Draft BEFORE Free Agency...Do you like it?

I bet there's owners who are enjoying this major alteration this offseason. Think about it..wouln't you rather draft for the future, and THEN make your decision on pulling out the $Franchise$ tag? Owners would have the upper hand.
For instance Aubrayo Franklin's situation. What if Jerrell Powe slips to the third...or we land Sione Fua with one of our 3rd's? Do you sign Franklin for BEA$T money then? Doubtful....but youre certainly not Franchising him. If a guy you're targeting for the future in a position of need goes to another team, THEN you franchise your player, and hope to repace him next draft. That way you KNOW for sure if you can or cant replace him in the draft for a cheaper/younger player, trim your salary fat, and build through the draft without having to Reach on players.
Knowing you have the option to keep your roster player vs having a gaping hole you Absolutely need to fill would make drafting easier..you wouldn't have to pick the 3rd Tackle over the #1 CB..
I like it this offseason, and hopefully it's opened up some owners' eyes to the possibility.

not to be funny but they do this in Madden. I like it

It's just an odd circumstance for this season, but I'd prefer if they keep it the way it was . . . which they probably will.

I think it's better to have an opportunity to fill obvious roster holes with proven veterans before the draft . . . then use the draft to add one or two young blue-chippers and fill out the depth chart with developmental players.

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
It's just an odd circumstance for this season, but I'd prefer if they keep it the way it was . . . which they probably will.

I think it's better to have an opportunity to fill obvious roster holes with proven veterans before the draft . . . then use the draft to add one or two young blue-chippers and fill out the depth chart with developmental players.

this. also, lets not forget that free agency is a period where teams can re-sign their own players. so its not just about getting guys off the market, but about keeping your team intact, all of which have an effect on how you would view the draft.

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
It's just an odd circumstance for this season, but I'd prefer if they keep it the way it was . . . which they probably will.

I think it's better to have an opportunity to fill obvious roster holes with proven veterans before the draft . . . then use the draft to add one or two young blue-chippers and fill out the depth chart with developmental players.

this. also, lets not forget that free agency is a period where teams can re-sign their own players. so its not just about getting guys off the market, but about keeping your team intact, all of which have an effect on how you would view the draft.

I agree that free agency is a chance to keep your own roster players and keep your roster in tact..but. Why BEFORE you draft? ..why sign big $ deals unless you have to because the draft didn't fall your way. To me it makes more sense to be sure that you need your veteran, and you don't KNOW that until the draft shakes out. I'd rather know if I have a replacement for a player before I open my wallet and spend more on an expensive vet. I'd rather have the #2 rated NT in this years draft than sign Franklin, and KNOW I have him because I already own his rights before I go offering franklin stupid $.

Originally posted by JizzmasterZero:

Originally posted by HessianDud:

Originally posted by SonocoNinerFan:
It's just an odd circumstance for this season, but I'd prefer if they keep it the way it was . . . which they probably will.

I think it's better to have an opportunity to fill obvious roster holes with proven veterans before the draft . . . then use the draft to add one or two young blue-chippers and fill out the depth chart with developmental players.

this. also, lets not forget that free agency is a period where teams can re-sign their own players. so its not just about getting guys off the market, but about keeping your team intact, all of which have an effect on how you would view the draft.

I agree that free agency is a chance to keep your own roster players and keep your roster in tact..but. Why BEFORE you draft? ..why sign big $ deals unless you have to because the draft didn't fall your way. To me it makes more sense to be sure that you need your veteran, and you don't KNOW that until the draft shakes out. I'd rather know if I have a replacement for a player before I open my wallet and spend more on an expensive vet. I'd rather have the #2 rated NT in this years draft than sign Franklin, and KNOW I have him because I already own his rights before I go offering franklin stupid $.

i don't think a rookie is equal to a veteran player, especially one you've already worked with and know.

I see validity with your arguement. You know what you have in your vet, for the most part, unless he's a one year contract year wonder which happens all the time. (Ie. Franklin). Maybe my dislike for franklin is clouding my judgement...but I'd much rather have the NT's from maryland or stanford fall to me with one of my 3rd rounders and be sure I already have him on my roster than cut ties with franklin and have to worry about HAVING to draft him...and risk reaching to secure one of them. I would rather NOT reach in the draft knowing I have a backup plan in my back pocket...knowing that you shouldn't reach in the draft, free agency is usually a reach anyway. Isn't is smarter to let your draft determine your needs in free agency vs letting your free agency determine your draft...given that free agency is an expensive reach no matter what in most cases? Why make the draft like that too?

Originally posted by Paul:
not to be funny but they do this in Madden. I like it

I thought of this too

But in Madden you can tell right away if your draft selection is going to pan out once you discover his initial rating. I have drafted a position, not liked the rating and then signed a big free agent of that same position instead.

I do like this for the NFL, at least after the draft you have some idea about which rookies you might start and just live with the developmental woes on the field...so there is no need to sign a free agent for that spot

Originally posted by JizzmasterZero:
I see validity with your arguement. You know what you have in your vet, for the most part, unless he's a one year contract year wonder which happens all the time. (Ie. Franklin). Maybe my dislike for franklin is clouding my judgement...but I'd much rather have the NT's from maryland or stanford fall to me with one of my 3rd rounders and be sure I already have him on my roster than cut ties with franklin and have to worry about HAVING to draft him...and risk reaching to secure one of them. I would rather NOT reach in the draft knowing I have a backup plan in my back pocket...knowing that you shouldn't reach in the draft, free agency is usually a reach anyway. Isn't is smarter to let your draft determine your needs in free agency vs letting your free agency determine your draft...given that free agency is an expensive reach no matter what in most cases? Why make the draft like that too?

IDK, in a case like the Franklin situation, you try to give him a contract determined by his actual value. If he's not good enough and not the future at the position, you don't give him a bunch of money, and if he wants more than you're willing to pay, you let him walk and then try to fill the position through FA or the draft.

I guess what I'm getting at is that there are a lot of factors that go into making every decision, so it doesn't really matter if FA or the draft comes first. Teams should use a balanced approach to both.

Normally things happen in a certain order for a purpose. With FA acquisitions prior to the draft, teams big boards change. i know all about BPA, but if you needed a CB and a DT and signed a DT, I believe the CB goes up the board. Drafting first makes things tougher on teams.

You know if they kept FA after the draft....I bet teams would be better off for it and be forced to build through the drafts, and not having to count on Free Agency to build them.

Originally posted by ninerlifer:
You know if they kept FA after the draft....I bet teams would be better off for it and be forced to build through the drafts, and not having to count on Free Agency to build them.

brilliant restatement of the original post.

anyway, good teams tend to build through the draft anyway. having free agency first doesn't seem to hurt them. besides, having FA and then the draft gives us fans lots to follow after the season. and moving back FA permanently would change the entire league calendar. The way it works now, the league year ends at the start of March, and that is when players become free agents. To push FA back, you would have to move the entire calendar back until after the draft...frankly, it doesn't make sense.

I like it. I actually think free agency should start sooner, maybe a week after the Super Bowl is done.

Originally posted by danimal:

Originally posted by Paul:
not to be funny but they do this in Madden. I like it

I thought of this too

But in Madden you can tell right away if your draft selection is going to pan out once you discover his initial rating. I have drafted a position, not liked the rating and then signed a big free agent of that same position instead.

I do like this for the NFL, at least after the draft you have some idea about which rookies you might start and just live with the developmental woes on the field...so there is no need to sign a free agent for that spot

yes but there's always the possibility of getting a 70 or better fullback in the 6th/7th round

Originally posted by Kolohe:
I like it. I actually think free agency should start sooner, maybe a week after the Super Bowl is done.

I actually really like this idea.