ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, Packerraymond said: It all comes back to your process like I said in the first post. If you draft well in the NFL, there's no chance you won't have and sustain success. The NFL has all the tools for parity at teams disposal. it's the reason elite QBs don't win a million titles, despite being the most important position in sports. Rodgers, Brees, Wilson all 1 SB, Manning had 1 until Elways decided to go so "all in" he's basically made Denver suck since. Brady and BB have ruined that graph or I'm sure it would look a lot different. This logic is circular and nonsensical. We define "good drafting" by players who were drafted winning games, so saying "oh teams who draft well win" is a natural consequence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: This logic is circular and nonsensical. We define "good drafting" by players who were drafted winning games, so saying "oh teams who draft well win" is a natural consequence. And it's also something you don't need a draft for. If your solution is "just pick the right players" that doesn't change demonstrably by having or not having a draft. You're still picking the players, you're still doing the same fundamental things. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Just now, Thelonebillsfan said: And it's also something you don't need a draft for. If your solution is "just pick the right players" that doesn't change demonstrably by having or not having a draft. You're still picking the players, you're still doing the same fundamental things. Correct. In fact, a free for all system where each team is given a rookie budget and can sign who they want will lead to even more "tools for parity" since you aren't constrained by your draft order or needing to find a trade partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 (edited) The Packers being run like a "small market" team is a perfect example why the current system is no more or less effectual than an alternative anyway. They make a ton of money, they should spend more of it and use it more efficiently. Edited May 8, 2020 by Thelonebillsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Just now, ramssuperbowl99 said: This logic is circular and nonsensical. We define "good drafting" by players who were drafted winning games, so saying "oh teams who draft well win" is a natural consequence. We saw a 2017 Saints team who could not get over the hump become a perennial power based off of one good draft (but still hasn't won the SB despite this because the league has parity), we just witnessed a team go from the #2 pick the the #2 team in the NFL in one off-season. The tools for parity are all there, is it the NFL's fault that some owners meddle in these systems despite not knowing what they are doing? I don't see how this model improves anything when those same owners are in place, other than giving desirable cities the best odds to acquire places do to circumstances outside the game of football (something that the draft completely eliminates). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Just now, Packerraymond said: We saw a 2017 Saints team who could not get over the hump become a perennial power based off of one good draft (but still hasn't won the SB despite this because the league has parity), we just witnessed a team go from the #2 pick the the #2 team in the NFL in one off-season. The tools for parity are all there, is it the NFL's fault that some owners meddle in these systems despite not knowing what they are doing? I don't see how this model improves anything when those same owners are in place, other than giving desirable cities the best odds to acquire places do to circumstances outside the game of football (something that the draft completely eliminates). This is all totally backwards reasoning that justifies trendlines based on what we know now rather than what was known then. The solution then, is the same as it's always been, make the owners spend more money on these things or get new ownership. And once again, most players don't actually live in most of these cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 2 minutes ago, ramssuperbowl99 said: Correct. In fact, a free for all system where each team is given a rookie budget and can sign who they want will lead to even more "tools for parity" since you aren't constrained by your draft order or needing to find a trade partner. Now we're capping the spending, revenue sharing and having a salary cap. Why not just have the draft? All we're doing is eliminating an 3 day event that 55 million people just consumed a few weeks ago that gives more money to the teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Packerraymond said: We saw a 2017 Saints team who could not get over the hump become a perennial power based off of one good draft (but still hasn't won the SB despite this because the league has parity), we just witnessed a team go from the #2 pick the the #2 team in the NFL in one off-season. The tools for parity are all there, is it the NFL's fault that some owners meddle in these systems despite not knowing what they are doing? I don't see how this model improves anything when those same owners are in place, other than giving desirable cities the best odds to acquire places do to circumstances outside the game of football (something that the draft completely eliminates). Why did the Saints have a "good draft" in 2017. Because they won later and got over the hump? You either have to commit to ranking drafts good or bad the day they happened, or you admit that you can't know whether a draft's impact is good or bad since you just reverse fit "good draft" to the teams who won the most. Otherwise it's circular logic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 (edited) Just now, Packerraymond said: Now we're capping the spending, revenue sharing and having a salary cap. Why not just have the draft? All we're doing is eliminating an 3 day event that 55 million people just consumed a few weeks ago that gives more money to the teams. Because a person should be allowed to choose where they wanna work. That's a fundamental thing. And the draft doesn't directly correlate to winning, winning correlates to winning, which is borne of so many different factors that having it or not having it changes but does not remove. Edited May 8, 2020 by Thelonebillsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Just now, Packerraymond said: Now we're capping the spending, revenue sharing and having a salary cap. Why not just have the draft? All we're doing is eliminating an 3 day event that 55 million people just consumed a few weeks ago that gives more money to the teams. Because it forces kids to go somewhere they might not want to and doesn't provide any discernible benefit to the league product. I could see the argument of not letting a kid decide who they want to work for if it was absolutely integral to the product, but it's not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Packerraymond Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 Just now, Thelonebillsfan said: This is all totally backwards reasoning that justifies trendlines based on what we know now rather than what was known then. The solution then, is the same as it's always been, make the owners spend more money on these things or get new ownership. And once again, most players don't actually live in most of these cities. Yes, new ownership is the solution for those teams. How do you force that upon them? Sucks for the team that is stuck with said owner, but it's the reality of having an owner, some are idiots. If you sold shares for each fan base like the Packers and copied their FO model that let GM's entirely control the football decisions, I'm sure there would be plenty more parity in the league, but how do you do it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelonebillsfan Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 The 49ers were bad, incredibly bad, until last year. Now suddenly all those drafts they had were "good", when just last year, the drafts they had would be "bad" because they weren't winning. You can't judge a decision made in hindsight reasonably, you judge the decision as it happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 1 minute ago, Packerraymond said: Yes, new ownership is the solution for those teams. How do you force that upon them? Sucks for the team that is stuck with said owner, but it's the reality of having an owner, some are idiots. If you sold shares for each fan base like the Packers and copied their FO model that let GM's entirely control the football decisions, I'm sure there would be plenty more parity in the league, but how do you do it? Set up a system that is as simple as possible so that the number of excuses ownership can throw at a fanbase shrinks. The NFL has the most convoluted system for just about everything financial, and it's designed to shield the owners from responsibility. Instead of talking about spending real dollars, we talk about the salary cap. Instead of being able to grade ownership recruitment, the league has a PR machine set to demonize every free agent and a draft that eliminates the idea of recruitment entirely. The current system is set up to keep fanbases mad at draft picks and coaches instead of owners. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyPhil1781 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Thelonebillsfan said: NFL ratings don't drastically change depending on who's playing, people watch bad teams play all the time. The Packers revenue will not dry up overnight if they're bad, that's not how this works. You're claiming some bizarre authority and superiority when you're just making wild and random suppositions based only on your intuition and a false premise. Who said overnight? No one.... well except you to fit your narrative. Over time, absolutely. No question. My claims are based off supply and demand and logic. Sorry you don't see that. There might, just might, be a reason certain teams get prime-time games and some don't. Edited May 8, 2020 by JTagg7754 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramssuperbowl99 Posted May 8, 2020 Share Posted May 8, 2020 tfw you realize you've spent like 10 years getting in internet fights about paying college players and now that everyone agrees with you, you're going to get into another 10 years of fights to get people to realize that the NFL needs an overhaul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.