NFL first-round draft picks overpriced

Trey wrote:

It is time for the NFL to restructure the value of Rookies. There is no way in hell an unproven player should make that much coming into the league.

Yah just look at what Bobby Bouche (The waterboy Leinart) is getting paid in Arizona.

DagoT wrote:

Did "Idc" notice that, of "The bulk of the 2005 and 2006 defenses were made up of Angelo draft picks," the 2008 defense lost 7 games?
Or that, "the team's biggest offensive weapon in the Super Bowl year -- Bernard Berrian -- was also an Angelo pick." and was now playing for anther team? And how did that other team do in the Super Bowl?

Yes I did notice.

Doesn't change my point that Angelo doesn't get enough credit for his drafts.

Even with the past two years, that defense led the team to a division championship and a Super Bowl birth.

And no one has yet to convince me that Bernard Berrian is worth $50 million. Angelo was rather wise to let him go. But he was still an Angelo pick.

I agree that they are overvalued and am glad they traded the 1st rounders for cutler, but what a hypocrit angelo is for saying this. For years he has said the exact opposite and now only after he deals a couple he changes his mindset.

How can anyone take anything angelo says seriously? He is the drum major of the fiasco parade. Cutler landing in his lap is his best move, but it puts the pressure squarely on Lovie and if Angelo doesn't get a real head coach for the bears, both of them will still be gone. Cutler will just prove the need for this change.

Trey wrote:

It is time for the NFL to restructure the value of Rookies. There is no way in hell an unproven player should make that much coming into the league.

How do you tell a running back to be under a rookie salary cap for say 3 years and then tell him to take his chances in year 4 when he is battered from heavy use. Do you think for example an Adrian Peterson or Matt Forte should be under a rookie salary cap?

ldc wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes I did notice.
Doesn't change my point that Angelo doesn't get enough credit for his drafts.
Even with the past two years, that defense led the team to a division championship and a Super Bowl birth.
And no one has yet to convince me that Bernard Berrian is worth $50 million. Angelo was rather wise to let him go. But he was still an Angelo pick.

I agree with your general point and I completely agree with the sentiment of this article. However, regarding Berrian most people would agree the Vikes overpaid for him but if you remember the choices were not 50MM or let him go. They could have franchised him for 7MM and then waited to see if that offer disappeared next year.

Angelo swindled Denver on this.

Tom wrote:

<quoted text>
How do you tell a running back to be under a rookie salary cap for say 3 years and then tell him to take his chances in year 4 when he is battered from heavy use. Do you think for example an Adrian Peterson or Matt Forte should be under a rookie salary cap?

yes
the NBA has it right,
#1 gets a set amount
# 2 gets a set amount ect.
It's about the only thing they have right, can't stand NBA BB

manhattan_beach_dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Yah just look at what Bobby Bouche (The waterboy Leinart) is getting paid in Arizona.

haha...Flexing a little of your powder blue muscle I see. He will never be the second coming of Troy Aikman will he?..lol

manhattan_beach_dude wrote:

<quoted text>
yes
the NBA has it right,
#1 gets a set amount
# 2 gets a set amount ect.
It's about the only thing they have right, can't stand NBA BB

how does the nba have it right? the best player doesnt always go #1 overall. a perfect example of that was greg oden going over kevin durant. i said that a bad move when it happened and now its starting to show. to do that in the nfl would just be stupid because if a linebacker goes #1 instead of a running back, why should he get more $$$? running back have a lot higher chance of getting injured than any other position and the average career for a running back is only 3.5 years. plus, what if the team with the first pick already has the running back position set and know who they want their future to be built around?

i dont think there should be a draft for rookies. i say they should all be released into the free agency pool and let the teams go after them and let the players decide.

Jeebs wrote:

<quoted text>
how does the nba have it right? the best player doesnt always go #1 overall. a perfect example of that was greg oden going over kevin durant. i said that a bad move when it happened and now its starting to show. to do that in the nfl would just be stupid because if a linebacker goes #1 instead of a running back, why should he get more $$$? running back have a lot higher chance of getting injured than any other position and the average career for a running back is only 3.5 years. plus, what if the team with the first pick already has the running back position set and know who they want their future to be built around?
i dont think there should be a draft for rookies. i say they should all be released into the free agency pool and let the teams go after them and let the players decide.

Thats an interesting concept I haven't heard before. I have to ask you this. How would this benefit bad teams the chance to get better? How would this keep owners like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder from signing more than their share. This could destroy the competetive balance of the league. We could have the Yankee - Red Sox thing in football that is ruining baseball. Remember, the salary cap has rookie exceptions, and no guarrentied contracts would allow them to eliminate/cut previous mistakes and reload rookies every year.

Jeebs wrote:

<quoted text>
how does the nba have it right? the best player doesnt always go #1 overall. a perfect example of that was greg oden going over kevin durant. i said that a bad move when it happened and now its starting to show. to do that in the nfl would just be stupid because if a linebacker goes #1 instead of a running back, why should he get more $$$? running back have a lot higher chance of getting injured than any other position and the average career for a running back is only 3.5 years. plus, what if the team with the first pick already has the running back position set and know who they want their future to be built around?
i dont think there should be a draft for rookies. i say they should all be released into the free agency pool and let the teams go after them and let the players decide.

dude I was talking about keeping the cost of contract down, geezz

there is some very interesting posts on here today.it is true j.a.hasnt done as bad a job drafting as some people think but until the cutler thing happened im almost sure he was gonna sit on his hands all offseason his lack of getting free agents makes me sick i can understand if they are overpriced but as of late there are a lot of bargains the best move he has made besides the cutler one in the last 5 years was resigning briggs but he needs to go get torry holt because i dont believe he will get a better wr in the draft the guy still has it

Mr Breeze wrote:

<quoted text>Thats an interesting concept I haven't heard before. I have to ask you this. How would this benefit bad teams the chance to get better? How would this keep owners like Jerry Jones and Daniel Snyder from signing more than their share. This could destroy the competetive balance of the league. We could have the Yankee - Red Sox thing in football that is ruining baseball. Remember, the salary cap has rookie exceptions, and no guarrentied contracts would allow them to eliminate/cut previous mistakes and reload rookies every year.

i think every team should have the same salary cap to prevent what the yankees are doing in baseball. the only problem that i would have with all the rookies going to the free agency pool would have to be the teams that are down not being able to attract the big names because of their bad records and eventually the league would have to move those franchises somewhere else. that is the only reason that i see the draft always being in place. but the thing i dont agree with is why should the team who wins the super bowl pick last or why should the worst team get the first overall pick just because they suck?

manhattan_beach_dude wrote:

<quoted text>
dude I was talking about keeping the cost of contract down, geezz

i know that and i agree with rookies shouldnt be getting multi million dollar deals when they havent even taken an nfl snap, but i dont agree with the #1 overall getting more than the #2 or #3 just because they went higher.

vince wrote:

there is some very interesting posts on here today.it is true j.a.hasnt done as bad a job drafting as some people think but until the cutler thing happened im almost sure he was gonna sit on his hands all offseason his lack of getting free agents makes me sick i can understand if they are overpriced but as of late there are a lot of bargains the best move he has made besides the cutler one in the last 5 years was resigning briggs but he needs to go get torry holt because i dont believe he will get a better wr in the draft the guy still has it

i had a tough time reading this because of your lack of periods, but i got through it.

the bears just screwed themselves over by trading for cutler. i really am starting to wonder if cutler is just another primadonna in the making and will start complaining as soon as things start going bad. he doesnt have the recievers or o-line that he had in denver. plus he has ron turner as an offensive coordinator and the bears dont really spend $$$ when it comes to free agency. if they continue to not spend, then their offense is going to suck because they wont be able to draft for the next two years unless they get lucky and make a steal after the first round of the draft. but then again, if you look at history, the bears cant develop recievers. they have brought in good recievers but couldnt coach them. im starting to wonder if earl bennett is another example of that.

Mike wrote:

Jerry Angelo's first round picks have for the most part not worked out. No one is question his ability to draft in the later rounds, he does that quite well I think. But his first round picks are wastes of time and money and slowly eat away at the psyche of Bears fans. It's a total loss.

Angelo's later round draft busts:

Leon Joe, 4th
Tron Lafavor, 5th
Roosevelt Williams 3rd
Dan Bazuin 2nd
Dusty Dvoracek 3rd
Mark Bradley 2nd

Mike wrote:

Jerry Angelo's first round picks have for the most part not worked out. No one is question his ability to draft in the later rounds, he does that quite well I think. But his first round picks are wastes of time and money and slowly eat away at the psyche of Bears fans. It's a total loss.

i dont like angelo and think he is a horrible gm, but he has made some pretty good picks in the 1st round though. tommie harris, urlacher, and chris williams i would say were all good picks. grossman i believe was also a good pick who had a lot of potential, but was screwed up by ron turner and his inability to develop a quarterback. i dont think the guy doesnt have a clue how to call an offense or knows the difference between a qb and a third baseman. the bears history just goes to show they cant develop a qb. i mean seriously, have they ever even had a qb make to the pro bowl?