Compensatory Picks

[Fritz]

Okay, first, Lurker thanks for clarifying. Got it. I shoulda been able to figure that one out myself, but I ran out of fingers trying to count to 95.

Second, I read this in the JSO in the article on compensatory picks, and it pissed me off: "The league handed out 11 more picks at the bottom of the draft to fill out the minimum number of 32, giving one each to the 11 worst teams based on draft order."

So if I'm reading this correctly, the league has a mandate that it must give out 32 compensatory picks. Why that would be I don't know. But since the league handed out only 21 compensatory picks, the 11 "left over" were given to the NFL's bottom feeders.

This means the 11 worst teams each got an extra pick, just so the league could get to its magic number of 32.

Why do you have to have a minimum number of compensatory picks? And why then use up "extras" by giving the worst 11 teams an extra pick, just for the hell of it?

Me no like.

The league is notoriously stingy when it comes to awarding teams an appropriately slotted pick - is Julius Peppers, after his season, really only worth a third? - but they'll throw the number of picks around like a drunen sailor on leave?

[Smidgeon]

Our comp pick is #131. Tennessee gets #130. Our third round pick is #129.

It's going to be a lively ten minutes for Packers fan...barring, of course, TT trading the #129 pick.

[Lurker64]

Second, I read this in the JSO in the article on compensatory picks, and it pissed me off: "The league handed out 11 more picks at the bottom of the draft to fill out the minimum number of 32, giving one each to the 11 worst teams based on draft order."

So if I'm reading this correctly, the league has a mandate that it must give out 32 compensatory picks. Why that would be I don't know. But since the league handed out only 21 compensatory picks, the 11 "left over" were given to the NFL's bottom feeders.

This means the 11 worst teams each got an extra pick, just so the league could get to its magic number of 32.

Why do you have to have a minimum number of compensatory picks? And why then use up "extras" by giving the worst 11 teams an extra pick, just for the hell of it?

Me no like.

The league is notoriously stingy when it comes to awarding teams an appropriately slotted pick - is Julius Peppers, after his season, really only worth a third? - but they'll throw the number of picks around like a drunen sailor on leave?

Well, starting at the end. Julius Peppers only netted a third round compensatory pick because that's the highest compensatory pick that can be awarded. If Peyton Manning were to leave the Colts and sign a billion dollar contract and throw 100 touchdown passes in a season he'd still only be worth a third round compensatory pick.

The central concern about having the number of compensatory picks fixed at 32 (and it's always 32, it's never more and never less) is that it makes the draft the same (or the same modulo penalties and supplementary draft picks) every single year. Not having that number vary wildly from 256 to 224 just makes things easier on NFL teams. Plus, in the hypothetical situation of "nobody signs any free agents whatsoever" there will still be 32 compensatory picks, they will just constitute an "eighth round" where everybody gets one more chance to pick again. If it helps you think about it this way, 21 compensatory picks were awarded this year to teams who lost free agents. 11 compensatory picks were awarded this year to teams who were just bad. Remember that the NFL draft exists almost exclusively to help generate parity.

[swede]

Well, starting at the end. Julius Peppers only netted a third round compensatory pick because that's the highest compensatory pick that can be awarded. If Peyton Manning were to leave the Colts and sign a billion dollar contract and throw 100 touchdown passes in a season he'd still only be worth a third round compensatory pick.

The central concern about having the number of compensatory picks fixed at 32 (and it's always 32, it's never more and never less) is that it makes the draft the same (or the same modulo penalties and supplementary draft picks) every single year. Not having that number vary wildly from 256 to 224 just makes things easier on NFL teams. Plus, in the hypothetical situation of "nobody signs any free agents whatsoever" there will still be 32 compensatory picks, they will just constitute an "eighth round" where everybody gets one more chance to pick again. If it helps you think about it this way, 21 compensatory picks were awarded this year to teams who lost free agents. 11 compensatory picks were awarded this year to teams who were just bad. Remember that the NFL draft exists almost exclusively to help generate parity.

Great post, and your last point helps us to remember that the NFL owner's group operates in a different business arena than much of the rest of the world. Berry farmers don't get together and take turns selecting migrant workers.

[Guiness]

Dude if I was concerned about wasting time I'd be outside on a ladder cleaning the gutters

LOL

that about sums it up for all of us

[packrulz]

Packers have had compensatory hits
Posted by Vic Ketchman on March 26, 2011 – 7:51 am

The Packers have hit on several compensatory-pick draft choices through the years. Check out this list of notables: Tyrone Williams, third round, 1996; Marco Rivera, sixth round, 1996; Keith McKenzie, seventh round, 1996; Matt Hasselbeck, sixth round, 1998; Cletidus Hunt, third round, 1999; Aaron Brooks and Josh Bidwell, each in the fourth round, 1999; Najek Davenport, fourth round, 2002; Scott Wells, seventh round, 2004; Josh Sitton, fourth round, 2008.

[VermontPackFan]

LOL

that about sums it up for all of us

Good stuff, laughed my ass off...but then again I never thought of hanging out here as wasting time? Who knew...?

[Scott Campbell]

Packers have had compensatory hits
Posted by Vic Ketchman on March 26, 2011 – 7:51 am

The Packers have hit on several compensatory-pick draft choices through the years. Check out this list of notables: Tyrone Williams, third round, 1996; Marco Rivera, sixth round, 1996; Keith McKenzie, seventh round, 1996; Matt Hasselbeck, sixth round, 1998; Cletidus Hunt, third round, 1999; Aaron Brooks and Josh Bidwell, each in the fourth round, 1999; Najek Davenport, fourth round, 2002; Scott Wells, seventh round, 2004; Josh Sitton, fourth round, 2008.

Gotta have me some good ole Cletidus pics!

[Fritz]

I'm not sure I see the need for 32 picks. So what if the actual number of drafted players varies from year to year?

As for the Peyton Manning example, that only supports my point that the rules on compensatory picks seem somewhat arbitrary. Why shouldn't a team losing Peyton Manning get a team more than a third round compensatory pick?

But it is what it is.

[Smeefers]

Packers have had compensatory hits
Posted by Vic Ketchman on March 26, 2011 – 7:51 am

The Packers have hit on several compensatory-pick draft choices through the years. Check out this list of notables: Tyrone Williams, third round, 1996; Marco Rivera, sixth round, 1996; Keith McKenzie, seventh round, 1996; Matt Hasselbeck, sixth round, 1998; Cletidus Hunt, third round, 1999; Aaron Brooks and Josh Bidwell, each in the fourth round, 1999; Najek Davenport, fourth round, 2002; Scott Wells, seventh round, 2004; Josh Sitton, fourth round, 2008.

Wow. That's actually a pretty good list.

[Lurker64]

I'm not sure I see the need for 32 picks. So what if the actual number of drafted players varies from year to year?

I think it's the same principle that keeps the draft at 7 rounds every year. It's not six rounds sometimes when we think it's not such a good draft or eight rounds other years when we think it's really deep. The draft is stressful and difficult enough for talent evaluators as it is that we don't really need to go around changing the circumstances of the draft more or less at random.

As for the Peyton Manning example, that only supports my point that the rules on compensatory picks seem somewhat arbitrary. Why shouldn't a team losing Peyton Manning get a team more than a third round compensatory pick?

This, I think I understand actually. Remember that the draft in its entirety is collectively bargained between players and ownership. Players are not fond of the compensatory pick program, as it provides a disincentive for teams to participate in free agency and to sign their own outgoing free agents. In theory there's no reason not to give a 1st round compensatory for losing a Peppers and a Manning, but union wouldn't agree to teams getting picks that high for losing players.

[Fritz]

But you wouldn't be changing the circumstances of the draft "at random." You'd be changing the number of total picks based upon free agent losses.

And what's the difference to talent evaluators if there are twenty-one more or thirty more or ten more picks per year? You'd know that number well in advance of the draft, so GM's could plan their draft strategies accordingly.

I still don't agree that it consistency for consistency's sake is necessary. Again, teams would know well in advance of the draft how many total picks there would be, and how many picks each team would have.