2020 NFL: Offseason News and Notes

HakkyNH

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2005
8
Merrimack, NH
Two words: snake draft. (Probably with some compensatory picks in earlier rounds than normal to give everyone roughly the same equivalent draft value across the board.)
Perhaps a modified snake draft, where the first round is based on lottery, and then all rounds 2-7 are the reverse order of first round. I haven't done the math, but this would mitigate some of the large value gaps between first round picks.

The next issue would be how the lottery would work. Would each team get 1 ball in the jar, or would "worse" teams get more? And how would "worse" be determined if there's no 2020 season?
 
Perhaps a modified snake draft, where the first round is based on lottery, and then all rounds 2-7 are the reverse order of first round. I haven't done the math, but this would mitigate some of the large value gaps between first round picks.
Yeah, I looked at the standard draft value chart last night, and the difference between 3,000 points for the #1 pick overall and 590 points for #32 overall means there's no way to even come close to perfectly balancing all 32 teams - even with the team getting the #1 pick overall getting only one pick in the entire draft, no amount of compensatory picks for the last 5-6 teams in the first round would be able to fully level the playing field in terms of draft value. I had actually come to the same conclusion as you last night: whatever the order is in the first round, rounds 2-7 should have the reverse order. As to how you determine the draft order after a cancelled season...
The next issue would be how the lottery would work. Would each team get 1 ball in the jar, or would "worse" teams get more? And how would "worse" be determined if there's no 2020 season?
...my suggestion would be that you come up with some criteria to rank teams from best to worst since the merger in 1970, or since 2000, or in the last decade, and either have that determine the order in the first round or conduct a lottery with a weighted number of ping pong balls based upon those rankings, with the worst team getting the most ping-pong balls. My suggested criteria (in order of tiebreaking preference) would be:

1) Most Super Bowl wins
2) Most playoff wins
3) Most playoff appearances
4) Regular season winning percentage

A back-of-the-napkin calculation using statistics since 1970 (probably using some incorrect numbers, FWIW, particularly for teams with impressive records before the merger - but I can't be bothered to proof everything) suggests that something like this would be the draft order in Round 1, or if you prefer, the teams which would have the most ping-pong balls in a lottery:

1. Houston
2. Cincinnati
3. Jacksonville
4. Arizona
5. Detroit
6. Carolina
7. Atlanta
8. NY Jets
9. LA Chargers
10. Buffalo
11. Cleveland
12. Tennessee
13. Minnesota
14. Tampa Bay
15. New Orleans
16. Kansas City
17. Seattle
18. Chicago
19. LA Rams
20. Philadelphia
21. Baltimore
22. Miami
23. Indianapolis
24. Green Bay
25. Denver
26. Washington
27. Las Vegas
28. NY Giants
29. San Francisco
30. Dallas
31. Pittsburgh
32. New England

That looks pretty fair in terms of ranking franchise futility, doesn't it?
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,083
Melbourne, Australia
Yeah, I looked at the standard draft value chart last night, and the difference between 3,000 points for the #1 pick overall and 590 points for #32 overall means there's no way to even come close to perfectly balancing all 32 teams - even with the team getting the #1 pick overall getting only one pick in the entire draft, no amount of compensatory picks for the last 5-6 teams in the first round would be able to fully level the playing field in terms of draft value. I had actually come to the same conclusion as you last night: whatever the order is in the first round, rounds 2-7 should have the reverse order. As to how you determine the draft order after a cancelled season...

...my suggestion would be that you come up with some criteria to rank teams from best to worst since the merger in 1970, or since 2000, or in the last decade, and either have that determine the order in the first round or conduct a lottery with a weighted number of ping pong balls based upon those rankings, with the worst team getting the most ping-pong balls. My suggested criteria (in order of tiebreaking preference) would be:

1) Most Super Bowl wins
2) Most playoff wins
3) Most playoff appearances
4) Regular season winning percentage

A back-of-the-napkin calculation using statistics since 1970 (probably using some incorrect numbers, FWIW, particularly for teams with impressive records before the merger - but I can't be bothered to proof everything) suggests that something like this would be the draft order in Round 1, or if you prefer, the teams which would have the most ping-pong balls in a lottery:

1. Houston
2. Cincinnati
3. Jacksonville
4. Arizona
5. Detroit
6. Carolina
7. Atlanta
8. NY Jets
9. LA Chargers
10. Buffalo
11. Cleveland
12. Tennessee
13. Minnesota
14. Tampa Bay
15. New Orleans
16. Kansas City
17. Seattle
18. Chicago
19. LA Rams
20. Philadelphia
21. Baltimore
22. Miami
23. Indianapolis
24. Green Bay
25. Denver
26. Washington
27. Las Vegas
28. NY Giants
29. San Francisco
30. Dallas
31. Pittsburgh
32. New England

That looks pretty fair in terms of ranking franchise futility, doesn't it?
The Jets are ranked too low. And I think the folks in Miami and especially Cleveland would also like a word...
 

TSC

SoSH's Doug Neidermeyer
SoSH Member
Oct 25, 2007
9,755
Between here and everywhere.
The Jets are ranked too low. And I think the folks in Miami and especially Cleveland would also like a word...
I think you would need to weigh the last 3-5 years more significantly than the last 5-10, etc.

There's no way Houston, with their recent history is more deserving than MIA, NYJ, CLE, etc.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
10,406
Santa Monica, CA
I would just let the coaches vote. Have each of them rank the other 31 teams 1-31 in terms of how they'd like to see the draft look, then tally up the points and let the teams draft in the order the coaches chose.

No one has more skin in the game in making sure the ready-made contenders at that point don't get a draft windfall. Which is what the system is built for, right?
 

streeter88

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 2, 2006
1,083
Melbourne, Australia
I would just let the coaches vote. Have each of them rank the other 31 teams 1-31 in terms of how they'd like to see the draft look, then tally up the points and let the teams draft in the order the coaches chose.

No one has more skin in the game in making sure the ready-made contenders at that point don't get a draft windfall. Which is what the system is built for, right?
Either way Pats are picking 32nd.

I like the full on lottery better.
 

Soxy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2008
5,603
espn: Jameis Winston talking with the Saints
Yahoo saying it's being finalized.


Says in the article Winston's salary will be "very economical, fitting inside the Saints’ already tight salary cap for next season." There have been rumblings that Jameis and Cam both haven't been willing to budge on salary demands, even though the market's not there. If Cam starts to lower his price tag as well, he could become a legit option for the Pats.

Obviously they'd have to deal with Thuney first, but my Cam to NE dream is still alive. You will pry it from my cold, dead hands. Or he'll sign somewhere else. Whichever comes first.
 

BaseballJones

goalpost mover
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
9,428
I’m not a huge Cam fan. But he is a proven NFL starter with MVP upside (obviously...he’s actually won one). If the Pats showed up the rest of their roster and then somehow added him... that would make for a pretty potent team.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,887
Oregon
That's potentially a great fit for Winston. Gives the Saints a legit successor for Brees in a year. Meanwhile, Winston has a chance to pick up a thing or two from Brees about ball security.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
35,377
That's potentially a great fit for Winston. Gives the Saints a legit successor for Brees in a year. Meanwhile, Winston has a chance to pick up a thing or two from Brees about ball security.
And being the backup to a 41 year-old is not a bad place to be.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,887
Oregon

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
46,901
No kidding? Seems like a lot of money in the QB position, even if just for a year or two.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,001
Payton's Hill obsession is so weird, they're paying big money for a guy to essentially run wildcat a few times a week. They'd probably get the same production, maybe better just running regular wildcat with Kamara. Hill has less career completions than Mohamed Sanu.
 

Valek123

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
847
Upper Valley
What am I missing with Hill? That seems like a crazy amount of money for the production he's brought to the table so far. I haven't read anywhere where they view him as the QB of the future, so what am I missing here?
 

Ale Xander

Lacks black ink
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
30,888
What am I missing with Hill? That seems like a crazy amount of money for the production he's brought to the table so far. I haven't read anywhere where they view him as the QB of the future, so what am I missing here?
Imagine if Slater played goal line offense and sometimes subbed in for a top-3 QB even when he is healthy and will do so more now that Brees is getting old.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
35,377
What am I missing with Hill? That seems like a crazy amount of money for the production he's brought to the table so far. I haven't read anywhere where they view him as the QB of the future, so what am I missing here?
That Sean Payton loves Taysom Hill more than he loves his wife. Makes no sense to pay that much to a gadget player. He won’t even be the backup QB, Jameis will. So, clear to me that they will continue to use Taysom a lot.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,001
The only explanation to me that makes sense is that Hill has finally accepted that he's not going to be an NFL QB and they plan to use him as a TE/H-Back more. He's a great athlete, who is dangerous with the ball in his hands and in a different role you could get real value. One of the limitations has always been that he said he wanted to be a QB and if NO didn't see him that way he would sign somewhere that did.

Pairing his signing with Jameis is as clear an indication that they don't see him as a real QB as you can get.

Moving him from gadget player, to more of a full time role with the occasional gadget play would make this much less of an overpay
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
1,851
The only explanation to me that makes sense is that Hill has finally accepted that he's not going to be an NFL QB and they plan to use him as a TE/H-Back more. He's a great athlete, who is dangerous with the ball in his hands and in a different role you could get real value. One of the limitations has always been that he said he wanted to be a QB and if NO didn't see him that way he would sign somewhere that did.

Pairing his signing with Jameis is as clear an indication that they don't see him as a real QB as you can get.

Moving him from gadget player, to more of a full time role with the occasional gadget play would make this much less of an overpay
Even if he’s a full time player on offense... it’s still a pretty big overpay. There are currently 2 TEs and 24 WR with a $10mn+ annual contract value. He’s a good player, but he needs to produce a lot more if he’s not a QB to be even remotely worth it.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
35,377
The only explanation to me that makes sense is that Hill has finally accepted that he's not going to be an NFL QB and they plan to use him as a TE/H-Back more. He's a great athlete, who is dangerous with the ball in his hands and in a different role you could get real value. One of the limitations has always been that he said he wanted to be a QB and if NO didn't see him that way he would sign somewhere that did.

Pairing his signing with Jameis is as clear an indication that they don't see him as a real QB as you can get.

Moving him from gadget player, to more of a full time role with the occasional gadget play would make this much less of an overpay
Possibly true but still feels like an overpay for a guy with like 400-500 yards from scrimmage. In any event, an inspiring story for sure.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,001
Even if he’s a full time player on offense... it’s still a pretty big overpay. There are currently 2 TEs and 24 WR with a $10mn+ annual contract value. He’s a good player, but he needs to produce a lot more if he’s not a QB to be even remotely worth it.
Oh it's definitely an overpay, but I can see the argument for it if he's a full-time player. Gives you a ton of flexibility since he can play 2-3 positions for you, and you don't need to keep a 3rd QB around and maybe not add one if you have a short term QB injury. So you overpay production for upside and roster flexibility.

If he is really going to play 60+% of snaps, and he produces something like 6-700 yards from scrimmage, that's not bad
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
41,547
PTI says Aaron Rodgers should demand trade after team drafted Love. Said that never happens with other teams.

In other news, PTI has never heard of Brady or Garoppolo.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,001
PTI says Aaron Rodgers should demand trade after team drafted Love. Said that never happens with other teams.

In other news, PTI has never heard of Brady or Garoppolo.
Huh? Brady was drafted in the 6th round, Jimmy G at the end of the 2nd. The Packers traded up in the 1st to draft Love. That's a pretty uncommon move for a team with a top QB.

Edit- especially one with 4 years left on his deal
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
1,851
Oh it's definitely an overpay, but I can see the argument for it if he's a full-time player. Gives you a ton of flexibility since he can play 2-3 positions for you, and you don't need to keep a 3rd QB around and maybe not add one if you have a short term QB injury. So you overpay production for upside and roster flexibility.

If he is really going to play 60+% of snaps, and he produces something like 6-700 yards from scrimmage, that's not bad
Agree to disagree, but I think 600-700 scrimmage yards from a $10 million a year player is terrible value. There were 112 players in the NFL that put up 600 scrimmage yards last season. That’s not even 40 yards per game. That puts you somewhere in between Mohammed Sanu (35) and Rex Burkhead (45) in terms of production. If you want a guy to get you 700 yards, Nelson Agholor signed for $1 million. Hill is a fine player and you can do some unique stuff with him, but in an offense that already has Thomas, Sanders, and Kamara, he’s a 4th option at best. Really strikes me as an overpay for a luxury item.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
17,001
Agree to disagree, but I think 600-700 scrimmage yards from a $10 million a year player is terrible value. There were 112 players in the NFL that put up 600 scrimmage yards last season. That’s not even 40 yards per game. That puts you somewhere in between Mohammed Sanu (35) and Rex Burkhead (45) in terms of production. If you want a guy to get you 700 yards, Nelson Agholor signed for $1 million. Hill is a fine player and you can do some unique stuff with him, but in an offense that already has Thomas, Sanders, and Kamara, he’s a 4th option at best. Really strikes me as an overpay for a luxury item.
Though only 9 of those play TE, and of the ones not on rookie deals they all make 8-10M a year. It's maybe an overpay, but you can't compare him to players who don't play the same positions. Part of the value is that he can be your TE, or WR, or RB, or QB from play to play.

I wouldn't pay him that money, but if he's playing a significant % of snaps at TE along with his other trick/red zone packages, and helping you avoid rostering a 3rd QB... I get it. If he's not doing the first part I don't get it at all.
 

Average Game James

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Apr 28, 2016
1,851
Though only 9 of those play TE, and of the ones not on rookie deals they all make 8-10M a year. It's maybe an overpay, but you can't compare him to players who don't play the same positions. Part of the value is that he can be your TE, or WR, or RB, or QB from play to play.

I wouldn't pay him that money, but if he's playing a significant % of snaps at TE along with his other trick/red zone packages, and helping you avoid rostering a 3rd QB... I get it. If he's not doing the first part I don't get it at all.
He’s listed at 6’2”, 220. He’s not playing significant snaps at TE.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,887
Oregon
As a word of warning, the picture of his leg 4 days after the injury is quite nasty. Avoid the link in the article if you’re squeamish.
Yeah, I should have added that. What's amazing is that Smith and his wife waived health privacy laws to let the camera crew document everything
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
64,887
Oregon
A Chiefs player? Arrested? Sacre bleu!

 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
35,377
A Chiefs player? Arrested? Sacre bleu!

What an idiot. Now Reid is going to be forced to take away his Netflix for a week.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
41,547
Huh? Brady was drafted in the 6th round, Jimmy G at the end of the 2nd. The Packers traded up in the 1st to draft Love. That's a pretty uncommon move for a team with a top QB.

Edit- especially one with 4 years left on his deal


My point was teams with really good QBs still sometimes draft other QBs early instead of getting said QB more weapons. But PTI was up in arms at the affront to Rodgers.
 
Last edited: