What's your opinion of a NFL Draft Lottery?

**singersp** · 04-18-2006, 12:06 PM

"ViKing24" wrote:

shorten the legnth of each pick to 7 minutes or so because it is so ridiculous to watch it for so long. even though I watch like the whole thing pretty much

There are teams that work trades during those 15 minutes. That's why they are 15 minutes long in the 1st round.

If it was just a matter of making a decision with no trades allowed, then that would be a different story & 7 minutes should be enough time.

Unless of course, you're Brett Favre. :wink:

**whackthepack** · 04-18-2006, 04:28 PM

I think 7 minutes would be a little short for the 1st round, but the NFL should reduce it to 10 minutes the first round, and 5 minutes each round after that.

A lot of times teams just don't have their 15 minutes they have the pick before theirs to talk to other teams that if this player doesn't go then we take him, or if he is gone then we will trade the pick. Some teams know in the 1st second of their pick what they are going to do, but they wait tell the full 15 minutes are up encase somebody calls about a trade. If they can not get it done in 10 minutes then tough titties.

**cajunvike** · 04-18-2006, 04:43 PM

Draft lottery is total BS!!! Leave it the way it is!

**Caine** · 04-18-2006, 04:48 PM

I'm against it.

Even if a team is foolish enough to dump games to pick a certain player, there's no guarantee that that particular player will pan out. Besides, the HC will be packing anyway, so no one would be so stupid...twice.

Lotteries simply allow ALL non-Playoff teams a shot at the #1 spot. Why?

The system we have works...why screw with it?

Caine

**Caine** · 04-18-2006, 04:50 PM

"singersp" wrote:

"ViKing24" wrote:

shorten the legnth of each pick to 7 minutes or so because it is so ridiculous to watch it for so long. even though I watch like the whole thing pretty much

There are teams that work trades during those 15 minutes. That's why they are 15 minutes long in the 1st round.

If it was just a matter of making a decision with no trades allowed, then that would be a different story & 7 minutes should be enough time.

Unless of course, you're Brett Favre. :wink:

Personally, I LIKE the idea of shorter time allotment. If teams want to trade, they have to get on the horse NOW to get it done. 15 minutes means that in order to see the Vikings pick at #17, you've suffered through up to 4 HOURS of looking at Tagliabue and listening to Mel Kiper jr blather on about how wrong he is, was, and will be...

yuck.

Caine

**damien927** · 04-18-2006, 05:23 PM

I like the idea of shortening the time alotted, but it may force teams not to trade picks and I like that part of the draft..... Maybe just go to 10 minutes in the first, 7 in the second and 5 in the third through 7th.

**badbois** · 04-18-2006, 05:32 PM

No lottery. the nfl is based on parity and the draft order is part of that. teams like the bangles and cardinals have had enough trouble getting out of the basemaent, no need to make it harder.

**brandsp** · 04-18-2006, 06:03 PM

No lottery, but the NFL should take one thing from the NBA draft; the contracts should be set by league guidelines. Alex Smith having thrown zero NFL passes should not become one of the top 5 or so highest players in the league. The rookies taken in the 1st round make way too much compare to some of the league veterans.

**badbois** · 04-18-2006, 06:12 PM

"brandsp" wrote:

No lottery, but the NFL should take one thing from the NBA draft; the contracts should be set by league guidelines. Alex Smith having thrown zero NFL passes should not become one of the top 5 or so highest players in the league. The rookies taken in the 1st round make way too much compare to some of the league veterans.

absolutly. the player union keeps kicking the owvers asses though, so I wouldn't count on it anytime soon.

**Benet** · 04-18-2006, 10:50 PM

"westvirginiavikings" wrote:

No lottery, the team with the worst record deserves some kind break after a crappy season.

Tell that to the 49ers.

In a draft where there is no lock for the #1 pick, the current draft system is DEEPLY flawed. Do you really think the 49ers wanted to spend $49 million on Alex Smith? How is that going to help them? All that does is force them to make room for him on the roster by cutting guys who could help the team. While I don't think there should be a draft lottery, I DO think where the NHL and the NBA have got it right is rookie contracts. They're set in stone and only raise by a set percentage year-on-year. Overall money, Bonuses, everything is set in stone. You don't even need an agent to negotiate an NBA contract.. Okay so that's a bit of an fallacy, but you see my point.

Compare that to the NFL. Players at the top of the draft are seeing their contracts raise, year-on-year, by 25 PERCENT!! That's ridiculous. Reggie Bush stands to make $30 million (or thereabouts) in GUARANTEED MONEY thanks to being the #1 pick (this is assuming the Texans don't try to screw him by offering him Ronnie Brown-money). This is a guy who has done NOTHING in the NFL. The rookie contracts should be set by the CBA so that the #1 pick makes X amount of money overall and a maximum of Y amount in bonuses. #2 in the draft is then in line for a contract worth 97/96/95/whatever percent of that.. and so on all the way down. Of course, thanks to the rookie minimum salary you're not going to drop salaries to anything below $235,000, so everyone gets a fair shake, and this way you don't screw over veteran NFL players by cutting them to make way for ridiculously-oversized rookie contracts.