NFL Says Lions Can Pass on #1 Pick

[Hostile]

NFL says Lions are allowed to pass on No. 1 pick

by Tom Kowalski Monday April 06, 2009, 3:56 PM

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.

I had been under the assumption that the league would frown on a team passing its pick - basically thumbing its nose at the draft process - and that penalties might be possible from the Commissioner's office. That's not the case.

"If a club passes during the draft, it gives up its pick at that point and can re-enter at any point to make its selection,'' said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

I then wondered if Detroit skipped down to No. 5, whether that pick would be considered the real No. 1 pick (because he was taken by Detroit) or the No. 5 choice.

"To use your example,'' Aiello wrote in an e-mail, "if a player is selected 5th, he is the 5th pick. There is no other way to view it.''

And no potential fines or sanctions coming from Commissioner Roger Goodell?

"It has never been an issue,'' Aiello wrote. "There is no penalty for passing, other than losing a higher pick.''

Back in 2003, the Minnesota Vikings were picking seventh overall and they were trying to trade back, believing they could move back and still get the guy they wanted (DT Kevin Williams). The Vikings ended up missing their turn and also the next one and ended up drafting Williams with the ninth overall choice.

Let's say the Lions move back to seventh and get Sanchez or Raji - or somebody else. If they stay at No. 1, it appears they'd have to pay that player about $32 million in guaranteed money. Last year's seventh overall pick - Sedrick Ellis - got $19.5 million in guaranteed dough. This year's pick will get a little more, of course, but the Lions could still save themselves about $12 million. (Last year's No. 3 pick - quarterback Matt Ryan - got $27.3 million in guaranteed money.)

The Lions are a pretty traditional team and it's not likely that president Tom Lewand or general manager Martin Mayhew will be interested in bucking the system. Then again, to gain a competitive advantage, you never know.
It all boils down to whether the Lions are really happy with who they're going to take at No. 1 - and whether the ability to negotiate a deal before the draft is worth the advantage. Here's the other thing - because the Lions are allowed to negotiate with players before the draft, there's nothing stopping them from negotiating with Stafford as the No. 3 player, not the No. 1. They can't sign him to a deal, but they can find out the ballpark figures for what it's going to take.

If you're thinking that the Seahawks or some other team might leapfrog ahead of the Lions and take their player, it's possible. But the beauty of being 0-16 is that there are a lot of players who can help you immediately. If you get leapfrogged, take Curry instead. Or drop down and take Sanchez or Raji. The possibilities are endless.

Again, the odds of this happening are remote ... then again, aren't the Lions always telling us that they plan to do all of their due diligence to prepare for this draft? Wouldn't a strategic delay in drafting fall into that category?

 

[CATCH17]

I'll never forget the year the Vikings selected Kevin Williams.

That draft was nuts. Teams had their cards in and picks were being made at the speed of light.

 

[Woods]

Well, the Lions could potentially save a lot of money, esp given the global downturn.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I wouldn't do it. Where would Stafford have gotten picked in the Brady Quinn draft?

 

[tunahelper]

Lions are making a mistake by drafting stafford. I dont think he will be a good pro QB, but I am sure they know better. I would build through the line first.

 

[jobberone]

Lions are making a mistake by drafting stafford. I dont think he will be a good pro QB, but I am sure they know better. I would build through the line first.

I think Stafford is a keeper but your idea to build thru the LOS is best. Not saying pass up an elite skill player but LOS is what drives the team in general.

 

[bobtheflob]

There was a similar article in SI on the subject a few days ago:


Here's a novel approach for the Lions: Let clock expire on draft day
-Ross Tucker

The Detroit Lions are on the clock.

In the wake of Matthew Stafford's "flawless" private workout with the Detroit brass Tuesday, some sources have reported the Lions' intention to draft the Georgia quarterback with the No. 1-overall pick is a "done deal."

Other reports, however, indicate Baylor offensive tackle Jason Smith remains the Lions' top choice and they point to the fact that the Lions have begun preliminary negotiations with Smith's representation. Wake Forest linebacker Aaron Curry and Virginia left tackle Eugene Monroe also remain in the conversation as the Lions' new brain trust makes its biggest decision to date.

Here's some free advice for the Lions: Strongly consider passing on the No. 1 pick. Just let the time run out, Minnesota Vikings-style. Don't bother skimming the rest of the column looking for an April Fool's Day reveal. It's a serious suggestion. Given the financial commitment inherent in making the No. 1 pick and the lack of a clear-cut best player, the Lions should consider letting the clock strike zero and let the Rams make the first selection. Maybe even let the Chiefs slide in there too, before making a pick at three or four.

The money paid to the top five rookies has gotten so steep that this approach could be a legitimate option for a team. With the top pick, the Lions are looking at doling out a contract upward of $35 million in guaranteed compensation. (The top pick last year, Jake Long, got a five-year, $57.75 million deal from the Dolphins, with $30 million guaranteed.) The Lions are smart enough to negotiate with a couple of the top prospects in an effort to leverage them against each other and wrap up a contract before the draft, but maybe they shouldn't bother.

If the Lions would truly be content with any of the aforementioned four players, there's no need to waste time negotiating or spend top-slot money when they can simply let the clock run out and take one of the other players a pick or two down the line. Over the last few years -- differences in contract length aside -- every subsequent pick in the top five of the draft has ended up commanding around $2 million less in guaranteed compensation than the prior pick. That means the Lions could save a cool $4 million at least by letting the Rams and Chiefs pick first, while still landing a very good player who they were considering taking with the top pick anyway.

There's precedent. In 2003, the Minnesota Vikings were in trade talks with the Ravens when their time to make the No. 7-overall pick ran out. Jacksonville and Carolina, the two teams supposed to pick immediately after the Vikings, hurriedly got their selections into the commissioner's hands before the Vikings could ultimately take defensive tackle Kevin Williams in the nine spot. Though that move has, in hindsight, turned out very well for the Vikings, they took a big public relations hit when it happened. The Lions would likewise face an avalanche of criticism, but could take comfort in knowing they had a good reason for the move.

The money paid to top rookies has gotten so out of whack that teams don't even want to have a top five pick anymore, let alone No. 1. The top pick used to be a consolation prize for teams that were coming off a horrible season. Now it seems more like cruel and unusual punishment. The top picks are so costly that they are virtually untradeable, which is not good for a league that prides itself on competitive balance.

The thing that seems to get lost when discussing a rookie wage scale is that the money has only gotten out of hand for the first 10, maybe 15, selections. In fact, the later portion of the first round and almost all of the selections in the second round often represent a tremendous value for the teams picking in that range. The sweet spot in terms of return on investment appears to be spots 20-50, where a team can select a player with a high probability to be a quality starter at a price that is less than what a veteran starter would likely get on the open market at that position.

The same cannot be said for the top five or 10 picks, however. For example, if the Lions choose Curry, Monroe or Smith instead of Stafford with the top pick, that player will immediately become the highest-paid player in league history at his position, a reality that makes no sense considering he will basically be getting paid for what he did in college and what he might be able to do in the NFL. This can lead to a laundry list of problems, from resentment in the locker room to a lack of incentive for the player to whom all the money is given.

Commissioner Roger Goodell has already said the concept of a rookie wage scale will be among the items addressed as the league and the NFLPA enter into negotiations on a new CBA. The owners are hoping to not only cut back on the amount they spend on players, but, just as important, to mitigate that risk by spending the big bucks on players who have already performed at the NFL level. The goal, of course, is to have more of the available money going to players who have proven themselves in the NFL.

Opponents of a rookie wage scale will say that these contracts act as a market driver for veteran deals, but the better argument is that there are way too many teams that are closer to the salary floor than the ceiling. If they aren't spending their available cap space on veteran free agents now, there's no guarantee the money will trickle toward veteran players if the league establishes a rookie wage scale. Any rookie wage scale would have to include an increase in the salary floor as well, a trade-off the owners should be willing to make.

But that's talk for another time and place. The Lions are staring the here and now squarely in the face, and their best option, as crazy as it sounds, might be to simply let time run out.

 

[CATCH17]

I wouldn't do it. Where would Stafford have gotten picked in the Brady Quinn draft?

Well is Russell could go #1 I think Stafford would have been picked ahead of him so probably #1.

 

[DFWJC]

If Stafford is who they want--which is not a certainty--then passing on picks gets increasingly risky the further down they go because any team could pick him some other team in a prearrangement.

I think Sanchez will be the wildcard and that he will get taken in Jacksonville's spot by someone (Denver, Washington, NYJ or TB). Just a guess.

 

[WoodysGirl]

The Logistics Of Passing A Pick
Posted by Mike Florio on April 7, 2009, 9:29 a.m.

We’ve received several questions already regarding the concept of passing on a draft pick. Specifically, some readers think that, if the Lions were to allow the time to expire on the first overall selection, they’d forfeit the pick entirely.

Not so.

So here’s how it would work.

If the Lions were to fail to submit a card before time runs out, the Rams would then be on the clock, and they would have the ability to snag the first overall pick.

Technically, it would be a race; if the Lions were to suddenly realize that the Rams planned to take the player whom Detroit covets, the Lions could still get the first pick by beating St. Louis to the podium.

And if the Rams were to submit their pick, the race would then be on as to the Lions and the Chiefs, who hold the third overall pick.

Then, if the Chiefs were to pick before the Lions, the Seahawks would be on the clock — but the Lions would be able to submit their pick at any time.

Basically, a team that passes still holds the right to submit its pick at any time, constrained only by the ability of other teams to beat them to the punch.

That’s precisely what happened in 2003. With the Vikings (at No. 7) trying to swing a trade with the Jaguars (at No. 8 overall) and the Ravens (at No. 10) for the ability to secure quarterback Byron Leftwich, the clock struck zero and the Jags snagged Leftwich. Then, before the Vikings could submit their card as to defensive tackle Kevin Williams, the Panthers took tackle Jordan Gross.

Finally, the Vikings plucked Williams at No. 9.

(It worked out fairly well for the Ravens — they picked Terrell Suggs at No. 10.)

Six years ago, however, the passed pick thing happened accidentally. We’ve got a feeling that, if anyone were to do it intentionally, the league and/or the union would come up with a way to prevent such shenanigans in the future.

 

[Hostile]

They'd be stupid to pass on Stafford IMO.

 

[Avery]

Even if they did do that and we'll say they pick up Stafford at #6, you don't think his agent is going to demand #1 pick money and that Stafford would be happy with the organization basically saying 'You're not top five material?'

The smart thing to do is to impose a rookie pay scale that actually makes sense vs. thrusting so much guaranteed money at a guy who's never played a snap in the pros.

 

[AdamJT13]

I'll never forget the year the Vikings selected Kevin Williams.

That draft was nuts. Teams had their cards in and picks were being made at the speed of light.

Imagine if multiple teams decided to use this strategy and pass. Do any other teams really want the No. 1 pick this year?

I wonder how many teams the NFL would allow to pass before they forced SOMEONE to make the No. 1 pick?

 

[Danny White]

Imagine if multiple teams decided to use this strategy and pass. Do any other teams really want the No. 1 pick this year?

I wonder how many teams the NFL would allow to pass before they forced SOMEONE to make the No. 1 pick?

I think you'd end up with a lot of agents claiming their guy deserves #1 money! :laugh2:

 

[skinsscalper]

I think you'd end up with a lot of agents claiming their guy deserves #1 money! :laugh2:

I also think it would send a strong message to the NFLPA that a rookie contract structure would be imminent if the two sides have any plans on reaching a new collective bargaining agreement.

The money these kids are getting, who have never played a down, is enough to totally wreck a team for many years if that pick doesn't pan out. I don't think the draft should ever have to be that much of a gamble to a team, a city, or it's fans.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I could see the Lions moving down like that a few slots to try and gamble that they'd still get Stafford, or Sanchez, but get them for less money than the number one pick over all.

I doubt it happens but I wouldn't be shocked if they attempted this sort of thing.

 

[SkinsFan28]

Imagine if multiple teams decided to use this strategy and pass. Do any other teams really want the No. 1 pick this year?

I wonder how many teams the NFL would allow to pass before they forced SOMEONE to make the No. 1 pick?

I would like to see that, it would be a nightmare for the NFL, but I could see the first 5 or 6 teams doing this, of course then there would be a mad rush once the slots started opening up.

I hope that whatever else happens, a rookie pay scale gets implemented. It's crazy to force a bad team to take a huge gamble on one player and it also reduces 1st day trades.

 

[Nightman]

My thoughts:

A top 5 pick should be a good thing, not a liability

The NFL should award a team the same pick in next year's draft if they fail to reach a deal with a drafted player. The agent loses a lot of leverage and a more reasonable deal should be reached.

The GMs need to devise a new draft pick value chart. The old one doesn't account for the money and salary cap.

The veterans need to speak up. All the money going to rookies is not going to them.

 

[Temo]

I just want to clarify a few things:

1. Only the top 5-7 picks get the "huge money".

2. Everywhere else in the draft, it can be clearly shown that lots of Rookies actually get UNDERPAID compared to performance. One of the reasons draft picks are so highly valued is because they equate to cheap labor.

3. There is already a rookie cap. The "problem" is that teams and agents circumvent this cap by using roster bonuses in sucessive years as well as adding "fake" seasons at the end of the contract.

4. Some of the inflation in contracts can best be described by the evolution of the term "signing bonus" to "guarenteed money". I just don't get this... they used to report a signing bonus, which is money that a player gets upfront. "Guarenteed money" is sometimes not... guarenteed. Yea, it's weird. And then there's "log" bonuses; I don't even know what those are.

Look at the difference in contract structure of the Darren McFadden deal with the Marion Barber deal (an approximate comparison)-- McFadden first.

6/5/2008: Signed a six-year, $60 million contract. The deal contains $26 million guaranteed, including a $6.4 million "log" bonus. 2009: $3,281,250 (+ $5 million roster bonus), 2010: $3,937,500, 2011: $4,593,750, 2012: $5.25 million, 2013: $660,000, 2014: Free Agent

5/20/2008: Signed a seven-year, $45 million contract. The deal contains $16 million guaranteed, including a $12 million signing bonus. 2009: $620,000, 2010: $3.86 million, 2011: $4.25 million, 2012: $5.75 million, 2013: $6.25 million, 2014: $7 million, 2015: Free Agent

I can tell you exactly how much Barber has made (12 million+620K in his first season) and how much he'll make in each sucessive season.

McFadden? I have no idea how much he's mad and how much he will make. Absoultely no idea.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

As far as structure goes... I dont like it.