Weganator Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I may sound like an idiot for posting this... because I may be way off base.... and if I am... I would like to request that someone POLITELY explain to me how this system works. From what I have read on Wikipedia (a crapshoot when it comes to information... but i will take a chance) it states: "In addition to the 32 picks in each round, there are a total of up to 32 picks dispersed at the ends of Rounds 3 through 7. These picks, known as "compensatory picks", are awarded to teams that have lost more talented players than they gained the previous year in free agency. These picks cannot be traded, and are awarded based on a proprietary formula based on salary and performance. So, for example, a team that lost a backup quarterback in free agency might get a sixth-round compensatory pick, while a team that lost their best wide receiver might receive a third- or fourth-round pick." So does this mean our corner replacement who logged 39 tackles, 1 int, and 11 pass deflections, which is not as good as the production of a corner we lost who had 60 tackles, 12 pass deflections, and 8 interceptions would yield us a decent pick? Or.... how about we signed a tight end who had a whopping 2 receptions for 17 yds before being put on IR is not as good as a tight end we lost who had 23 receptions for 233 yds and 3 tds. Maybe a safety we lost who got 72 tackles, 1 int, and 1 pass deflection is better than a safety we signed who got 60 tackles, 0 int and 1 pass deflection. What I mean to point out in this post is that it seems to me that the players that we lost in free agency turned out to have better stats than the players that we replaced them with, and as such, maybe we can get ourselves a compensatory pick.... maybe we are lucky, and we get a 3rd rounder and can pick up a nice mid rounder like Josh Wilson, Zak DeOssie, Manuel Ramirez, Marcus Thomas(dangerous I know but a STEAL in the 3rd), Paul Williams (WR), or Brandon Frye. Dont mean to sound negative about our signings...and we did get a good DE and 2 WR with excellent potential after an offseason with Campbell... but this may be a gift from above when it comes to gaining picks in a deep draft. HTTR:logo: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoVaSkins21 Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Boy does this team need those picks because they have nothing after that 1st round pick because they chose to give them away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Last I heard it didn't have anything to do with performance. It was the net of the combined contract value for all players gained and lost through free agency. There is supposed to be a "formula" but its kept secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dustinwhylee Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I wouldn't worry too much about it. I doubt we'll ever get any given that we sign big-named free agents and let "replaceable" guys walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. S Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 we got some in 2006 because we lost Smoot and Pierce and only gained a center and two WR's. The contract values of Smoot and Pierce in 2005 were far higher than the combined contracts of Moss, Patten, and Rabach. I think we got an extra 6th rounder for that. Don't expect anything this year. We lose Royal and Bowen, with a combined contract value of peanuts in Buffalo, and we gain Lloyd, Randle El, Carter, Archuleta, and throw in Fauria and Collins, with a combined contract value of seemingly 5 billion...:doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Walt Harris was cut so he wouldn't even figure into the formula. The Skins gained many more FA's then they lost so they won't get any picks to compensate them for those who reached the end of their contracts and left[Royal Clark] but they may stand a outside chance of getting an extra 7th rd pick. The CBA mandates that a certain number of picks be given every year and some years the formula doesn't yield enough picks so they give teams at the top of the draft extra picks at the end of the 7th round. I think extra 7ths to the first 3 teams in the draft have been the most so far but who knows they might reach the team picking 6th this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinnedAussie Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 It took me a few years to understand compensatory picks (and I probably still haven't got it right), but I think it works out this way. If we lose 5 players to free agency, but only sign three, therefore, we should get two compensatory picks. It has nothing to do with how the replacements perform and what their stats are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 we got some in 2006 because we lost Smoot and Pierce and only gained a center and two WR's. The contract values of Smoot and Pierce in 2005 were far higher than the combined contracts of Moss, Patten, and Rabach. I think we got an extra 6th rounder for that.Don't expect anything this year. We lose Royal and Bowen, with a combined contract value of peanuts in Buffalo, and we gain Lloyd, Randle El, Carter, Archuleta, and throw in Fauria and Collins, with a combined contract value of seemingly 5 billion...:doh: The Skins received an extra 7th last year and took Kevin Simon two picks ahead of Marques Colston. The Skins got that pick last year not because they lost more players than they gained but because the players who they lost were paid a lot more by their new teams than the players the Skins signed. Pierce and Smoot got bigger contracts than Patten and Rabach. Moss didn't count because he was acquired through trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nonniey Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 It took me a few years to understand compensatory picks (and I probably still haven't got it right), but I think it works out this way.If we lose 5 players to free agency, but only sign three, therefore, we should get two compensatory picks. It has nothing to do with how the replacements perform and what their stats are. I guess those years were wasted. Comp picks are based on a combination of numbers gained versus numbers lost, size of contracts and performance/recognition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CooleyKnight Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 If anything we would get a late 2nd day pick. No where near a 3rd or 4th round comp pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 No one understands compensatory picks......except me. It's a math formula. You count the number of free agents signed in the prior year's free agent season (in this case Spring of '06) versus the number of players you lost. If the number is a negative, you may qualify for compensatory picks in the following year's draft (in this case Spring of '07). We signed more free agents than we lost so we do not qualify in '07. If we did qualify, the basic formula is to match up players based on the salaries paid. You match up a top-end contract with a top-end contract, medium with a medium, and so forth. If you lost a top-end contract and did not sign a top-end free agent to match, you may get a 3rd or 4th (production comes into play a bit here, I believe). Mid-level nets you a 5th or 6th. Low-leve, a 7th. Bottom line: Skins get nada in '07. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldfan Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 No one understands compensatory picks......except me. Which reveals a high NQ (Nerd Quotient)?:laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weganator Posted January 10, 2007 Author Share Posted January 10, 2007 Yea.... i guess we dont have much to look forward to in terms of comp picks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InTikiITrust Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 BUT....performance plays a part in what round the pick wil be in. I would not be suprised if San Diego got a 3rd rounder for Drew Brees, as he was a FA right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnhnyy Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 BUT....performance plays a part in what round the pick wil be in. I would not be suprised if San Diego got a 3rd rounder for Drew Brees, as he was a FA right? You are right. That is the reason Chargers would rather let him go than negotiate a trade. NO gave up no picks and Chargers get a free No.3. win-win for both teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vladimir L Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 I say we trade a 7th rounder for Jared Lorenzen to be a back up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cnhnyy Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 It took me a few years to understand compensatory picks (and I probably still haven't got it right), but I think it works out this way.If we lose 5 players to free agency, but only sign three, therefore, we should get two compensatory picks. It has nothing to do with how the replacements perform and what their stats are. ??? So we let wright, Rumph, and waterboy walk and sign Nat Clement. We get to have two additional picks? There are 32 picks, aveaging about 1 pick per team. Most of the high picks are going to NE/Pitt (overachievers on their winning teams get paid by others, like us). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joncevensen Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Last I heard it didn't have anything to do with performance. It was the net of the combined contract value for all players gained and lost through free agency. There is supposed to be a "formula" but its kept secret. No, performance is defnitely involved, thats why the Colts were so mad they didnt get a the highest pick (third rounder) for Marcus Washington when he went to the pro bowl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 So that means Pittsburgh, St. Louis and SF will get compensatory picks courtesy of us as they let go ARE, AA, Carter and BL. Way to go Skins, way to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e16bball Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 One thing to remember is that even if you lose a good player, it doesn't matter if you added more than you lost. So the aforementioned Drew Brees "plan" could have backfired on the Chargers had they signed more UFAs than they lost. Obviously, if they had planned for the acquisition of a 3rd round pick they would have tried not to sign more than they lost, but sometimes that's hard to accomplish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocono Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 So that means Pittsburgh, St. Louis and SF will get compensatory picks courtesy of us as they let go ARE, AA, Carter and BL. Way to go Skins, way to go. Lloyd was a trade and SF has already been well rewarded for giving him up. With the other teams it depends on what FA's they signed. The Steelers lost ARE but signed Clark. If those teams lost more than they signed they will get comp picks but don't include players who were cut as a loss or a gain because they aren't part of the formula. So Carter would be a loss for SF but Walt Harris would not be a gain because he was cut by the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.