Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

If There Is A Lockout


Stovewood

Recommended Posts

This may have been explained but not lately. With the possibility of a lockout looming larger than ever. What will be the deal on the draft this year? If there is no season next year how will the draft be determined for the next season that is played? Will we get two #1 picks?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just as likely the same order as any kind of lottery. A lottery just defeats the purpose of the way the draft order is currently decided. I think more teams would be pissed about the Patriots or some good teams getting high picks than the same bad teams as the year before getting the high picks. Imagine whoever becomes the Super Bowl champs ending up with the #1 overall pick next year. That'd be some kinda BS. Much more likely to just stick with the same order, IMO. Maybe wishful thinking, but I just don't see the logic behind changing the system to where good teams can get better picks than the bad teams.

edit: However, I don't think it's gonna matter. I don't think there will be a lockout...

...I also thought there'd be no way Luck would go back to college, as boneheaded a move that is...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the system was set up to keep the draft order the exact same as the year prior after a lockout I would be wishing for no NFL next season, but I highly doubt either is the case. I'm sure it would be some sort of random draw for the draft and I do think we'll have an agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At most I could see them reversing the order for groups of 5 (for example, Panthers have 5th overall, Broncos 4th, and so on) or randomizing in groups of 5 or something like that. I REALLY don't think they'd completely randomize it or even give it a weighted lottery, making it possible for NE, or ATL, or NO or some such to get the #1, 2, 3 or anything high. That would be ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...