Draft Lottery

[O.city]

Should the NFL have a draft lottery, NBA style?

Why or why not?

[mr. tegu]

NFL front offices sort of tank but the players and coaches on the field don’t make a habit of it. Sucking isn’t the same as tanking. For the coaches especially, whether interim or coaches maybe on the way out, they are almost always performing their best for the next job.

The Titans were really trying to make Levis work. Brought in Hopkins. Traded for Sneed. They just weren’t any good. Especially at QB.

[Titty Meat]

One time I ****ed this chick and had the craziest post nut clarity I’ve ever have in my life. I was legit in the uber coming back like damn I need to get my life together

And that uber was so expensive and I was broke as **** at the time chasing pussy.

Got back to crib put my key in the door and the shit snapped

My key broke opening the door and I spent like 6 hours locked outside in the cold until my neighbor who a handyman came home.

Had to sit outside thinking about my life

[Bl00dyBizkitz]

Originally Posted by kccrow

Depends on if you believe the 1997 Colts that went 3-13 were that much worse than the 1996 Colts that went 9-7 with mostly the same players and the 1995 Colts that had even less talent and went 9-7. Same QB, better Marshall Faulk, better Marvin Harrison, etc.

If they didn't flop for Peyton Manning, then I'm not sure if anything else would ever be believable. They certainly threw games at the end of the 2011 season to get Luck, who would have likely been generational if he played a full career.

Outside of the Colts, I'm not sure of any clear-cut cases. Most teams suck at least for a year or two before they get the #1. I'm sure we could look back and find some teams tanking a few games to get a top 3 pick or something and give themselves a shot.

That's fair. I guess the Colts did manage to get lucky those 2 times, and even squandered Luck. They deserve the football god's wrath for that. I just don't believe in tanking, and I don't think the data favors it, either. If you suck that bad to get to a top 5 pick, there's something very fundamentally wrong about your team that a top pick won't fix overnight.

And even if you are on the lower end of teams and decide to deliberately lose the last few games for a slightly higher pick. Cool, good for you, the odds still say it's a 50/50 chance you're drafting a starter, even if you are a few spots ahead of everyone else. It all just seems to even out in my head.

The only way I could possibly envision it working is Jimmy Johnson's insane method. Sucking for a whole season, trading off any valuable players you have for picks, trading down for even more picks, and then picking the exact right players to rebuild your team from scratch.

[kccrow]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

That's fair. I guess the Colts did manage to get lucky those 2 times, and even squandered Luck. They deserve the football god's wrath for that. I just don't believe in tanking, and I don't think the data favors it, either. If you suck that bad to get to a top 5 pick, there's something very fundamentally wrong about your team that a top pick won't fix overnight.

And even if you are on the lower end of teams and decide to deliberately lose the last few games for a slightly higher pick. Cool, good for you, the odds still say it's a 50/50 chance you're drafting a starter, even if you are a few spots ahead of everyone else. It all just seems to even out in my head.

The only way I could possibly envision it working is Jimmy Johnson's insane method. Sucking for a whole season, trading off any valuable players you have for picks, trading down for even more picks, and then picking the exact right players to rebuild your team from scratch.

I don't think the data largely favors it either, though there does seem to be some late-season posturing at times.

In relation to a lottery, that lottery could just as well end up causing more tanking for position in the top 5 than previously, because at that point you would have a shot at the #1 pick.

I do agree with you on the JJ method. I don't think enough teams just blow it all up and start over when it seems clear they need to do exactly that.

I did do some looking back for the tanking just to see if there was another team I couldn't remember and did notice a bit of a pattern in teams truly turning their fortunes, or so it seemed. I want to revisit it but it looks like teams that took their LT in the top 10 and then took their QB in the top 10 within the next two seasons had the most luck in actually flipping the script.

[BigRock]

The NFL should definitely follow in the footsteps of the much more popular NBA and NHL.

[Mescalito345]

BTW, the draft lottery was NOT rigged, as many NBA fans are claiming.

[fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

That's fair. I guess the Colts did manage to get lucky those 2 times, and even squandered Luck. They deserve the football god's wrath for that. I just don't believe in tanking, and I don't think the data favors it, either. If you suck that bad to get to a top 5 pick, there's something very fundamentally wrong about your team that a top pick won't fix overnight.

And even if you are on the lower end of teams and decide to deliberately lose the last few games for a slightly higher pick. Cool, good for you, the odds still say it's a 50/50 chance you're drafting a starter, even if you are a few spots ahead of everyone else. It all just seems to even out in my head.

The only way I could possibly envision it working is Jimmy Johnson's insane method. Sucking for a whole season, trading off any valuable players you have for picks, trading down for even more picks, and then picking the exact right players to rebuild your team from scratch.

This. NFL teams almost never actually tank. A proper tank features trading for as much future draft capital as you possibly can. Trade anybody good and valuable. Acquire more future picks. Then when you suck and get a the 1 overall pick you trade it for even more future draft capital. Finally after a 3 seasons or so all the capital you have invested turns into developed on field talent and you start to win.

[fuzzy]

Originally Posted by kccrow

I don't think the data largely favors it either, though there does seem to be some late-season posturing at times.

In relation to a lottery, that lottery could just as well end up causing more tanking for position in the top 5 than previously, because at that point you would have a shot at the #1 pick.

I do agree with you on the JJ method. I don't think enough teams just blow it all up and start over when it seems clear they need to do exactly that.

I did do some looking back for the tanking just to see if there was another team I couldn't remember and did notice a bit of a pattern in teams truly turning their fortunes, or so it seemed. I want to revisit it but it looks like teams that took their LT in the top 10 and then took their QB in the top 10 within the next two seasons had the most luck in actually flipping the script.

The proper move for the Browns would be to blow the team up. Trade Myles Garret for 2 future first round picks and suck in 2025. Then trade for even more future draft capital. But teams don't just do that in the NFL very often. Almost nobody goes into the offseason and says hey we are going to trade everybody who has value and suck.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by fuzzy

The proper move for the Browns would be to blow the team up. Trade Myles Garret for 2 future first round picks and suck in 2025. Then trade for even more future draft capital. But teams don't just do that in the NFL very often. Almost nobody goes into the offseason and says hey we are going to trade everybody who has value and suck.

That’s because it’s still a business and teams need stars and a few wins to help sell tickets.

[duncan_idaho]

I would argue that lotteries are BAD for competitive balance in leagues.

Is the NBa better for it? Hard to argue it is. Especially when the reason it exists in the first place (Patrick Ewing) produced 0 titles for the team that tanked for him.

MLB is certainly worse for it. It’s just another way to **** over teams in smaller markets.

[Rain Man]

How about this? Every year, the consensus top 53 rookies go onto an expansion team in a new city, which will include international cities, of course. Then the remainder go into a draft of all existing teams. In this manner, the NFL can double the number of teams over the next 32 years.

If the new team each year alternates between a domestic city and an international city, the next generation of NFL fans will get to enjoy matchups between the Omaha Ranchers and the Mumbai Cobras. And I might have to buy the jersey of the Jakarta Komodos.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Bl00dyBizkitz

I'm not asking if anyone's ever done it. I'm asking if it's ever truly worked.

I can't think of a time a team intentionally tanked and got rewarded with a generational player that changed all their fortunes.

The Cubs and Royals both got a WS win, Tampa got an appearance and Houston became the class of baseball for roughly 10 years so it worked for them.

[fuzzy]

Originally Posted by Mecca

The Cubs and Royals both got a WS win, Tampa got an appearance and Houston became the class of baseball for roughly 10 years so it worked for them.

MLB has massive structural problems. The sport itself (due to randomness) should have far more parity than the NFL, but it doesn't because the league hates parity. The league does not have a salary cap and therefore the only way low payroll teams can compete for a championship is to tank for a handful of years and load up the farm system with blue chip prospects.

The Royals in 2015 had the 7th highest paid 26 man roster in the entire 30 team league. The Royals won because they spent more money than most teams. In fact, the Marlins are the only team in the past 30 years to win the World Series being in the bottom third of payroll.

The NFL has a salary cap. It only has 4 year rookie contracts instead of 6 like the MLB. There is no draft lottery in the NFL. It's hard to stay on top and I like it that way. Teams should have to earn greatness. In the NFL greatness is punished to eccourage parity, as it should be.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by fuzzy

MLB has massive structural problems. The sport itself (due to randomness) should have far more parity than the NFL, but it doesn't because the league hates parity. The league does not have a salary cap and therefore the only way low payroll teams can compete for a championship is to tank for a handful of years and load up the farm system with blue chip prospects.

The Royals in 2015 had the 7th highest paid 26 man roster in the entire 30 team league. The Royals won because they spent more money than most teams. In fact, the Marlins are the only team in the past 30 years to win the World Series being in the bottom third of payroll.

The NFL has a salary cap. It only has 4 year rookie contracts instead of 6 like the MLB. There is no draft lottery in the NFL. It's hard to stay on top and I like it that way. Teams should have to earn greatness. In the NFL greatness is punished to eccourage parity, as it should be.

Royals payroll in 2015 was 17th, not 7th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fuzzy]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Royals payroll in 2015 was 17th, not 7th.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The actual 26 man roster was 7th.