Comp Picks Screw the Weakest Teams and Strips the Benefits of the NFL Draft

[Arkie]

You can bet that McDaniels will take advantage of this flawed draft system until it's fixed. New England has the top comp pick again this year and a total of three. Tennessee (13-3) has the maximum total of four! Meanwhile, Detroit (0-16) has one--2nd to the last pick in the draft right before Kansas City's (2-14) only comp pick--Mr. Irrelevent. Also, a lot of teams don't have any comp picks at all including half the division basement dwellers--St. Louis, New Orleans, Buffalo, and Cleveland. On the other hand, Arizona was awarded a comp pick even though they did not suffer a net loss of compensatory free agents last year. WTF?

Anyway, here is an interesting, long and well thought out article from two years ago that, as I've shown above, still holds true today.

The NFL Draft has been touted as the great equalizer between the league's haves and have nots. It just isn't so.
April 11, 2007
http://www.drafthistory.com/index.php?/weblog/entry/nfl_draft_compensatory_pick_system_screws_the_weak est_teams/


The draft has historically been the primary way for the weakest teams to overcome their deficiencies and gain parity with stronger franchises. For many teams, and even more importantly for their fans, the draft has been their only hope.

But over the past decade the help provided by the draft to weaker franchises has been seriously eroded by the compensatory draft pick system. That system overwhelming benefits strong teams at the expense of the teams who truly need hope and assistance.

Think I'm kidding? The San Diego Chargers, the team with the best record in the NFL in 2006 at 14-2, were awarded the highest compensatory draft pick, the 97th selection in the draft at the end of the third round. Why a team that calculatedly determined that they were better off not signing Quarterback Drew Brees and instead gave the starting job to Philip Rivers should be rewarded with an extra draft pick is beyond me. Guess who got the most compensatory draft picks. Well, two teams tied by receiving four extra choices, the 13-3 Baltimore Ravens and the 12-4 New England Patriots. One team received three compensatory picks, the 12-4 Super Bowl Champion Indianapolis Colts. There were thirty-two compensatory draft picks awarded for the 2007 draft, eleven of those picks go to three teams that had a combined record of 37-11. (See the complete list below.)

What about the worst teams, you ask? The 2-14 Oakland Raiders received two extra picks and while one was pick was the third highest compensatory pick awarded (the 99th selection in the draft), the other is the second last pick in the draft, the 254th choice. The 3-13 Detroit Lions, who haven't sniffed a championship in 50 years, receive one compensatory draft pick, the 255th and last selection in the draft. It is unlikely that Mr. Irrelevant will vault the Lions from the basement to a playoff contender. But at least the Lions were awarded a pick. The 4-12 Cleveland Browns get none. The perennial sad sack Arizona Cardinals, another franchise with nothing to show for 50 or 60 years, get nada. Zero for the 5-11 Washington Redskins. Nothing for the 6-10 Houston Texans.

Briefly recapping, the best team in the league record-wise gets the highest compensatory draft pick. Three of the top teams get the most picks. Over 1/3 of the picks go to teams with 12 or more victories and the bottom three teams get a grand total of three extra picks, but two of them are the penultimate and last picks in the draft.

Compensatory draft picks are awarded to teams that have lost players of stature to free agency. Unfortunately, the teams that lose such players are primarily the stronger franchises. The compensatory award system was developed as part of the collective bargaining unit with the players' union. Recall that the league lost a big anti-trust case against the union years ago which established free agency. But the owners fear free agency so much that they try to snuff it out each time the collective bargaining agreement is renegotiated. Instead of true free agency, we get things like restricted free agents, franchised players, and the like. In a bizarre twist that remains somewhat unexplainable, teams that lose players to free agency may be awarded additional picks. Why it is a benefit for teams to be rewarded for not resigning their players is a mystery. It doesn't help the players because it actually discourages teams from actively trying to resign their own players. It doesn't please the fans, because it actually encourages teams to let players, often fan favorites, go towards the tail end of their careers. Of course owners like it because it helps keep salaries down by discouraging at least one team from bidding for the player's services.

Teams like the New England Patriots make conscious decisions on whether to resign veteran players or let them go. Bill Belichick has often been described as cold-hearted in making personnel decisions. Frankly, most coaches and general managers are. The difference is that the Patriots give serious consideration to what they might receive if they let a player go, and they seem to have a higher regard for additional draft picks rather than players who may be past their prime. In recent years, the Pats have nonchalantly let Ty Law, Willie McGinest, Dan Graham, Joe Andruzzi and others move on when the team calculated that they were asking for more than New England thought they were worth.

On the other hand, many weaker teams must do whatever they can to hang on to the few good players that they have, even if it means paying a little more than is necessary. It is the only way that they have of remaining even remotely competitive and of maintaining their fan base. Loyal fans hate losing. They quickly become jaundiced to an organization if they feel that it isn't doing whatever it can to put a quality product on the field. Losing the few good players it has is not the way for a weak team to keep fans in the seats.

Since the salary cap ensures that no team can wildly outspend the others by much or for long, it is difficult for weak teams to catch up through free agency alone. Good players avoid signing with weak teams because they want to play on winners. And if they do sign with a weak franchise, it is only because the franchise has paid them a premium to do so. On the other hand, many a good player has signed for less than they could elsewhere to play for a good team. Thus strong franchises not only attract the best players, but they also get them cheaper, which saves on salary cap room.

A perfect example occurred with one of the most sought after players in the 2007 free agent crop. Linebacker Adalius Thomas had his pick of many teams to sign with recently. It is said that he rejected several offers that were far greater than the Patriots'. But Thomas signed with New England because he wanted the chance to win it all. And who better has that chance than the 12-4 Patriots. Not only have the Pats won three Super Bowls in recent years, they were just one dropped catch from making it to the big game yet again this past season. But that is not all. The Patriots have two first round picks in the 2007 Draft. But that is not the end of it either. The Patriots were awarded four additional compensatory picks for free agents that they lost. The term "lost" is a misnomer in many instances, however, because the Patriots calculatedly decided that it was not in their best interest to sign some of those players at the going rate when they knew that they would be awarded with additional picks if those players signed elsewhere. So the rich get richer and the poor have little chance of improving.

It is rare for a poor team to be able to rebuild through free agency. And the chance of rebuilding through the draft is becoming increasingly difficult. The worst team gets that first pick, along with the super salary cap hit that goes with it. The reborn Cleveland Browns learned that lesson quickly when they found themselves in salary cap hell in their third or fourth season after getting the number one pick in both 1999 and 2000 and the second pick in 2001. Many bad teams and their fans have high hopes of trading down to obtain a plethora of picks, but come draft time there are actually few takers for such deals. Most teams aren't willing to pay a premium to move up in the draft which not only costs them in players or picks but also in salary and also opens them up to heavy criticism should they happen to pick poorly. Few teams want to put all their hopes in one basket and are glad to leave the poor teams right where they are because in football it is difficult for one player to make much of a difference for very long.

Awarding compensatory picks to strong teams is just plain anti-competitive and against the best interests of the league as a whole and its fans. Parity is good. It gives every team hope. It keeps fans across the country coming back for more. Awarding compensatory picks to strong franchises destroys parity. It pushes the other mid to late round draft picks back, which deprives weak teams from getting even decent mid-level talent.

Compensatory picks are anti-competitive. Teams that cannot resign their players shouldn't be rewarded, especially if it is at the expense of the worst teams in the league whose normal draft picks are minimized by those extra selections that are interjected before them.

In fairness it should be noted that there is at least one team in the middle of the NFL standings that may benefit from the extra selections. The quickly improving San Francisco 49ers were awarded two premium compensatory draft picks, the 97th selection and the 135th pick which are the 2nd and 8th of the 32 compensatory picks. The 49ers showed strong improvement last year under Coach Mike Nolan. Quarterback Alex Smith and Running Back Frank Gore showed strong improvement and great promise in their second seasons. Rookie Tight End Vernon Davis showed that he could be a force if he continues to improve and stays healthy. The 49ers also made two key signing in the opening days of the free agency signing period by inking Cornerback Nate Clements and Safety Michael Lewis to plug big holes in the defensive backfield. If the 49ers gain any benefit whatsoever from the Draft, they will be in the thick of the playoff picture in 2007. But the 49ers are the only currently mediocre or bad team to have much hope of benefiting from the compensatory draft picks this season. Naturally, every pick is worth something, so poor team could come up with a compensatory draft pick gem. It is just that the odds are stacked in favor of the strongest teams.

The following tables slice and dice the compensatory draft picks in different ways. The first table show the records of the teams awarded compensatory draft picks by rounds. Note that the cumulative records of teams awarded picks in the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th rounds are well above average. That means good teams are being awarded the best picks. The cumulative record dips below .500 only for compensatory picks awarded in the 7th round, those are the last picks in the draft. So the worst teams are awarded the dregs. How helpful to parity is that? The cumulative records of the teams awarded compensatory picks was 288-224, a .562 percentage, which equates to about nine victories per team. Of course, having nine victories typically gets a team into the playoffs. So the rich get richer.

Round Picks Cumulative Record of Teams Awarded Picks W L Pct
3rd 4 35 29 .546
4th 6 60 36 .625
5th 5 59 21 .737
6th 4 46 18 .719
7th 13 88 120 .423
Total 32 288 224 .562


The next table shows the number of picks for each team. As mentioned earlier, the Ravens, Patriots and Colts (all high caliber playoff teams) were awarded the most compensatory picks while the Lions get the last pick in the draft, the Raiders sneak in with a good pick and then the second last pick in the draft, and the Browns get zip. The rich get richer and the poor are given little chance for improvement.

Team No. Picks W L Pct Cumulative Picks W L
Ravens 4 13 3 .812 52 12 134, 137, 174, 207
Patriots 4 12 4 .750 48 16 171, 208, 209, 247
Teams with 4 picks 25 7 .781 100 28
Colts 3 12 4 .750 36 12 98, 136, 173
Teams with 3 picks 12 4 .750 36 12
Chargers 2 14 2 .875 28 4 96, 172
49ers 2 7 9 .437 14 18 97, 135
Raiders 2 2 14 .125 4 28 99, 254
Steelers 2 8 8 .500 16 16 132, 170
Falcons 2 7 9 .437 14 18 133, 244
Buccaneers 2 4 14 .250 8 28 245, 246
Rams 2 8 8 .500 16 16 248, 249
Jaguars 2 8 8 .500 16 16 251, 252
Teams with 2 picks 58 70 .453 116 140
Seahawks 1 9 7 .562 9 7 210
Packers 1 8 8 .500 8 8 243
Giants 1 8 8 .500 8 8 250
Bengals 1 8 8 .500 8 8 253
Lions 1 3 13 .187 3 13 255
Teams with 1 pick 36 44 .450 36 44
Browns 0 4 12 .250 4 12
Cardinals 0 5 11 .312 5 11
Redskins 0 5 11 .312 5 11
Texans 0 6 10 .375 6 10
Dolphins 0 6 10 .375 6 10
Vikings 0 6 10 .375 6 10
Bills 0 7 9 .437 7 9
Titans 0 8 8 .500 8 8
Panthers 0 8 8 .500 8 8
Broncos 0 9 7 .562 9 7
Chiefs 0 9 7 .562 9 7
Cowboys 0 9 7 .562 9 7
Jets 0 10 6 .625 10 6
Saints 0 10 6 .625 10 6
Eagles 0 10 6 .625 10 6
Bears 0 13 3 .812 13 3
Teams with 0 picks 125 131 .488 125 131


Finally come the grand details. If you like the competiveness provided by parity, or if you happen to be a fan of a team that is currently down on its luck, this table is enough to make you want to cry.

3rd Round Compensatory Picks Pick Team W L Pct
96 San Diego 14 2 .875
97 San Francisco 7 9 .437
98 Indianapolis 12 4 .750
99 Oakland 2 14 .125
4 picks 35 29 .546
4th Round Compensatory Picks
Pick Team W L Pct
132 Pittsburgh 8 8 .500
133 Atlanta 7 9 .437
134 Baltimore 13 3 .812
135 San Francisco 7 9 .437
136 Indianapolis 12 4 .750
137 Baltimore 13 3 .812
6 picks 60 36 .625
5th Round Compensatory Picks
Pick Team W L Pct
170 Pittsburgh 8 8 .500
171 New England 12 4 .750
172 San Diego 14 2 .875
173 Indianapolis 12 4 .750
174 Baltimore 13 3 .812
5 picks 59 21 .737
6th Round Compensatory Picks
Pick Team W L Pct
207 Baltimore 13 3 .812
208 New England 12 4 .750
209 New England 12 4 .750
210 Seattle 9 7 .562
4 picks 46 18 .719
7th Round Compensatory Picks
Pick Team W L Pct
243 Green Bay 8 8 .500
244 Atlanta 7 9 .437
245 Tampa Bay 4 12 .250
246 Tampa Bay 4 12 .250
247 New England 12 4 .750
248 St. Louis 8 8 .500
249 St. Louis 8 8 .500
250 New York Giants 8 8 .500
251 Jacksonville 8 8 .500
252 Jacksonville 8 8 .500
253 Cincinnati 8 8 .500
254 Oakland 2 14 .125
255 Detroit 3 13 .187
13 picks 88 120 .423
Grand Total
32 picks 288 224 .562


Compensatory draft picks screw the weakest teams. They minimize the value of the mid to late round picks awarded in the traditional manner based on won-loss records by interjecting additional picks to teams that have lost players to free agency. It should be self-evident that the compensatory draft system needs to be revised and it should be done quickly. Help us Obi-Wan Kenobi, err Roger Goodell, you're our only hope.

[gyldenlove]

I think they should do away with Comp picks and add an 8th round to the draft instead.

I don't see why you should get draft picks because you are too cheap to resign your players or too stupid to sign good contracts so you don't have cap room. That is like giving prizes to losers.

[Mediator12]

I find this article to be really long and have little impact.

1. The first players selected as a Comp pick are basically the first pick of the FOURTH ROUND. How many fourth round players and later have been directly responsible for leading teams? 2 that I can think of in 10 years or so of the draft. Both were QB's for the Patriots and were systems guys who were able to develop with an already strong team around them.

2. Less than 30% of Comp players ever make the team in their first year, a little over 40% make the Practice squads of a team though. How is that a decided advantage? On teams as good as the Patriots, that % is much less not better, so how is that an advantage? Lesser talented comp pick level players have a much harder time making talented and deep rosters like the Patriots.

3. In fact, the Patriots overall drafts the last four years are no where near league average in gaining starters despite having one of the highest numbers of overall selections made in the draft over that amount of time. Quantity does not replace quality in the draft.

It takes a special player to make those smart Veteran teams, and NE has been much less successful with its drafts in replacing those types of players as their overall roster has been solidified.

So, while I see where the article is trying to go, the fact remains that the teams that manage the overall talent level of their team from every aspect are the ones that are succesful. Every team has an opportunity here to be better every year in personnel evaluation, acquisition, and selection. The playing field is the same, its just teams make all kinds of seemingly random decesions on players every year.

[Arkie]

If you take out all the trades, penalties, comps, etc., each team has 7 draft picks. The good teams that have too much talent get compensated for cutting off their dead weight for cheaper younger talent. There are solid contributors past the third round, it's irrelevant if they're selected between the rounds or regular draft picks. Quantity is not quality, but it is more "rolls" at the crapshoot to get quality. It seems like the good teams are getting more than 7 "rolls" on average for cheap young talent. I think it's just one of the team building strategies that Josh will continue to use to our advantage.

[Mediator12]

If you take out all the trades, penalties, comps, etc., each team has 7 draft picks. The good teams that have too much talent get compensated for cutting off their dead weight for cheaper younger talent. There are solid contributors past the third round, it's irrelevant if they're selected between the rounds or regular draft picks. Quantity is not quality, but it is more "rolls" at the crapshoot to get quality. It seems like the good teams are getting more than 7 "rolls" on average for cheap young talent. I think it's just one of the team building strategies that Josh will continue to use to our advantage.

The problem with that is that you can not eliminate those variables of trades, comp picks, and penalties. They are a part of the current process and have to be factored in to any equation. To theoretically take away a part of the process, you have to consider all the plausible effects and even more the consequential effects of removing that from the equation.

The problem here is where teams Value each part of the process. Some teams do a much better job of valuing pieces in the puzzle as it currently stands. Taking away one piece of the puzzle will not make those teams currently with supposed advantage worse at making decisions or make teams supposedly at a disadvantage better decision makers. That is treating the symptom and not the cause.

You have to be very careful when evaluating decision making processes. In this case, you might eliminate one thing and even create a bigger advantage for teams that are making good decisions. That potential also exists if you change the Comp pick system. In fact, I would argue that those teams would still be more efficient due to the highly structured principles they use already and they would be more adaptable to said changes than the teams that are not utilizing this sstem to their advantage.

What is interesting is to see the potential changes looming with the New CBA talks. Will the NFLPA simply try to keep players getting more of the pie or will they look out for more current and former players by affecting these kinds of rules. Will the owners try and take more control of the volativity of FA and the success it has given to teams that make better decisions. Those are questions to watch going forward IMHO.

[Kaylore]

Med, I understand your point that the fourth round isn't going to make or break a franchise, but that's not the point. The original plan is to make it as easy as possible for the poor teams to improve and harder for the good teams to repeat. The article is arguing this formula should be reflected in handing out compensatory picks. Right now it isn't.

It's based on what kind of contract a player got after he rejected the initial offer as well as the players playing time, accolades and other variables. The idea is that it compensates "poorer" teams that can't afford to sign big name players so the poor don't get poorer. The problem is with the CBA, every team has more or less a decent amount of money to sign their good players to long terms if they chose to, so it's essentially unnecessary. Here's my problem with compensatory draft picks.


It dilutes the draft. Every pick added devalues every pick after it. Now you can argue that just because there are more selections, that doesn't mean those selections will be quality players. You could argue that doesn't mean you can't get good talent, yadda yadda yadda. Ultimately more picks = less talent toward the bottom of the draft. This screws the "bad" teams in the later rounds because it makes their higher round picks needed to improve their team weaker. It flies in the face of that if another good team loses talent and then pushes you behind them because they didn't want to pay someone.
It doesn't factor in the team's record. Every other aspect of the NFL is designed to boost the weak and hinder the strong. The draft, the schedule and (when it wasn't inflated beyond belief) the cap. Yet somehow a team's record isn't factored into compensatory picks, and it should be because everything else is.
Is it really necessary? You've made the case that it's not that consequential, which if you really believe, then you should have no trouble doing away with it because it wasn't much anyway. (right? ;) ) I would make the case that you should not be rewarded for choosing not to pay more. I think your reward should be you keep your money. I think if you don't pony up to sign someone, you should live with the consequences of letting them go. Every team can sign a player if they really feel he's worth the contract. I would be ok with modifying it so that if a franchise showed that they could not afford the player, then thy get a pick, but you shouldn't be give picks for being frugal.

[Mediator12]

Med, I understand your point that the fourth round isn't going to make or break a franchise, but that's not the point. The original plan is to make it as easy as possible for the poor teams to improve and harder for the good teams to repeat. The article is arguing this formula should be reflected in handing out compensatory picks. Right now it isn't.

It's based on what kind of contract a player got after he rejected the initial offer as well as the players playing time, accolades and other variables. The idea is that it compensates "poorer" teams that can't afford to sign big name players so the poor don't get poorer. The problem is with the CBA, every team has more or less a decent amount of money to sign their good players to long terms if they chose to, so it's essentially unnecessary. Here's my problem with compensatory draft picks.


It dilutes the draft. Every pick added devalues every pick after it. Now you can argue that just because there are more selections, that doesn't mean those selections will be quality players. You could argue that doesn't mean you can't get good talent, yadda yadda yadda. Ultimately more picks = less talent toward the bottom of the draft. This screws the "bad" teams in the later rounds because it makes their higher round picks needed to improve their team weaker. It flies in the face of that if another good team loses talent and then pushes you behind them because they didn't want to pay someone.
It doesn't factor in the team's record. Every other aspect of the NFL is designed to boost the weak and hinder the strong. The draft, the schedule and (when it wasn't inflated beyond belief) the cap. Yet somehow a team's record isn't factored into compensatory picks, and it should be because everything else is.
Is it really necessary? You've made the case that it's not that consequential, which if you really believe, then you should have no trouble doing away with it because it wasn't much anyway. (right? ;) ) I would make the case that you should not be rewarded for choosing not to pay more. I think your reward should be you keep your money. I think if you don't pony up to sign someone, you should live with the consequences of letting them go. Every team can sign a player if they really feel he's worth the contract. I would be ok with modifying it so that if a franchise showed that they could not afford the player, then thy get a pick, but you shouldn't be give picks for being frugal.


I think you are flawed at the top of this argument. The reason is NOT: "to make it as easy as possible for the poor teams to improve and harder for the good teams to repeat." The draft is designed to give the first choice of players every round to the teams that need the most help based on last years standings. It is meant as an equitable method of distribution of new talent into the league, where the worse teams get first selection. It still rewards the teams with the best selections, regardless of where they were selected.

The Comp picks are rewarded to teams that suffer more losses than not in FA and is based on Quality versus quantity. It is NOT about helping the "poorer" teams and was never about that. It was a concession required by teams to allow the current FA conditions to exist in the CBA. Teams were worried about too many players leaving teams each year in FA and leaving only seven Draft picks to replace them. This was always about protecting the teams interest in allowing FA to occur in the first place.

As for your points:

1. It dilutes the draft: Yes, every pick is one less player off the board. However, there are a lot of UDFA players playing in the league and filling out rosters. The draft is ONLY 7 rounds and it used to be much more than that. The draft is about distribution of new players, so adding players to the draft through comp selections means there are less top priority free agents available to sign with anyone they want to play. So, the opposite of what you hold is also true. The comp picks place more fringe talent INTO the draft and away from teams to pick up for a small price and no guarantees.

2. It does not factor in the teams record: By definition, this is NOT about the teams record so I fail to see your point here. It is designed to help teams whose free agents are overvalued because of how succesful the team was the year before. How many SB champion or even Playoff FA's have gotten ridiculous contracts based off of a teams success and not their own merits? This is a method to offset FA poaching of players on good teams. And, as you said yourself, every other avenue allows the weaker teams to go first, so why should this one?

3. Is it really Necessary: I think I see where you are coming from here, but I also see the law of unintended consequences playing more havoc on weaker selecting teams in the draft. As I alluded to above, having less picks in the draft would help better teams acquire better Priority FA's who do actually make teams. Also, it might force Teams to NOT let their FA's go more and increase the amount of ancilliary Tags such as Transition player tag that is very rarely used to limit FA and force teams to give up More of their draft selctions to gain players in FA. It would also change the contracts teams sign players to after the draft. Teams would force longer deals into FA in order to keep players around instead of letting them get out quicker. Both of these solutions would irritate the NFLPA and cause a bunch of labor strife that is already on the horizon with the new CBA coming up.

[RocBronc]

Although an interesting read, the by far bigger problem with the draft and it's ability to "level the playing field" is how much high draft picks get paid. The risk/reward is way out of wack. That's what screwing these teams not compensatory picks.

[Mediator12]

Although an interesting read, the by far bigger problem with the draft and it's ability to "level the playing field" is how much high draft picks get paid. The risk/reward is way out of wack. That's what screwing these teams not compensatory picks.

AMEN! There is no way a top 5 selection in the draft should be anywhere near the top 5 paid Veterans at their position. However, the last 5 years or so that has held true. Nothing Handcuffs Teams more than high selection Draft Busts in the current economic model. Look at DET, OAK, and MIA pre Parcells the last five years.

The draft needs to have less money paid to players who have never played a snap in the NFL and proven their worth. Its like hiring the best guy at Harvard to a be a partner in your law firm right away. Never mind he has never worked a case in his life.

Fix the money issue and more teams would draft football players first and athletes second IMHO as well.

[Kaylore]

I think you are flawed at the top of this argument. The reason is NOT: "to make it as easy as possible for the poor teams to improve and harder for the good teams to repeat."
You're not understanding me. The NFL is designed that way and the draft is one way that is addressed. The NFL wants parity. They want fresh faces in the playoffs because it's more exciting and generates more revenue.
It (the draft) still rewards the teams with the best selections, regardless of where they were selected.
This is a point that has little to do with the argument, and one no one is arguing. Saying "well just draft better and it won't matter!" is a throw away argument. You can carry that line of reasoning and say that the draft order should be randomized.

Prospects are targeted at a certain round equated to their value (he's a third round guy, he's a fifth round guy.) If you target someone at round five and some team with a comped fourth takes him and he ends up a great player, that sucks especially because you were going to take him. Med this isn't hard: the more people picking in front of you, mathematically the lower chance you have of that player being their when you pick.

[I]The Comp picks are rewarded to teams that suffer more losses than not in FA and is based on Quality versus quantity. It is NOT about helping the "poorer" teams and was never about that.
Those are the same things. Why do they suffer those loses in free agency? Why didn't they sign them? It's usually because of money. It's about teams that can't afford to keep all the free agents and so they were compensated with picks. You're nit-picking here anyway, and it's not even relevant to my point I'm making.


As for your points:

1. It dilutes the draft: Yes, every pick is one less player off the board. However, there are a lot of UDFA players playing in the league and filling out rosters. The draft is ONLY 7 rounds and it used to be much more than that. The draft is about distribution of new players, so adding players to the draft through comp selections means there are less top priority free agents available to sign with anyone they want to play. So, the opposite of what you hold is also true. The comp picks place more fringe talent INTO the draft and away from teams to pick up for a small price and no guarantees.
::) This has to be the most ridiculous point I've seen you make. So you're saying by pumping more fringe talent into the draft, it's less diluted? And fewer undrafted free agents is good somehow? Believe me, if you ask a GM if he would rather have fewer undrafted free agents available or fewer draft picks, he will take the fewer free agents 10/10 times. Those guys wash out even faster than draft picks! From the perspective of teams that did poorly and get better draft position, comp picks hurt their value. They make the talent available at later rounds weaker, and now, thanks for pointing it out, they reduce the number of undrafted players available.

2. It does not factor in the teams record: By definition, this is NOT about the teams record so I fail to see your point here.
Yes I know, Med. That's the point. It should be a factor. Every other aspect of the NFL is about creating parity and helping the weaker teams get better. This should be as much a part of that as everything else.

It is designed to help teams whose free agents are overvalued because of how succesful the team was the year before. How many SB champion or even Playoff FA's have gotten ridiculous contracts based off of a teams success and not their own merits? This is a method to offset FA poaching of players on good teams. And, as you said yourself, every other avenue allows the weaker teams to go first, so why should this one?
Now you're reaching. This is unequivocally NOT what it was about. This isn't in writing or any official part of the reason for comped picks. It was never specifically stated that it was a tool to help "teams who did so well their free agents were overvalued." It was always about teams that couldn't resign their free agents for whatever reason and so was awarded so they had something to get back in return.

But let's for the sake of argument assume that it was about their free agents being overvalued. Doesn't that make it even more ridiculous? Should the Rams be rewarded with a big comp pick because the Redskins are stupid enough to make Archuleta the highest paid safety in the league? That's bat-poo crazy. You don't reward the Saints because the Redskins are stupid.

Also, If you win the Super Bowl and your free agents want to get paid and they leave, guess what? You won the super bowl! Sure, you'll have to go back and try to get better some other way, but you won the championship. That's what your "consolation prize" is. The league is designed to create parity and make it so every team could get hot and win. If you win a lot of games or even championship, and your players and coaches leave for big pay days, justified or not, you should not be rewarded for that. That's what comes with being successful: People mooch off of you. Your reward is not having to pay the guys that leave and then presumably they can go on and help a new team win a ring the next year. You should not be rewarded for being successful if you want to create parity.

3. Is it really Necessary: I think I see where you are coming from here, but I also see the law of unintended consequences playing more havoc on weaker selecting teams in the draft. As I alluded to above, having less picks in the draft would help better teams acquire better Priority FA's who do actually make teams. That doesn't matter. Again that's as much of a crap shoot as anything. They would still be having to dig through the bargin bin rather than be rewarded draft picks that hurt the other team.

Also, it might force Teams to NOT let their FA's go more and increase the amount of ancilliary Tags such as Transition player tag that is very rarely used to limit FA and force teams to give up More of their draft selctions to gain players in FA. Certainly if they don't think they're going to get anything back they might re-think allowing FA's to hit the market, but would it really be all that different than it is now? And would that really be that bad? The cap is bloated and free agency isn't the shopping spree it used to be. Tags would mean more money for those players, and while unpopular with players, they would at least get paid well. Regardless they would be using tags as they exist right now, so they couldn't really complain about it.

It would also change the contracts teams sign players to after the draft. Teams would force longer deals into FA in order to keep players around instead of letting them get out quicker. Both of these solutions would irritate the NFLPA and cause a bunch of labor strife that is already on the horizon with the new CBA coming up.
I completely disagree that the NFLPA would be against it. Players are for longer contracts because it usually means more money. If they outperform their contract they usually hold out and get traded or an extension. There is a growing resentment for the money draft picks are making as is amongst the veterans in the league. The average player isn't a super star. Most are guys that are in the league for three to five years. If joe average gets a 5 year contract when he would have received a three because of compensatory picks being removed (again we're already on a slippery slope here) then the union would love that. They're always about longer contracts for their players.

[Mediator12]

Kaylore,

You missed the point. The WHOLE reason Comp picks exist is a concession to ownership in order to get FA the way it currently exists. I do not care if you agree with that or not, that is why the system exists. It was a concession the owners insisted on having to protect their teams.

Everything else you said in that long post hinges on what you WISH it was. You want it to be another check and balance for Parity. I hate to tell you this, but some Owners do not like that parity and sought a check like this to protect themselves. Just because this is addressed by late draft selections, does not mean it has any connection to the rest of the draft intent on parity.

Also, lower picks want to be free agents Sooner rather than later, veterans want longer contracts. You have that mixed up. The sooner a late pick hits FA, the sooner they can get paid more than 6th round money in year 3 which is close to league Minimum and they got very little Signing bonus on top of that. The sooner a late pick gets the second contract, the sooner they get a real Deal. If they pay a sixth round pick for five years there is NO incentive to keep them around and they may be cut at any time. However, what if Marcus Colston had a five year rookie deal? Well, he would not be getting paid until 2 more years and has less leverage to sign a lucrative extension. The team gets him at a deep discount for longer, and the NFLPA has fought that in court over the years.

[Kaylore]

I feel like we're arguing two different things. Like I'm arguing why income tax is bad and you're arguing that the US has the right to collect it.

I'm no disputing, and never have, that the comped picks are set up and being run correctly, that league is breaking the rules or some other such thing. I'm saying it's stupid the way they do it, and their justification is misplaced and I understand why some teams have a problem with it. They ought to do it differently. That's what I'm saying. I think that is what the article is saying as well.

[Mediator12]

I feel like we're arguing two different things. Like I'm arguing why income tax is bad and you're arguing that the US has the right to collect it.

I'm no disputing, and never have, that the comped picks are set up and being run correctly, that league is breaking the rules or some other such thing. I'm saying it's stupid the way they do it, and their justification is misplaced and I understand why some teams have a problem with it. They ought to do it differently. That's what I'm saying. I think that is what the article is saying as well.

Maybe your right. I know that the Comp Picks are utilized during the draft to replace talent that teams lose due to FA. That is why it exists. I see no reason to change it to favor those that make poor choices, I really think they get enough "bailout" provisions to fix what is wrong themselves.