PDA

View Full Version : Have NFL Top Draft Picks Become.......


CloakNNNdagger
04-05-2009, 01:35 PM
........a burden rather than a blessing.

I've heard for many years this same concern........and each year, there are more and more teams trying to trade out of the top picks, especially the #1 pick. This year is no exception with Detroit. The top pick teams are not those one pick from a great team. They usually need several key players to make them even competitive. Once the #1 pick is paid the mind-boggling guaranteed $$$$$$$, teams limit themselves on bettering themselves through other options............yet there are no guarantees to the team that player will be immediately productive, let alone[I] EVER! It almost appears that happless teams have more potential to be overall penalized, not rewarded with this poorly thought out system having been allowed to evolve and "escalate" into a monster. I guess their reward comes next year when they are forced back to the trough of another high pick. :thinking:

MojoMan
04-05-2009, 01:45 PM
I think this is one of the biggest reasons that the NFL owners opted out of the collective bargaining agreement.

Under the current structure, I would consider it a real curse if the Texans ever again earned anything higher than the 10th overall draft pick, for financial reasons alone.

steelbtexan
04-05-2009, 01:46 PM
The system is broken.

This is why the majority of owners are wanting to have an uncapped year in 2010.

They are trying to force the NFLPA into a rookie wage scale among other things.

Texan4Ever
04-05-2009, 01:51 PM
The NFL needs to step in and solve this problem with Rookie salaries. What concerns me also is the fact that former top picks are given a $hitload of money and then if they turn into complete draft busts...that puts the team back 3-4 years. Do you wanna' know why the Lions have been unable to compete?

It's because they have drafted so many busts that they've spent money on and now are no longer with the team. I feel that teams are "robbed" of there money and more importantly the fans themselves. I also blame part of the problem on sports agents.

Maybe there is one solution, this is a little far fetched but maybe the pre-season and regular season can be pushed apart by a few months. Sign Rookies for the preseason and have them play during games, rate there performances, and then when the regular season starts a few months later you can sign them to a long term contract.

I think the FO and GMs need to wise up and add certain clauses to there contracts for Rookies and other players. Put things in like, "If you are sent to prision or get caught for illegial dog fighting then you have to return such-and-such amount of your salary back to the team and forfit your signing bonus, etc etc."

CloakNNNdagger
04-06-2009, 07:22 AM
We could see teams just letting the clock expire on their top picks to soften their "hit."

Kaiser Toro
04-06-2009, 07:27 AM
Do a better job scouting would be a start.

I would have never taken David Carr, Alex Smith and Reggie Bush and I never played a down of organized football. It ain't rocket science.

Blake
04-06-2009, 08:09 AM
I think it depends on the players coming out that year.

When you have a year with 2-3 franchise players at the top of the draft then the media ask coaches if they are loosing games on purpose to get the #1 pick so they can take player X. But when we have a year like this, with no consensus #1 pick, then we have discussions about how much the player is going to get.

I don't remember alot of griping about how much the Texans were going to have to pay Mario Williams #1 money.

GlassHalfFull
04-06-2009, 08:16 AM
My answer to the question is a resounding YES!!!

The NFL desperately needs a rookie wage standard. I do not understand why the players union would be against it. Having an untried rookie being the top paid player at his position is ridiculous. I guess it inflates salaries for the veterans, but I hate it. I also strongly believe it contributes to the number of high level 1st round busts. Some people have the drive to push hard no matter what the distractions, but not everyone.


I don't remember alot of griping about how much the Texans were going to have to pay Mario Williams #1 money.

People were too busy gripping about taking him period. LOL. But seriously, we would have had to shell out a hell of a lot more money signing Bush or VY. We did the NFL a favor that year from a salary standpoint.

ArlingtonTexan
04-06-2009, 08:20 AM
We could see teams just letting the clock expire on their top picks to soften their "hit."

It would be too obvious if some team tried this.

ArlingtonTexan
04-06-2009, 08:28 AM
I think it depends on the players coming out that year.

When you have a year with 2-3 franchise players at the top of the draft then the media ask coaches if they are loosing games on purpose to get the #1 pick so they can take player X. But when we have a year like this, with no consensus #1 pick, then we have discussions about how much the player is going to get.

I don't remember alot of griping about how much the Texans were going to have to pay Mario Williams #1 money.

I recall several posters talking about the reason the Texans could not trade down was because the amount of money that the first pick is guaranteed.

It was the year that Casserly claims that he called a GM about trading down and that GM asked Charlie "what else besides the first pick are you going to me to move up?"

Thorn
04-06-2009, 08:36 AM
I vote "yes" to a rookie salary cap.

Polo
04-06-2009, 09:03 AM
Top picks are only a burden when you don't draft right...

Mario isn't a burden nor is AJ...

eriadoc
04-06-2009, 09:07 AM
It would be too obvious if some team tried this.

Perhaps obvious is what's needed.

Top picks are only a burden when you don't draft right...

Mario isn't a burden nor is AJ...

Partially true. Some years there just aren't that many players worth that kind of money. And some years, even when you do take the guy that you feel is worth that kind of money, most of the other teams, the media, and your own fans vilify you for daring to take a guy who wasn't "worth" the #1 pick. See your example, Mario.

Mr teX
04-06-2009, 09:17 AM
........a burden rather than a blessing.

I've heard for many years this same concern........and each year, there are more and more teams trying to trade out of the top picks, especially the #1 pick. This year is no exception with Detroit. The top pick teams are not those one pick from a great team. They usually need several key players to make them even competitive. Once the #1 pick is paid the mind-boggling guaranteed $$$$$$$, teams limit themselves on bettering themselves through other options............yet there are no guarantees to the team that player will be immediately productive, let alone[I] EVER! It almost appears that happless teams have more potential to be overall penalized, not rewarded with this poorly thought out system having been allowed to evolve and "escalate" into a monster. I guess their reward comes next year when they are forced back to the trough of another high pick. :thinking:


It is a burden when those once in a lifetime athletes aren't littered at the top..... like this year. You didn't hear all this whining & trade down talk in 2001 / 2006 when teams had the chance to pick up the "super talents" Vick, Bush & Young (:rolleyes:) & Tomilinson. It's all relative to what kind of talent is up there.

mattieuk
04-06-2009, 09:18 AM
Its an interesting one. I think the past few years have seen a few teams paying out huuuuge amounts of $ to players who just aren't that good in the NFL. Call it weak draft classes, call it bad decisions in who to draft, whatever, but the trouble is the high profile busts, and the amount of money that costs makes teams damn scared.

Another key issue if plug in and play. Teams parting with top ten draft money want that money to get them playing time straight away. A rookie out the draft equates to a good solid starter veteran, in monetary terms. Teams don't really want to wait a year or two of playing a player in situations, or as a backup when they are investing so much of their money in the first round of the draft.

The answer my friends is simple. If you get stuck with a top ten pick, hype up the best kicker coming out of college, and give him a cheap 6 year contract, and save yourself the money of having to pick the next big bust.

It is a burden when those once in a lifetime athletes aren't littered at the top..... like this year. You didn't hear all this whining & trade down talk in 2001 / 2006 when teams had the chance to pick up the "super talents" Vick, Bush & Young () & Tomilinson. It's all relative to what kind of talent is up there.

True that. There is one player in this draft that makes me think, 'damn that kid is something else'. That man is Aaron Curry.

Polo
04-06-2009, 09:26 AM
If you don't think any of the top players are worth the top pick, then let the time expire and make your selection when you think the time is right...

toronto
04-06-2009, 09:46 AM
Once I saw Jake Long was getting 30.5M guaranteed on a 57M 5 year deal, I knew a rookie cap was a done deal, whether the players want it or not. When a rookie is making a similar bonus to the league's top QBs and RBs, they have to fix it, or the monster becomes too big.

Polo
04-06-2009, 09:54 AM
Partially true. Some years there just aren't that many players worth that kind of money.

I think that every year there are atleast 10 players worth the top ten picks...

Sometimes those players go undrafted, or aren't picked until the seventh round, but every year there are players that are top ten worthy...It's up to the teams to find those players...

For instance...It would have been dumb to take Tom Brady #1 overall, but as it stands today he would have been worth the pick...The salaries are too high for those picks, but there are always players in every draft that are top ten worthy and will eventually stand out from the pack...

One of the more difficult things for teams to track is where other teams value players....Slaton was probably worth a 1st or 2nd rounder, but it wouldn't have been smart to take him there when we could have gotten him in the third...

HOU-TEX
04-06-2009, 09:59 AM
Top picks are only a burden when you don't draft right...

Mario isn't a burden nor is AJ...

IMO, if a team's picking in the top 5, odds are they suck in the trenches. I've never been a fan of teams taking QB's in the top 5 because they'll likely have to start too early behind an OLine that likely sucks.

The Lions should take one of the OT's at #1 overall instead of the QB.

Runner
04-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Once I saw Jake Long was getting 30.5M guaranteed on a 57M 5 year deal, I knew a rookie cap was a done deal, whether the players want it or not. When a rookie is making a similar bonus to the league's top QBs and RBs, they have to fix it, or the monster becomes too big.

I don't think the veteran players would necessarily be against a rookie cap, and they are the ones that vote. The rookie salaries reduce the cap room for the vets.

pbat488
04-06-2009, 02:38 PM
I think that every year there are atleast 10 players worth the top ten picks...

Sometimes those players go undrafted, or aren't picked until the seventh round, but every year there are players that are top ten worthy...It's up to the teams to find those players...

For instance...It would have been dumb to take Tom Brady #1 overall, but as it stands today he would have been worth the pick...The salaries are too high for those picks, but there are always players in every draft that are top ten worthy and will eventually stand out from the pack...


A few years down the road when you see how players careers have panned out, it's easy to say this and be critical of teams choices. However at the time, so many things are evaluated and criticized in players that it has to be damn near impossible how to figure out who to draft, what position they fill, what need you need filled, and the list goes on and on..

Since 1998, only 3 teams who have drafted #1 have gotten it right, so to say. '98 with the Colts taking Peyton Manning, '04 with the Giants trading for Eli Manning, and '06 with us taking Mario. Now one could argue Atlanta taking Vick in '01 was a success for the time, but given recent events I don't think I could withstand a strong argument on that one. Last years pick of Jake Long looks like it will go down as being a very solid choice as the kid is a great player already, but it's too early to tell.

One of the more difficult things for teams to track is where other teams value players....Slaton was probably worth a 1st or 2nd rounder, but it wouldn't have been smart to take him there when we could have gotten him in the third...

Also, Slaton was projected in the mid round 3-5 range because of his small size and weight and durability issues. Now that's not to say that some teams didn't have him ranked a bit higher, but the consensus was that he was a mid round guy throughout the NFL. Or atleast the pundits anyway..

Hooston Texan
04-06-2009, 02:39 PM
I don't think the veteran players would necessarily be against a rookie cap, and they are the ones that vote. The rookie salaries reduce the cap room for the vets.

I recall reading somewhere that the union's refusal to consider a rookie cap/scale had more to do with Gene Upshaw than the rest of the rank and file. Upshaw had a basic philosophical problem with individual wage caps, so he stoutly refused to consider them, even for yet-to-be-drafted players who were not yet voting members of his union. But now that Upshaw is dead, my read is the union sees it as a bargaining chip rather than a line-in-the-sand.

badboy
04-06-2009, 03:25 PM
I think the NFL is tying the rookie cap in with the desire to reduce the 60% of the revenue going to players. Players may give in on the first, but not the second.

ArlingtonTexan
04-07-2009, 08:00 AM
If you don't think any of the top players are worth the top pick, then let the time expire and make your selection when you think the time is right...

Looks like there is no writen rule against it

The Detroit Lions have the first overall pick in the draft and, according to the league, there are no rules prohibiting the Lions from skipping the pick and waiting until they’re good and ready to make that selection. The Lions aren’t likely to do that, of course, but why wouldn’t they at least look at the possibilities?


If the Lions really want to draft Georgia quarterback Matthew Stafford - and want to save some money, too - why not wait until the No. 3 pick to do it? After all, the St. Louis Rams (currently No. 2) and Kansas City Chiefs (No. 3) aren’t likely to take a quarterback. As it stands now, Baylor left tackle Jason Smith and Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry would probably be the first two players off the board.

And, if the Lions want to take it a step further, they can wait until the seventh overall pick to get a quarterback - USC’s Mark Sanchez. Detroit could snap him up right before the Jacksonville Jaguars pick at No. 8. Or the Lions could wait another pick or two and take Boston College defensive tackle B.J. Raji.

The Lions would prefer to trade out of that No. 1 pick but, so far, there aren’t any takers and probably won’t be.



http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/2009/04/nfl-says-lions-can-pass-on-first-pick/

mexican_texan
04-07-2009, 11:44 AM
The top draft pick has now become a burden, which in some eyes, is a good thing that should keep teams from tanking as they have in the past. However, that's not the point of the draft. The NFL's worst teams should get better using the draft, but if they're giving a big chunk of their cap space to an unproven player, what are the chances the team could actually improve?

Goodell, the owners, and many veterans are in favor of a system that would dramatically cut the paydays of these rookies. It seems a rookie wage scale could be in play as soon as next year.

TimeKiller
04-07-2009, 12:40 PM
I think the problem is when teams start getting down and have a top 12 or so pick every year the money isn't going to the right places, free agents/good players already on the team. It's going to guys who have worked really hard to be here but have done nothing for any NFL team, any speculation of what they can be is just that: speculation. The scale just spreads out so widely at the top of the draft, I can't believe the owners would let that continue even if rival teams are teh ones suffering. If nothing else, the top half of the 1st round needs to be backed down a notch or two.

RazorOye
04-08-2009, 09:18 PM
5 replies before the first Bush reference?

You guys are slipping...

As for Mario Williams saving the NFL money that year?

How do you figure? Alex Smith, the year before, signed a 6 year, 49 million dollar contract with 24 million guaranteed.

Wasn't Mario's higher than that? Something in the neighborhood of 6 years for 55 million? Near 60 with incentives and something like 26 million guaranteed?

Number 1 picks are going to get paid as number 1 picks.

It's all outrageous and someone needs to get a handle on it.

Bush isn't worth what he'll make next year - and that pains me as a Saints fan to say.

I'd love to see someone get some control over these salaries - but vets don't speak out about it because doesn't it end up helping them in the end?

It gets to be more absurd each year...

CloakNNNdagger
04-16-2009, 10:16 AM
http://www.profootballtalk.com/2009/04/16/mayock-nfl-draft-is-lopsided/

Is this year’s NFL Draft akin to a Bizarro world where everything is backwards?

That might be stretching the point a bit, but there’s still a growing consensus in NFL circles that the quality of players available in the top 10 picks is extremely similar to the talent level of the players projected to be drafted in the teens and early 20s of the first round.

According to NFL Network draft analyst Mike Mayock, per Matt Maiocco of the Santa Rosa Press-Democrat, teams are looking to bail out of the top 10 and trade down.

“Every team in the top 10 is looking to trade out,” Mayock told reporters today in a conference call. “I’ve never seen a situation quite like this. And the theory is, everybody knows we’re upside down with this draft. The rookies are getting paid way too much money proportionate to their value. So, teams are scared to death to miss in the top 10.”

According to Mayock, part of the trend goes back to simple economics. (Random thought: Where’s the teacher from Ferris Bueller’s Day Off to explain it all to us?)

“Here’s what’s happening, which I think is really interesting to see if this trend plays out: That old trade chart that all the teams used to use, it began to go out the window last year and I think, like the economy, it’s completely out the window,” Mayock said. “So, I think any team in the top 10 that’s looking to get out will listen to any reasonable offer. And more than ever teams are looking to get down to 15 to 25 because you can get the same kind of player at 20 than you can at seven, and you pay one-third the money.”

kastofsna
04-16-2009, 01:33 PM
Jake Long ain't a burden