Mike, we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the talent pool the last couple of years. We haven't had any Peyton Mannings, Randy Moss', or anything close to a stud RB (outside of a questionable Portis). If we look at the 2004 draft and see the same results as the first two, then I'll be in your camp. However, at this point, I feel confident the talent in this draft will exceed the previous two, which will make the salary scare more accurate.
I am far against limiting rookie contracts to 3 years. What would be the point of drafting any players other than a RB? 99% of QBs aren't going to start their first year, and most won't be productive until their third at least, so you're drafting a guy for one year. Wide receivers are pretty much the same, though a slightly higher percentage are more productive earlier. RBs are the only positions where a rookie can come into a situation where they are looking for a starter and put up numbers right away. If we want to lower the salary scale, I'd be all for limiting the contract years on RBs to 3, but leave the rest at 5.
|