OT: How moronic is the NFL's rookie scale?

Post #1 » by **dougthonus** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 11:57 am

Seriously, how has the NFL not put into it's CBA a salary scale for draft slots yet based either on position or just overall pick or something similar to what the NBA does?

Jake Long signs for 58 million as the #1 pick and is now the highest paid offensive lineman in the NFL prior to taking a single snap. Is it just me or is that completely and totally ridiculous?

Given that rookie salary scale would avoid holdouts, help veterans and help teams, who the hell is arguing against it in the CBA talks? The only one who'd hate it would be agents, and they don't have a voice there.

One of the great mysteries of life.

Howling Mad · Post #2 » by **Howling Mad** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 1:37 pm

Yup its silly.

I read the yahoo report of that and almost fell out of my chair. Especially the part you mentioned, "Highest paid offensive lineman in the NFL."

The two factors I can come up with are:

1)The success of the NFL
2)The significance of the offensive lineman

1- I read somewhere that the salary cap in football has increased over 40 million (around 5 years time ?). Thats a lot. I haven't done the research, but I'm guessing this is the NFL's glory days, where the salary cap needs time to catch up with their financial success. Kinda like the what the NBA experience in the late 90's.

2 - Over the past 20 years NFL lineman have gotten their respect, and deservedly so. Without them, the pretty boy QBs, the flashy receivers and running backs can't do a darn thing. (Exhibit A: The Chicago Bears, lol)

In the NFL, the top 5 salaries on the team always include a member of the offensive line. To add to that, I think Left Tackles, specifically, have become the second highest paid player on most teams.

wikipedia wrote:The book discusses how the annual salary of left tackles in the NFL skyrocketed in the mid-90's. Premier left tackles are now highly sought after commodities, and are often the second highest paid players on a roster after the quarterback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offensive_tackle

No TV time, but definitely getting paid.

Chewie · Post #3 » by **Chewie** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:28 pm

Agreed. NFL vets in particular should be all over this in the next CBA. Rooks are getting a disproportionate piece of the pie.

Howling Mad · Post #4 » by **Howling Mad** » Wed Apr 23, 2008 9:46 pm

I was thinking about this earlier...

Lower the Rookie contracts and give back to the retired vets who are limping their way into their 50's and 60's.

DanTown8587 · Post #5 » by **DanTown8587** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:32 am

its awful. I think rookies are gonna have money cut, but the vets will have to get more guaranteed money in contracts.

Post #6 » by **dougthonus** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 6:54 pm

DanTown8587 wrote:its awful. I think rookies are gonna have money cut, but the vets will have to get more guaranteed money in contracts.

I agree, I'm not arguing at all over the total salary players make. I think that the amount of salary teams pay out should be a constant X% of the NFL's total revenue. That percentage should be bargained for, and then after that point, the we'd only be arguing about which players are deserving of that X%.

To me, the rookie scale contract pays the top 10 picks in the NFL draft a drastically different sum than what they are worth based on the chance of success. Especially the guys in the top 5 who are paid at elite player like levels, despite the fact that the majority of top 5 picks are never elite players.

If you pick #1 overall, unless you draft someone like Peyton Manning, you are getting screwed.

Cliff Levingston · Post #7 » by **Cliff Levingston** » Fri Apr 25, 2008 8:25 pm

dougthonus wrote:If you pick #1 overall, unless you draft someone like Peyton Manning, you are getting screwed.

Yep. For the very reasons you lais out, having a top 5 pick is almost a bad thing in today's NFL given that the talent different from the usual top 5 on down to the top 20 or so isn't always that huge. Cliff Levingston would much rather have a 6-10th pick than a 1-5th pick.

CjayC · Post #8 » by **CjayC** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:18 am

That's scary man.

And to think that the salary gets higher every year...

At some point the NFL has to step in.It's already waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of hand

Post #9 » by **dougthonus** » Sat Apr 26, 2008 8:12 pm

Yep. For the very reasons you lais out, having a top 5 pick is almost a bad thing in today's NFL given that the talent different from the usual top 5 on down to the top 20 or so isn't always that huge. Cliff Levingston would much rather have a 6-10th pick than a 1-5th pick.

The vast majority of years I would agree. That's also why it's so hard to trade out of the top 5 even if you aren't asking for great return value.