Welcome To aBlackWeb

Register

OPINION Would “parity”die in the NFL if we eliminated the draft?

AP2.0 said:
Agree

My larger point was is teams won't just be able to dump veterans trying to be cheap, which the naysayers in here think will happen if they got to choose where they wanted to go
Click to expand...

They don't necessarily have to dump veterans. But they don't need to go after expensive FA's to fill holes. Golladay got a contract for $18 million/year. So let's use the Chiefs again... they lost Watkins, and 2 OT's. I dunno this year's rookie prospects, so I have to use last year's, but the point is the same. Galladay in FA was $18 million...Jefferson, Wirfs, and Becton combine for around $12 million.

Sorry teams will have to pay more for less talent in a league with a salary cap. That'll hurt parity.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
They don't necessarily have to dump veterans. But they don't need to go after expensive FA's to fill holes. Golladay got a contract for $18 million/year. So let's use the Chiefs again... they lost Watkins, and 2 OT's. I dunno this year's rookie prospects, so I have to use last year's, but the point is the same. Galladay in FA was $18 million...Jefferson, Wirfs, and Becton combine for around $12 million.

Sorry teams will have to pay more for less talent in a league with a salary cap. That'll hurt parity.
Click to expand...
I was trying to find a short video about how baseball handles the draft with the pool of money they have for it but couldn't find one that was short enough that explains better what I've been trying to say.

The trade off to going cheap is that developmentally, not every young player is just going to replace a more experienced veteran. It's just not possible with the experience, skillset, body development, etc.

You're not just going to roll out a team of first through 3 year players on cheap deals and be competitive.
 
AP2.0 said:
I was trying to find a short video about how baseball handles the draft with the pool of money they have for it but couldn't find one that was short enough that explains better what I've been trying to say.

The trade off to going cheap is that developmentally, not every young player is just going to replace a more experienced veteran. It's just not possible with the experience, skillset, body development, etc.

You're not just going to roll out a team of first through 3 year players on cheap deals and be competitive.
Click to expand...

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying about replacing players. I'm not saying force about talented vets to save a buck. I'm saying every team loses players. When it's time to replace them, top teams can replace them with top talent for little money with rookies. It's not going cheap, because they're not settling for lower talent. Just like building through the draft now, instead of doing what the Rams are doing isn't going cheap.

But look at the KC example. Watkins and their OT's are gone (and it wasn't the Chiefs just trying to save money). Well if they can bring in 2 of the top 3 OT's, and one of the top 3 WR's in this draft... they're set again.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
You're misunderstanding what I'm saying about replacing players. I'm not saying force about talented vets to save a buck. I'm saying every team loses players. When it's time to replace them, top teams can replace them with top talent for little money with rookies. It's not going cheap, because they're not settling for lower talent. Just like building through the draft now, instead of doing what the Rams are doing isn't going cheap.

But look at the KC example. Watkins and their OT's are gone (and it wasn't the Chiefs just trying to save money). Well if they can bring in 2 of the top 3 OT's, and one of the top 3 WR's in this draft... they're set again.
Click to expand...
That's a huge if because in the model I'm proposing, they would have to bid on those players of need from a pool of money. Those players would have to be willing to go to KC if they were the highest bidding team and also would have to take into consideration playing time.

I can't speak for other teams and I'm not trying to say no other teams do this but the saints routinely get young cheap talent on their OL because they tend to not overpay or reach for prospects. The first deal for them after their rookie deal is typically a fair market one, the second one, if they are still around might be a "max" kinda deal but they are usually traded afterwards. But they can do this bc they mix the young talent with veterans. The saints won't have an OL full of first through 3rd year players playing at the same time.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Y'all think you hated the Patriots era during Brady's time there. The hell you think it would have been like if every rookie, every year was able to choose their team during that time? Haha
Click to expand...
You keep glossing over the fact that I'm proposing a bidding system for the teams with a finite number of money they have to use. The Patriots won't be able to get everyone like you think. They'll have to be smart about who they acquire.
 
Bow to Royalty said:
Y'all think you hated the Patriots era during Brady's time there. The hell you think it would have been like if every rookie, every year was able to choose their team during that time? Haha
Click to expand...

It'll be no different than some of the big names that signed w/ your Bucs last offseason

"riight"


Again if you don't have a problem w/ the current FA. Then why is it a problem for incoming rookies to have the same opportunities to chose what situation is right for them.
 
Revolver Ocelot said:
It'll be no different than some of the big names that signed w/ your Bucs last offseason

"riight"


Again if you don't have a problem w/ the current FA. Then why is it a problem for incoming rookies to have the same opportunities to chose what situation is right for them.
Click to expand...

Who?

Nobody wanted AB. And LF cleared waivers to sign with the Bucs.
 
Dwayne said:
Who?

Nobody wanted AB. And LF cleared waivers to sign with the Bucs.
Click to expand...

Ok

And nothing you typed refutes my point of PLAYERS being able to chose what they want to do with their careers.

Last I checked AB & LF still had a chose to sign. right? So they was able to CHOSE.
 
Revolver Ocelot said:
Ok

And nothing you typed refutes my point of PLAYERS being able to chose what they want to do with their careers.

Last I checked AB & LF still had a chose to sign. right? So they was able to CHOSE.
Click to expand...

You talking about old back ups.

If you thinking it’s the same well I have nothing for ya.
 
Dwayne said:
BTW

College players don’t have to sign with the teams that draft them.

Shrugs
Click to expand...
Yep.

They can hold out and re-enter the draft the next year or force the team that drafted thme to trade the rights to another team

most recent example is Eli Manning

Also

John Elway in 1983 forced the colts to trade his rights...by threatening to go play baseball...he ended up with Broncos

Bo Jackson in 1986 refused to report to Tampa and instead played a year for the Royals...then then got drafted by the Raiders the next year

in todays climate im surprised it hasnt happened yet...with top players becoming less inclined to take bullshit in addition to being able to control the narrative via social media
 
Kyler Murray coulda pulled it off if he dodnt want to go to Arizona

he was a 1st pick in the MLB draft too
 
Revolver Ocelot said:
They have to sit out AND the team that selected them owns their trades rights.
Click to expand...
They only have the rights for that year bro

the next year that player can just re-enter the draft

Most players wont do that...but there are some with enough clout and other viable options in other pro sports that can and will sit out or force a trade

see examples that I named above
 
Dwayne said:
Or demand a trade and not play.

You want the NFL to be NCAA so bad
Click to expand...
so you're cool with kids or rather amateur athletes choosing where they would play for free but not where they would play to get paid?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top