Detroit thinking of letting time run out on first pick

[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

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

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

[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

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!]

Re: 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.

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

[red]

Re: 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.

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!!!

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...

[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...

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...

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]

Re: Detroit thinking of letting time run out on first pick

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.