What I would like to see for Drafts.

***rams_fan81*** · -04-09-2006

Originally Posted by Milan

Yeah but do you want all these crappy teams moving up along the years after getting so many draft picks?

I mean think about it, in a few years we're going to be worried about playing the *****.

Ya but with lottery the cardinals could get better too then we have a hard division. In a few years we might not have to worry about the seahawks because they wont get the best rookies.

***Goldenfleece*** · -04-09-2006

Originally Posted by Revelstoke

The colts wouldnt get 40 balls, the teams with the worst records are given better odds with two, three, or four more balls, while the better records are given one or two balls,

so the odds still very heavily favor the wost records in th league.

I wasn't saying the Colts would get 40 balls; I was saying their chances of getting the first pick overall would be 40 to 1, or 2.5%. If each team got 1 ball, it would be 32 to 1, but the extra balls for weak teams would bring the number up to 40. The worst team in the league would have a 10% chance of getting the top pick.

***Revelstoke*** · -04-09-2006

Oh ok, i see it now, mis read your post.

My bad, looks like we are on the same page.

Sorry dude!

***tomahawk247*** · -04-09-2006

If there was a lottery, the Rams would never have won the Superbowl, the poor years prior to 99 and the drafting of players such as Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt and Orlando Pace put the Rams in a very good position for many a year to come.

***ramsbruce*** · -04-09-2006

Originally Posted by tomahawk247

If there was a lottery, the Rams would never have won the Superbowl, the poor years prior to 99 and the drafting of players such as Isaac Bruce, Torry Holt and Orlando Pace put the Rams in a very good position for many a year to come.

We didn't take Bruce until the second round, so we still would have had a shot at him.

***BlueTalon*** · -04-09-2006

Originally Posted by Milan

I hate how we award the worst team with a guaranteed first spot, and games like texans vs. ***** this year, where teams would try to purposly lose to get the #1 Pick.

Man that is soooooo wrong! Can you imagine being a player on a team going into a game, and being told that "we're 1-14, and our opponent is 1-14, and we're going to lose this game to get the 1st draft pick." Would your pride let you do that? Would you give a rat's-hind-end about some rookie the team might sign in six months? (A guy who might just take your job?)

Or can you imagine being on the coaching staff, and being told to gameplan for a loss? Win or lose, they're probably going to fire you at the end of the season -- do you really want an intentional loss on your resume? And do you think that information would never get out?

Or if you're an owner, can you imagine what fan reaction would be if word ever got out that you had told your team to take a dive? (What about League reaction? If you think Pete Rose's treatement is harsh, get ready to hop in his pool.)

There is no level at which you could make a credible claim that one team threw a game in order to get a higher draft pick. (If you think you have evidence, please share it.)

And then you want to fix a system that isn't broke with a solution that is absolutely nuts. I have a feeling you'd stop advocating a lottery if the Seahawks got the #1 pick.

***tomahawk247*** · -04-10-2006

If i was playing, i wouldnt lose the game to secure a draft pick. The draft is a pot shot, you dont know how the drafted player will turn out.

And what if someone considered a consensus number one decides he doesnt want to come out, then you lost a game for no reason.