Colts president Polian says NFL draft needs updating - Page 3

Marco Polo · 02-28-2008, 11:54 AM

Good read, I thought:

http://www.nfl.com/combine/story?id=...o&confirm=true

INDIANAPOLIS -- Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian isn't sure if having a top 10 draft pick would be worth it.
His Colts don't have a selection until late in the second round. He explained Sunday at the NFL Scouting Combine why his team might be better off that way.
Polian said good teams like the Colts are less likely than in the past to trade up for an early pick because of the required financial commitment. Last year's top pick, JaMarcus Russell, missed all of training camp in a contract dispute before getting $29 million in guarantees.
"Trades are a unique thing in the first round anymore because of the cost of the top 10 picks financially," he said. "To take on that cost ... is almost counterintuitive."
Polian said agents have driven up the cost of the early picks, making it more difficult than ever for struggling franchises to improve. He said that cost can hamper teams for years, especially if they make a mistake on a pick or the player gets injured.
"The draft was designed to either allow the weakest teams, based on record, to choose the best players, or if they chose not to take a particular player, to gather a bunch of picks to further accelerate their growth and competitiveness," he said. "That's now been skewed by the cost of the picks in the first round.
"When that's skewed and changed because of the agents, that isn't a good thing for the game."
Polian said the system also makes it difficult for a team drafting early to acquire pieces to put around the high pick. He said making the right pick is possible, but difficult.
"What it can do, if you're fortunate enough to get a Peyton Manning, is it can change your franchise," he said. "It gives you a guy who can lead you to the promised land, can help you be a good team for a long time. If you miss on that pick, economics aside, you still set yourself back."
Polian said he expects the system to change eventually. He said the league could change the pay scale or create a slotting system like the NBA has, creating a fixed rate for draft positions.
But the current system, he feels, needs to be updated so the league can remain balanced.
"Our game is based on competitive balance and the fact that every year, every franchise believes they can win, unlike other sports. You can go from worst to first in a year.
"It's not about money, it's about the integrity of the game on the field."

donkhater · 02-28-2008, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brock

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

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

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

"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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

02-28-2008, 11:54 AM
Marco Polo Veteran Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: 41°59.4′N 87°39.6'W Casino cash: $3938908	Colts president Polian says NFL draft needs updating Good read, I thought: http://www.nfl.com/combine/story?id=...o&confirm=true INDIANAPOLIS -- Indianapolis Colts president Bill Polian isn't sure if having a top 10 draft pick would be worth it. His Colts don't have a selection until late in the second round. He explained Sunday at the NFL Scouting Combine why his team might be better off that way. Polian said good teams like the Colts are less likely than in the past to trade up for an early pick because of the required financial commitment. Last year's top pick, JaMarcus Russell, missed all of training camp in a contract dispute before getting $29 million in guarantees. "Trades are a unique thing in the first round anymore because of the cost of the top 10 picks financially," he said. "To take on that cost ... is almost counterintuitive." Polian said agents have driven up the cost of the early picks, making it more difficult than ever for struggling franchises to improve. He said that cost can hamper teams for years, especially if they make a mistake on a pick or the player gets injured. "The draft was designed to either allow the weakest teams, based on record, to choose the best players, or if they chose not to take a particular player, to gather a bunch of picks to further accelerate their growth and competitiveness," he said. "That's now been skewed by the cost of the picks in the first round. "When that's skewed and changed because of the agents, that isn't a good thing for the game." Polian said the system also makes it difficult for a team drafting early to acquire pieces to put around the high pick. He said making the right pick is possible, but difficult. "What it can do, if you're fortunate enough to get a Peyton Manning, is it can change your franchise," he said. "It gives you a guy who can lead you to the promised land, can help you be a good team for a long time. If you miss on that pick, economics aside, you still set yourself back." Polian said he expects the system to change eventually. He said the league could change the pay scale or create a slotting system like the NBA has, creating a fixed rate for draft positions. But the current system, he feels, needs to be updated so the league can remain balanced. "Our game is based on competitive balance and the fact that every year, every franchise believes they can win, unlike other sports. You can go from worst to first in a year. "It's not about money, it's about the integrity of the game on the field."
Posts: 2,540

02-28-2008, 02:36 PM	#32
teedubya Most Valuable Poster Join Date: Oct 2003 Casino cash: $8993042	Look at how fast the NBA players are signed. Its great. The NFL should want that. This 4 month holdout crap is reeruniculous.
Posts: 36,832

02-28-2008, 03:17 PM	#36
jjchieffan Supporter Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Highlandville, MO Casino cash: $-117752	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. __________________ Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth. Following the historical accounts and the genealogy from that point on, the age of the Earth is approximately 6000-7000 years old. The Big Bullshit Theory is a lie. It and the evolution theory go against real science. Satan has used our public school system to brainwash everyone into believing these lies. Be not decieved.
Posts: 13,349