TXsteeler Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 1 hour ago, the lone star said: But I will say this, a lottery may help teams escape a few years of mediocrity. However, I think another way to cure that is expand playoffs. But that's not happening because of the TV schedule. Wouldn't more playoff games equal more money, which both the NFL and the TV networks would want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jebrick Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 The NFL has always been cyclical. It is also the most team oriented sport. this means it is always better to build a good TEAM then just get that one player. THat one player may take you over the top but surround them with bad players and you get the Colts. And the draft is still a crap shoot no matter where you pick. If you have a crappy FO then you will make bad picks or sometimes, bad things just happen (see Sergio Kindle ). Teams with good FO tend to have shorter valleys and longer peaks. Would anyone say the Jags tanked? They have had 10 top 10 picks in the last 10 years. That is beyond bad. The Steelers last top 10 pick was in 2000. The NFL and the NFLPA had the salary floor put in because of teams like the Jags and the Bengals ( back in the day). And I firmly believe that players and coaches do not tank on purpose. FO and Owners do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJ Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I think they should ditch the snake format and go auction. Give teams with the bad records more "money" to spend. The money would be fake money, but tied to a rookie pay scale like today so that the #1 highest bid guy got what the #1 picked guy would make today. For no other reason than i think it'd be fun to watch the stupid money phase. Some team blows almost literally every dollar they have to take a QB. And put the teams execs in a pit like the NYSE used to have their traders in to make it more chaotic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 9 hours ago, Heinz D. said: Seriously? Would all the teams involved have, say...a franchise quarterback? Does that factor into it? And a 10-6 team that barely misses the playoffs would still have a chance at winning the lottery over a 1-16 team? That doesn't help the league at all. It simply creates more drama, and more stuff for sports talking heads and internet fan sites to discuss. Exactly how would it not help the league? When Orlando won the lottery and added Penny Hardaway I'd argue that helped the NBA. When a good team (Spurs) had a terrible season and got Duncan I'd argue it helped the NBA. A 10-6 team lucking its way to a high pick could help get that team over the top and make the playoffs far more competitive. That would definitely help the NFL. That 1-15 team will likely just ruin the career of whoever they draft #1. I can make a pretty strong argument that giving teams that are more competitive higher picks would do far more to help the NFL product than letting the Browns waste top of the draft talent every year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 9 hours ago, PapaShogun said: So coaches and NFL players with constant low job security are going to willingly play like crap, so an owner can get his team a better position in the draft? Nope, NBA players don't intentionally play bad either. Players intentionally playing bad isn't how teams tank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 So many fans seem to indicate parity is the reason they don't think the NFL needs a lottery. I find it hilarious people still buy the NFL propaganda about parity in the NFL. First the NFL is at best 3rd when it comes to parity (behind MLB and the NHL) and 2nd what parity does exist has nothing to do with the draft or even scheduling, its simply the law of large numbers. The NFL plays so few games that a couple injuries or just plain luck allows lesser teams to end the season with more wins than better teams. The whole parity argument makes me laugh when I hear NFL fans talk about it. Its a myth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CriminalMind Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Absolutely ... and it should be held... right after Easter ... in Prime Time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the lone star Posted March 20, 2018 Author Share Posted March 20, 2018 3 hours ago, TXsteeler said: Wouldn't more playoff games equal more money, which both the NFL and the TV networks would want? It's more like this... 6 Team Format: 4 games the first week, so one afternoon game and one evening game on both Saturday and Sunday.7 Team Format: 6 games the first week, so you will probably have to cannibalize your own market if you stay on Saturday and Sunday. Otherwise, they would have to do a Friday night and Monday night game, which may be feasible, but would obviously cost some money, and could put some teams at a disadvantage, especially if they play on Monday and have to play again the upcoming Saturday. I see the obstacle that the NFL has to overcome, but I don't think it's so big that it cannot be done. If the days of rest thing is a legitimate issue, then just make sure to say that the winner of that game plays on the following Sunday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shylo3716 Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 The system isn’t broken like the NBA. Every team in the NFL competes to win because there are fewer games involved to make a playoff appearance. NFL teams draft on need versus BPA in the NBA draft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Buck Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 I would give a definite NO to implementation of a draft lottery in the NFL. The system they have right now works very well. The Minnesota Timberwolves have had a lot of terrible seasons over the years and have only gotten the first overall pick in the NBA draft one time. With bad luck, a draft lottery could keep bad teams in purgatory for years. The NFL's current system of parity seems to work much better, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 14 hours ago, wackywabbit said: See THIS is the lack of good reasoning that I'm talking about. That the 76ers were tanking under the lottery system does NOT mean that the lottery system makes tanking WORSE than a no lottery system. All it means is that it doesn't ELIMINATE tanking. Not eliminating something does NOT equal making it worse. As for reasoning behind it lessening tanking, logically there is LESS motivation to lose an extra game over a team with a similar record if it MIGHT get you a more coveted draft slot versus if losing the extra game was GUARANTEED to get you a more coveted draft spot. If there is one super elite prospect in a draft then two teams at the bottom have MORE motivation to lose games to secure a 100% chance of getting him in a no-lottery system versus getting a couple percentage points better chance at him in a lottery system. IDK why I had to explain that. That should be common sense. If the teams with the worst records were guaranteed one of the top players, as opposed to--potentially--the eight best, they wouldn't have to tank year after year. It doesn't make a whole lot of difference either way, as NFL teams really don't tank. Especially like NBA teams do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TecmoSuperJoe Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 4 hours ago, youngosu said: Nope, NBA players don't intentionally play bad either. Players intentionally playing bad isn't how teams tank. Then that isn't tanking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinz D. Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 4 hours ago, youngosu said: I can make a pretty strong argument that giving teams that are more competitive higher picks would do far more to help the NFL product than letting the Browns waste top of the draft talent every year. Bringing the Browns into it eliminates any reasonable argument you could put forth as they have been mismanaged, to one degree or another, for a very long time. Giving more competitive teams higher picks would automatically create an upper tier and a lower tier to the league, and no...that would not "help the NFL product". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 Just now, PapaShogun said: Then that isn't tanking. A coach choosing to put a line up on the field that is not the best line up available is tanking. That is how teams tank in every league. If that isn't tanking than tanking literally does not exist in any league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youngosu Posted March 20, 2018 Share Posted March 20, 2018 1 minute ago, Heinz D. said: Bringing the Browns into it eliminates any reasonable argument you could put forth as they have been mismanaged, to one degree or another, for a very long time. Giving more competitive teams higher picks would automatically create an upper tier and a lower tier to the league, and no...that would not "help the NFL product". That is your opinion, I disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.