Draft: now how do you see the top 5 shaking out?

[detlef]

I would love to see the team with the #1 overall pick trade back to the #2 or #3 spot for absolutely no compensation (just because they don't want to pay out the #1 overall contract).

If you like 1-3 equally, why wouldn't you? Besides the fact that you'd take a rash of crap from your fan base (after all, the customer is always right). We're all for moving back with extra picks. What about moving back for extra cap space? How's that any different? In one case, you get an extra rookie. In the other, you save a few million in cap space to throw at a player who's already played at the pro level. What, truly, is the difference?

 

Again, what can't be forgotten is that it's not like you can spend as much as you want. If that was the case, then this would matter less in terms of being an effective way to even the playing field. However, every penny you spend on a rookie is a penny you can't spend elsewhere. So, if you have to pay a whole lot more for a guy, he has to be that much more likely to be great than another.

 

You mean like the Vikings slipping from 7th to 9th?

Maybe that was the case. Maybe they thought, "hell, I don't care which of the next three we end up with. Let's save a few million." It's actually pretty smart.

Edited April 9, 2010 by detlef

[Square]

You don't need to scrap the whole system. They just need to add a rookie salary cap. Pick 1 gets X amount, Pick 2 gets X amount, Pick 3 gets X amount.

 

BTW, I'm still hoping St. Louis takes a QB so Suh can go to the Lions.

[BeeR]

So if you look at the situation logically, is getting the "5th best" among guys who are a virtual dead heat really such a bad thing if he costs you half as much?

Probably not, in general. But this is "a game of inches" in more ways than one and a guy who is "just" a little better than another in this or that way might be more than enough to justify the expense. Not always of course but sometimes.

 

Also, you realize that you just undid your NO and Indy argument with the very next sentence. NO and Indy aren't NY, Boston, Chicago, etc. They're smaller markets in the big picture. And if everyone wants to go to NY rather than Seattle, why don't they? There is, after all free agency. Do we have some evidence to support that guys are willing to take less money to go there? Not really. What we have is evidence that guys will go wherever is willing to give them the most money.

Again I think you're oversimplifying. Sure money is huge, but it's not ONLY about the money, which I think was the point. It's also about the city and/or the team. ie give most guys a choice of making X amount to play for the Lions or X amount less to play for the Saints....unless the $ diff is dramatic, I'm betting most will go to the Saints. They want that ring.

 

I can see tweaking the $ structure, but not scrapping the draft entirely. That would be a huge mistake.

 

Besides then what does Melvin Krapper do for a living? Sell real estate? Go around trying to win Eddie Munster look alike contests?

Edited April 10, 2010 by BeeR

[detlef]

You don't need to scrap the whole system. They just need to add a rookie salary cap. Pick 1 gets X amount, Pick 2 gets X amount, Pick 3 gets X amount.

 

BTW, I'm still hoping St. Louis takes a QB so Suh can go to the Lions.

While that is certainly the easiest way to make the draft do what it is intended to do, it asks for the players to give up yet another thing. Now, not only do you have no choice in where you're going to play, you have no say in how much you're going to get paid.

[detlef]

Probably not, in general. But this is "a game of inches" in more ways than one and a guy who is "just" a little better than another in this or that way might be more than enough to justify the expense. Not always of course but sometimes.

 

 

Again I think you're oversimplifying. Sure money is huge, but it's not ONLY about the money, which I think was the point. It's also about the city and/or the team. ie give most guys a choice of making X amount to play for the Lions or X amount less to play for the Saints....unless the $ diff is dramatic, I'm betting most will go to the Saints. They want that ring.

 

I can see tweaking the $ structure, but not scrapping the draft entirely. That would be a huge mistake.

 

Besides then what does Melvin Krapper do for a living? Sell real estate? Go around trying to win Eddie Munster look alike contests?

I put "5th best" in quotes because, sometimes, nobody really knows. Just because we assume guys in the top 10 are surer bets than those who go in the next 10 doesn't mean it's true. So, I'm not saying that the guy picked first is "just a little better". I'm saying that there's precious little data to support that he's actually any better at all than the guy who gets picked 2nd, 3rd, or maybe 4th or 5th at his position. The only reason one is ranked 1st and the other 2nd is because, well, someone has to be ranked 1st. Not always, mind you, but often. That, frankly, is the danger in slotting compensation in the draft. It doesn't do anything to differentiate a situation where the top 10 guys are a dead heat in terms of how everyone sees them and when there's a clear cut batch of 3 or 4 that everyone would kill for and then a major drop-off.

 

As for everyone wanting to play for the best teams, even for less money. Again, why would rookies behave any differently than veteran? Vets have shown in no uncertain terms that they're prepared to play for a bad team if the paycheck is right. TJ Housh signed as a FA with the very Seahawks mentioned above. Scott Fugita, who apparently is a total class act and left NO on very good terms, I believe donating his SB bonus to charities in the city, signed as a FA with the Browns. Talk about going from the top to the bottom for a bigger paycheck. Those two just happened to come to mind but the draft is the only way where players are forced to bad teams and yet plenty of other players end up there.

[keggerz]

While that is certainly the easiest way to make the draft do what it is intended to do, it asks for the players to give up yet another thing. Now, not only do you have no choice in where you're going to play, you have no say in how much you're going to get paid.

actually they do have a choice...they could choose to not enter the draft and get a job with the wonderful education they got at their fine college or university...then they can apply to work for whatever company they want to

[detlef]

actually they do have a choice...they could choose to not enter the draft and get a job with the wonderful education they got at their fine college or university...then they can apply to work for whatever company they want to

Obviously. However, considering this is actually about negotiating between labor and management within the context of playing football in the NFL, your point is about irrelevant. Essentially, what you are "offering" as an alternative to accepting not only being told where you will work but having no say in for how much is an invitation the union to piss off and walk out. If what you're asking was no big deal, then it would already be in place. However, the players realize that it is something rather major to give up and so it is not.

[Scooby's Hubby]

How hard is it to find good Left Tackles? OMG, they are gone by the 10th pick. We really could use one in Dallas.

[Wpob]

I see the Rams passing on Bradford. I think they are hoping to trade the pick so that is why they have no signed a decent QB to start this year. One will surely be available on draft day (Campbell?) so I am guessing the Rams take Suh, trade the #33 and a later pick for a pick in the mid 20s and take Clausen.

[detlef]

I see the Rams passing on Bradford. I think they are hoping to trade the pick so that is why they have no signed a decent QB to start this year. One will surely be available on draft day (Campbell?) so I am guessing the Rams take Suh, trade the #33 and a later pick for a pick in the mid 20s and take Clausen.

I doubt Clausen will be there in the mid 20s. Obviously stranger things have happened, but if the Rams pass on Bradford without moving down from 1 to, say 10 or so, they're effectively passing on both Bradford and Clausen. Not that I think that's a bad idea or anything, because I think they should go Suh. I think you always take the surest thing you can get at pick 1 and a big guy who can move fast is something you can more likely take to the bank than a guy who needs to develop a ton of unmeasurables in order to be worth the scratch you're going to have to pay him. Just saying that a lot of things would have to break right for Clausen to last that long. And if that's the case, they'll have some competition moving back up into the 20s to grab him because I imagine others will see that as a value pick at that point.

[Seahawks21]

The Seahawks got Housh, but had to drastically overpay because they play in Seattle, and he is far and away the best FA the Seahawks have ever been able to talk into coming here. The only other two in the debate are Kerney (who was hurt for like three years before we signed him), and Wistrom, who they had to pay about twice going rate for. That is it. In their entire history. That is it. In 30 plus years, they have managed to bring in those three free agents. The day the draft is gone is the day the Seahawks become the Montreal Expos. Might as well dissolve the franchise because they'll never compete again. At least in baseball you can still build through the draft.

 

I agree with nixing the draft on many levels, mostly because players become property and can't make their own decision. If there was any way to supplement your team other than the draft or free agency, it might work, but there is no way any player is going to come to Seattle by choice unless he is vastly overpaid to do so. At least the draft is fair in theory.

 

Over time, the league has gotten more and more accurate at predicting the success of the prospects. It will never be perfect, but those with strong enough talent evaluation staffs traditionally do quite well in the draft. As evaluating procedures evolve, the teams will continue to get better and better at it.

 

The Rams have earned a great chance to get a franchise-changing player. The odds are that it works out in the end. Except for the Lions, teams don't stay terrible for all that long in the NFL. I don't see this as a system that is so broken that it needs that drastic of an overhaul.

Edited April 12, 2010 by Seahawks21

[BeeR]

Bradford

McCoy

Suh

Okung

Bulaga

 

And next 5 for giggles:

 

Clausen

Haden

A Davis

D Wms

Bryant

Edited April 22, 2010 by BeeR