PDA

View Full Version : Should the NFL institute a Draft Lottery?


BeerBaron
10-03-2011, 10:50 AM
Just something I've been thinking about recently with so many teams in the "Suck for Luck" sweepstakes.

Tell me that wouldn't make for an awesome night at some point after the regular season ends.

All of the non-playoff teams get entered into a lottery (obviously, the teams who just missed the playoffs would have like .01% chances of winning,) and the top 3 are selected.

Or even just the first overall pick. One of my fears this year is that several teams will share the worst record and it will just happen to be the one of them with the weakest strength of schedule who gets to have that top pick.

Additionally, the NFL is always looking for more exposure and more money. A draft lottery night is something that will get plenty of fans to tune into.

But as an amusing discussion topic, yea or nay to the idea of a draft lottery in the NFL?

bucfan12
10-03-2011, 10:59 AM
Simple answer: NOPE.

niel89
10-03-2011, 11:20 AM
I would hate to see some team who went 10-6 and missed the playoffs have even the slightest chance of getting #1.

I would like to see some type of lottery if multiple teams tie for the #1 pick though. I would go head to head and then into a lottery.

DoughBoy
10-03-2011, 11:25 AM
nay...something about the NBA's lottery is fishy and I would bet anything that the NFL's would be just as bad.

tjsunstein
10-03-2011, 11:31 AM
I'm a fan of how it is right now. Don't really see a reason to change it.

BeerBaron
10-03-2011, 11:34 AM
Admittedly, "no" was expected to be the majority on a draft board, but I do think the concept has some merit.

For example, what if it was only done should teams tie for the first overall pick or something?

I just hate it that strength of schedule might be the determining factor of who gets to have Andrew Luck for the next decade.

descendency
10-03-2011, 11:36 AM
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Anyone tanking for a single prospect is insane. This isn't the NBA where LeBron James can do what he does.

BeerBaron
10-03-2011, 11:40 AM
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Anyone tanking for a single prospect is insane. This isn't the NBA where LeBron James can do what he does.

I didn't even suggest that as a possibility. There are plenty of other reasons to make it happen, as I've discussed already.

killxswitch
10-03-2011, 11:44 AM
No way. The NFL is great in part because of parity. The worst teams are given the chance to get the best players.

CashmoneyDrew
10-03-2011, 11:47 AM
The only thing that the NFL should have ever taken from the NBA was a rookie wage scale. Other than that, if the NBA does it, I say do the opposite.

Rosebud
10-03-2011, 11:53 AM
Admittedly, "no" was expected to be the majority on a draft board, but I do think the concept has some merit.

For example, what if it was only done should teams tie for the first overall pick or something?

I just hate it that strength of schedule might be the determining factor of who gets to have Andrew Luck for the next decade.

See that would make sense, but at that point your just talking about moving the coin flip above SOS in priority when determining draft order.

EDIT: To be honest I'd rather the team that suffered through the tougher season get the top pick rather than the team with better luck on lottery night.

BeerBaron
10-03-2011, 11:54 AM
See that would make sense, but at that point your just talking about moving the coin flip above SOS in priority when determining draft order.

I'm just thinking along the lines of what Goodell and the owners might think. A coin flip makes for about 10 seconds of boring TV.

A draft lottery on the other hand...

J-Mike88
10-03-2011, 11:56 AM
nay...something about the NBA's lottery is fishy and I would bet anything that the NFL's would be just as bad.
Exactly. See Minnesota Lottery History dating back to their origin.

Shane P. Hallam
10-03-2011, 12:01 PM
I didn't even suggest that as a possibility. There are plenty of other reasons to make it happen, as I've discussed already.

If that's not a possibility, why hold it? For more exposure? I think they are doing just fine. It would also just lead to more "fixing" the NFL arguments. No, keep it as is. Players, coaches, etc are playing for their jobs and for contracts, they aren't tanking. If they aren't tanking, no need to have it.

BeerBaron
10-03-2011, 12:04 PM
If that's not a possibility, why hold it? For more exposure? I think they are doing just fine. It would also just lead to more "fixing" the NFL arguments. No, keep it as is. Players, coaches, etc are playing for their jobs and for contracts, they aren't tanking. If they aren't tanking, no need to have it.

I just think it would be extremely lame, particularly in this year, if several teams end up with the same worst record and one of them gets luck because the teams they played were slightly worse.

If something like that does happen, I think this will be under consideration for the future.

And hell, Goodell "fixes" the league all the time. Everything he does seems wildly unpopular, but I think his motto should be "let them hate us as long as they pay us." Which the NFL fans and TV networks most certainly do.

If he could only somehow work this into being done "in the name of play safety," I can guarantee you it would happen.

Splat
10-03-2011, 01:30 PM
umDr0mPuyQc

Ness
10-03-2011, 01:39 PM
No way. The NFL is great in part because of parity. The worst teams are given the chance to get the best players.

Exactly. That makes the most sense. Just watch a 9-7 team get the first overall pick. Wow that would be bad. Just bad.

yo123
10-03-2011, 02:04 PM
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

Anyone tanking for a single prospect is insane. This isn't the NBA where LeBron James can do what he does.


Well, Peyton Manning does.

And yes I think they should.

CC.SD
10-03-2011, 02:23 PM
No. It's not the NBA where you get 5 guys on the court, and if 3-4 of them are high enough caliber you're contenders. Super Bowl teams are champions from top to bottom, one player isn't enough to upend the entire system.

bigbuc
10-03-2011, 02:26 PM
Its the media with this whole Suck for Luck thing! Don't fall for it. Plus if all it took was one great QB the Colts would have three or four not the one they have.

yo123
10-03-2011, 02:28 PM
Its the media with this whole Suck for Luck thing! Don't fall for it. Plus if all it took was one great QB the Colts would have three or four not the one they have.

No, because other teams have great QB's too. If you have a great QB all you really need is a couple other pieces, which the Colts managed to get despite whiffing on pretty much every first round pick in the last decade.

killxswitch
10-03-2011, 02:35 PM
No, because other teams have great QB's too. If you have a great QB all you really need is a couple other pieces, which the Colts managed to get despite whiffing on pretty much every first round pick in the last decade.

That's over the top. The drafts from 2007 - 2010 sucked, that's pretty much it.

yo123
10-03-2011, 02:41 PM
That's over the top. The drafts from 2007 - 2010 sucked, that's pretty much it.


The decade may have been an exaggeration. But meh, Addai is decent enough but has had injury troubles and even when healthy hasn't been a first round type RB. While Bob Sanders obviously played a big part in the SB year has played double digit games twice in his career. I don't claim to have seen a ton of Marlin Jackson but he's nothing real special is he? Clark, Wayne, and Freeney were obviously all great picks, but completely ignoring the offensive line for that entire time counts for something too.

killxswitch
10-03-2011, 02:53 PM
The decade may have been an exaggeration. But meh, Addai is decent enough but has had injury troubles and even when healthy hasn't been a first round type RB. While Bob Sanders obviously played a big part in the SB year has played double digit games twice in his career. I don't claim to have seen a ton of Marlin Jackson but he's nothing real special is he? Clark, Wayne, and Freeney were obviously all great picks, but completely ignoring the offensive line for that entire time counts for something too.

I'm not thrilled with the way the team has been built. Obviously the team is reaping what it sowed for so long. Jackson hasn't been on the team for several seasons, but that was because of injury. And without him the team never would've beaten the Pats in 06 on the way to the SB.

You can second-guess this or that draft pick but I don't think any of them are abject failures until you hit the 07-10 stretch.

LonghornsLegend
10-03-2011, 03:02 PM
It poses an interesting question, but with how big of an impact rookies make in the NFL there is IMO, no place for a lottery in the NFL draft. 10 and 11 win teams miss the playoffs with the set up we have now, can you imagine 1 of those teams getting lucky and winning Suh, or Andrew Luck, or just incredible ammunition to trade back from #1 4 times until they are picking 25th.


Now I'm sure it'd be weighted so that didn't happen often, but we would see the worst teams picking 6th-8th alot though which I never liked. They are bad for a reason. It would be more interesting/exciting for sure, but it would start a bad trend.

Complex
10-03-2011, 03:03 PM
The NFL draft lottery could happen, it would bring big ratings which means more money for the NFL. Its not like Goodell cares what the fans think. He will just say "it what the fans want" without even asking the fans like he did with 18 game proposal.

bucfan12
10-03-2011, 03:04 PM
No. I love the way the draft is. Usually, it's very rare they have a tie for worst record in the league. Do I think the tiebreaker should be decided by Strength of Schedule? Possibly.

Plus the way the NFL does the draft order for the 12 playoff teams is fair as well. Don't change any of this. There really isn't much of an argument here.

SuperMcGee
10-03-2011, 03:17 PM
You can still do a lottery where teams that just missed the playoffs can't get the top pick, like the NHL does. Not saying I endorse it for the NFL, but a lottery doesn't necessarily mean that 10 win teams could be nabbing a franchise player.

eeth
10-03-2011, 03:39 PM
I say no for the fact that the NFL just instituted the a rookie salary wage system so that having a top pick is now attractive.

descendency
10-03-2011, 03:55 PM
I didn't even suggest that as a possibility. There are plenty of other reasons to make it happen, as I've discussed already.

You're fixing a problem the NFL doesn't have though.

Ties are broken by coin flip. Strength of schedule is a decent measure of ineptitude.

Then again, I think there are teams that are 2-14 that had easy schedules that are worse than teams that were 1-15.

I wouldn't mind a system where teams could be moved up for down based on "adjusted wins" though any change to the NFL's current system will be forever mired in controversy the very next year (see the "Patrick Ewing Frozen Envelope")

The NFL draft lottery could happen, it would bring big ratings which means more money for the NFL. Its not like Goodell cares what the fans think. He will just say "it what the fans want" without even asking the fans like he did with 18 game proposal.

I watch pre-season games but quite frankly, they are an inferior product. The only reason I want them to even remotely stay is because I enjoy seeing backups play for a game or two and knowing it helps coaches evaluate their prospects.

But the announcing is total trash. The play is very vanilla at best.

Bucs_Rule
10-03-2011, 04:00 PM
Lottery in other sports were instituted to deter tanking of seasons. That isn't a problem in the NFL due non guaranteed contracts, the amount of turnover of players on a roster, etc.

Now I don't know if the lottery actually deters teams from trying to tank the season in NBA, NHL. Its hard to know if a player with 4 years left on a guaranteed contract plays lousy for rest of the season is it due to be instructed to do so or is he slacking of as he has little motivation to do otherwise.

It helps with the perception that the lottery makes a difference, which is all the leagues really care about.