draft hypothetical

[tvooz]

suppose the cowboys were offered the #1 pick in the draft in exchange for only pick #22 but with certain stipulations.

1. you must select at #1, no trades before or after

2. you must give a 6 year $65M contract with $35M SB

would you as the gm of the cowboys take that deal?

 

[iceberg]

suppose the cowboys were offered the #1 pick in the draft in exchange for only pick #22 but with certain stipulations.

1. you must select at #1, no trades before or after

2. you must give a 6 year $65M contract with $35M SB

would you as the gm of the cowboys take that deal?

why on interplanatary holy science madness would miami give it up for that?

 

[btcutter]

suppose the cowboys were offered the #1 pick in the draft in exchange for only pick #22 but with certain stipulations.

1. you must select at #1, no trades before or after

2. you must give a 6 year $65M contract with $35M SB

would you as the gm of the cowboys take that deal?

Sure! It's not my money we are spending

Pick up McFadden. Draft a few DBs. We are in the SB!

 

[tomson75]

Is it possible to sleep for 11 days and 23 hours straight? I think I've got two weeks of vacation...

 

[DFWJC]

suppose the cowboys were offered the #1 pick in the draft in exchange for only pick #22 but with certain stipulations.

1. you must select at #1, no trades before or after

2. you must give a 6 year $65M contract with $35M SB

would you as the gm of the cowboys take that deal?

Dude....

 

[Hostile]

Dude....

My thoughts exactly.

 

[tvooz]

My thoughts exactly.

let's pretend the browns went 0-16 and we were given the #1 pick.

with those same stipulations, would you take it?

 

[iceberg]

let's pretend the browns went 0-16 and we were given the #1 pick.

with those same stipulations, would you take it?

any particular reason you're just making up random rules and stipulations that have never existed in the history of the NFL so suddenly we have to worry about it as a problem?

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I think I understand the question more as philosophical than as a realistic hypothetical. Is it worth having the number one pick when so much money is involved, and so much cap space is eaten? Assuing the choice isn't a QB, the player will almost immediately become among the most highly paid at his position and will have proven nothing.

Fair question. I'd say, yes, you do that deal. You have a chance to get a rare talent, and you take that risk.

But it all underscores how weaker teams are some times betrayed by the draft. If you are the worst team in the league, put that much money into a player, and he's a bust... you might be weak for a long, long while. On the other hand, if he's great, you might still be weak.

For a bad team, the top pick isn't always quite the prize you'd expect.

 

[Hostile]

let's pretend the browns went 0-16 and we were given the #1 pick.

with those same stipulations, would you take it?

I'm sorry, but I was never any good at pretend scenarios. I can't even fathom why a team would do what you propose. It just doesn't even begin to intrigue me since it is impossible.

 

[tvooz]

I think I understand the question more as philosophical than as a realistic hypothetical. Is it worth having the number one pick when so much money is involved, and so much cap space is eaten? Assuing the choice isn't a QB, the player will almost immediately become among the most highly paid at his position and will have proven nothing.

Fair question. I'd say, yes, you do that deal. You have a chance to get a rare talent, and you take that risk.

But it all underscores how weaker teams are some times betrayed by the draft. If you are the worst team in the league, put that much money into a player, and he's a bust... you might be weak for a long, long while. On the other hand, if he's great, you might still be weak.

For a bad team, the top pick isn't always quite the prize you'd expect.

there isn't a player in the draft worth that much.

in fact, there are few players in the league that are worth that much.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I don't disagree... but... the economics are the economics. And to be honest, there might be a player worth it. We won't know until their careers unfold. That's the risk. But if I could plug a McFadden in at RB or a Long in at RT... maybe one of the pass rushers... I'd probably have to accept the risk. The economics will catch you anyhow. No way to dodge.

 

[tvooz]

I don't disagree... but... the economics are the economics. And to be honest, there might be a player worth it. We won't know until their careers unfold. That's the risk. But if I could plug a McFadden in at RB or a Long in at RT... maybe one of the pass rushers... I'd probably have to accept the risk. The economics will catch you anyhow. No way to dodge.

but economics is the material point. by giving so much to one future unproven player, you risk losing someone of current value.

the cardinals signed fitz to big money, they will lose boldin

the lions drafted johnson, they will lose r. williams.

the same will be true of the cowboys. the pie is only so big.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I understand. That's why I think the first pick -- barring a nearly can't-miss QB -- is fool's gold for a bad team. The NFL would help balance the talent picture better by making the draft order pure lottery (a lottery for each round) and by giving the non-playoff teams extra choices. We're in agreement on that part of your thesis, I think.

But there are certainly circumstances where it woule be advantageous to have the top pick. For the most part, I think the top pick is most valuable, and most likely to succeed with a good team.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

A good team needs young blood because its own free agents will be overvalued and eventually lost. And a good team can afford to be more patient. Also, a rookie has less pressure on a good team... not so much of a savior thing.