ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Colts president Polian says NFL draft needs updating (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=180894)

donkhater 02-28-2008 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4606118)
The NFLPA will never agree to that. Why should they?

At face value one would think that, but think about it this way:

The NFL has a salary cap that nearly every team fills every year. What difference should it make to an agent if he is getting a $2 million commission from a rookie or five $400,000 commissions from veterans? It's the same money pool either way. So in a way, Polian is right. It's not about the money.

teedubya 02-28-2008 02:36 PM

Look at how fast the NBA players are signed. Its great. The NFL should want that.

This 4 month holdout crap is reeruniculous.

Brock 02-28-2008 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donkhater (Post 4606364)
At face value one would think that, but think about it this way:

The NFL has a salary cap that nearly every team fills every year. What difference should it make to an agent if he is getting a $2 million commission from a rookie or five $400,000 commissions from veterans? It's the same money pool either way. So in a way, Polian is right. It's not about the money.

There are only 2 teams that are within 5 million dollars of the salary cap, according to the numbers I've seen. Jacksonville is 46 million under the cap for crying out loud. Of course it's about the money.

The Franchise 02-28-2008 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 4606203)
This decision wouldn't affect existing NFL players negatively though, would it? In fact, limiting the $$ doled out to unproven rookies would create more available for players already on the team.

Whitlock makes a suggestion in his article up on Fox Sports about limiting rookie salaries to 2 years and maximum of $10 million or some such thing.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7850370?MSNHPHMA

The only problem with going 2 years and a maximum of $10 million dollars is that the players drafted in the 1st round will more than likely leave the team that drafted them because they suck.

htismaqe 02-28-2008 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by el borracho (Post 4606158)
"Bill Polian isn't sure if having a top 10 draft pick would be worth it."

What? Where does he think Peyton Manning came from? Where did Marshall Faulk come from? Where did Edgerin James come from? How many games have those three players won for the Colts?

Yeah I brought that up the first time this story was posted.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4602971

jjchieffan 02-28-2008 03:17 PM

I like the idea of set amounts for rookies a few reasons, but the number one reason is NO MORE ROOKIE HOLDOUTS! It hurts the player and the team for the rookies to not be in camp. Russell lost most of the season last year due to his holdout, we have had several first round picks that missed part of camp and it hurt their careers. It also is not right to pay someone who has never played a snap in the NFL more than a seasoned vet. The amount of money Ryan Sims got was highway robbery. He sure did not deserve it.

Valiant 02-28-2008 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scooter (Post 4606203)
This decision wouldn't affect existing NFL players negatively though, would it? In fact, limiting the $$ doled out to unproven rookies would create more available for players already on the team.

Whitlock makes a suggestion in his article up on Fox Sports about limiting rookie salaries to 2 years and maximum of $10 million or some such thing.

http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7850370?MSNHPHMA

Gosh, that would force teams to actually play their draft picks instead of sit on them for years to see if they got any talent for their team or not..

Valiant 02-28-2008 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4606273)
I'm not grabbing at anything. I'm just pointing out that no union anywhere is going to "trust management" and approve singling out members and limiting their income, not to the extent that this article is talking about. The union is paid because its members are paid.

Not all GM's and owners are Clark and Carl, some teams want to win championships so they will spend all their money acquiring talent to do it.. Not like Carl who will leave extra millions in their pool out of spite for profit..

I think this would be a great idea, make all first day selections this way for the first 3rounds.. 2-4 year contracts at a certain pay for each position.. Make it so these rookies are not making more then the veterans..

Opens up a bigger pool of money to use elsewhere..

Also up the salary cap floor to 90% to stop teams like the Chiefs from making a profit off of it..

Bowser 02-28-2008 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 4606525)
Not all GM's and owners are Clark and Carl, some teams want to win championships so they will spend all their money acquiring talent to do it.. Not like Carl who will leave extra millions in their pool out of spite for profit..

I think this would be a great idea, make all first day selections this way for the first 3rounds.. 2-4 year contracts at a certain pay for each position.. Make it so these rookies are not making more then the veterans..

Opens up a bigger pool of money to use elsewhere..

Also up the salary cap floor to 90% to stop teams like the Chiefs from making a profit off of it..

An excellent idea. One that the NFLPA would never sign off on.

Brock 02-28-2008 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 4606525)
Not all GM's and owners are Clark and Carl, some teams want to win championships so they will spend all their money acquiring talent to do it.. Not like Carl who will leave extra millions in their pool out of spite for profit..

25 teams are 10 million dollars or more under the salary cap.

Valiant 02-28-2008 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4606531)
25 teams are 10 million dollars or more under the salary cap.

You are looking at cap numbers right now at the beginning of the season.. I am talking during the season.. The Chiefs and a few other teams carried 6+ million that could have been spent on players..

Brock 02-28-2008 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 4606588)
You are looking at cap numbers right now at the beginning of the season.. I am talking during the season.. The Chiefs and a few other teams carried 6+ million that could have been spent on players..

yes I'm looking at numbers before the season. There's no way these teams are going to be filling up 10-40 million in cap space. Nor would they ever want to.

'Hamas' Jenkins 02-28-2008 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock (Post 4606118)
The NFLPA will never agree to that. Why should they?

Too bad the NFLPA is a bunch of bugs beneath the shoes of ownership. If the league wanted to slot rookie contracts, they could do it. This isn't the NBA or MLB, the NFL Union is a joke.

Brock 02-28-2008 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 4607067)
Too bad the NFLPA is a bunch of bugs beneath the shoes of ownership. If the league wanted to slot rookie contracts, they could do it. This isn't the NBA or MLB, the NFL Union is a joke.

That hasn't really been put to the test anytime recently.

Chiefnj2 02-28-2008 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins (Post 4607067)
Too bad the NFLPA is a bunch of bugs beneath the shoes of ownership. If the league wanted to slot rookie contracts, they could do it. This isn't the NBA or MLB, the NFL Union is a joke.


Then why did the owners sign a crappy CBA a few years ago?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.