PDA

View Full Version : Draft question: What happens if you skip your turn?



omac
04-02-2009, 03:22 AM
Let's say you have the #1 overall pick, but you don't want to use it, because of the cap ramifications. Can you skip your turn, then re-emerge anytime you want in the 1st round? Or do you forfeit your 1st round pick?

Benetto
04-02-2009, 03:27 AM
Trade down...This is why they have advisors...


Lets say they skip trading down, because the owner was in a coma for 4 months...They forfeit their turn, I would imagine.

LordTrychon
04-02-2009, 03:39 AM
Pretty sure it's forfeit... Ask Mike Tice though.

omac
04-02-2009, 04:03 AM
Yeah that sounds about right. Otherwise, people would be skipping their turn more often.

Does that now mean #2 becomes #1 in terms of compensation, or does he stay at the #2 scale?

LordTrychon
04-02-2009, 04:04 AM
Yeah that sounds about right. Otherwise, people would be skipping their turn more often.

Does that now mean #2 becomes #1 in terms of compensation, or does he stay at the #2 scale?

Well, I think that would pretty much be left up to the negotiating of both sides, the team and agent/player. They'd probably come out somewhere in the middle.

This would be a very interesting question indeed if they came up with an official scale. Which they should. :salute:

omac
04-02-2009, 04:20 AM
I ask because I want Cutler to go to Detroit, but they might not be able to afford both the #1 pick and Cutler. :D

Heck, if I was Detroit, and forced to good, I'd trash the #1 pick and pretend that they just gave it away and overpaid Denver, just to secure Cutler on the roster. They went 0-16 anyways, so they should punish themselves, hehehe. :D

elsid13
04-02-2009, 04:50 AM
If the skip there turn when the time is up the next team can draft and the original can draft at any time. The original team would still pay the contract value associated with their draft spot.

West
04-02-2009, 12:56 PM
This happened a couple years ago actually..


If a team's time runs out.. Any team left in the round can get their card in until the original team chooses.

DallasChief
04-02-2009, 12:59 PM
This happened a couple years ago actually..


If a team's time runs out.. Any team left in the round can get their card in until the original team chooses.

Not any team, the next team on the clock can go ahead a make a selection.

They don't lose their pick they just slide back.

West
04-02-2009, 01:33 PM
Not any team, the next team on the clock can go ahead a make a selection.

They don't lose their pick they just slide back.

You sure? I remember the Chiefs, Jags and Vikings had this happen. Jags missed their turn and the Chiefs picked Ryan Sims then Vikings picked Bryant McKinnie then Leftwich for the Jags..

slim
04-02-2009, 01:40 PM
You sure? I remember the Chiefs, Jags and Vikings had this happen. Jags missed their turn and the Chiefs picked Ryan Sims then Vikings picked Bryant McKinnie then Leftwich for the Jags..

:tsk:

The Vikes missed their turn. :welcome:

West
04-02-2009, 01:43 PM
:tsk:

The Vikes missed their turn. :welcome:

:doh:

I apologize. You get the main idea.

DallasChief
04-02-2009, 01:46 PM
You sure? I remember the Chiefs, Jags and Vikings had this happen. Jags missed their turn and the Chiefs picked Ryan Sims then Vikings picked Bryant McKinnie then Leftwich for the Jags..

In 2003, the Vikings were supposedly trying to work out a trade. They didn't turn their card in on time. Jacksonville was next on the clock so they quickly went up and turned in their card for Leftwich. Then the Panthers, who were next, selected Jordan Gross before the Vikings finally turned in their card for Kevin Williams.

http://dailyuw.com/2003/4/29/typical-nfl-draft-made-interesting-by-vikings/

frauschieze
04-02-2009, 01:48 PM
If the skip there turn when the time is up the next team can draft and the original can draft at any time. The original team would still pay the contract value associated with their draft spot.

So then there is no benefit to missing their turn?

FanInAZ
04-02-2009, 02:22 PM
I know that this is some what differant, but the same princible could be aplied.

In '86, Bo Jackson said that if Tampa Bay drafted with their #1 pick, he would play baseball instead. Tampa thought he was bluffing and went ahead a drafted him. I believe it was the next day that Bo anounced that he was going to play baseball instead.

I don't know why, but he was allowed to be registered of the '87 draft and the Raiders were able to get him in the 7th round with the 183rd over all pick. To the best of my knowledge, Tampa Bay didn't receive any compensation for the theft of that #1 pick.

elsid13
04-02-2009, 05:04 PM
So then there is no benefit to missing their turn?

None at all. You just loss an opportunity to get the player you want.

frauschieze
04-02-2009, 05:30 PM
None at all. You just loss an opportunity to get the player you want.

Lame. Well throw that "strategy" out the window.

elsid13
04-02-2009, 05:46 PM
Lame. Well throw that "strategy" out the window.

Even Mike Tice has throw it out of his playbook

Nomad
04-07-2009, 01:54 PM
Looks like the NFL may let Detriot have the option!!! Posted by...theshiverman at BM!!

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/04/the_nfl_says_the_lions_are_all.html

CrazyHorse
04-08-2009, 08:48 AM
I know that this is some what differant, but the same princible could be aplied.

In '86, Bo Jackson said that if Tampa Bay drafted with their #1 pick, he would play baseball instead. Tampa thought he was bluffing and went ahead a drafted him. I believe it was the next day that Bo anounced that he was going to play baseball instead.

I don't know why, but he was allowed to be registered of the '87 draft and the Raiders were able to get him in the 7th round with the 183rd over all pick. To the best of my knowledge, Tampa Bay didn't receive any compensation for the theft of that #1 pick.

I call a a blowout win over the Raiders in the Superbowl adequate compensation.:D

elsid13
04-11-2009, 12:35 PM
I know that this is some what differant, but the same princible could be aplied.

In '86, Bo Jackson said that if Tampa Bay drafted with their #1 pick, he would play baseball instead. Tampa thought he was bluffing and went ahead a drafted him. I believe it was the next day that Bo anounced that he was going to play baseball instead.

I don't know why, but he was allowed to be registered of the '87 draft and the Raiders were able to get him in the 7th round with the 183rd over all pick. To the best of my knowledge, Tampa Bay didn't receive any compensation for the theft of that #1 pick.

Any team holds a draftee's rights for one year, unless he signs with the team. After the year, a player reenters the draft pool.

omac
04-11-2009, 09:48 PM
Looks like the NFL may let Detriot have the option!!! Posted by...theshiverman at BM!!

http://www.mlive.com/lions/index.ssf/2009/04/the_nfl_says_the_lions_are_all.html

According to BroncosBlitz link ...


"If a club passes during the draft, it gives up its pick at that point and can re-enter at any point to make its selection,'' said NFL spokesman Greg Aiello.

I then wondered if Detroit skipped down to No. 5, whether that pick would be considered the real No. 1 pick (because he was taken by Detroit) or the No. 5 choice.

"To use your example,'' Aiello wrote in an e-mail, "if a player is selected 5th, he is the 5th pick. There is no other way to view it.''

And no potential fines or sanctions coming from Commissioner Roger Goodell?

"It has never been an issue,'' Aiello wrote. "There is no penalty for passing, other than losing a higher pick.''

So the Lions could actually wait to pick, let's say, in the 7th pick instead of the 1st and pay that player 7th pick compensation.

In that case, the Broncos could've gotten the #1 pick from the Lions and went down as low as they'd wanted, to match the player for the compensation they'd want to give him.

In the same way, the Lions could've given away their lower 1st round pick to Denver, taken Cutler, and not the cap hit, because they can decide to enter at any time later with their pick. Their resoning was they couldn't afford Cutler and the #1 pick, but they didn't have to pick at #1, as they could slide down to any spot they wanted.

Analysts saying Denver should package their #12 and another pick to move up to get a QB would be off, since with the Lions, Denver could've taken the #1 pick and moved down easily any time they wanted to. They could get Stafford maybe within the 1st 3 picks, Sanchez maybe within the 1st 8. Packaging a 1st and another pick to move up to get a QB would be very inefficient.

Ravage!!!
04-11-2009, 10:01 PM
Its one of those things that has never been an issue. If you did it, it would be the LAST time any team would be allowed to do it because there would be immediate rules to change it... fines... draft choices taken.. that sort of thing.

I think its just looked at as a thing you 'don't' do simply by means of playing within the 'spirit' of the draft.. or playing within the 'spirit' of the rules. Would you really want YOUR team to be the first to simply not pick in the draft just falling?

I wouldn't. It would be embarrassing for the franchise. From that point forward, the draft would have new rules keeping from teams doing such dishonorable things, and it would always be known as the "Bronco" rule. Would you really want that?

yes... technically you could simply allow the other teams to pick before you, and choose not to pick. That would basically eliminate the purpose of the draft lineup... from then on.... the #2 then wouldn't pick either, and the #3 doesn't want the first overall pick, so they don't choose.... THEN.. since the 1,2 &3 could all pick at any time.. you then have teams scrambling to get their picks in WHEN they want them rather than at their slotted spot.

That woulnd't be good, it would be classless, and is why you don't see teams doing it.

omac
04-11-2009, 10:18 PM
Its one of those things that has never been an issue. If you did it, it would be the LAST time any team would be allowed to do it because there would be immediate rules to change it... fines... draft choices taken.. that sort of thing.

I think its just looked at as a thing you 'don't' do simply by means of playing within the 'spirit' of the draft.. or playing within the 'spirit' of the rules. Would you really want YOUR team to be the first to simply not pick in the draft just falling?

I wouldn't. It would be embarrassing for the franchise. From that point forward, the draft would have new rules keeping from teams doing such dishonorable things, and it would always be known as the "Bronco" rule. Would you really want that?

yes... technically you could simply allow the other teams to pick before you, and choose not to pick. That would basically eliminate the purpose of the draft lineup... from then on.... the #2 then wouldn't pick either, and the #3 doesn't want the first overall pick, so they don't choose.... THEN.. since the 1,2 &3 could all pick at any time.. you then have teams scrambling to get their picks in WHEN they want them rather than at their slotted spot.

That woulnd't be good, it would be classless, and is why you don't see teams doing it.

I can understand your point about respecting the draft, but the NFL league executive said there would be no repercussions, save losing your draft spot.

There's currently a problem with the escalating contracts of never proven, top picks, that hasn't been addressed. Plus, in a case like this draft, where there is no player who is a clear cut above the rest, the man among boys if you will, the top pick is penalized.

In other drafts, there were some surefire top picks that teams would want to move up to draft; Calvin Johnson looked like he was playing against kids. Joe Thomas seemed like a can't miss. This one ... mehh. :D

Moving down the draft might actually force the NFL to find a way to address the escalating contracts problems for the top picks, and when that happens, the top positions in the draft will have even more value, and teams would then want to try to move up. :cheers:

slim
04-11-2009, 10:23 PM
I can understand your point about respecting the draft, but the NFL league executive said there would be no repercussions, save losing your draft spot.

There's currently a problem with the escalating contracts of never proven, top picks, that hasn't been addressed. Plus, in a case like this draft, where there is no player who is a clear cut above the rest, the man among boys if you will, the top pick is penalized.

In other drafts, there were some surefire top picks that teams would want to move up to draft; Calvin Johnson looked like he was playing against kids. Joe Thomas seemed like a can't miss. This one ... mehh. :D

Moving down the draft might actually force the NFL to find a way to address the escalating contracts problems for the top picks, and when that happens, the top positions in the draft will have even more value, and teams would then want to try to move up. :cheers:

I would bet that is first priority with the new CBA. Although if Detroit did something like this on draft day, that would certainly send a message to players, agents and the NFL. I kinda hope someone does it. I think we can all agree the system is broke and needs fixing.

Ravage!!!
04-11-2009, 10:24 PM
I can understand your point about respecting the draft, but the NFL league executive said there would be no repercussions, save losing your draft spot.

There's currently a problem with the escalating contracts of never proven, top picks, that hasn't been addressed. Plus, in a case like this draft, where there is no player who is a clear cut above the rest, the man among boys if you will, the top pick is penalized.

In other drafts, there were some surefire top picks that teams would want to move up to draft; Calvin Johnson looked like he was playing against kids. Joe Thomas seemed like a can't miss. This one ... mehh. :D

Moving down the draft might actually force the NFL to find a way to address the escalating contracts problems for the top picks, and when that happens, the top positions in the draft will have even more value, and teams would then want to try to move up. :cheers:

Never going to happen. Many drafts have come around and people wonder if there is anyone that is 'truly' worth the first overall pick. Thats pretty common.

But if a team actually tried this (or did this since we all know there is no penalties)... then it would happen ONE year and one year only because there would be rules added.

So I just don't see a team doing it. Would be pretty classless.

Ravage!!!
04-11-2009, 10:28 PM
They talked about this last year on ESPN radio.

The reason for NOT giving the young players more money, would theoretically be to have MORE money available for veteran players. But you aren't seeing veteran players getting BIGGER contracts. The NFL has a TON.. and I mean a TON.. of cap room right now. THe NFL teams alll have a LOT of money below the cap to spend...but you don't see veteran players getting any of that money.

So, basically, its saying that the owners really aren't concerned about it. The owners are making money, and the BIG time draft picks are bringing butts in the seats. They are selling tickets, merchandise, and thus the big contracts are bothering them ENOUGH to try and change anything.

If you give less money to the young players being drafted, that money will NOT simply go to veteran players... it will just go into the owners pockets.

slim
04-11-2009, 10:32 PM
That is something to be worked out in the CBA. I don't care where the money goes as long as it doesn't go to an unproven rookie. That is not good for the game, IMO.

Either the owners will pocket it or the vets will...either one of these options is > than the current system.

omac
04-11-2009, 10:37 PM
They talked about this last year on ESPN radio.

The reason for NOT giving the young players more money, would theoretically be to have MORE money available for veteran players. But you aren't seeing veteran players getting BIGGER contracts. The NFL has a TON.. and I mean a TON.. of cap room right now. THe NFL teams alll have a LOT of money below the cap to spend...but you don't see veteran players getting any of that money.

So, basically, its saying that the owners really aren't concerned about it. The owners are making money, and the BIG time draft picks are bringing butts in the seats. They are selling tickets, merchandise, and thus the big contracts are bothering them ENOUGH to try and change anything.

If you give less money to the young players being drafted, that money will NOT simply go to veteran players... it will just go into the owners pockets.

Those are great points, specially about the high draft picks bringing in business for the team. The problem is when the team gets tied to a player who just doesn't pan out; the team takes the cap hit, and feel obligated to keep the player and do everything to try to make it work out ... David Carr, Alex Smith, Vince Young (#3 I think), maybe JaMarcus. They're already lousy teams, since they have the top picks, and when their resources are tied to one player who isn't working out, that sets the organization even further back. They could use that cap space on proven, more deserving players.

I'd still want the top pick to have good money, but it has to be somewhat controlled.

Lonestar
04-12-2009, 04:55 PM
Well, I think that would pretty much be left up to the negotiating of both sides, the team and agent/player. They'd probably come out somewhere in the middle.

This would be a very interesting question indeed if they came up with an official scale. Which they should. :salute:


some one missed a few years ago probably not on purpose but wound up a couple of pick later.. as the next couple of teams were shocked but ready to pick so they did..

The player held out on the original team saying he was really the #5 pick I think it was and the team said no your the #7 pic his agent agreed he should get the money of the 5 pick.. not sure how it turned out but he was late to camp..

I could be off a couple of picks on this but this was what I remembered..

Cugel
04-12-2009, 08:11 PM
According to BroncosBlitz link ...

So the Lions could actually wait to pick, let's say, in the 7th pick instead of the 1st and pay that player 7th pick compensation.

In that case, the Broncos could've gotten the #1 pick from the Lions and went down as low as they'd wanted, to match the player for the compensation they'd want to give him.

In the same way, the Lions could've given away their lower 1st round pick to Denver, taken Cutler, and not the cap hit, because they can decide to enter at any time later with their pick. Their resoning was they couldn't afford Cutler and the #1 pick, but they didn't have to pick at #1, as they could slide down to any spot they wanted.

Analysts saying Denver should package their #12 and another pick to move up to get a QB would be off, since with the Lions, Denver could've taken the #1 pick and moved down easily any time they wanted to. They could get Stafford maybe within the 1st 3 picks, Sanchez maybe within the 1st 8. Packaging a 1st and another pick to move up to get a QB would be very inefficient.

If the Broncos or any team did that it would cause total havoc! The NFL players union would certainly file a grievance. And there would be a big problem with player negotiations with the player's agent insisting that the team had to pay the player the same salary as he was entitled to as the #1 pick, and the team insisting he's not.

Since the #1 pick sets the scale for ALL rookie signings (they all get a percentage of the #1 pick depending on where they were drafted) this dispute would cause a massive headache for every team in the league.

Nobody would be happy about it and the practice would probably be banned by the owners at their next meeting. :coffee:

Meanwhile, the team that was sliding down, hoping to pick "their guy" with that later pick? Well they stand the chance of other teams trading up to jump ahead of them if some player was falling down the boards -- like Matt Stafford say.


If you're thinking that the Seahawks or some other team might leapfrog ahead of the Lions and take their player, it's possible. But the beauty of being 0-16 is that there are a lot of players who can help you immediately. If you get leapfrogged, take Curry instead. Or drop down and take Sanchez or Raji. The possibilities are endless.

The possibilities are not as endless for the Broncos. For instance they certainly wouldn't need an OT.

All this is academic anyway. The reason that McDaniels didn't want the Lions pick (#1 or #20) was that the Lions didn't have a veteran QB to trade that he wanted. It really came down to Patrick Ramsey or Kyle Orton.

God help us, he fell in love with Noodle-armed Kyle. That's why he did the deal. :coffee:

omac
04-13-2009, 11:26 PM
If the Broncos or any team did that it would cause total havoc! The NFL players union would certainly file a grievance. And there would be a big problem with player negotiations with the player's agent insisting that the team had to pay the player the same salary as he was entitled to as the #1 pick, and the team insisting he's not.

Since the #1 pick sets the scale for ALL rookie signings (they all get a percentage of the #1 pick depending on where they were drafted) this dispute would cause a massive headache for every team in the league.

Nobody would be happy about it and the practice would probably be banned by the owners at their next meeting. :coffee:

Meanwhile, the team that was sliding down, hoping to pick "their guy" with that later pick? Well they stand the chance of other teams trading up to jump ahead of them if some player was falling down the boards -- like Matt Stafford say.

The union would file a grievance? Maybe. But the union shouldn't be able to force a team to pay a player an amount of money they feel is not justified. A team should have the right to what they feel is a fair contract. There's something wrong with the system if a team can be forced to paying an exhorbitant amount of money for a player. The NFL understands this, and the option to slide down is exactly that, an option that a team can take.

Truth is, it's up to a player and his agent to show that he's worth the money for a number one pick. Let him play head and shoulders above anyone in college, so that teams would be salivating for the number one pick.

To force an organization to choose a player with the #1 pick, with no option of sliding down, and to give him a huge contract when they don't feel comfortable doing so is way off. It's about choice, which both teams and players should have.

It's true that there will be difficulties in contract negotiation when a team slides down; heck, Brady Quinn was taken in the 20s, yet he was insisting on top 10 money, so even without any team sliding down, there will be difficulties and holdouts. The bigger problem, though, is giving an unproven college player a ridiculously large contract. That can set the organization back quite a bit.

On a team sliding down having the possibility of missing the guy they want to get, that's a risk they choose to take. If they chose to slide down, they're willing to take it.


The possibilities are not as endless for the Broncos. For instance they certainly wouldn't need an OT.

All this is academic anyway. The reason that McDaniels didn't want the Lions pick (#1 or #20) was that the Lions didn't have a veteran QB to trade that he wanted. It really came down to Patrick Ramsey or Kyle Orton.

God help us, he fell in love with Noodle-armed Kyle. That's why he did the deal. :coffee:

The possibilities are pretty good. Raji is projected by some to not make it past the 10th round. If they wanted to, they can decide to offer up this #1 pick at lower value and get two #1s in the process; they don't have to demand #1 value ... they can ask for #8 value, for example. The sliding down factor offers flexibility for a team willing to take the consequences, as well as the rewards. (added) Bill Bellichick franchised Matt Cassel, but he did not get what is supposedly standard value for a franchised player; he got much less value than that, but for him and their circumstances, that value was good enough.

We both don't believe McDaniels will pick a QB in the 1st round, but there are quite a few analysts who do. If he does, though, using a #1 pick and sliding down as low as you want to get Mark Sanchez, for example, seems more efficient than burning 2 picks, the #12 and another pick, in order to move up.

If he took a QB in the 1st, then he might get some crazy ideas, like maybe Sanchez or Stafford would be the next Matt Ryan, just plug them in as rookies and they'll do well. :D If he were thinking in that manner, the veteran QB will be less of an issue, as he'd have his high paid backup ready ... Chris Simms. :D

I do agree with you that he values Orton a lot, so he'll probably get a late round developmental QB.

Sponsored Links