Mike Florio posed this question first, or at least that's where I'm getting it from. The NBA has the draft and then free agency. What do you think the impact would be if the NFL did the same thing? Good? Bad?

---

I think it would make FA a lot less exciting. And with the current no contact with players cba rules I'm not sure it will help rookies. Maybe if they allowed coaches to have a lot more rookie mini camps and got rid of the graduation rule then that might help the young guys a lot.

And the NFLPA (who are run by the vet players) has already fully rejected the idea of moving the draft to March because they want the FA dollar amount to be high as possible for them. And the football people of the NFL have fully rejected the idea of moving the draft to late May/early June because that's too late to get rookies ready.

All that came about as the NFL's non-football people tried moving the draft to better align it with Nielsen tv rating system in early March or late May to get larger amounts of money out of the tv contracts. (because the higher the system ratings, the more they can charge for commercials, in theory).

Also I thought you were going to bring up that Mike Florio was promoting the idea of a draft lottery where all the non-playoff teams got equal shot at the first overall pick, to stop teams from tanking to get higher draft picks.

---

Assuming draft we're to be before free agency then all the teams are would have to be going in the draft with different boards and with different needs. Which may cause less needing of dipping in free agency. It may also give the teams more opportunity to resign their own players if they can't reach the players they were aiming in the draft.

I prefer it remains this way, as you can get a key player that's going to come in and produce & then fill in the holes with the draft that I've got remaining.

Then again as a Packers fan we haven't seen much action in free agency (except this year) so it wouldn't really make a difference for us~

---

By having FA 1st teams can fill some of their most pressing needs with veterans before picking up kids to try and fill them. Or at least so I am told. GB doesn't seem to follow that model very much. It can change who they select in the draft.

---

Just trying to think of this more in depth... if the draft came first... their would be a lot more teams pressuring players to resign for the draft and players wanting to wait for FAs, causing a lot more feuds.

Also the draft coming first would drop the veterans market price, which could help teams that don't spend as much on FA (like the Packers), but it most likely also have a lot more players overvaluing their market (like DL Cullen Jenkins and WR Greg Jennings both reportedly did, which according to rumors, led them to turning higher offers from the Packers during the year, then they ended up getting on the FA market), which again, would led to even more veteran feds with teams.


The draft coming first would help rookies, but hurt vets. Teams could make big mistakes or take advantage either way. I think teams could do great or horrible either way... if they make wrong assumptions with the first one, it can screw them on the second one.

Like this FA or draft pick fixes that position, when it doesn't... and then they don't back it up with the other.

Overall I like it the old way, FA came first, then we had a two day draft, with 3 rounds on the first day and 4 rounds on the second day. But that's history.

---

I'm not sure it would be any better or worse, just a little different. One school of though says it would make FA less important because if teams addressed needs in the draft they wouldn't have to spend as much in FA but if they couldn't get their needs in the draft that would make FA even more important because it the "only" fix left.

You might see older vets getting more of a shot early on in FA as teams who drafted a future star may be looking for a 1 or 2 year fix as opposed to trying to hit the jackpot with the young, in demand FA.

As a Packer fan (meaning allowing for Ted's MO) I think I would like switching because the way it is Ted waits for the last fix (the draft) and if he can't fix it he has missed out on other alternatives. If the draft were first and Ted didn't get what he really wanted then he might be forced to be a bigger player in FA. Right now there is no pressing need to dive into FA because there is always the draft. If that wasn't available he may be more active.

Not for Un cle Teddy. If he can't find what he wants in the draft he will pick up a mechanic off the street. Maybe a grocer or a waitress or something like that.


(Applauded your final comments).

---

I agree with that... but if retirement rumors are correct, we're going to have Ted for what one or two more drafts? As I'm assuming he's finishing his current contract up and then dropping down to the scout level, as he want to continue. And we don't (yet) know what would be good for the future GM, because we don't yet know who will be (at least not officially).

---

I think it might lead to a lot more trades.

Say your loaded at a certain position (lets say WR) and you like another WR in the draft and select them. You could then trade one of your vets WRs to a team that still needs a WR because FA has not yet come.

Also same with draft picks, this might lead to more draft week trade of vet players for pick etc, which I think is the big difference between the two. Of course I don't know if that's an order thing, or a culture thing, as NFL (per player) seem to trade players a whole lot less than other sports in general.

---

Can't decide if it would help spread the salary cap out more or not. With FA first, more teams usually get involved going after the Prime free agents available which drives up their cost, leaving less for the 2nd, 3rd tier players. Where If the draft was first I would think it would reduce those idiotically high free agent contracts, leaving teams with more to spread to the 2nd and 3rd tier players.

---