Another issue with the draft

[detlef]

So, as some of you know, I'm rather convinced the draft is absolutely broken. In summary, I've studied it, objectively evaluated how guys have panned out based on where they were taken in the first round, and found no measurable advantage to picking near the top of the first, as opposed to the bottom of the first. I'm sure others could look at the same set of players and come up with a somewhat different evaluation, but I doubt enough to truly change the findings. Hell, besides my findings, there's the simple fact that every year you hear of more teams looking to trade back than trade up. The price is almost never good enough for the team moving up because, well, a 1:1 swap of picks might actually be a bad deal for the team moving up based on what I've seen. So why would you actually sweeten the pot with extra picks?

 

The problem lies with the fact that the bad teams are stuck having to pay massive, massive salaries to guys no more (or barely more) likely to turn out good or great than the guys the better teams are taking at the end of the round and only having to pay relatively small amounts. Needless to say, considering cap issues, this is hardly an advantage.

 

So, the knee jerk reaction is to impose a rookie structure so at least the guys at the top aren't getting bent. I mean, it works for the NBA, right? At least that's how I felt about it until I thought further.

 

Well, one problem with that is that it doesn't take into account the fact that there can be a massive drop-off at one point that simply is not accounted for. Sometimes, the first pick is some random dude from Italy that only goes 1st because someone has to go first. Sometimes, there's a LeBron James or Shaq. It's rather un-American to limit the bargaining power of these guys relative to far-less talented players who just happen to enter the draft the same year as a bunch of stiffs. As a Niner fan, I remember vividly this happening when the Niners took Alex Smith. Part of the reason the Niners don't get slammed for making this pick is because it's not like anyone else had any better ideas. I mean, look at that top 10. Ronnie Brown is nice but I doubt the Niners would be any better with him, rather than Frank Gore (whom they took in the 3rd round that year). Cedric Benson? Pacman? The best of the 3 WRs to go in the top 10 is Braylon Edwards, the worst is not in the league, and then there's Troy Williamson. Whatever, there were a few nice DBs I guess. Point being is that this means the Alex Smith's of the world will make more than they "should" while superior talents that happen to be the 2nd or 3rd best in their draft class will make less.

 

At any rate, so as bad and, frankly unfair, it is to, not only tell players that they can only negotiate with one team but, in actuality can't even really negotiate with that team anyway because it has been pre-determined what they'll get paid, the NFL presents another wrinkle that the NBA does not. The fact that each position commands a different salary. In the NBA, your most important player is your best player. If you're Cleveland, you're most important player is your #3. If you're Dallas, it's your #4, Orlando, your #5, and the Lakers, your #2. In other words, the most coveted player in the draft, regardless of position, should command the most money, at least in the NBA. Not so in the NFL. Your most important player is your QB. Straight up. He might not be your best, but he's gonna touch the ball every play and will always command a higher salary. A QB taken at 10 is going to be able to negotiate a better contract than a Free Safety taken at 8, quite simply because one is a whole lot easier to come by than the other but it just happens the team at 8 needed a FS.

 

Alright, so if the draft as it stands fails to promote parity and actually may prevent it and locking in salaries based on where guys are picked is not realistic, what's the fix?

 

What about blowing the whole thing up? Just ditch the draft altogether. How would this be any worse? In years like I mentioned above when there's simply nobody all that good available, there's no virtual value placed on anyone to drive the price up, that's good for the teams when it's good for the teams. In years where there's one guy (or a couple guys) that everyone wants, then everyone can take a stab at him. That's good for the players when it's good for the players. Chances are, the best teams are going to be in the worst position to deal because they likely have more top notch players on their teams and thus have their money tied up in them. Since there's little evidence of coveted FAs taking less to play for the best teams, I doubt you'd find that among rookies. So, I don't see this making it any harder for bad teams to get good. So, as is often the case, less is more.

 

There is one thing, and one thing only that he NFL needs to best level the playing field, and that is the salary cap, which works great.

 

Mind you, this wouldn't ensure parity because poor evaluators of talent would still end up with crappy teams year in and year out. However, the current system isn't protecting them from that either. What this would do, however, is allow a savvy GM to more quickly turn around a bad team by not having his hand forced in any direction. If he truly feels a kid is "can't miss" then he can throw a bunch of money his way. Considering that the top pick in the draft is already commanding about as high a salary as the top veterans at his position, I can't imagine it getting any worse.

[Cameltosis]

You're out of ice in waitstation 2.

[detlef]

You're out of ice in waitstation 2.

[vt700guy]

A little wordy, but I think I get what you are wanting.

 

Basically you are saying that all players should be free agents coming out of college instead of going through a draft.

 

While your idea sounds good in theory, do you really think the Raiders would have an equal chance of landing a guy as the Patriots?

[detlef]

A little wordy, but I think I get what you are wanting.

 

Basically you are saying that all players should be free agents coming out of college instead of going through a draft.

 

While your idea sounds good in theory, do you really think the Raiders would have an equal chance of landing a guy as the Patriots?

It's a fair assumption that, money being equal, a team like the Pats will typically have an advantage over a team like the Raiders. Of course, right now, the only players the draft protects the Raiders from this are the rookies. When you consider that only those taken in the early rounds would result in any sort of bidding wars at all, that means there's maybe 2 or 3 players per year that the draft protects the Raiders from having the Patriots come and take away.

 

Of those players, stats show only about half end up being anything better than you could just go out and find in the Free Agent market anyway. So, now you're down to about 1 player.

 

Is it worth having to pay an excessive premium to be given the sole rights to a player of your choice, even if history shows that player is no more likely to pan out than the guy the Patriots were "stuck" with at the end of the same round?

 

None the less, if your team is a train wreck, it will remain so. For the same reason you can't attract good veteran FAs now, you'll have to overpay for rookie FAs in the new system. For the same reason you botch draft picks, you'll run out and spend like crazy for guys that nobody else wants. You can't make a system that protects GMs from being horrible at their jobs.

 

My point is that the current system doesn't do that any better and actually may hinder teams from climbing the ladder.

Edited October 8, 2009 by detlef

[cdrudge]

Basically you are saying that all players should be free agents coming out of college instead of going through a draft.

 

While your idea sounds good in theory, do you really think the Raiders would have an equal chance of landing a guy as the Patriots?

Isn't that essentially how it is in college football? All teams can essentially court any player. The Patriots can't take every rookie "free agent". There's going to be left overs. There would still be people that either want a bigger paycheck then what the Patriots would give them, or they want thinner depth at a position so they have a better chance of starting to land a bigger 2nd contract.

 

It's not a perfect system, but it's an interesting thought though.

[jetsfan]

While your idea sounds good in theory, do you really think the Raiders would have an equal chance of landing a guy as the Patriots?

 

Can you imagine JaMarcus Russel as a Patriot?

 

I can!

[detlef]

Isn't that essentially how it is in college football? All teams can essentially court any player. The Patriots can't take every rookie "free agent". There's going to be left overs. There would still be people that either want a bigger paycheck then what the Patriots would give them, or they want thinner depth at a position so they have a better chance of starting to land a bigger 2nd contract.

 

It's not a perfect system, but it's an interesting thought though.

Further, if people were concerned that teams like the Pats would have an unfair advantage (my guess it wouldn't be as big as most think but let's just say it's big), they could make it an auction format. The draft could work just like FF auctions where teams get to declare players for bid and the teams bid on that player. This was actually mentioned by someone in the Crabtree thread.

 

Obviously the opening bid would have to be the league minimum salary and there'd certainly be wrinkles to address like signing bonuses and such. The process would have to happen in a manner where players were going through this simultaneously and the process would obviously take more than a day.

 

Honestly, I don't think this would be needed but it would address that fear.

[Skilly]

In my opinion, the only thing wrong with the draft is that the owners have allowed each other to keep escalating the rookie salaries. I would like to see a rookie salary cap, but make it a one year guaranteed contract. If they make it through the year and do well, then reward them with a fat contract. If they suck, then the teams haven't lost out on all that money and they can choose to release the player or keep him on as a prospect at a reasonable salary.

[Chief]

I'd like to see 3yrs with a salary cap. Takes most 3 yrs to see if they pan out, if they earned it then, pay em.

[Chavez]

Isn't that essentially how it is in college football? All teams can essentially court any player. The Patriots can't take every rookie "free agent". There's going to be left overs. There would still be people that either want a bigger paycheck then what the Patriots would give them, or they want thinner depth at a position so they have a better chance of starting to land a bigger 2nd contract.

 

It's not a perfect system, but it's an interesting thought though.

Not to mention, as det didn't necessarily point out, if you cap the amount of money a team can spend on rookies, The Pats* might grab QB1 and RB1, and then be done except for a few low-dollar flyers, while another team may decide to grab a handful of mid-level guys, and maybe a rebuilding team will lowball for as many players as they can get.

 

 

* - I really think the Pats would be more of a "quantity" team in a rookie auction than a "quality" team, but nonetheless....

[detlef]

Not to mention, as det didn't necessarily point out, if you cap the amount of money a team can spend on rookies, The Pats* might grab QB1 and RB1, and then be done except for a few low-dollar flyers, while another team may decide to grab a handful of mid-level guys, and maybe a rebuilding team will lowball for as many players as they can get.

 

 

* - I really think the Pats would be more of a "quantity" team in a rookie auction than a "quality" team, but nonetheless....

I don't even see why you'd need to do this. Going deep on high priced rookies will prevent you from doing the same next year and/or signing veterans. It's all a trade off and would take care of itself.

[Yukon Cornelius]

A little wordy,

thats the name of his new Italian/Asian /Creole fusion restaurant.

[hooknladder]

i can't believe you posted something football related. i'm proud of you. but seriously, which Chardonnay goes best with cucumber sandiwiches?

[Caveman_Nick]

As a Niner fan, I remember vividly this happening when the Niners took Alex Smith. Part of the reason the Niners don't get slammed for making this pick is because it's not like anyone else had any better ideas. I mean, look at that top 10. Ronnie Brown is nice but I doubt the Niners would be any better with him, rather than Frank Gore (whom they took in the 3rd round that year). Cedric Benson? Pacman? The best of the 3 WRs to go in the top 10 is Braylon Edwards, the worst is not in the league, and then there's Troy Williamson. Whatever, there were a few nice DBs I guess. Point being is that this means the Alex Smith's of the world will make more than they "should" while superior talents that happen to be the 2nd or 3rd best in their draft class will make less.

 

You are experiencing a Draft History Fail here. The Niners were idiots for taking Alex Smith because they could have drafted Aaron Rodgers. For quite a long time it looked like they were going to do just that, and then through some miracle of team suckishness they went and grabbed Ryan Leaf II. Why Rodgers tumbled to GB is still a mystery, because he was the DeFacto #1 pick in that draft until after the NCAA Season and BCS were completed.

 

IMO the draft as it stands is just fine. It allows the worst teams the opportunity to address their needs first. A rookie salary structure would work just fine. I think your argument makes a lot of assumptions that center around NFL teams being able to make determinations about players that have yet to play a down and haphazardly assign them to contracts with no real basis for those salaries. Whether the talent is acquired through the draft or through some kind of rookie free agent pool, the same problems still exist with evaluating the players prior to playing in the NFL.

[MTSuper7]

Crappy teams are screwed no matter what, but they are royally screwed if they can't effectively evaluate talent. Sure, with the draft in place, all teams have to fork out tons of money to unproven talents, but strangely there are some teams that hit more often with their draft picks than others.

 

With a free agency approach, is money the only thing that matters to rookies? Maybe to some. But who really wants to play for the Raiders, Lions, Chiefs, Rams, etc.? The crappy teams are not always the ones with the most money to spend either, so things being equal (or nearly equal), I'm guessing players would just as soon avoid playing on a loser. At least with the draft, the player is forced to play for the team that drafts him or suffer the financial consequences.

[detlef]

You are experiencing a Draft History Fail here. The Niners were idiots for taking Alex Smith because they could have drafted Aaron Rodgers. For quite a long time it looked like they were going to do just that, and then through some miracle of team suckishness they went and grabbed Ryan Leaf II. Why Rodgers tumbled to GB is still a mystery, because he was the DeFacto #1 pick in that draft until after the NCAA Season and BCS were completed.

 

IMO the draft as it stands is just fine. It allows the worst teams the opportunity to address their needs first. A rookie salary structure would work just fine. I think your argument makes a lot of assumptions that center around NFL teams being able to make determinations about players that have yet to play a down and haphazardly assign them to contracts with no real basis for those salaries. Whether the talent is acquired through the draft or through some kind of rookie free agent pool, the same problems still exist with evaluating the players prior to playing in the NFL.

For starters, who's to say that Rodgers would have turned out as well as he has had he been thrown in and beaten up like Smith did. I'm not saying that's all there is to it but there's some pretty decent evidence to support QBs fairing better when they don't get thrown to the wolves right away. In fact, the last three rookie QBs who have looked pretty good just happened to get drafted by otherwise good teams that either happened to have a bad year and end up with a good pick or traded up (ATL, and NYJ) or they were a mid round pick anyway.

 

The point being, we can certainly look back at that or any draft and say this team or that should have taken so and so and I do understand that some thought Rodgers was the best QB prospect but it was anything but a consensus. Something that is rather substantiated by the fact that, not only the Niners, but 20 other teams passed on him. Need or not, if the guy is everyone's #1, someone's either going to take him anyway or trade up to get him when he makes the middle of the round.

 

And how is my argument centered around some haphazzard assignations of value when you're the one advocating slotting salaries with picks? Is the 8th best guy one year as good as the 8th best guy another? Have we not seen both loaded and thin drafts? Isn't that pretty haphazzard?

[Caveman_Nick]

And how is my argument centered around some haphazzard assignations of value when you're the one advocating slotting salaries with picks? Is the 8th best guy one year as good as the 8th best guy another? Have we not seen both loaded and thin drafts? Isn't that pretty haphazzard?

 

It's not a haphazard assignment of values, it's a haphazard process. The draft is a tidy process.

 

As far as thin versus flush draft classes, all I can say is that there have been many players that nobody thought would amount to anything and that became great and plenty of players that people thought would be great but sucked. Changing the process doesn;t change this fact. Do a better job scouting for the draft and you will not waste your pick and pay a player that isn;t NFL worthy significant money.

[NAUgrad]

You are experiencing a Draft History Fail here. The Niners were idiots for taking Alex Smith because they could have drafted Aaron Rodgers. For quite a long time it looked like they were going to do just that, and then through some miracle of team suckishness they went and grabbed Ryan Leaf II. Why Rodgers tumbled to GB is still a mystery, because he was the DeFacto #1 pick in that draft until after the NCAA Season and BCS were completed.

Not quite true. The spin on Rodgers was that many people weren't sure he was really that good playing in an air it out offense. The longer teams looked at him the lower he dropped. The reason why he dropped to GB was because once the top couple of QB's were drafted, there really wasn't much of a need until GB. Happens all the time in drafts.

[detlef]

It's not a haphazard assignment of values, it's a haphazard process. The draft is a tidy process.

 

As far as thin versus flush draft classes, all I can say is that there have been many players that nobody thought would amount to anything and that became great and plenty of players that people thought would be great but sucked. Changing the process doesn;t change this fact. Do a better job scouting for the draft and you will not waste your pick and pay a player that isn;t NFL worthy significant money.

I think that there are too many teams and too many GMs that have had the same, rather unimpressive results to say that it's as easy as this. Sure, Oakland seems to be whiffing right and left and Pittsburgh and NE tend to find great players pretty often. But there's a lot in the middle and the data seems to be pretty widespread.

 

Also, perhaps the success rates of better teams with picks is the manner in which these players are indoctrinated from the outset. You join the Raiders, you adopt their crappy attitude, you join the Steelers and Troy Palumalu and Hines Ward pretty much see to it that you get your chight straight.

 

Once again, there are too many guys doing too much research, and coming up with draft boards that are far too similar to pin the failures of high draft picks on one team or another. Kiper and Glazer and god knows who else say this guy is the bomb. Then your team picks him at #5 and you're pumped up. Then, 3 years later, when dude is a stiff, you trash your team for making a lousy pick. Hell, everyone was crapping all over Tenn for "reaching" for Chris Johnson a few years back because, according to the experts, there were at least a few backs on the board that were better and he was a "2nd round talent at best". Seems like they did OK.

 

What changing the process does do is not strong-arm bad teams into having to spend mad jack on a pool of players who are statistically shown to be rather bad bets as a whole. That's it. And, while a rookie cap addresses this, one needs to be careful about the degree to which the owners protect themselves from themselves (which is all this is. Because they lack the balls to simply not pay these guys at the top as much as they do, they want to legislate a cap) at the expense of the rights of their work force.

[NAUgrad]

Also, perhaps the success rates of better teams with picks is the manner in which these players are indoctrinated from the outset. You join the Raiders, you adopt their crappy attitude, you join the Steelers and Troy Palumalu and Hines Ward pretty much see to it that you get your chight straight.

This is exactly what I've been thinking about lately. I also wonder if some team just do a better job coaching and having the right coaches with the right group of players.

[Big John]

Not quite true. The spin on Rodgers was that many people weren't sure he was really that good playing in an air it out offense. The longer teams looked at him the lower he dropped. The reason why he dropped to GB was because once the top couple of QB's were drafted, there really wasn't much of a need until GB. Happens all the time in drafts.

Rodgers was the 2nd QB taken in that draft at 1.24. Campbell went with the next pick at 1.25.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

So, as some of you know, I'm rather convinced the draft is absolutely broken. In summary, I've studied it, objectively evaluated how guys have panned out based on where they were taken in the first round, and found no measurable advantage to picking near the top of the first, as opposed to the bottom of the first. I'm sure others could look at the same set of players and come up with a somewhat different evaluation, but I doubt enough to truly change the findings. Hell, besides my findings, there's the simple fact that every year you hear of more teams looking to trade back than trade up. The price is almost never good enough for the team moving up because, well, a 1:1 swap of picks might actually be a bad deal for the team moving up based on what I've seen. So why would you actually sweeten the pot with extra picks?

 

 

There is one thing, and one thing only that he NFL needs to best level the playing field, and that is the salary cap, which works great.

 

The NFL draft is one of tools the league uses to keep the competition at a high level and keep the games close. The leagus success is based on fan interest. Close games and tight competition keep fans viewing at home (and keep advertising dollars high) and overall strong competition within the divisions keeps playoff races close and the wild card battle intense. The playoff games seem better every year. The worst picks first draft order is one of the ways the NFL attempts to keep the competition at its best. Signing draft picks is the cost of doing business and the players being drafted and signed (whether for good or bad) are being selected and paid because they've impressed at a certain level and are compensated as such. Believe it or not detlef there is a long line of people who are probably quite a bit smarter than you (hard to imagine) who evaluate and re-evaluate each player. There are a lot of misses but there seem to be just enough hits that its worth it. Ask the Colts if they'd give back Peyton Manning or the Cowboys Troy Aikman or the Packers Paul Hornung or maybe the Steelers would give back Terry Bradshaw or the Oilers Earl Campbell. The owners are taking a gamble with every player they sign in the same way the players gamble as college athletes going out and playing hard, risking injury and working to the point that they're considered a first round pick. There are no real crystal balls, no one knows how any one player can perform at the NFL level, its speculative. I find it hilarious that the NFL should scrap a system that has helped become one of the most succesful pro sports league in the world. Maybe if the 49ers hadn't whiffed on Alex Smith detlef wouldn't have had this eiphany but fortunately he did. Hopefully he'll publish his "study" and "findings" for all of us to see as well as sending a dossier to the NFL league office. Hopefully detlef will include his suggestion of a "salary cap"

Edited October 9, 2009 by Big Ernie McCracken

[detlef]

The NFL draft is one of tools the league uses to keep the competition at a high level and keep the games close. The leagus success is based on fan interest. Close games and tight competition keep fans viewing at home (and keep advertising dollars high) and overall strong competition within the divisions keeps playoff races close and the wild card battle intense. The playoff games seem better every year. The worst picks first draft order is one of the ways the NFL attempts to keep the competition at its best. Signing draft picks is the cost of doing business and the players being drafted and signed (whether for good or bad) are being selected and paid because they've impressed at a certain level and are compensated as such. Believe it or not detlef there is a long line of people who are probably quite a bit smarter than you (hard to imagine) who evaluate and re-evaluate each player. There are a lot of misses but there seem to be just enough hits that its worth it. Ask the Colts if they'd give back Peyton Manning or the Cowboys Troy Aikman or the Packers Paul Hornung or maybe the Steelers would give back Terry Bradshaw or the Oilers Earl Campbell. The owners are taking a gamble with every player they sign in the same way the players gamble as college athletes going out and playing hard, risking injury and working to the point that they're considered a first round pick. There are no real crystal balls, no one knows how any one player can perform at the NFL level, its speculative. I find it hilarious that the NFL should scrap a system that has helped become one of the most succesful pro sports league in the world. Maybe if the 49ers hadn't whiffed on Alex Smith detlef wouldn't have had this eiphany but fortunately he did. Hopefully he'll publish his "study" and "findings" for all of us to see as well as sending a dossier to the NFL league office. Hopefully detlef will include his suggestion of a "salary cap"

Funny, whether you bother to type or simply just post a link, you still manage to say nothing.

 

1) Contracts for early 1st round draft picks has only seriously outpaced the rest of the round within the past 5-10 years, so only Manning, of the guys you mentioned above, might qualify. None the less, for every one of those, there's just as many busts. Should I also make a long list of guys who ended up as cornerstones of their franchises despite being picked much later? What's your point?

 

2) All you've said is that the product is great but made no decent argument as to why the draft has anything to do with that. You need to connect the dots. You say it's "how they attempt" to level the playing field. Thing is, prior to the cap, the field was anything but level. It was an era of dynasties. The Packers, The Raiders, The Steelers, My Niners, The Cowboys. There was no parity at all. You know what fixed that? The salary cap. It's all they needed then and it's all they need now.

 

3) As for the cost of doing business. That's the thing, the cost of doing business is too high. Look for yourself Go back and check out the drafts yourself. See if if the players taken in the top 10 picks are 5x more likely to end up great or even good than any of the other tiers. Don't just find one year where it might have worked out. Look at it year in and year out. It's all a gamble, so you have to find the best odds. Would you pay 5x as much for a guy who has a marginally better shot, if any at all, chance of panning out than another?

 

4) Certainly this isn't the first time you've heard that the worst teams are hardly being "rewarded" by picking at the top of the draft. It's the battle cry of everyone who's looking to place a rookie wage scale on the table (which does include just a few guys who know what's going on). Something that I realize would provide the desired effect of making the draft do what it's supposed to do but just don't think is a realistic or fair way of doing business.

[Big Ernie McCracken]

Funny, whether you bother to type or simply just post a link, you still manage to say nothing.

 

1) Contracts for early 1st round draft picks has only seriously outpaced the rest of the round within the past 5-10 years, so only Manning, of the guys you mentioned above, might qualify. None the less, for every one of those, there's just as many busts. Should I also make a long list of guys who ended up as cornerstones of their franchises despite being picked much later? What's your point?

 

2) All you've said is that the product is great but made no decent argument as to why the draft has anything to do with that. You need to connect the dots. You say it's "how they attempt" to level the playing field. Thing is, prior to the cap, the field was anything but level. It was an era of dynasties. The Packers, The Raiders, The Steelers, My Niners, The Cowboys. There was no parity at all. You know what fixed that? The salary cap. It's all they needed then and it's all they need now.

 

3) As for the cost of doing business. That's the thing, the cost of doing business is too high. Look for yourself Go back and check out the drafts yourself. See if if the players taken in the top 10 picks are 5x more likely to end up great or even good than any of the other tiers. Don't just find one year where it might have worked out. Look at it year in and year out. It's all a gamble, so you have to find the best odds. Would you pay 5x as much for a guy who has a marginally better shot, if any at all, chance of panning out than another?

 

4) Certainly this isn't the first time you've heard that the worst teams are hardly being "rewarded" by picking at the top of the draft. It's the battle cry of everyone who's looking to place a rookie wage scale on the table (which does include just a few guys who know what's going on). Something that I realize would provide the desired effect of making the draft do what it's supposed to do but just don't think is a realistic or fair way of doing business.

 

 

I look foward to the findings from your study