Should NFL have a Draft Lottery?

[Steve0x]

I think it should with 6 worst teams 

[Steve0x]

Some teams are losing on purpose to get that #1 pick an Franchise QB maybe my system the lottery would stop teams from losing on purpose cause you might not get that #1 pick

[ravensdan]

7 hours ago, Steve0x said:

Some teams are losing on purpose to get that #1 pick an Franchise QB maybe my system the lottery would stop teams from losing on purpose cause you might not get that #1 pick

This isn't really happening. There is a case one team didn't go all in on one game. But it is just never going to be a big problem in the NFL. Too many players and coaches with pride and jobs on the line to ever be a problem. 

[Daft Classic]

On 5/18/2016 at 11:42 AM, Steve0x said:

Some teams are losing on purpose to get that #1 pick an Franchise QB maybe my system the lottery would stop teams from losing on purpose cause you might not get that #1 pick

You don't think the Lakers or Sixers aren't purposely losing to get better odds in the lottery? Plus the Lottery opens up corruption theories by the league if say a team with a larger market has an off year. Knowing the league, they'd make sure LA won the lottery and NE lost every single year, no matter how they finished

[rmcjacket23]

1. There aren't enough franchise QBs coming out of college to make it worth their while.

2. I really can only thing of one actual instance of a team that I thought was "tanking", and it wasn't even that obvious.

3. The lottery doesn't change the fact that the team with the worst record is the most likely team to get the 1st pick.

Doesn't solve any problems from what I see, mostly because there is no problem.

[Tiznut]

No and the discussion of teams throwing it in for the top pick are ridiculous. Typically if a team is that bad where they are getting the top pick there's a lot of turnover on the staff and amongst the players. So why would people sacrifice their careers so someone else benefits from it? 

 

The second reason I say the thought of coughing up games for a high pick is silly is because the second, third, fourth, etc round also play a major factor in building a championship team.  Right now our best OL is a former 3rd round pick. Those types of picks are how contenders are made 

[Steve0x]

Look at the Browns..They lose and traded their top pick. I say every game you lose you get a ping pong ball, collect those loses and other teams loses and the 6 teams combine their balls and when that top ball comes out that team wins first pick then the next ball comes out that team gets second pick and 3rd ball comes out that team gets 3rd pick of draft and the rest go back in position of the draft.

[Tiznut]

So your justification for a lottery is the team who was picking second traded out of the spot?

 

the idea of a lottery in the Nba is to avoid 30+ games of a team tanking and getting the top pick in a league where one pick sways the balance of a team tremendously. It's 25% of your starting line up. 

 

Nfl is different in that your first round pick, despite getting credit, is never getting it done alone. One reason why the Titans ultimately had a top 2 pick  two years straight 

 

but it yeah look at the Browns and how vastly different they're front office and coaches are.  That's exactly why nfl teams aren't throwing games. 

Edited May 23, 2016 by Tiznut

[Steve0x]

Maybe the browns are losing on purpose so they can get enough young top notch talent to make themselves one or two year wonders and start over again cause they cant afford pricey players like the Ravens can. 

[Tiznut]

lol. So your whole debate is to ignore reality. Yes, yes we should completely change the rules because you think a team that hasn't had the first pick since 2000 has been throwing games to gain the top pick. 

I don't know what's worse. Your inability to see that the top pick alone doesn't change a loser around or your insistence on using the Browns in hopes that people would make an illogical yet purely emotional agreement with your nonsense. 

 

The he top of the draft has been relatively unpredictable in terms of having both the 1 and 2 picks in a draft both be perennial pro bowlers that it's foolish for a coach or gm to risk their jobs for a pick that doesn't always pan out. 

http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/alltimeno1

the guys that you think teams have thrown games for.

 

[rmcjacket23]

4 hours ago, Steve0x said:

Maybe the browns are losing on purpose so they can get enough young top notch talent to make themselves one or two year wonders and start over again cause they cant afford pricey players like the Ravens can. 

1. Then they've been losing on purpose for years AND drafting poorly, so that destroys that theory.

2. Every NFL team can afford just as much as everybody else... they all play under the same salary cap and the same salary floor. They all make a ton of money and can all afford the highest paid players IF THEY WANT TO. 

Some owners prefer higher profits at the expense of lower spending on players. That's their decision, because its their business.

But this notion that the Cowboys can afford to spend more than the Browns isn't accurate. Salary caps make it so.

[Tiznut]

I don't like the idea that owners are choosing not to improve due to large profits. The reality is that they all know the better the team performs on a consistent basis the higher the profit margin. 

 

They all know that performing like the patriots gives them the most return on their investments.  Despite how people view Jerry jones he understands that very well. 

[rmcjacket23]

22 minutes ago, Tiznut said:

I don't like the idea that owners are choosing not to improve due to large profits. The reality is that they all know the better the team performs on a consistent basis the higher the profit margin. 

 

They all know that performing like the patriots gives them the most return on their investments.  Despite how people view Jerry jones he understands that very well. 

Not necessarily true. Revenue sharing makes it more advantageous for smaller market teams to gain bigger profits without directly getting it from their own markets.

While I agree that winning generally breeds more fan enjoyment and thus viewership, its hard to sell the idea that the Jaguars are all of the sudden going to start selling out their stadium every week and seeing mass influxes in revenue because of it. Teams like the Chargers, for example, had a good 5-6 year stretch where they were a very good team every season, and still they struggled to sell out their games due to the geography and demand for their product. There are certain areas of the country where the NFL just doesn't do that well in. This is generally ignored, because there's very large areas where the NFL is a cash cow, and those are generally among the biggest markets in the country.

So for a team like Cleveland, spending another $40-50M in payroll doesn't necessarily equate to significantly more in profits, especially in the short term. 

And, of course, the biggest elephant in the room is whether that additional spending would yield winning to begin with, which is far from guaranteed. If you're spending an additional $40-50M a season on a team that isn't winning, why would you continue to spend that? From a business standpoint, that makes no sense. 

That's why a savvy owner, especially in a small market, would likely opt to spend much less on players and attempt to build a competitive team in a limited payroll first. After that strategy is proven it can work, then you can start to invest more money in players with the hopes of building long term success on the field. We've seen Cincinnati slowly start to adopt this strategy in recent years... they used to annually spend about as little as possible, and once they started winning consistently, they've started spending more.

In many ways, for a team like Cleveland, spending more money on payroll would seem to be somewhat counterproductive at this point.

Edited May 23, 2016 by rmcjacket23

[Steve0x]

Look at Lions owner Clay Ford he's too cheap to get good players on the Lions why they suck so much.

[rmcjacket23]

51 minutes ago, Steve0x said:

Look at Lions owner Clay Ford he's too cheap to get good players on the Lions why they suck so much.

Actually, that has nothing to do with it. They're spending plenty of money... they're just not spending it wisely or on good players.

They've spent $143M on players this year already in terms of cap space. 

[Steve0x]

3 hours ago, rmcjacket23 said:

Actually, that has nothing to do with it. They're spending plenty of money... they're just not spending it wisely or on good players.

They've spent $143M on players this year already in terms of cap space. 

Let me ask you this,If you lived in Detroit,What would be the purpose to spend your money to watch the Lions play? Name one great star they have worth watching for $60 sitting upper level. 

[Tiznut]

1 hour ago, Steve0x said:

Let me ask you this,If you lived in Detroit,What would be the purpose to spend your money to watch the Lions play? Name one great star they have worth watching for $60 sitting upper level. 

What does that have to do with what he said. 

[Steve0x]

2 hours ago, Tiznut said:

What does that have to do with what he said. 

A lot cause Clay Ford is cheap Lions have no real stars so who would really want to watch them?

[ravensdan]

8 hours ago, Steve0x said:

Look at Lions owner Clay Ford he's too cheap to get good players on the Lions why they suck so much.

 

So this statement has zero basis in fact. This is not baseball. There is a Max and minimum salary spend in the NFL. It's how they spend their money. 

[Tiznut]

49 minutes ago, Steve0x said:

A lot cause Clay Ford is cheap Lions have no real stars so who would really want to watch them?

He pointed out that the team is paying the players as evident by where the salary cap is. Your rebuttal actually shows they are to be commended for paying players due to no income from home team fans. 

 

 

So again what does you claiming ticket prices aren't getting fans in seats have to do with him stating the team is inline with others in regards to salary cap. 

[Tiznut]

Before I forget. Look at the salaries of Stafford, Calvin and suh. The situation they were in wasn't from a lack of spending 

[Steve0x]

Well look at the Ravens. They have stars thats why Tickets are at least $100 a pop They have guys like Flacco, Suggs,Mosley, Dumervil,Steve Smith and now Mike Wallace. Who do lions have is a great star. Lions Franchise isn't like the Colts,Redskins,Giants,Pats,Broncos and Seahawks those teams have many stars. And great players cost big bucks. Lions have Stafford, Calvin and suh those guys could been on the Cowboys you know But Jerry doesn't want them.

Edited May 24, 2016 by Steve0x

[52520Andrew]

3 hours ago, Steve0x said:

Lions have Stafford, Calvin and suh those guys could been on the Cowboys you know But Jerry doesn't want them.

Do you have any actual basis for this claim? I would imagine the Cowboys would take Suh in a heartbeat. Also when exactly did the Cowboys have a chance to take these players and refuse to do so?

[usmccharles]

4 hours ago, Steve0x said:

Well look at the Ravens. They have stars thats why Tickets are at least $100 a pop They have guys like Flacco, Suggs,Mosley, Dumervil,Steve Smith and now Mike Wallace. Who do lions have is a great star. Lions Franchise isn't like the Colts,Redskins,Giants,Pats,Broncos and Seahawks those teams have many stars. And great players cost big bucks. Lions have Stafford, Calvin and suh those guys could been on the Cowboys you know But Jerry doesn't want them.

you are literally making zero sense. 

[Steve0x]

1 hour ago, 52520Andrew said:

Do you have any actual basis for this claim? I would imagine the Cowboys would take Suh in a heartbeat. Also when exactly did the Cowboys have a chance to take these players and refuse to do so?

I don't think so, Suh would be a distraction on the Cowboys. Suh would take cheap shots and start a controversy in Dallas like he Stomp on Aaron Rogers 

[Steve0x]

17 minutes ago, usmccharles said:

you are literally making zero sense. 

Why are Ravens ticket prices higher than other clubs? Ill tell you why,,Cause the quality of the players they got.

[52520Andrew]

6 minutes ago, Steve0x said:

I don't think so, Suh would be a distraction on the Cowboys. Suh would take cheap shots and start a controversy in Dallas like he Stomp on Aaron Rogers 

Is that why Suh signed a 6 year 114 million dollar deal with the Dolphins when he was a free agent? And let's not act like the Cowboys have not taken controversial players before. Greg Hardy comes to mind as the most recent example

Edited May 24, 2016 by 52520Andrew

[usmccharles]

Just now, Steve0x said:

Why are Ravens ticket prices higher than other clubs? Ill tell you why,,Cause the quality of the players they got.

So now we are using ticket prices as a basis of how good players are on a specific team are?  San Fran had the 3rd highest ticket prices last year, guess because of all those stars they have.  I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that it has something to do with the economy of said city, just a guess.  Cinci has one of the most loaded rosters in the entire NFL, 71$ average ticket price....Where do you come up with some of this stuff? 

[Tiznut]

3 hours ago, usmccharles said:

So now we are using ticket prices as a basis of how good players are on a specific team are?  San Fran had the 3rd highest ticket prices last year, guess because of all those stars they have.  I am going to go out on a limb here and guess that it has something to do with the economy of said city, just a guess.  Cinci has one of the most loaded rosters in the entire NFL, 71$ average ticket price....Where do you come up with some of this stuff? 

He's just flinging poo at the walls hoping something sticks 

[usmccharles]

1 minute ago, Tiznut said:

He's just flinging poo at the walls hoping something sticks 

He missed the wall entirely then