Should the NFL have a lottery system for the draft?

patman52 said:

This makes no sense. The NFL was built on this parity model and it has been successful doing so. Having a top pick keeps fans of bottom dwelling teams interested. This is a business that depends on brand loyalty.

Click to expand...

In case you haven't noticed the NFL sucks right now and what is called " parity " is actually suck, and a big reason for that is handing the best products to the worst franchises year after year, and rather than rise to the top most just tend to keep on sucking. How many top ten picks have teams like the Raiders and Browns had handed to them over the past twenty years without ever winning so much as a playoff game? Rather than figure out how manage a team successfully idiot owners just keep middling along year after year and no structural advantage makes a difference. Personally I'm tired of the NFL handing to prospects to the worst franchises as a reward for sucking, and although it won't happen I want the order reversed so the best teams get rewarded for that.

patfanken said:

Actually I was thinking that if you have created the kind of climate of winning, hard work, teamwork and self sacrifice as Bill has done here, it would be a HUGE advantage every year when it came time to renew player's contracts. This is the place where players come to improve and win. You watch the locker room and sideline clips, who wouldn't want to play here given the option. Anyone who wouldn't is likely to be someone you didn't want in the first place.

But I get your point and you are right. Part of the success of the game is how the fans connect with the players, and certain level of continuity is important. However I would point out that fans currently are dealing with a 20-25% annual turnover rate and coping with it. And I don't think players will want to move every year with their families so my guess is something over 50% of players would likely stay with their teams. Would that be enough continuity for you.

Or here's an idea off the top of my head. How about all rookies coming into the league get 5 year contracts with the team that drafts them. The good news is after that 5th year, they can become FA's. The bad news is after that 5th year all contracts are one year deals. In true libertarian practice, they would literally have to perform to get paid.

Perhaps that will provide you with the player connection time you are looking for, then add the free market system advantages I was looking for with your veteran players. (or something like that)

Click to expand...

I certainly think that your Idea has Merits, my good man, though I would personally prefer that the Players and Teams be left to negotiate whatever Contracts they see mutually fit.

Players don't tank - they want to keep their jobs and position for a better contract down the road.
Coaches don't tank - they want to keep their jobs.
Front Offices don't tank - they want to keep their jobs.

Look at Idzik. He had some **** drafts, overall (some good picks but mostly crap) but he dragged them out of cap hell and got them setup, moneywise, for flexibility in the future.

Just in time to be fired and hand over a much-improved cap situation to his successor.

It's just not something I've ever believed in actually happening. Even a GM who decides '**** it, a can't-miss prospect is gonna declare for the next draft and I have pictures of this owner at a furry convention' is still going to have to put a roster together of NFL players, even if he puts together a team of marginal players they're going to compete and probably win a game here or there.

The suck for luck **** was a confluence of events - the Polian drafting magic ran out with Bob Sanders or whoever and their team was aging and had issues that guys like Wayne and Manning could cover plus they played in a **** division.

Suddenly the Texans became good, Manning was out, etc. I just think this is a non-issue.

Froob said:

No...you realize guys are out there playing for jobs right? Suck for luck is one of the most overblown stories imo. Polian and the entire coaching staff got canned. If they were tanking why were they on board with it if it was going to get them fired unless Irsay blantly ****ed them over? Why didn't they stick with Painter the entire time instead of the switch to Orlovsky? One of the few times I've seen a team tank is the Bucs bench players at halftime vs the Saints. It rarely ever happens. NFL coaches and execs don't have the security NBA ones do.

Click to expand...

Now they just Suck cuz' Luck.

Maybe bottom 3 or 5 or something. NBA is a bit overblown.

If there was we would probably end up getting our first pick in the 7th round

Sent from my KFSOWI using Tapatalk

Foxyboro said:

Then you'd end up with a college football model in which some teams are always going to be powerhouses and some teams are always going to be cellar dwellers.

Click to expand...

Um, isn't that how it is now?

Without a draft, how would a team like Jacksonville that goes 3-13 ever improve? How would they attract any good college players?

Click to expand...

Besides being located in FLORIDA, where one would presume they could attract some of the inordinant amount of NFL players that either come from the state or attended college there, they haven't finished over .500 in close to a decade.

Besides, now a days, rookie contracts usually max out at 4 years, so it's not like your committed to the team that drafted you forever

Click to expand...

Imagine being stuck in a job enviroment you hate at 21 years old, then realizing they own the right to dictate where you can work in the industry of your preference for the next 4-5 years, whether you like it or not. Hmm.....

Me thinky most of us at 21 would say that's total bull$hit.

My girlfriend asked me why the Superbowl winning team drafts last. When I told her that they reward the bad teams with higher draft picks so they can get better, she said "that's stupid to reward mediocrity - its not the way the real world works...." She doesn't know anything about football but there's some common sense there.

Would it be totally crazy if the best teams drafted first? How many years in a row have the crappiest teams in the league drafted in the top 5 over and over and it never seems to help them anyways?

Great discussion. As everyone knows, I'm a fan of the draft as it is, but philosophically I'm with the free marketeers. In an ideal world, the college prospects would enter the free agency pool (or a separate round of free agency for college prospects) and teams bid on those prospects that they want. THAT is the fairer system for everybody, teams and prospects alike.

The problem with the current system is that it rewards failure and, doesn't necessarily mitigate that failure. Year on year we see the same teams picking at the top of the draft and the same teams picking at the bottom (roughly). The draft isn't doing that much to mitigate against that mediocrity. At the very least, improving yourself via the draft requires a succession of high draft picks, so in fact, it's repeated mediocrity that is getting rewarded.

fnordcircle said:

Players don't tank - they want to keep their jobs and position for a better contract down the road.
Coaches don't tank - they want to keep their jobs.
Front Offices don't tank - they want to keep their jobs.

Look at Idzik. He had some **** drafts, overall (some good picks but mostly crap) but he dragged them out of cap hell and got them setup, moneywise, for flexibility in the future.

Just in time to be fired and hand over a much-improved cap situation to his successor.

It's just not something I've ever believed in actually happening. Even a GM who decides '**** it, a can't-miss prospect is gonna declare for the next draft and I have pictures of this owner at a furry convention' is still going to have to put a roster together of NFL players, even if he puts together a team of marginal players they're going to compete and probably win a game here or there.

The suck for luck **** was a confluence of events - the Polian drafting magic ran out with Bob Sanders or whoever and their team was aging and had issues that guys like Wayne and Manning could cover plus they played in a **** division.

Suddenly the Texans became good, Manning was out, etc. I just think this is a non-issue.

Click to expand...

I agree with you. I dislike the Colts, but I don't believe they tanked. The only one that would have benefited from that was the owner. But the coaches and front office didn't. They lost their jobs. I absolutely don't believe that players would tank for getting a good draft spot. Not when their careers are short and playing badly means lost money. There is simply too many that does not benefit from tanking.

Ivan said:

In case you haven't noticed the NFL sucks right now and what is called " parity " is actually suck, and a big reason for that is handing the best products to the worst franchises year after year, and rather than rise to the top most just tend to keep on sucking. How many top ten picks have teams like the Raiders and Browns had handed to them over the past twenty years without ever winning so much as a playoff game? Rather than figure out how manage a team successfully idiot owners just keep middling along year after year and no structural advantage makes a difference. Personally I'm tired of the NFL handing to prospects to the worst franchises as a reward for sucking, and although it won't happen I want the order reversed so the best teams get rewarded for that.

Click to expand...

oh, so the fanbases of poorly run teams with bad owners (who will make money even if none of them show up at the stadium) just suffer with no chance of hiting the lottery?

Marinlik said:

I agree with you. I dislike the Colts, but I don't believe they tanked. The only one that would have benefited from that was the owner. But the coaches and front office didn't. They lost their jobs. I absolutely don't believe that players would tank for getting a good draft spot. Not when their careers are short and playing badly means lost money. There is simply too many that does not benefit from tanking.

Click to expand...

Yeah, Indy fell off a cliff for the same reasons that the "Manning's team dropped off more than Brady's did" is a flawed argument: there was little new talent and the remaining old talent was built to be dependent on elite production from the QB. When you're all pass rushers and receivers you aren't going to win much if you don't have anyone to throw the ball or a lead to keep teams from running on you.

Get rid of the draft entirely. (EDIT: I meant to say, get rid of ordered draft picks entirely.) Replace it with total rookie salary allotments based on team record, or if you don't want to tie it to the salary the rookie uses then provide each team with points that can be used for bidding on rookies. Use an auction-based system where instead of each team having a single pick in each round, all teams are allowed to use their rookie allotment to place bids on the draft pick available in the current window, and whichever team bids the most in that window gets the rookie of their choice. That way the difference between the worst record and the second worst record isn't the only thing deciding whether your team gets Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf, because all teams get to evaluate the relative worths of available rookies as part of their bids. It would also make drafts much more exciting and unpredictable because not only would you not know which player is going to get picked, you also wouldn't know which team is going to pick him. Instead of the current system where you get unpredictable draft picks, teams could trade some of their rookie allotment in upcoming drafts for players, or trade future rookie allotment for current rookie allotment, so if you have players you are targeting in the upcoming draft you could make trades for rookie allotment in order to get the means to acquire them instead of playing poorly during the season.

It's a crazy idea that will never happen, and it's perhaps too arcane and dramatic a concept to introduce to a sports league where the draft is such a huge event and has major tradition between, but I think it would improve the overall mechanics of determining how rookies get on each team.

patman52 said:

oh, so the fanbases of poorly run teams with bad owners (who will make money even if none of them show up at the stadium) just suffer with no chance of hiting the lottery?

Click to expand...

And your answer is to reward them for being poorly run?

Jacksonville

Oakland

Buffalo

Detroit

Tennessee

Etc etc etc


Years of sucking and getting the top prospects in every round makes no difference, whereas getting the bottom prospects in each round has made little to no difference to the Patriots success, so yes, I would stop rewarding the suck teams and force their owners to figure out how to get the bestpeople in to run their franchises instead of literally handing them the best players as a reward for bad management. The problem isn't the players they. get it's the people they hire to run their teams.

Ivan said:

And your answer is to reward them for being poorly run?

Click to expand...

You have to give them something or the talent gap will become nearly insurmountable

And while I agree with those who say the Colts players didn't tank during Suck for Luck I disagree on the front office. It could be that Drunk Irsay overruled Pollian but other than that there is absolutely no explanation for why the Colts passed on Kyle Orton when the Broncos released him. They could have had a starting QB for nothing but stuck with Curtis Painter knowing he could not win. They were absolutely sucking for Luck and threw their season to get him, there's simply no other explanation for not making any effort to get better during that season.

meatface said:

You have to give them something or the talent gap will become nearly insurmountable

Click to expand...

If it were up to me I would start with new ownership but since it isn't I would stop rewarding them for sucking. Maybe then their fans would pressure then into either hiring good people or selling the team.

TheFlyingWedge said:

My girlfriend asked me why the Superbowl winning team drafts last. When I told her that they reward the bad teams with higher draft picks so they can get better, she said "that's stupid to reward mediocrity - its not the way the real world works...." She doesn't know anything about football but there's some common sense there.

Would it be totally crazy if the best teams drafted first? How many years in a row have the crappiest teams in the league drafted in the top 5 over and over and it never seems to help them anyways?

Click to expand...

Well there would certainly be no incentive to lose, but imagine if the best team picked first....

You think the Pats have a dynasty now?

meatface said:

You have to give them something or the talent gap will become nearly insurmountable

Click to expand...

Then why do teams who pick at the bottom of the draft stay successful despite that disadvantage?

Answer.... Good management.

The Gr8est said:

Well there would certainly be no incentive to lose, but imagine if the best team picked first....

You think the Pats have a dynasty now?

Click to expand...

I could see defending the current system if it actually worked but it clearly doesn't. Year after year the same teams pick in the first half of each round while teams that are well run are in the second half of each round.