Brentastic Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 I should add that, frankly, I'm not even certain that I even like the notion of the draft anyway and may not mind if they blew it up all together. As it is, it's a rather un-American manner of doing things. However, from a big picture stand point, I can understand why it's in the league's best interest to promote parity. However, if that's the intention, I do think it is failing. They should have an auction draft - the fairest way to distribute and reward players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bankerboy Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 They should have an auction draft - the fairest way to distribute and reward players. Yeah, but wouldn't you hate to be the $1 players at the end of the draft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 They should have an auction draft - the fairest way to distribute and reward players. While it wouldn't help subsidize bad ownership as much as a rookie salary structure (which unfortunately is likely what the NFL would prefer), it would be the best way to allow a savvy GM to turn around a bad franchise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Yeah, but wouldn't you hate to be the $1 players at the end of the draft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 The draft is already a complete failure and this will have little effect on making it any worse. There is no data that supports the fact that players taken in the first half of the 1st round end up being any better than those taken at the back half, yet teams have to pay so much more for them. So, basically, if you suck, you're forced into a perpetual cycle of having to spend the lion's share of your cap on unproven rookies while perennial contenders who are always at the back half can save their $$ for resigning their best players or poaching proven FAs. Certainly the draft has landed some serious blue chips with bad teams and that really helped turn them around. However, at least as often, it's because some 3rd rounder (or worse) ended up turning into the cornerstone for their franchise. The draft is a failure because, unlike the NBA, there's not a realistic rookie salary structure that makes high picks worth the monetary risk. Right now, they're absolutely not. I must admit I'd never thought of it this way. Very interesting perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Who are the ad wizards that signed Crabtree to an endorsement deal? I guess it's just a gamble at this point, signing him on the cheap and then hoping his image will brighten considerably over the next year or so... but I can tell you that I would 100% purposely avoid any product that was endorsed by someone that I believe to have horrible business judgment like Crabtree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bankerboy Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Who are the ad wizards that signed Crabtree to an endorsement deal? I guess it's just a gamble at this point, signing him on the cheap and then hoping his image will brighten considerably over the next year or so... but I can tell you that I would 100% purposely avoid any product that was endorsed by someone that I believe to have horrible business judgment like Crabtree. Oh I don't know, I think he'd make a great spokesperson for Tucks Medicated Pads....cuz he's a pain in the a.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friedrice Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 just heard on espn dallas radio station crabtree is heading to SF to talks contracts. should be interesting since the 9'ers are doing pretty well without him so far... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Pimp Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 just heard on espn dallas radio station crabtree is heading to SF to talks contracts. should be interesting since the 9'ers are doing pretty well without him so far... Shouldn't it be a pretty simple talk this time around? I thought the 9ers said it would be the contract they initially offered and then deduct the per game dollar amount for every week he misses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmillika Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 So, basically, if you suck, you're forced into a perpetual cycle of having to spend the lion's share of your cap on unproven rookies while perennial contenders who are always at the back half can save their $$ for resigning their best players or poaching proven FAs. Damn, never thought about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm hoping Crabtree sees the light and decides to contribute something positive to what is shaping up to be a nice little season for my Niners. Because if Crabtree gets in line, the team has two first rounders next year to spend at other positions. :drool: He has a chance to be an important part of making a good team great, and I hope he doesn't miss it out by being short-sighted. He'll make more money in the long run by playing - and winning now - then by sitting out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I should add that, frankly, I'm not even certain that I even like the notion of the draft anyway and may not mind if they blew it up all together. As it is, it's a rather un-American manner of doing things. However, from a big picture stand point, I can understand why it's in the league's best interest to promote parity. However, if that's the intention, I do think it is failing. Well, there's a couple things wrong with looking at it that way, IMO. If you're right about the front half not being better than the back half of the first round (and I'd say you are), then why wouldn't the perennial losers pass on their first round pick? Then they're getting end of first round talent for top of second round money, right? And if they're losing all those FA's to better managed teams then they're getting compensatory picks, right? More picks from the third on down. So again, an astute GM can work the draft, poach FA's, and doesn't HAVE to pick up those high-cost rooks. Each individual team is NOT a business without the league. The league is the business - the teams are just what they're correctly called - franchises. That's the reason Baseball needs a cap as well. The Royals and Pirates will never be contenders without a cap - they might be good once every 10 years. Well, the Chefs used to be, and the The only 6 time Super Bowl Winners and YOUR DADDY - well. I just don't think it's as bleak as you make out. But I've been wrong before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm hoping Crabtree sees the light and decides to contribute something positive to what is shaping up to be a nice little season for my Niners. Because if Crabtree gets in line, the team has two first rounders next year to spend at other positions. :drool: He has a chance to be an important part of making a good team great, and I hope he doesn't miss it out by being short-sighted. He'll make more money in the long run by playing - and winning now - then by sitting out. Can you imagine the niners with a franchise QB and a stud wideout? Fookin' scary team right there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bankerboy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Can you imagine the niners with a franchise QB and a stud wideout? Fookin' scary team right there. They've got Carolina's #1 which is looking like it might be a pretty high one at this point. Draft a cornerstone offensive lineman. One more year of Hill or Smith and then turn it over to Nate Davis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 So, basically, if you suck, you're forced into a perpetual cycle of having to spend the lion's share of your cap on unproven rookies while perennial contenders who are always at the back half can save their $$ for resigning their best players or poaching proven FAs. Proven FA's? Like who recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samson Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Jamarcus Russell was smart enough to hold out until he got his pay day . . . maybe the chump knew that he was bound to be a flop. Crabtree same deal? I like the idea of a hard rookie salary cap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 They've got Carolina's #1 which is looking like it might be a pretty high one at this point. Draft a cornerstone offensive lineman. One more year of Hill or Smith and then turn it over to Nate Davis. Maybe. But Hill is 7-0 in his last home games. I know he hasn't been flashy but 5 TDs to 1 INT isn't bad, and neither is his 93.3 QB rating. I can only imagine those figures would improve with an elite WR in the mix and Gore back in the saddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Maybe. But Hill is 7-0 in his last home games. I know he hasn't been flashy but 5 TDs to 1 INT isn't bad, and neither is his 93.3 QB rating. I can only imagine those figures would improve with an elite WR in the mix and Gore back in the saddle. all well and good, but at some point i want a long term qb, not just a game manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Well, there's a couple things wrong with looking at it that way, IMO. If you're right about the front half not being better than the back half of the first round (and I'd say you are), then why wouldn't the perennial losers pass on their first round pick? Then they're getting end of first round talent for top of second round money, right? And if they're losing all those FA's to better managed teams then they're getting compensatory picks, right? More picks from the third on down. So again, an astute GM can work the draft, poach FA's, and doesn't HAVE to pick up those high-cost rooks. Each individual team is NOT a business without the league. The league is the business - the teams are just what they're correctly called - franchises. That's the reason Baseball needs a cap as well. The Royals and Pirates will never be contenders without a cap - they might be good once every 10 years. Well, the Chefs used to be, and the The only 6 time Super Bowl Winners and YOUR DADDY - well. I just don't think it's as bleak as you make out. But I've been wrong before... Because it would be an absolute PR nightmare. It would be seen as one thing and one thing only, a move to cut costs at the expense of winning. Again, when you realize that spending money wisely is not only important to the bottom line but also to fielding a good team (because of the cap), it could likely be the best way to make your team good, but tell that to the season ticket holders, they'd see it as running a white flag up the pole. The other thing is that this has only gotten really, really out of hand within the last 4-5 years so it is just dawning on teams that a high pick sucks. None the less, you're already seeing it head that way. Every year, there are way more teams trying to trade out of the top 10 than teams looking to trade up. Just like they'd take a rash of crap for just skipping the pick altogether, they'd also take a rash of crap from the fan base if they don't get enough in return, so they end up stuck with it. However, the market never lies. So if nobody is willing to pay the price to move up, they're obviously asking too much. They're asking too much because pretty much anything is too much. I brought this up earlier this year, but there were like 5 OTs that with 1st round grades this year. Thing is, if you looked at 5 different expert rankings, you'd see the same 5 guys ranked in different order. So that tells me that nobody knew who the best would be but that pretty much everyone agreed that these 5 guys were the best out there. If you're looking to take an OT, would you rather have the 3rd pick and pay one of those guys $8 mil per year or get the 4th or 5th one left (who, btw, was ranked 1st on someone who studies this stuff for a living) at pick 20 and pay dude 1/3 that much? Proven FA's? Like who recently. Well, to be honest, I'd say the most important thing is to have money to resign your own proven players but I would imagine the success rate for FAs, while perhaps not great, is better than rookies. In both cases you might be putting the wrong guy in the wrong system but at least FAs have proven they can handle the speed of the game and have had success against the caliber of player they're going to be facing. Besides, there's a ton of low profile FAs who go on to be productive with their new teams. We always just notice the big name flops. But who couldn't use another body on the DL or something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Because it would be an absolute PR nightmare. It would be seen as one thing and one thing only, a move to cut costs at the expense of winning. Again, when you realize that spending money wisely is not only important to the bottom line but also to fielding a good team (because of the cap), it could likely be the best way to make your team good, but tell that to the season ticket holders, they'd see it as running a white flag up the pole. The other thing is that this has only gotten really, really out of hand within the last 4-5 years so it is just dawning on teams that a high pick sucks. None the less, you're already seeing it head that way. Every year, there are way more teams trying to trade out of the top 10 than teams looking to trade up. Just like they'd take a rash of crap for just skipping the pick altogether, they'd also take a rash of crap from the fan base if they don't get enough in return, so they end up stuck with it. However, the market never lies. So if nobody is willing to pay the price to move up, they're obviously asking too much. They're asking too much because pretty much anything is too much. I brought this up earlier this year, but there were like 5 OTs that with 1st round grades this year. Thing is, if you looked at 5 different expert rankings, you'd see the same 5 guys ranked in different order. So that tells me that nobody knew who the best would be but that pretty much everyone agreed that these 5 guys were the best out there. If you're looking to take an OT, would you rather have the 3rd pick and pay one of those guys $8 mil per year or get the 4th or 5th one left (who, btw, was ranked 1st on someone who studies this stuff for a living) at pick 20 and pay dude 1/3 that much? Well, to be honest, I'd say the most important thing is to have money to resign your own proven players but I would imagine the success rate for FAs, while perhaps not great, is better than rookies. In both cases you might be putting the wrong guy in the wrong system but at least FAs have proven they can handle the speed of the game and have had success against the caliber of player they're going to be facing. Besides, there's a ton of low profile FAs who go on to be productive with their new teams. We always just notice the big name flops. But who couldn't use another body on the DL or something? I'm not buying the PR thing. You think anyone in Miami was excited about Chad Pennington last year? 13-3 probably changed their minds. Winning cures all. If the lions would have passed on their first pick then ran up to take a DT at #10, and won 6 games this year, you think Det fans would be happy? Then next year they go to 9-7/10-6? Again, just win baby. That's the one truth. Winning cures all. Heck, here in ATL Aurthur Blank is already a Cardinal. He gets good GM's, who've made decent coaching decisions (Petrino excepted). If they have just nine wins, their first back-to-back winning seasons EVER, he'll be cannonized. Atlantans will be saying "Who needs mother T? Whe got Aurthur baby!". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 all well and good, but at some point i want a long term qb, not just a game manager. I hear ya, but we don't need awesomeness from the QB to win games with our current team. The last thing the team needs is another Alex Smith. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bankerboy Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 Maybe. But Hill is 7-0 in his last home games. I know he hasn't been flashy but 5 TDs to 1 INT isn't bad, and neither is his 93.3 QB rating. I can only imagine those figures would improve with an elite WR in the mix and Gore back in the saddle. Fair point. If that's the decision of the team, then that leaves additional pick(s) to work both sides of the line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I'm not buying the PR thing. You think anyone in Miami was excited about Chad Pennington last year? 13-3 probably changed their minds. Winning cures all. If the lions would have passed on their first pick then ran up to take a DT at #10, and won 6 games this year, you think Det fans would be happy? Then next year they go to 9-7/10-6? Again, just win baby. That's the one truth. Winning cures all. Heck, here in ATL Aurthur Blank is already a Cardinal. He gets good GM's, who've made decent coaching decisions (Petrino excepted). If they have just nine wins, their first back-to-back winning seasons EVER, he'll be cannonized. Atlantans will be saying "Who needs mother T? Whe got Aurthur baby!". Thing is, people aren't smart. So if you pull some stunt like this, you're gonna have a massive bullseye on your back. If you stay at the top of the draft and use the pick on whatever media darling is being forced down our throats come April and he fails, you won't get crucified because you did "what you're supposed to do" and simply got unlucky. I mean, it happens to 3-4 teams each and every draft. If you drop back for free and mine the later part of the round and that dude doesn't pan out, you're an idiot who passed on any of the handful of guys (who, looking back, everyone now knows) who turned out good. Never mind the fact that the mistake you're given a free pass on is on the books for $60 million over 6 years ($30 mil up front), and the other is only going to set you back 4 years for $10 million, only 3 of which is up front. Besides, these days, you need to sell tickets this year. I need to find that spreadsheet I made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bier Meister Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 I hear ya, but we don't need awesomeness from the QB to win games with our current team. The last thing the team needs is another Alex Smith. if we become the 85 bears, 00 ravens, or 06 bears... i am with you. prob is we just don't have the offensive tools, or a d as good as those teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted October 5, 2009 Share Posted October 5, 2009 has anyone that that maybe this is why the Raiders did not draft him?... the Raiders just aren't savvy enough to trade down and get the player they want.....they just take that player way too early.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.