college performance—and how well he played in the pros."

Apparently playing quarterback in college is just so different than in the NFL, that there's hardly any good stat metric or scouting analysis that's a good predictor of success. The article has theories on why that's true, including faster players in the NFL and the development of the spread.

The article states that the best way to find a good quarterback (and teacher or financial adviser) is just to find a group of good candidates and expose them to the job and then weed out the best candidates. That sure sounds like signing QBs in free agency vs. the draft. But maybe I'm guilty of selection bias here.

Anyway, the story is a good read for the football analysis and a scout's take on Missouri quarterback Chase Daniel.

If you're into education policy at all, it's a good take on the current debate about trying to weed about bad teachers as the solution for America's ills in the classroom, championed by such people as Michelle Rhee, the head of D.C.'s public schools.