Are you really arguing that playing on a bad team can't impair a players' development? Do you actually believe that, or are you just trying to be difficult? I mean, how many times have you looked at a former first-round d-lineman and think "imagine what this guy could've been like if he'd gotten to be coached by BB?"
This is typical. You ask someone to give examples of all the players that have had their careers ruined by bad teams and they don't bother to answer. Why? Because you can't. Yes, an organization can inhibit player's career. However, good players overcome even bad coaching. Look at Barry Sanders. There are plenty of others out there as well. And no, I've never said imagine what BB could do with that player. Why? Because there is no guarantee that BB could have done better. Jonathan Sullivan is proof of that.
Well, if teams still give out ridiculous contracts, absent the artificial limits imposed on them now, then it's really their own fault, isn't it? I mean, sure, the Raiders and Redskins will probably spend themselves into cap hell right off the bat, but if you look at the trends from the last bunch of years, aside from a few head-scratchers, free agency hasn't turned into the spending frenzy people thought it would be. The cap works well enough -- it doesn't need the draft.
Isn't it the teams own fault for giving out ridiculous contracts now? How is what you propose going to change that? It won't. You keep yammering on about the cap, but its gone after this year.
Uh... what are you talking about, dude? I'm talking about getting rid of the draft, not the salary cap.
Thank you for proving that you don't understand the current situation in the NFL. Because the owners chose to shorten the CBA, the salary cap is gone after 2009 unless they reach an extension. If they don't reach an extension, then players whose contracts expire after the 2009 season must have at least 6 years of experience to become UFA. Otherwise they are RFA.
As I said, you need to educate yourself on the current situation in the NFL.
Yes. Let's name two exceptional head-cases, and say they represent the whole of the NFL. Let's do that.
At least I gave examples. Unlike you who generalized totally. And Those were only two examples. I could name plenty more.
I have no idea how this acts as a counter-argument. Please explain.
You don't understand how its a counter-argument? Part of the basis of your argument is the supposed disparity in pay based on the round a person was drafted in. The reality is that the actual salary is basically the same for players drafted from the 2nd to the 7th round with minor differences in the signing bonus and the incentives included in their contracts. So, if they are the same, this idea that there is a chip on their shoulders is bogus. And if that is bogus, then the idea that players don't re-sign with their original teams because of that "chip" is also bogus.
Really? You think? If a player didn't get 1st round money as a rookie, then he's going to make damn sure he gets his payday as a FA. If you take away the draft and its artificial pay structures, you'll greatly reduce the pay discrepancy between the haves and have-nots, plus give players the option to take less money in retrun for a one or two year contract, and bank on raising their value.
Well, how would a player know what "first round money was" if there was no draft. He wouldn't, so, he wouldn't know what his payday should be. There are plenty of instances of players getting extensions prior to their free agency that gives them better pay.
You keep going on about this discrepancy without understanding that its primarily the top of the 1st round that is the issue, not the entire draft. What you also don't understand is that, under the current CBA, there won't be a salary cap after 2009. And because of that, players won't be allowed to be UFA until they've earned 6 years of service in the league. So, signing a one or two year contract doesn't do them any good because there is nothing that guarantees them an increase in pay since they would be restricted free agents. The player would lose most of his leverage since a team could hold the player's rights, sign a replacement player, and keep the one who wanted more money from playing on another team.
I disagree. I see a lot of anonymous guys resigning with their teams because they're going to get around the league minimum wherever and I see a lot of successful 1st rounders re-signing high-profile extensions, because those are easy negotiation situations. Where it gets tricky is when you've got guys like Clinton Portis or Asante Samuel, the mid-rounders who feel like they've overperformed their rookie deals, and end up signing somewhere else, often for not that much more money, because contract talks with their original team stall because the player expects more compensation for what he's already done for the team.
You can disagree all you want. But the reality is that a majority of the players re-sign with their own teams. How is Clinton Portis an example for you? Portis was traded so that the Broncos could get Champ Bailey. Not because of contract issues with Portis.
A majority of the players re-sign with their old teams. You've not provided anything to disprove that.
How would your scenario prevent an Asante Samuel situation? It wouldn't. You'd still have them.
I'm sure. And I'd rebut your rebuttals, and you'd rebut my rebuttals of your rebuttals.
Isn't that the whole point of this forum?
The problem is that your "rebuttals" aren't supported by fact. Your initial premis was extremely flawed and won't have nearly the affect you believe. In fact, if anything, it would make the situation 10 times worse becuase an Auction would make the players feel like slaves or pieces of meat and all the pomp and circumstance and fluff wouldn't change that it would be nothing more than a glorified slave market.
