Tanking the season? Here's the solution

[Hitman21ST]

It's only week four, and fans (for once, not the Skins anymore) are talking about tanking the season to win the Luck Sweepstakes.

I've had this idea for a while, just never really came around to putting it down on paper. For the life of me I still can't find any holes in it. Not saying there aren't, I just can't find any.

Re-seed the draft.

Not completely, though. Playoff teams are still seeded the same (Super Bowl winner picks last, then the loser, then the Conference losers, and so on). However, once you get past the playoff teams, the next best team picks first. The team with the worst record picks right before the playoff teams.

Just for argument's sake, we'll go with last year's draft. The Bucs, having the best record but not making the playoffs, gets the first pick. They're not picking Cam Newton. They'd go with one of the DL or LBs. This still leaves the opportunity open for trades, but it eliminates any possibility of tanking the season.

It would also mean that Luck isn't the hands-down #1 pick this year. Let's just say, hypothetically, the Giants or Bears get the #1 pick. With Eli, it's doubtful they would pick Luck. Eli and Cutler are both still in their prime, and both still have plenty left in the tank. Teams could still trade up to grab Luck. But the teams that have come the closest to the playoffs get the pick of the litter to help them get over the hump.

Thoughts?

[Bifflog]

I actually think that makes a ton of sense. Better than a lottery. More incentive to play out the season looking for wins.

[mojo]

Personally, I like the current system for 2 reasons.

1) If it aint broke...the competetive balance in the league is better than any other major sport.

2) For teams that are truly horrible (the Panthers from last year), at least their fan base has a big name coming out of college to pin their hopes on. Look what Newton has done for them in one off season.

I do like your idea in the fact it could provide some late season drama and interest for teams not going to the playoffs.

[HRNY4ZRNY]

I'd co sign this idea.

It gives a team like the Bucs a chance to get much better.

They can always pass if they dont want to pick that high.

[NewCliche21]

The thing that makes the NFL the top league in the nation is that it has such ridiculous parity. The 1997 Colts were absolutely disgusting. One draft turns them around and makes them a force to be reckoned with. If they didn't get Manning and instead picked 21st overall, then they're stuck at the bottom forever.

Your seeding would ensure that the 15+ best records get the best players and we'd have a rotation of half of the league competing with the other half doing nothing. There'd be no possibility of the Lions and Bills doing what they're doing right now.

[Blue Collar Skins]

I actually like that Idea Hitman! And I actually think, that the colts are purposefully holding out Manning so they can get Luck to groom behind Manning (Not saying the Coach is in on it, Just the Front Office). So for a team like that, I would totally agree that this would make sense to prevent that.

[HRNY4ZRNY]

We should do a mock re-draft from last year based on this scenario. See how it would play out.

[DC9]

The agents would never sign off on this. If Andrew Luck wasn't the number one pick (assuming he's healthy) he'd be missing out on his pay day. This would encourage trades and such, which would further hinder a team in the basement from getting out.

This is another reason I hated the idea of only getting 4 years with a top draft pick. If he sits on the bench for two, you have to re-up him based on 2 years of performance. This will also allow a guy like Orakpo to leave next season, if he wasn't happy with his situation here in Washington.

It won't allow bottom-dweller teams the opportunity to get out and correctly build a franchise.

[NewCliche21]

I actually like that Idea Hitman! And I actually think, that the colts are purposefully holding out Manning so they can get Luck to groom behind Manning (Not saying the Coach is in on it, Just the Front Office). So for a team like that, I would totally agree that this would make sense to prevent that.

I think that's a bit of a conspiracy theory, but even if true, the bulk of the bad teams, who would all benefit from getting better players, are just bad. Taking them out of the sweepstakes and giving them worse players, while giving Megatron to Tampa, screws them over permanently. We'd be without a left tackle, Sean Taylor, and LaRon Landry and stuck with Stephon Heyer, Reed Doughty, and Arch Deluxe. Think about that for a minute.

[Hitman21ST]

The thing that makes the NFL the top league in the nation is that it has such ridiculous parity. The 1997 Colts were absolutely disgusting. One draft turns them around and makes them a force to be reckoned with. If they didn't get Manning and instead picked 21st overall, then they're stuck at the bottom forever.

Your seeding would ensure that the 15+ best records get the best players and we'd have a rotation of half of the league competing with the other half doing nothing. There'd be no possibility of the Lions and Bills doing what they're doing right now.

Granted, there are those drafts occasionally, but in most drafts, the talent level across the board for the first round is about equal, and you have the random good players who fall inexplicably (Orakpo). It also puts more emphasis on the later rounds, too. Look at the Bills. They're competing with a bunch of lower round guys and UDFAs. The talent level eventually evens itself out.

[AKM311]

So you think a team trying to re-build, like Carolina, should have to trade a majority of there draft picks for sucking, in order to get the QB they want?

How will they ever rebuild? I think this idea makes no sense, personally.

[Jericho]

Not needed. Bad teams should get first crack at the top picks. A lottery system was put in place for basketball because the impact of one top flight guy is HUGE and the predictability of top prospects is also fairly high, particularly among the real "can't miss" guys. Cleveland tanked for LeBron James, and James turned them into the best team in the conference despite a lack of other good players.

The same cannot be said for football. While having a good quarterback goes a long way towards having a good franchise, finding said quarterback is not easy. Many top picks have failed, including #1 overalls like JaMarcus Rusell, Alex Smith, and David Carr. And many franchise QBs, while highly drafted, did not go in the top 10 picks. I don't think there's any real tanking for Luck. Remember, he could have come out last year. Were teams actively talking about tanking last year? It was only when Luck decided to stay another year that the "tanking" got a lot of play. Also note that Luck could return to college yet again for 2012 as he'll have another year of eligibility. And also note that Luck is an extreme anamoly.

The worst teams should have a crack at the best prospects, and changing that would hurt the league, IMO.

[AKM311]

I actually like that Idea Hitman! And I actually think, that the colts are purposefully holding out Manning so they can get Luck to groom behind Manning (Not saying the Coach is in on it, Just the Front Office). So for a team like that, I would totally agree that this would make sense to prevent that.

You gotta be kidding me. The front office is losing the team a lot of money by doing this, under your theory. No one will be showing up for games in about 2 more weeks.

There is no wayyy they are holding Manning out to get luck. Ridiculous in my mind.

[Hitman21ST]

So you think a team trying to re-build, like Carolina, should have to trade a majority of there draft picks for sucking, in order to get the QB they want?

How will they ever rebuild? I think this idea makes no sense, personally.

It's taken some time, but the Bills did it, with low-round guys and UDFAs.

[S.T.real,lights,out]

I dont really like it. The bad teams will almost never get better. And if the Bucs did get the first pick then what? The worst team in the league will have to trade their entire draft to get a QB they need? I like the way it is now. I dont think teams tank it at the end of the season. Its the fans talking. Do u think the guys on the field would be willing to play like crap and look like crap just to get a QB or whoever the 1s pick is looking to be? I dont think so.

[Brandon Lloyd Christmas]

not a fan of this because no team ever tanks a season on purpose. the teams that go 2-14 are really that bad and should get the most talent available to them. giving a 10-6 team the best pick in the draft is pretty unfair in my opinion.

[AKM311]

It's taken some time, but the Bills did it, with low-round guys and UDFAs.

One team, who by the way had a lot of top picks in the last few drafts and missed on most, got lucky at a few key positions. That is one example, but you cannot name many other teams like them.

Edit: They also would have those low round draft picks, because they would have to trade them to move up and get top players.

[MrMoore]

First of all no one tanks the season! Football takes so much planning, preparation, & dedication for teams to just go out and lay down. Second, the turnaround in the NFL is crazy. (Example the Bills)

I think it's a bad idea. Teams would build a strategy around this system. If I was a GM and didn't need a QB I would draft Luck or Cam anyway and use them for trade bait. Forcing teams to give up two or three picks. In that system weaker teams would not be able to build. In this system team like the Lions would never formed. Its so many different angles. The system now is perfect, why do you think the NFL Draft is so popular. It give sorry teams & their fans hope for the future.

[NewCliche21]

Granted, there are those drafts occasionally, but in most drafts, the talent level across the board for the first round is about equal, and you have the random good players who fall inexplicably (Orakpo). It also puts more emphasis on the later rounds, too.

I don't think that it's ever equal across the board, especially if a team needs a quarterback.

Mainly for us, but other teams, too, expecting that they take the same position:

2000 - Chris McIntosh = Chris Samuels?
2001 - Bad WR year, but for Atlanta, there's not even another quarterback in that draft worth mentioning, and none in the first round. And Tomilinson versus Bennett?
2002 - Bad QB year, but Peppers versus Charles Grant?
2003 - No first round for us (Jesus, Spurrier, what a cluster ****!), but Andre Johnson versus Bryant Johnson?
2004 - Sean Taylor versus no other safety. Larry Fitzgerald versus Michael Jenkins. One of "those years" that you spoke of for QB, though, so you got that one.
2005 - What a ****ty first round. But this gives Rodgers to the Packers, and they're nothing without him.
2006 - No first for us, thanks Jason. Mario Williams versus Wimbley. This year works for you, mostly.
2007 - Landry versus Reggie Nelson. Megatron versus Meachem. Adrian Peterson versus nobody.
2008 - Traded down for us. Matt Ryan versus Flacco, you win there. Jake Long versus Jeff Otah. Darren McFadden versus Jonathon Stewart/Felix Jones.
2009 - Stafford versus Freeman, I'll give to Stafford. Raji versus no other NT, and this is when 3-4 starts taking over. Orakpo probably isn't there for us.
2010 - Suh versus Alualu/Dan Williams/Jared Oldrick. Eric Berry versus nobody. Trent Williams versus Bulaga.
2011 - Newton versus Gabbert/Ponder. Green/Jones versus Baldwin. You win on Kerrigan.

All of those teams are effed and never back in contention if they don't get those players, and that's just first round.

[Blue Collar Skins]

You gotta be kidding me. The front office is losing the team a lot of money by doing this, under your theory. No one will be showing up for games in about 2 more weeks.

There is no wayyy they are holding Manning out to get luck. Ridiculous in my mind. No, just my opinion. And how are they losing money? Did the Redskins lose money by being so bad for over a decade? Not really all that much since they manage to sell out games. Is it a conspiracy theory? Sure, but just an opinion.

[AKM311]

No, just my opinion. And how are they losing money? Did the Redskins lose money by being so bad for over a decade? Not really all that much since they manage to sell out games. Is it a conspiracy theory? Sure, but just an opinion.

They are losing money because in 2 weeks the stadium will be empty.

Us Skins fans have issues. Skins to us are a drug that we cannot shake.

I hope you are not comparing Skins fans to Colts fan. There is a bigggggggg difference.

We sold out games with Tony Banks as our starting QB. We are addicted to this drug.

Edit: I respect your opinion and you are a good poster who I enjoy reading. But, this may be the first time I reallly disagree with you. But see, the drug has taken over you. We think we may be that team who finishes 9-7 and misses the playoffs. We want that #1 pick, which is why today this idea sounds great. But if you remove yourself a day from the drug, you probably realize this idea makes no sense.

[Hitman21ST]

I don't think that it's ever equal across the board, especially if a team needs a quarterback.

Mainly for us, but other teams, too, expecting that they take the same position:

2000 - Chris McIntosh = Chris Samuels?
2001 - Bad WR year, but for Atlanta, there's not even another quarterback in that draft worth mentioning, and none in the first round. And Tomilinson versus Bennett?
2002 - Bad QB year, but Peppers versus Charles Grant?
2003 - No first round for us (Jesus, Spurrier, what a cluster ****!), but Andre Johnson versus Bryant Johnson?
2004 - Sean Taylor versus no other safety. Larry Fitzgerald versus Michael Jenkins. One of "those years" that you spoke of for QB, though, so you got that one.
2005 - What a ****ty first round. But this gives Rodgers to the Packers, and they're nothing without him.
2006 - No first for us, thanks Jason. Mario Williams versus Wimbley. This year works for you, mostly.
2007 - Landry versus Reggie Nelson. Megatron versus Meachem. Adrian Peterson versus nobody.
2008 - Traded down for us. Matt Ryan versus Flacco, you win there. Jake Long versus Jeff Otah. Darren McFadden versus Jonathon Stewart/Felix Jones.
2009 - Stafford versus Freeman, I'll give to Stafford. Raji versus no other NT, and this is when 3-4 starts taking over. Orakpo probably isn't there for us.
2010 - Suh versus Alualu/Dan Williams/Jared Oldrick. Eric Berry versus nobody. Trent Williams versus Bulaga.
2011 - Newton versus Gabbert/Ponder. Green/Jones versus Baldwin. You win on Kerrigan.

All of those teams are effed and never back in contention if they don't get those players, and that's just first round.

You have a point, but not every team has the same big board, there was a lot of talk about Okung vs. Williams, etc, etc. Obviously, it's impossible to know how the draft would have went using my model, but there's a decent chance that teams get the players they wanted anyway. Using Sean as an example, we would have picked 16th in that draft. Would he have been picked already? Possibly, but he was the only safety taken in round one, so there's a chance we were the only team looking for one that early. Bob Sanders was the next safety taken. Would it have played out exactly the same? Probably not, but I have a feeling it would have been similar to the way it actually did.

[NewCliche21]

You have a point, but not every team has the same big board, there was a lot of talk about Okung vs. Williams, etc, etc. Obviously, it's impossible to know how the draft would have went using my model, but there's a decent chance that teams get the players they wanted anyway. Using Sean as an example, we would have picked 16th in that draft. Would he have been picked already? Possibly, but he was the only safety taken in round one, so there's a chance we were the only team looking for one that early. Bob Sanders was the next safety taken. Would it have played out exactly the same? Probably not, but I have a feeling it would have been similar to the way it actually did.

You have a point about the board, but anyone going by BPA (my argument was flawed by going by drafting for need, which isn't how it's been done save for the first overall that is usually a quarterback) would take Sean if he's there. Okung and Williams are both gone by the time we got to our pick (18th or so I think if I'm reading your formula correctly). I doubt that we went into 2009 expecting Orakpo to be there, but we snapped him up as soon as Denver WTF'd their pick. Samuels stays on and we don't take Williams, but I don't think that Berry is out of the question since Bradford's price was too high.

I don't think that top-ten players (in terms of how they're ranked at the time of the draft, not necessarily how they turn out to be) usually make it out of the top ten.

[mr_neon]

Only way I'd ever sign off on this is if the Redskins are already among the leagues elite teams and that this would reassure them years and years of dominance. But, we're not there yet. If it's not broken, don't fix it.

[Blue Collar Skins]

They are losing money because in 2 weeks the stadium will be empty.

Us Skins fans have issues. Skins to us are a drug that we cannot shake.

I hope you are not comparing Skins fans to Colts fan. There is a bigggggggg difference.

We sold out games with Tony Banks as our starting QB. We are addicted to this drug.

Edit: I respect your opinion and you are a good poster who I enjoy reading. But, this may be the first time I reallly disagree with you. But see, the drug has taken over you. We think we may be that team who finishes 9-7 and misses the playoffs. We want that #1 pick, which is why today this idea sounds great. But if you remove yourself a day from the drug, you probably realize this idea makes no sense. I can definitely see your point, and I do disagree that they will stop selling tickets. I just have this feeling that is what they are doing. I can definitely be wrong, which I usually am, but it's just a feeling. And thanks AKM, definitely respect your opinion as well.

[ballin86]

By far one of the worst ideas I have ever seen.

If you are one of the bottom 5 teams you stand no chance of ever getting better. Picking at 15 every year is not going to help you land the star QB you need to get better. Absolutely ridiculous idea for so many reasons.

We would basically be recycling the top 16 teams over...and over...and over...if you fall off just a little bit and miss the playoffs you are rewarded with the No. 1 pick in the draft? Wow. So using your model the Bucs would be able to trade down 5 picks and pick up an entire draft from someone who desperately needs Andrew Luck...in turn the Bucs draft 4 potential pro bowlers and win the Super Bowl next year.

Great logic....

[pjfootballer]

Horrible idea. Is any Redskin fans still saying tank after a 3-1 start? Let the worst teams get the better players. I always hated the lottery in basketball. Who cares if a team tanks in basketball? Better than watching stupid ping pong balls. And the NBA lottery has been fixed for years anyway.

[SoCalSkinsFan1975]

The thing that makes the NFL the top league in the nation is that it has such ridiculous parity. The 1997 Colts were absolutely disgusting. One draft turns them around and makes them a force to be reckoned with. If they didn't get Manning and instead picked 21st overall, then they're stuck at the bottom forever.

Your seeding would ensure that the 15+ best records get the best players and we'd have a rotation of half of the league competing with the other half doing nothing. There'd be no possibility of the Lions and Bills doing what they're doing right now.

I have to agree, this would widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have not's". This idea sounds great if you are a Skin's fan trying to design a scenario where we actually have a shot at getting Luck, but in the big picture I believe this would do much more harm than good for the league. HTTR!

[Hitman21ST]

First 16 picks every draft since 2000 - Teams in parenthesis are the teams that would have picked had there not been a trade. Vikings are * in 2003 because they took forever and a day to pick. Teams in red have drafted in the top half at least half of the 2000s

2011: Panthers, Broncos, Bills, Bengals, Cardinals, (Browns), 49ers, Titans, Cowboys, (Redskins), Texans, Vikings, Lions, Rams, Dolphins, (Jaguars)
2010: Rams, Lions, Buccaneers, Redskins, Chiefs, Seahawks, Browns, Raiders, Bills, Jaguars, (Bears), (Dolphins), (49ers), (Broncos), Giants, Titans
2009: Lions, Rams, Chiefs, Seahawks, Browns, Bengals, Raiders, Jaguars, Packers, 49ers, Bills, Broncos, Redskins, Saints, Texans, Chargers
2008: Dolphins, Rams, Falcons, Raiders, Chiefs, Jets, (49ers), (Ravens), Bengals, Saints, Bills, Broncos, Panthers, Bears, (Lions), Cardinals
2007: Raiders, Lions, Browns, Buccaneers, Cardinals, Redskins, Vikings, (Texans), Dolphins, (Falcons), 49ers, Bills, Rams, (Panthers), Steelers, Packers
2006: Texans, Saints, Titans, Jets, Packers, 49ers, Raiders, Bills, Lions, Cardinals, (Rams), (Browns), (Ravens), Eagles, (Falcons), Dolphins
2005: 49ers, Dolphins, Browns, Bears, Buccaneers, Titans, (Raiders), Cardinals, Redskins, Lions, Cowboys, (Giants), (Texans), Panthers, Chiefs, (Saints)
2004: Chargers, Raiders, Cardinals, Giants, Redskins, (Lions), (Browns), Falcons, Jaguars, Texans, Steelers, Jets, Bills, Bears, Buccaneers, 49ers
2003: Bengals, Lions, Texans, (Bears), Cowboys, Cardinals, Vikings*, Jaguars, Panthers, Ravens, Seahawks, Rams, (Redskins), (Bills), (Chargers), (Chiefs)
2002: Texans, Panthers, Lions, Bills, Chargers, (Cowboys), Vikings, (Chiefs), Jaguars, Bengals, Colts, Cardinals, Saints, (Titans), (Giants), Browns
2001: (Chargers), Cardinals, Browns, Bengals, (Falcons), Patriots, (Cowboys), Bears, (49ers), Seahawks, (Panthers), (Chiefs), Jaguars, (Bills), Redskins, (Steelers)
2000: Browns, (Saints), (49ers), Bengals, (Falcons), Eagles, Cardinals, Steelers, Bears, (Broncos), Giants, (Panthers), (Chargers), Packers, (Ravens), (Patriots)

[NewCliche21]

First 16 picks every draft since 2000 - Teams in parenthesis are the teams that would have picked had there not been a trade. Vikings are * in 2003 because they took forever and a day to pick. Teams in red have drafted in the top half at least half of the 2000s

2011: Panthers, Broncos, Bills, Bengals, Cardinals, (Browns), 49ers, Titans, Cowboys, (Redskins), Texans, Vikings, Lions, Rams, Dolphins, (Jaguars)
2010: Rams, Lions, Buccaneers, Redskins, Chiefs, Seahawks, Browns, Raiders, Bills, Jaguars, (Bears), (Dolphins), (49ers), (Broncos), Giants, Titans
2009: Lions, Rams, Chiefs, Seahawks, Browns, Bengals, Raiders, Jaguars, Packers, 49ers, Bills, Broncos, Redskins, Saints, Texans, Chargers
2008: Dolphins, Rams, Falcons, Raiders, Chiefs, Jets, (49ers), (Ravens), Bengals, Saints, Bills, Broncos, Panthers, Bears, (Lions), Cardinals
2007: Raiders, Lions, Browns, Bucs, Cardinals, Redskins, Vikings, (Texans), Dolphins, (Falcons), 49ers, Bills, Rams, (Panthers), Steelers, Packers
2006: Texans, Saints, Titans, Jets, Packers, 49ers, Raiders, Bills, Lions, Cardinals, (Rams), (Browns), (Ravens), Eagles, (Falcons), Dolphins
2005: 49ers, Dolphins, Browns, Bears, Buccaneers, Titans, (Raiders), Cardinals, Redskins, Lions, Cowboys, (Giants), (Texans), Panthers, Chiefs, (Saints)
2004: Chargers, Raiders, Cardinals, Giants, Redskins, (Lions), (Browns), Falcons, Jaguars, Texans, Steelers, Jets, Bills, Bears, Buccaneers, 49ers
2003: Bengals, Lions, Texans, (Bears), Cowboys, Cardinals, Vikings*, Jaguars, Panthers, Ravens, Seahawks, Rams, (Redskins), (Bills), (Chargers), (Chiefs)
2002: Texans, Panthers, Lions, Bills, Chargers, (Cowboys), Vikings, (Chiefs), Jaguars, Bengals, Colts, Cardinals, Saints, (Titans), (Giants), Browns
2001: (Chargers), Cardinals, Browns, Bengals, (Falcons), Patriots, (Cowboys), Bears, (49ers), Seahawks, (Panthers), (Chiefs), Jaguars, (Bills), Redskins, (Steelers)
2000: Browns, (Saints), (49ers), Bengals, (Falcons), Eagles, Cardinals, Steelers, Bears, (Broncos), Giants, (Panthers), (Chargers), Packers, (Ravens), (Patriots)

I appreciate the effort, but I don't see how this helps your argument. It demonstrates that teams need better players, not worse ones.

[Hitman21ST]

I appreciate the effort, but I don't see how this helps your argument. It demonstrates that teams need better players, not worse ones.

It goes to show that the top picks in the draft don't exactly pay the dividends that you're saying they do. Otherwise, the same teams wouldn't be consistently drafting in the top half.

[NewCliche21]

It goes to show that the top picks in the draft don't exactly pay the dividends that you're saying they do. Otherwise, the same teams wouldn't be consistently drafting in the top half.

Well, we can cross reference that with the hit-or-miss ratios on players in the top-ten versus other slots in the draft as well as bring it into context with other factors that affect the team. For instance, coaching turnover here.

[Hitman21ST]

Well, we can cross reference that with the hit-or-miss ratios on players in the top-ten versus other slots in the draft as well as bring it into context with other factors that affect the team. For instance, coaching turnover here.

You also have to consider though, that the risk/reward would be different. If the #1 pick busts out, it wouldn't affect the team nearly as much in my model as it would in the way it is now (think JaMarcus Russell - the Raiders wouldn't have been hamstrung by his contract nearly as much). If a good team misses on a high draft pick, the repercussions wouldn't be so long-lasting. Playoff teams can miss on a first rounder and it doesn't really affect them much. If the team picking first misses, though, in the current system, it's felt for years.

[NewCliche21]

You also have to consider though, that the risk/reward would be different. If the #1 pick busts out, it wouldn't affect the team nearly as much in my model as it would in the way it is now (think JaMarcus Russell - the Raiders wouldn't have been hamstrung by his contract nearly as much). If a good team misses on a high draft pick, the repercussions wouldn't be so long-lasting. Playoff teams can miss on a first rounder and it doesn't really affect them much. If the team picking first misses, though, in the current system, it's felt for years.

Yeah, but you would never get Manning or Luck (we'll see how that works) or Newton or Vick or Ryan or Megatron or Suh or Sean or Landry or Samuels and so on and so forth. Ever. You don't have enough to trade up, ever, because you have bad picks and bad players (or else you wouldn't need to trade up).

Sorry man, but the more I think about this the worse it seems.

[SwampEm]

I think the draft is fine the way it is. If anything, they could do a four team (heavily weighted lottery) to avoid tanking. Put 100 ping pong balls in a hopper: 75 balls with the worst team, 15 with the second team, 10 with the third team, and 5 with the 4th team. This might ensure that teams don't tank (although I don't think they do in the NFL), and it would still make it a little exciting.

[AKM311]

Sorry man, but the more I think about this the worse it seems.

I honestly can't find one piece of logic in this proposed model.

It really is a system created to solve our QB problems this year. If you look at it from a league stand point and from the big picture, there is no logic in it.

[Hitman21ST]

Yeah, but you would never get Manning or Luck (we'll see how that works) or Newton or Vick or Ryan or Megatron or Suh or Sean or Landry or Samuels and so on and so forth. Ever. You don't have enough to trade up, ever, because you have bad picks and bad players (or else you wouldn't need to trade up).

Sorry man, but the more I think about this the worse it seems.

Sure you would. The teams with the top pick don't always need a QB, and to take a Manning or Luck as BPA when your team would need something different is just asenine.

[AKM311]

Sure you would. The teams with the top pick don't always need a QB, and to take a Manning or Luck as BPA when your team would need something different is just asenine.

So you think Luck will take number 6 pick money? Ha. This will create even more holdouts at the last position you need it.

Bro, take the B&G glasses and truly think about this in the long run.

[Enter Apotheosis]

Sure you would. The teams with the top pick don't always need a QB, and to take a Manning or Luck as BPA when your team would need something different is just asenine.

This is an atrocious idea unless you also want to eliminate all trading in which case it is merely a really, really dumb idea. If I'm picking first overall with a franchise QB in place and Luck is the consensus number one overall pick by a wide margin, I am taking Luck and holding him hostage until one of the teams bidding for his services forks over a very hefty compensation. Hell, that is the only way the WORST team in the league would ever have a chance at the top QB in this system of yours so they'd have to be particularly inclined to give up way too much and be set back by several years because of it.

[Darth Tater]

The thing that makes the NFL the top league in the nation is that it has such ridiculous parity. The 1997 Colts were absolutely disgusting. One draft turns them around and makes them a force to be reckoned with. If they didn't get Manning and instead picked 21st overall, then they're stuck at the bottom forever.

Your seeding would ensure that the 15+ best records get the best players and we'd have a rotation of half of the league competing with the other half doing nothing. There'd be no possibility of the Lions and Bills doing what they're doing right now.

However, from 1992 to 1996, the Colts were mediocre with 4 seasons at 500 or better and two playoff years (missing the 1996 SB by a play). In 1997, they were in every loss sans 4, destroyed a playoff team and were led by a fading Harbaugh. I'd say the main reason for parity in the NFL is that the difference between winning and losing is so small (usually just 1 or 2 plays and even less than 6 in many a blowout) that getting the right player or two can have enormous positive effects while losing the wrong player or two can be devastating.

[sportjunkie07]

i think its a pretty bad idea:

1.) the nfl is great at allowing bad teams to become good.

2.) with your proposed plan, the bad teams would never get better. there would be essentially 3 groups of teams: playoff teams (A), good teams that will get better with high draft picks (B), and bad teams (C). A and B teams would flip flop over the years, but the C teams would always be bad.

3.) teams dont tank in the nfl.

not to mention, isnt there a rookie pay scale now? the enormous contracts to the high picks were one of the few bad things about the draft. that seems to have been tempered a bit.

[jsharrin55]

One of the biggest problems I had with the draft was crappy teams had to spend so much money on the first pick they couldn't do as much is FA to improve a team. Having the #1 pick became more of a curse. Now that the rookie pay is in place, I think we should see how this works for a while. Fans may talk about tanking (it was definitely on this board), but clearly coaches and players are not going to behave that way. They are playing for their jobs and futures, no way do they intentially tank.

[NewCliche21]

Sure you would. The teams with the top pick don't always need a QB, and to take a Manning or Luck as BPA when your team would need something different is just asenine.

I don't see how you pass either of those players up unless you just drafted your Manning or Luck within the past two or three years (Detroit with Stafford for instance). Even then, I draft him and trade him Ricky Williams-style for two complete drafts. The teams with the top pick always need an incredible player at some position that is atrocious. Look at what Peterson did for the Vikings. What Sean and Landry did for our defense. What Andre Johnson did for the Texans.


However, from 1992 to 1996, the Colts were mediocre with 4 seasons at 500 or better and two playoff years (missing the 1996 SB by a play). In 1997, they were in every loss sans 4, destroyed a playoff team and were led by a fading Harbaugh. I'd say the main reason for parity in the NFL is that the difference between winning and losing is so small (usually just 1 or 2 plays and even less than 6 in many a blowout) that getting the right player or two can have enormous positive effects while losing the wrong player or two can be devastating.

The previous years don't really matter, though. In 1991 we're a Super Bowl team. In 1993 we're 3-13? 4-12? We were, and are, the only team to have a losing record and sweep the Super Bowl champions of that year (Cowboys, ha!). There's no way that you finish that low unless you need a top player or [twenty-]two. The worst teams need the best players and that's how parity exists. The Colts teams that you were talking about would have had the top pick, or top-five, for four years in a row. The top picks are to get a team back to respectability, but in this system, they would be to put a team over the edge.

[tibbidoe]

I can't see this working.

Without the draft as it is, the 0-16 Lions from 2008 are probably the 5-11 Lions of 2011. Instead, they have used the draft in the past few years to become one of the up-and-coming powerhouse teams (bet it makes them hate Aaron Rodgers that much more).

It doesn't make sense to reward not-quite-good-enough teams with players that would put them over the top, while leaving bad teams to get worse. That's part of the reason I don't pay much attention to the NBA anymore. Their draft lottery just makes me angry, because of the "logic" behind it.

At the very most, maybe the NFL could do a "lottery" kind of thing for the top 3 picks. That would hinder the TRULY suck teams from losing out just to guarantee themselves the #1 pick. That's the only change I could get on board with.

I'd rather see them change the playoff seeding for the wildcard spots.

[NewCliche21]

I can't see this working.

Without the draft as it is, the 0-16 Lions from 2008 are probably the 5-11 Lions of 2011. Instead, they have used the draft in the past few years to become one of the up-and-coming powerhouse teams (bet it makes them hate Aaron Rodgers that much more).

It doesn't make sense to reward not-quite-good-enough teams with players that would put them over the top, while leaving bad teams to get worse. That's part of the reason I don't pay much attention to the NBA anymore. Their draft lottery just makes me angry, because of the "logic" behind it.

At the very most, maybe the NFL could do a "lottery" kind od thing for the top 3 picks. That would hinder the TRULY suck teams from losing out just to guarantee themselves the #1 pick. That's the only change I could get on board with.

I'd rather see them change the playoff seeding for the wildcard spots.

This is all founded upon the idea that teams fail on purpose. People's jobs depend on them winning, so why in the hell would they EVER fail on purpose?

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

So what your saying is we can still salvage our future in this scenario and have a decent season?

I like your thinking man.

Hail.

[kevinklein]

The NFL needs parity, and the draft is the way it is to create parity. I wouldn't co-sign this.

[tibbidoe]

This is all founded upon the idea that teams fail on purpose. People's jobs depend on them winning, so why in the hell would they EVER fail on purpose?

I don't think teams would tank an entire season, but if a team is sitting at say, 2-12 this season, I could see them maybe not going AS hard as they would if they were 12-2 at that point. Maybe...

Also, the only part that is founded on the "lose on purpose" line of thinking would be the POSSIBLE change to the top 3 picks. That was going along with the idea that a given team was so bad and so desperate for a particular player that they would suck out loud to close the year with the #1 pick. That idea may be unlikely, but it is far from impossible.

I personally don't care about any of that. I think the draft should stay as it has been for so long.

[Dan T.]

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Coaches and players don't stop trying in order to get a better draft position. Only in the warped minds of fans do teams tank seasons.

[Gibbs Hog Heaven]

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Coaches and players don't stop trying in order to get a better draft position. Only in the warped minds of fans do teams tank seasons.

At the tail end of the season, I don't believe that for a minute on a lot of squads.

Hail.

[Bobbyst21]

The idea ive always had is this, minus the playoff teams, the draft selection is determined by a lotto. Champs pick last and on down through the playoffs. But if you didnt make the post season you draw a card. Its simple and keeps teams from tanking at any point at all. I know that the NBA has a similar or the exact system in place so why not?

[tibbidoe]

The idea ive always had is this, minus the playoff teams, the draft selection is determined by a lotto. Champs pick last and on down through the playoffs. But if you didnt make the post season you draw a card. Its simple and keeps teams from tanking at any point at all. I know that the NBA has a similar or the exact system in place so why not?

In my opinion, the "way not" is because it doesn't fairly address the needs of the teams with the largest need to improve. The NBA lottery gives teams with less needs to chance to improve faster than worse teams without the worse team being compensated (trades to get that pick instead of it just being given to them). I just think it's a flawed approach to improving their league overall.

[NewCliche21]

I don't think teams would tank an entire season, but if a team is sitting at say, 2-12 this season, I could see them maybe not going AS hard as they would if they were 12-2 at that point. Maybe...

Also, the only part that is founded on the "lose on purpose" line of thinking would be the POSSIBLE change to the top 3 picks. That was going along with the idea that a given team was so bad and so desperate for a particular player that they would suck out loud to close the year with the #1 pick. That idea may be unlikely, but it is far from impossible.

I personally don't care about any of that. I think the draft should stay as it has been for so long.

If they, any member from coaches to players to waterboys, don't start putting in MORE effort at the end of the season, then they're gone. They're not worried about the future of the team because they won't be on it in a month.

[tibbidoe]

If they, any member from coaches to players to waterboys, don't start putting in MORE effort at the end of the season, then they're gone. They're not worried about the future of the team because they won't be on it in a month.

Is a coach who finishes 4-12 any more likely to be kept on than a coach who finished 2-14? Any player/coach/waterboy on either team is running the risk of being let go after a showing like that, unless it's a brand new coach who still has some rope to work with.

Say for instance, Jim Harbaugh has the 49ers sitting at 3-11 and Andrew Luck plays like a #1 pick. Harbaugh knows he's likely safe for another year or two, no matter what happens record-wise. You don't think he'd consider mailing in the last 2 games if it meant he could get his guy? (assuming he wanted him, of course).

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. And honestly, I'd be pissed if Shanahan mailed in the last few games of the season (if we were just a bad team that season), but then if/when it worked to the Redskins' benefit, I'd gladly forgive and forget if it meant getting a guy who helped make us a constant contender for a number of years.

[SkinsTillIDie]

There should just be a lottery for the #1 pick for the bottom-5 teams in the league at the end of the year. Nothing else needs to be changed

[Bobbyst21]

In my opinion, the "way not" is because it doesn't fairly address the needs of the teams with the largest need to improve. The NBA lottery gives teams with less needs to chance to improve faster than worse teams without the worse team being compensated (trades to get that pick instead of it just being given to them). I just think it's a flawed approach to improving their league overall.

I understand that and see your point.Ok so how about the first round being a lotto only? after that its per record with compensation pics awarded to the 5 worst teams by record. Remember we"re only discussing the draft and ways to keep teams from tanking the season for the #1 pick.

[NewCliche21]

Is a coach who finishes 4-12 any more likely to be kept on than a coach who finished 2-14? Any player/coach/waterboy on either team is running the risk of being let go after a showing like that, unless it's a brand new coach who still has some rope to work with.

Say for instance, Jim Harbaugh has the 49ers sitting at 3-11 and Andrew Luck plays like a #1 pick. Harbaugh knows he's likely safe for another year or two, no matter what happens record-wise. You don't think he'd consider mailing in the last 2 games if it meant he could get his guy? (assuming he wanted him, of course).

I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised if it happened. And honestly, I'd be pissed if Shanahan mailed in the last few games of the season (if we were just a bad team that season), but then if/when it worked to the Redskins' benefit, I'd gladly forgive and forget if it meant getting a guy who helped make us a constant contender for a number of years.

I think that you're going under the assumption that any coach's job is safe. Gruden won a Super Bowl, fired. Brian Billick won a Super Bowl, fired. Mike Shanahan won TWO Super Bowls, fired.

You don't get to be a head coach by having the attitude that losing is ever okay. No player makes it to, or at least lasts in, the NFL thinking that losing is okay.

The idea of tanking, and what it does to a team and would do to chemistry, is beyond the realm of realistic. Yes, even when the 1-14 Eagles and 2-13 Cowboys are battling it out in Week 15. :)

[Rdskns2000]

Actually, I read somewhere that the NFL may have a lottery in the near future; especially if they see teams tanking for Luck this year.

[tibbidoe]

I think that you're going under the assumption that any coach's job is safe. Gruden won a Super Bowl, fired. Brian Billick won a Super Bowl, fired. Mike Shanahan won TWO Super Bowls, fired.

You don't get to be a head coach by having the attitude that losing is ever okay. No player makes it to, or at least lasts in, the NFL thinking that losing is okay.

The idea of tanking, and what it does to a team and would do to chemistry, is beyond the realm of realistic. Yes, even when the 1-14 Eagles and 2-13 Cowboys are battling it out in Week 15. :)

I can see your point, I guess. I still think there would be at least a couple of teams that would risk it for the possibility of future gains. As long as it's not us, I don't suppose it really matters.

---------- Post added October-6th-2011 at 05:56 PM ----------


I understand that and see your point.Ok so how about the first round being a lotto only? after that its per record with compensation pics awarded to the 5 worst teams by record. Remember we"re only discussing the draft and ways to keep teams from tanking the season for the #1 pick.

I still can't see a team tanking an ENTIRE season, maybe just the last couple of games if it looks like they could help themselves for the future. Strictly in the context of "keeping teams honest" at the top of the draft, I think this sounds the most reasonable:


There should just be a lottery for the #1 pick for the bottom-5 teams in the league at the end of the year. Nothing else needs to be changed

[skinsarel33t]

not a bad idea but that system makes the bad teams work even harder to become good in the offseason

[Hitman21ST]

not a bad idea but that system makes the bad teams work even harder to become good in the offseason

That's a bad thing?

[skinsarel33t]

Ya it is a bad thing because some teams that actually dont try to lose games on purpose and cant afford big name free agents because they have such small markets. think about the dolphins a few years ago that almost went 0-16 they were not trying to tank their season they layed their hearts out every single week. They dont deserve to be given a mid to late 1st round pick

---------- Post added October-6th-2011 at 06:20 PM ----------

we are actually lucky to have a owner who is willing to spend money and we are lucky to have a big market. and i know alot of people hate snyder but to me i am happy that we had a owner who atleast was trying to spend money trying to win you get some teams were the owners just dont give a crap in F/A and the only way those teams can build is in the draft.

[London Kev]

It is an interesting idea. It would definately spice up some otherwise meaningless late season games. But the present system ensures parity. Even bad teams are potentially only a few drafts away from becoming competitive again. We were a bad team a few drafts ago, so it seems that the system works. If it aint broke, don't fix it. HTTR.

[Rpredskins]

I don't know of any nfl team that has ever lost on purpose. There is way too much pressure on coaches and from fans to let that happen.

[SkinsFanRicky]

Boy The Detroit Lions are probably really glad that it wasn't this system.

[Ashburn Dave]

I don't like the idea. The current system works and the only folks talking about tanking are fans and media. There is not a single head coach out there thinking about tanking.

[romank]

Tom Brady was a 6th round pick, Tony Romo was undrafted, many other great QB's were late round picks. Wasn't Russel a first round pick? It's not about picking first, it's about picking correctly. If last years draft is any indication, we have the folks in the front office now to do that.

[B&GVol24]

I don't have a problem with the current system, and it doesn't make sense to me to reward teams that barely miss the playoffs with the best prospects. Realistically, I don't think that whether or not a small percentage of teams "tank" the last few games should cause a complete restructure of the draft process.

And for those wanting a system similar to the NBA, you can't say that a NFL lottery and NBA lottery are equivalent. There's 5 positions in basketball compared to 22(ish) in football. In the NBA draft, the best players are usually going to go 1-2-3-4-5 regardless of who's picking (for the most part), whereas in the NFL, the best players for some teams are not the best for others (depending primarily on position of need). Sure, there's a time when BPA is the right way to go. But if you just drafted Stafford it's not like you're gonna take Bradford the next year.

[NewCliche21]

Tom Brady was a 6th round pick, Tony Romo was undrafted, many other great QB's were late round picks. Wasn't Russel a first round pick? It's not about picking first, it's about picking correctly. If last years draft is any indication, we have the folks in the front office now to do that.

Random outliers make for an extremely poor argument.

Go through the greatest quarterbacks of all-time and tell me what percentage were not first-round picks. Go through the percentage of sixth-round/undrafted quarterbacks and tell me the percentage that are among the greatest of all-time.

Hitting the lottery doesn't mean that you're an investment genius.