Detroit thinking of letting time run out on first pick

[pack4to84]

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/04/the_nfl_says_the_lions_are_all.html


NFL says Lions are allowed to pass on No. 1 pick
Taking a play out of the Vikings play book.

[Joemailman]

It worked okay for the Vikings in 2003. They had the 7th pick, but picked 9th and took a great player in Kevin Williams. The 7th pick was an average player, Byron Leftwich, and 8th was a very good player, Jordan Gross.

So if no one wants the #1 pick, who should TT take at #1? :D

[sheepshead]

get out TT. I would do anything to get out. The NFL needs to do something. The NFL draft is a farce.

[red]

i honestly don't know why more teams don't do this at the top of the draft

if the guy you really want and need isn't worth of the top few picks, then why pay him like one? let time run out, drop down a few spots, then grab the guy you want, at a massive discount

[packers11]

i honestly don't know why more teams don't do this at the top of the draft

if the guy you really want and need isn't worth of the top few picks, then why pay him like one? let time run out, drop down a few spots, then grab the guy you want, at a massive discount

Imagine the domino effect this would create... There is only one GM who would stop it... Al Davis picking at #7.... He would defiantly pick in the number one spot overall :lol:

[Spaulding]

i honestly don't know why more teams don't do this at the top of the draft

if the guy you really want and need isn't worth of the top few picks, then why pay him like one? let time run out, drop down a few spots, then grab the guy you want, at a massive discount

What happens if a team surprises everyone and takes the player you as a GM thought would be available several slots down?

Do you risk that chance if the only difference is money and you have the cap to spare?

Works fine if you have three players you'd be happy with and slip two spots so you can sign one of them cheaper but I could also definitely see this coming back to bite some GM in the ass.

[digitaldean]

If this does happen, expect Goodell to come down hard on anybody in future drafts.

Miss your pick, forfeit that pick plus your next one. That'll keep teams from doing it. Plus it'll keep the draft moving along. No one would want to forfeit 2 picks.

Otherwise, it'll be in the same category as the Broncos circumventing the salary cap or the tampering rule. Both were a joke.

[3irty1]

I was talking about how much sense this would make with one of my friends a few months ago. The thing about letting time run out is then it becomes a race to turn in your selection. Could be fun especially since there are two tackles that are rated about evenly right at the top of the draft.

[Partial]

I wonder if they'll pick Stafford. If they don't, I can seem him falling to our spot.. Big time opportunity for a blockbuster trade.

[Lurker64]

Every year that there's not a clear cut #1 overall superstar there's talk about passing the #1 overall pick. It never happens, but it's an easy story for the local papers to write, so it always gets written.

[Partial]

Anyone consider Denver dealing up to get Stafford if he falls to say 8-9ish?!?

I'd love to take those two firsts off their hands :D

[Joemailman]

Why would they draft Stafford? They have Orton and Chris Simms. :D

[red]

Anyone consider Denver dealing up to get Stafford if he falls to say 8-9ish?!?

I'd love to take those two firsts off their hands :D

not gonna happen, not in a million years

#9 is worth 1350

#12 is worth 1200

#18 is woth 900

1200+900= 2100

2100-1350= 750 or the value of the 23rd pick. they wouldn't throw away that kind of value.

but i'm sure you'll disagree just to be a dick

[RashanGary]

It gets leaked out to help with the contract negotiation.

[Dylan McKay]

Well if Goodell comes down on teams skipping their turn in the draft then the league needs to do something about the outrageous sums of cash these top 5 picks are getting, especially the number one pick overall. It handicaps teams that are already poor considering they have the number 1 pick overall, and it is also a slap in the face of all the veteran players that have had success at the pro level.

[Guiness]

Ya, this seems to come up every year, but never happens. There was a thread on it last year as well. Personally, I like the idea, and think it would be great if it happened, but for some reason, it sure doesn't look like it ever will.

[Fritz]

A friend of mine suggested this to me last week. There appear to be absolutely no rules against doing this - so why not? If you're Detroit, and you'd be happy with Smith or Monroe or Stafford, why not let the clock run out and then pick after the next two teams pick, or until you are down to the guy you want?

Why not?

[Rastak]

If this does happen, expect Goodell to come down hard on anybody in future drafts.

Miss your pick, forfeit that pick plus your next one. That'll keep teams from doing it. Plus it'll keep the draft moving along. No one would want to forfeit 2 picks.

Otherwise, it'll be in the same category as the Broncos circumventing the salary cap or the tampering rule. Both were a joke.


Not sure I agree. When the Vikes missed their pick (the year the grabbed McKinney I think) they had a trade with the Ravens and the Ravens were late reporting it so the Vikings were still on the clock and missed their pick. Can't have that sort of penalty when things can go wrong.


Hell, why not allow a team to pass. The only real downside if everyone does and everyone keeps doing so because nobody in the draft is worth 30 mil up front.

A travesty like that might prompt the owers to take a stand against these crazy assed rookie contracts at the top of the draft.

[Packnut]

If this does happen, expect Goodell to come down hard on anybody in future drafts.

Miss your pick, forfeit that pick plus your next one. That'll keep teams from doing it. Plus it'll keep the draft moving along. No one would want to forfeit 2 picks.

Otherwise, it'll be in the same category as the Broncos circumventing the salary cap or the tampering rule. Both were a joke.


Not sure I agree. When the Vikes missed their pick (the year the grabbed McKinney I think) they had a trade with the Ravens and the Ravens were late reporting it so the Vikings were still on the clock and missed their pick. Can't have that sort of penalty when things can go wrong.


Hell, why not allow a team to pass. The only real downside if everyone does and everyone keeps doing so because nobody in the draft is worth 30 mil up front.

A travesty like that might prompt the owers to take a stand against these crazy assed rookie contracts at the top of the draft.

The amount of money is just insane. This madness of giving a guy who's never played a down in the NFL has to stop. It's gotten to the point now where it's having a serious negative effect on the game.

[Gunakor]

In the scenario of the team picking first forfeiting their pick, wouldn't the team picking second - then picking first - still have to pay first overall money to their pick? Or would the salary scale remain the same as if a player was picked in the first overall slot?

[digitaldean]

Hell, why not allow a team to pass. The only real downside if everyone does and everyone keeps doing so because nobody in the draft is worth 30 mil up front.

A travesty like that might prompt the owers to take a stand against these crazy assed rookie contracts at the top of the draft.

I do agree with the idea of a rookie salary cap. It is absolutely moronic for a greenhorn rookie 1st rounder to make more coin than an established veteran.

If the NFL and NFLPA would think about this, it'd be a no-brainer to work together in next CBA to get this accomplished.

[KYPack]

I didn't know you could miss and then jump back in when you wanted to.

If Detroit does it, then it's gotta be stupid.

[pbmax]

There is a point of no return with this, though. If enough teams do it, then eventually one team gets the player they want and that team will listen to the savvy agent and break the bank for a draft position with the argument that though you held pick #7, you got the 3rd player picked, etc.

Then the next year, when the front end is loaded, teams will be crying at the jump in money. And every slot around that pick gets more expensive as well. That is not to mention the possibility that you wait, get one of the players you had targeted, and they bust. Good luck retaining your job after that public relation nightmare.

I think that GMs with the third pick are still cursing the Browns and Braylon Edwards' contract.

[channtheman]

Why not put a cap on the amount of money that a rookie can make in guaranteed? Say the max they can make is 10 million their first year, and then after that year they can re-negotiate the contract based on their performance. I too agree that giving a rookie 20 million or more in guaranteed money is just BS.

[SnakeLH2006]

I didn't know you could miss and then jump back in when you wanted to.

If Detroit does it, then it's gotta be stupid.

The curse of Millen remains...Then what was the point of tanking games they coulda won in 2008 for the Lions. Oh wait sorry....the Lions truly suck(ed) and still do if that is their logic. :lol:

[Lurker64]

The reason nobody does this, and the reason this is a bad idea is as follows.

Suppose Detroit wants to draft one of two players: Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez. When you miss your turn in the draft, you don't have priority over the next team, it's just that whoever hands in their card first (you or the next team) ends up getting that pick then. So suppose Detroit waits until somebody picks Stafford, and then they plan on getting Sanchez. Well, their ability to get Sanchez hinges on whether or not they can get their draft card handed in before the team who was scheduled to pick in this spot can hand in their draft card. If the other team that's scheduled to pick then gets in before Detroit does, well... then what's Detroit going to do?

[SnakeLH2006]

The reason nobody does this, and the reason this is a bad idea is as follows.

Suppose Detroit wants to draft one of two players: Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez. When you miss your turn in the draft, you don't have priority over the next team, it's just that whoever hands in their card first (you or the next team) ends up getting that pick then. So suppose Detroit waits until somebody picks Stafford, and then they plan on getting Sanchez. Well, their ability to get Sanchez hinges on whether or not they can get their draft card handed in before the team who was scheduled to pick in this spot can hand in their draft card. If the other team that's scheduled to pick then gets in before Detroit does, well... then what's Detroit going to do?

Exhibit A: The Lions are truly retarded if this is true. NEVER sacrifice your ground anywhere, esp. in the draft. Either find a trade-down taker or take your man. I agree it makes not sense. Damn...take a 7th round pick and scrub punter if you have to, but never give up ground on your draft status...That reeks of incompetence and cheapness if you ask Snake. Nothing good comes of that, as you hand you fortunes to another team. Not making much sense....

[MJZiggy]

The reason nobody does this, and the reason this is a bad idea is as follows.

Suppose Detroit wants to draft one of two players: Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez. When you miss your turn in the draft, you don't have priority over the next team, it's just that whoever hands in their card first (you or the next team) ends up getting that pick then. So suppose Detroit waits until somebody picks Stafford, and then they plan on getting Sanchez. Well, their ability to get Sanchez hinges on whether or not they can get their draft card handed in before the team who was scheduled to pick in this spot can hand in their draft card. If the other team that's scheduled to pick then gets in before Detroit does, well... then what's Detroit going to do?

I think if you miss your pick, you lose it. That would be better.

[Fritz]

While it might be useful to tinker with the draft system so it would be harder to deliberately miss a pick, the real solution, as it seems everyone here acknowledges, is to fix that crazy top-pick money.

When you were on the playground as the captain of the team, getting to pick first was a huge advantage, and it should be in the NFL, too.

[MJZiggy]

Exactly. I thought that fixing the ridiculous payscale went without saying.

[sheepshead]

Anyone consider Denver dealing up to get Stafford if he falls to say 8-9ish?!?

I'd love to take those two firsts off their hands :D

not gonna happen, not in a million years

#9 is worth 1350

#12 is worth 1200

#18 is woth 900

1200+900= 2100

2100-1350= 750 or the value of the 23rd pick. they wouldn't throw away that kind of value.

but i'm sure you'll disagree just to be a dick


That chart got thrown out years ago.

[Partial]

Anyone consider Denver dealing up to get Stafford if he falls to say 8-9ish?!?

I'd love to take those two firsts off their hands :D

not gonna happen, not in a million years

#9 is worth 1350

#12 is worth 1200

#18 is woth 900

1200+900= 2100

2100-1350= 750 or the value of the 23rd pick. they wouldn't throw away that kind of value.

but i'm sure you'll disagree just to be a dick

Just since you said that, I disagree. I think they would trade us both picks :lol:

[3irty1]

I hope that it gets so bad that all the GM's just draft bums with the intention of cutting them in the first round. Or get together and have a fantasy draft of all the college players ahead of time and then when the draft comes around make all their selections in reverse order.

[red]

Anyone consider Denver dealing up to get Stafford if he falls to say 8-9ish?!?

I'd love to take those two firsts off their hands :D

not gonna happen, not in a million years

#9 is worth 1350

#12 is worth 1200

#18 is woth 900

1200+900= 2100

2100-1350= 750 or the value of the 23rd pick. they wouldn't throw away that kind of value.

but i'm sure you'll disagree just to be a dick


That chart got thrown out years ago.

no, theres been talk about how it should change with the top picks being more of a burden then a blessing, but if you go through the trades that have been made you can see that its still pretty damn close

with a few exceptions of course

the charts not an exact science, but it does give teams a good starting point

[Tarlam!]

The amount of money is just insane. This madness of giving a guy who's never played a down in the NFL has to stop. It's gotten to the point now where it's having a serious negative effect on the game.

:shock: I actually agree with somethinmg you posted. Oh, God. Hell has frozen over....

[red]

The amount of money is just insane. This madness of giving a guy who's never played a down in the NFL has to stop. It's gotten to the point now where it's having a serious negative effect on the game.

:shock: I actually agree with somethinmg you posted. Oh, God. Hell has frozen over....

i don't think anybody disagrees with that

except the players union for some reason

[Guiness]

The reason nobody does this, and the reason this is a bad idea is as follows.

Suppose Detroit wants to draft one of two players: Matt Stafford or Mark Sanchez. When you miss your turn in the draft, you don't have priority over the next team, it's just that whoever hands in their card first (you or the next team) ends up getting that pick then. So suppose Detroit waits until somebody picks Stafford, and then they plan on getting Sanchez. Well, their ability to get Sanchez hinges on whether or not they can get their draft card handed in before the team who was scheduled to pick in this spot can hand in their draft card. If the other team that's scheduled to pick then gets in before Detroit does, well... then what's Detroit going to do?

Nah, this shouldn't be a problem. Just hire Micheal Johnson (or some other washed up sprinter, Ben Johnson should be cheap) to hand in your draft card. He might not be world class anymore, but guaranteed he'll get to the podium before, say, Romeo Crennel!!! :whaa:

Seriously, doing something about the first round pay scale is obviously the solution here. The money handed out after the first round, or even in the second half of the first round, isn't insane to the point of crippling a team. I.E. while Harrell not playing much has not helped us, it hasn't hamstrung us either, and he was almost exactly at the midway point.

While this could be a major issue during the next CBA negotiations, I really don't see why it would be. The current NFLPA members would benefit, because they'd get a bigger piece of the pie. The only ones who are hurt are the future NFLPA members (who don't have a vote) and perhaps some of the big shot agents (who gives a shit about them?).

[Fritz]

Apparently the NFL has come out - David Aiello, I think? - and said there'd be no penalty for any team skipping its spot.

[Pugger]

I'd love to know why the players' union wouldn't want a salary cap on rookies?? :?: You would think they would want more of each teams' salary cap available for veterans when they are renegociating... :crazy:

[Guiness]

I'd love to know why the players' union wouldn't want a salary cap on rookies?? :?: You would think they would want more of each teams' salary cap available for veterans when they are renegociating... :crazy:

I don't know either (as is obvious from my post above). If the cap doesn't move, but less money goes to rookies, it seems like it would be a win for most of the membership.

Anyone have some thoughts on that? Only thing I can see is that they don't want anything to do with something that involves the word 'cap'.

[red]

I'd love to know why the players' union wouldn't want a salary cap on rookies?? :?: You would think they would want more of each teams' salary cap available for veterans when they are renegociating... :crazy:

I don't know either (as is obvious from my post above). If the cap doesn't move, but less money goes to rookies, it seems like it would be a win for most of the membership.

Anyone have some thoughts on that? Only thing I can see is that they don't want anything to do with something that involves the word 'cap'.

its the multi million dollar question. i don't think anyone knows why the union is fighting this so hard. the guys it helps, aren't in the union yet, and that guys that are in the union are the ones losing out.

i have a feeling its either the agents telling the players some horrible advice, the the players buying into it.

or like florio mentioned, maybe they are just using it as a bargaining chip for the next round of cba talks. they fight like hell to keep in now, only to use it as something the can get rid of in favor of something from the owners

[Guiness]

could be right, red. Union sees it as a bargaining chip.

Back to Detroit. You have to think they're looking QB with this pick. None of the guys on the roster can be looked at as long term solutions, so I'm guessing they're going that way. looks to be a pretty clear favorite, so they should use that #1 pick unless they are sure he'll be there a couple of picks later.

And it would be awful silly of them to assume he'd be there later, especially now that St-L is apparently saying their pick is up for grabs.

[sharpe1027]

The whole idea of letting the time run out seems stupid to me. I don't believe that they could not just trade #1 overall for #2 or #3 or #4 overall. Hell, the could probably get a third rounder thrown in.

If it really meant that much to them, maybe they could trade down by giving up a late round pick. That would still be better than letting the clock run out and having no control over the turn-in race.

[DonHutson]

Fritz and others are 100% correct that the amount of money the top picks are "earning" is the main problem. However, while that's somewhat of a problem for everybody, it's the biggest problem for teams (like Detroit) that screw up high picks year after year. I don't really feel sorry for them. If you don't want to waste money on a bust every year... pick guys who can play and pretty soon you won't be at the top of the draft anymore.

That said, I think it's ridiculous that teams can skip their turn and then jump in whenever they want. The teams behind them should be able to use their full time to work on deals without the threat of some team that passed jumping back in front of them and screwing up their deal.

I'd say if you miss your turn you should go to the back of the round, at which point you get 30 seconds to make a pick or forfeit it altogether.

[Cheesehead Craig]

I'd rather see a loss of draft picks. Miss once lose a 7th rounder, miss twice lose a 6th, etc.

[DonHutson]

And if this does become a trend that teams pass, then the alotment of time per pick should be decreased considerably. If they don't feel a need to make a pick, they shouldn't feel the need to sit on their ass and waste everybody's time for fifteen minutes either.

Maybe the rule should be that you have 1 minute to pass. Pass and the next team goes on the clock and everybody saves at least 14 minutes. Don't pass in that first minute, and then you have to make your pick or lose it.