First Pick in the Draft

There is talk of the Lions passing on the first pick, or at least letting time expire. They can still submit their pick at anytime after their time has expired, but they will only not be able to choose the players picked by the Rams, Chiefs, Seachikins, etc. who subsequently picked during their alloted time. And if you don't want to pay the contract, that seems like a legit tactic.

But with no clear consensus #1, why couldn't the Lions just cut a deal with some player projected 10-15, sign him for some percentage more than he would have gotten otherwise, and yet still some significant percentage less than what a #1 should be getting this year? That would make the agents shit their pants. The Lions would get a solid rookie for significantly less and still have the 1st pick in the 2nd round, right?

 

The agents, along with the union (since these contracts also inflate what the veteran free agents receive), would throw a shit fit with any of those plans. They would still hold the same pick in the second.

Anyone have any idea what this would do to the rookie salary cap?

 

That actually makes sense for the Lions if they can not trade down.

 

If they can't make a equal trade down then take less. Gran a second to flip flop with someone. Someone is bound to want the 1st pick for less than market value

 

Makes no sense. The way agents are not it'll only mean 2 different people will think they are entitled #1 pick overall money.

 

That's why you sign the deal beforehand. There is a player, from 10-32, that will take the deal. You give him more than he expected to make, but less than the projected #1. Somebody will agree to that contract before the draft. That is who you draft #1.

 

49ers did something like this. Ended up getting a shitty QB and it was a bad pick.

The only real option is to earnestly pick the player you believe is the best player.

 

I could see why the Lions would want to do this but getting away with it is another story. I could be wrong (and probably am) but I don't see anyone in this draft worth "first pick" type money. Down the road of course a few of these guys are going to pan out and make big bucks but the thought of Stafford pulling down a huge rookie paycheck is a little nauseating.

 

That's ridiculous. You cannot form a rule based on a single example. I think I read somewhere recently that the bust rate for authentic #1s is higher than in the middle of the first anyway. What percentage of Hall of Famers are #1 picks?

Picking a player you like that agrees to his rookie payscale before you draft him is not uncommon at that position. So pick one that expected less, gets a little more than he expected, and everybody wins. Where in the NFL rulebook does it say you have to escalate the #1 pick's money every year? That is an agent/NFLPA invention.

 

it's not a rule based on one example. It's an example to introduce, and nothing more. If they felt that Smith was legitimately the #1 prospect in the draft, then that's fine (and I don't know their thought process), but there were rumors that they took Smith based on price over Rodgers.

>>What percentage of Hall of Famers are #1 picks?

versus the other 200+ picks and street FAs? I wouldn't think it extraordinarily high.

>>Where in the NFL rulebook does it say you have to escalate the #1 pick's money every year? That is an agent/NFLPA invention.

you don't have to. You do have to sign the guy, and the cap goes up by a percentage every year, so it's not a stretch that it happens. There hasn't been a top pick holdout in years so it's not something the teams are pushing, is it?


>>Picking a player you like that agrees to his rookie payscale before you draft him is not uncommon at that position. So pick one that expected less, gets a little more than he expected, and everybody wins.

It certainly won't be that easy. It'll help that player, but it won't actually help the team to forego a better player just to be cheap. It's ten times better to take a relatively cheap trade (both for PR purposes and just to keep from throwing value away) to drop down a few spots to take the player you're expecting.

Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a small reach if that's the player you really want at your need position - and I have no problem with the league attempting to curtail rookie pay increases. I actually don't see the huge resistance for the NFLPA - they're fighting for players who aren't a part of the system yet and less rookie money in the pool would only benefit current players.

But, it sounds like the Lions are getting ready to fuck this up royally, and yeah, I can't say I expected it.