There have been some suggestions by various sports columnists that with top-10 picks becoming more of a burden than a benefit to teams these days, teams should be allowed to choose their draft order, instead of being slotted by regular-season record. While I don't think the idea will ever be implemented, I can see some effects of such a system:
First, I don't think the overall impact would be as significant as some writers have made it out to be. The Lions had a perfect opportunity to pass or trade back this year (or even take the lower-priced Aaron Curry), but under overwhelming pressure after a disastrous 0-16 campaign to change the face of their franchise, they ponied up more guaranteed cash for a rookie who's never played a down in the NFL than the Redskins gave to superstar Albert Haynesworth. I think even had the Lions been given the opportunity to choose their draft slot, they still would have picked #1, if only to avoid the howls of protest that they had forgone a perfect opportunity to snag a franchise quarterback.
Second, I think that after the initial
pro forma round of protests, rookies would find themselves liking the new system. If bad teams actually availed themselves of the opportunity to pick lower in the round, that would force the better teams to choose higher. That would free the higher-ranked prospects to go to better teams, an opportunity they would no doubt relish. We all know the probability of Matthew Stafford's being a bust in Detroit (ala Joey Harrington) is very high; he will simply be under too much pressure to perform right away. But if after their Super Bowl victory, the Steelers were forced to pick Stafford at #1, that would be the ideal situation for the kid: He would go to a great, established team, where he'd be under zero pressure to perform; he'd still make a gigantic wad of cash; and if for whatever reason he never got a chance to start, he'd be traded to another team when his contract was up and he had his sea legs under him. How could any rookie object to that?
Third, and this might seem contradictory to my previous point, I think it would restore some sanity to first-round picks. Chances are, of course, the Steelers
wouldn't choose to pay a wunderkind megabucks to ride the pine for a few years. They'd probably go with a position of greater need. (Though who knows? The Steelers' most glaring need this offseason was their offensive line, and they chose zero linemen in the draft). Thus we'd probably see a gradual migration to "safer" picks that would fill obvious immediate needs or could step onto the field in a couple of years.
Fourth, and this is the corollary to the third point, we would probably see a gradual, though inexorable, downward pressure on the value of rookie contracts. (This is assuming, of course, that teams
would pick rationally, and that a 16-0 Patriots team wouldn't take a quarterback with the #1 pick, which is always a dangerous assumption with certain teams in this league.) We would probably see more linemen and fewer high-priced skill players drafted higher, with the quarterbacks going to the bad teams drafting toward the middle or end of the first round. This would lead to fewer high-profile draft busts, while leading to lower rookie pay, even without a rookie salary cap. There would simply be no way to justify paying linemen taken at #1 the same as quarterbacks taken in the top 5 are now paid, and it would be impossible to pay a quarterback taken at #27 as much as a offensive tackle taken at #3. Rookies and their agents might squawk about this, but I can't see management or veterans having a problem with it.
Fifth, it would take a great deal of pressure off teams, both financially and in terms of public relations. It would slow, perhaps even reverse, the insane upward spiral of rookie guaranteed pay, since there would be less public pressure to sign high-profile picks early. If a Super Bowl team chose to spring for a high-profile pick and pay him an absurd amount of money, they could not say they were under duress to do so, but they could rationalize it as stockpiling for the future -- which again, would reduce the possibility of the pick's being labeled a bust. Bad teams who felt that picking lower would imperil their chances to draft a rookie skill player could simply slot themselves higher. Teams who chose to draft lower might face some public backlash if they consequently lost out on the opportunity to draft the franchise quarterback, but the teams could point out that those players had gone to teams who blatantly didn't need them, thereby putting the onus on good teams for their illogical or selfish drafting habits.
Sixth, it would increase the overall value of the draft. The current statistics are that approximately 50% of first-round picks are busts. Now it's true that some players simply never do perform at the professional level, but the main reason why so many picks are labeled busts is that they are forced into untenable situations with ridiculous expectations. Allowing teams to choose their players in a more sane manner would reduce the number of picks labeled busts and would restore public confidence in the draft, alleviating the pressure on teams to chase high-priced free agents. This decrease in demand could thereby also produce a downward pressure on the price of free agents, which would be a positive for every team.
Allowing teams to choose their draft slots would result in a mixed bag of effects, but overall, I think it would bring a net benefit to the league. Unless the ridiculously overpriced contracts and high proportion of busts are somehow part of the "excitement of the draft," I think that anything the league can do to improve the return on investment from the draft should be taken into serious consideration.