Would you be for or against these changes regarding NFL Comp. picks?

[Dustin]

I was thinking about how the compensation pick system is kind of broken and filled with loopholes so I have some proposals:

 

1. A comp. pick can not be rewarded for a player who's contract the team opted out of (ex. the Patriots wouldn't get a pick for Revis next year)

2. A comp. pick cannot be awarded for a player with less than 2 1/2 accrued seasons on that team. 

 

These try to discourage teams from going full rent-a-player and hoping to just get an extra draft pick the next season. 

 

I have no idea why teams who are opting out of contracts are getting comp. picks to begin with. It seems like a strange loophole.

 

3. A comp. pick cannot be awarded for a player who was franchise tagged the previous year. 

 

This is more for the players sake. It basically leaves the option up for the teams GM to tag the player for 1 year (and possibly lose them) and risk losing the comp. pick, or just letting that player walk and taking what you can get. I don't think you should be given a pick for keeping a player 1 year after he was set to hit FA. 

[#BringBobBack]

i agree i think it's odd that it even occurs that way

[Valpo2004]

I was thinking about how the compensation pick system is kind of broken and filled with loopholes so I have some proposals:

 

1. A comp. pick can not be rewarded for a player who's contract the team opted out of (ex. the Patriots wouldn't get a pick for Revis next year)

2. A comp. pick cannot be awarded for a player with less than 2 1/2 accrued seasons on that team. 

 

These try to discourage teams from going full rent-a-player and hoping to just get an extra draft pick the next season. 

 

I have no idea why teams who are opting out of contracts are getting comp. picks to begin with. It seems like a strange loophole.

 

3. A comp. pick cannot be awarded for a player who was franchise tagged the previous year. 

 

This is more for the players sake. It basically leaves the option up for the teams GM to tag the player for 1 year (and possibly lose them) and risk losing the comp. pick, or just letting that player walk and taking what you can get. I don't think you should be given a pick for keeping a player 1 year after he was set to hit FA. 

 

Honestly I'd rather just trash the comp pick program period.  I think it's silly. 

[Superman]

3. A comp. pick cannot be awarded for a player who was franchise tagged the previous year. 

 

This is more for the players sake. It basically leaves the option up for the teams GM to tag the player for 1 year (and possibly lose them) and risk losing the comp. pick, or just letting that player walk and taking what you can get. I don't think you should be given a pick for keeping a player 1 year after he was set to hit FA. 

 

I'm down with the first two. Make perfect sense.

 

It's this one that I disagree with. I guess it would be favored by players, even though I don't think it would have any real impact on the way teams use the tag. But what's the difference between letting a guy go to free agency without tagging him, and letting him go to free agency after tagging him? The team is still losing a noteworthy player to free agency.

[GoPats]

The kind of strange thing about compensatory picks, from my perspective, is that they're designed to promote parity and keep the playing field even, but almost seem to have the opposite effect.

 

Here's a list of picks awarded from 1994-2015:

 

 

 

What happens is that players get poached from good teams and sign with bad teams. The bad teams, in turn, have players that typically no one wants, lol... look at Cleveland's 6 picks over this span compared to the top eight teams, which by my unofficial count have attributed for 11 Super Bowl championships in the 21 years of data.

 

I hate to sound like a Pats homer but Belichick has been ahead of the curve on this one for a while. He's added that option year (and declined it) on a number of contracts and has had the league hand the Patriots some decent picks. Including a 3rd this year. 

 

They do have to close that loophole, I agree. If a team declines and option, it should be viewed as a cut, not a free agent defection.

[Superman]

The kind of strange thing about compensatory picks, from my perspective, is that they're designed to promote parity and keep the playing field even, but almost seem to have the opposite effect.

 

Here's a list of picks awarded from 1994-2015:

 

 

 

What happens is that players get poached from good teams and sign with bad teams. The bad teams, in turn, have players that typically no one wants, lol... look at Cleveland's 6 picks over this span compared to the top eight teams, which by my unofficial count have attributed for 11 Super Bowl championships in the 21 years of data.

 

I hate to sound like a Pats homer but Belichick has been ahead of the curve on this one for a while. He's added that option year (and declined it) on a number of contracts and has had the league hand the Patriots some decent picks. Including a 3rd this year. 

 

They do have to close that loophole, I agree. If a team declines and option, it should be viewed as a cut, not a free agent defection.

 

I think the critical component is that it rewards teams that draft well, and of course, teams that draft well are usually good teams. Conversely, teams that draft well are the most penalized by free agency, and that's the whole reason for the compensatory system in the first place. 

 

Cleveland doesn't get comp picks because a) they don't draft well and therefore don't usually have free agents that other teams want, and b) they try to make up for their poor drafting with free agency (but they aren't very good at that, either), which undercuts any comp pick standing they might have. Get your draft game up, son!

[Valpo2004]

I think the critical component is that it rewards teams that draft well, and of course, teams that draft well are usually good teams. Conversely, teams that draft well are the most penalized by free agency, and that's the whole reason for the compensatory system in the first place. 

 

Cleveland doesn't get comp picks because a) they don't draft well and therefore don't usually have free agents that other teams want, and b) they try to make up for their poor drafting with free agency (but they aren't very good at that, either), which undercuts any comp pick standing they might have. Get your draft game up, son!

 

Drafting well is it's own reward. . . You get 4 or 5 years of cheap play from a player for drafting well.

 

They don't need another reward placed on top of it.  

[Dustin]

Drafting well is it's own reward. . . You get 4 or 5 years of cheap play from a player for drafting well.

 

They don't need another reward placed on top of it.  

 

4. Comp. picks cannot be rewarded to team who have made the playoffs in 2 of the past 3 years.

[Superman]

Drafting well is it's own reward. . . You get 4 or 5 years of cheap play from a player for drafting well.

 

They don't need another reward placed on top of it.  

 

I disagree. It offsets the salary cap restrictions that teams who draft well are more likely to be affected by.

[Superman]

4. Comp. picks cannot be rewarded to team who have made the playoffs in 2 of the past 3 years.

 

I would tweak that. Made the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years, and haven't spent cash equal to ~95% of the cap over the last 2 or 3 years. 

 

I don't have a problem with good teams getting comp picks, but if they're choosing not to spend money, then that's a different story. They aren't being harmed by free agency, they're just being cheap.

[GoPats]

I would tweak that. Made the playoffs 2 of the last 3 years, and haven't spent cash equal to ~95% of the cap over the last 2 or 3 years. 

 

I don't have a problem with good teams getting comp picks, but if they're choosing not to spend money, then that's a different story. They aren't being harmed by free agency, they're just being cheap.

 

The cash spent standard is very good. I like that. I think you'd have to take a 3-year snapshot or something and average it out though, since bonus payments can sometimes make that stuff a bit wonky. 

 

The playoffs standard I'm not as crazy about. We've had years where 11-5 teams missed the playoffs, and years where 7-9 teams have made it in. There's no standard unit of measure for success there. 

[Superman]

The cash spent standard is very good. I like that. I think you'd have to take a 3-year snapshot or something and average it out though, since bonus payments can sometimes make that stuff a bit wonky. 

 

The playoffs standard I'm not as crazy about. We've had years where 11-5 teams missed the playoffs, and years where 7-9 teams have made it in. There's no standard unit of measure for success there. 

 

I agree on cash spent. It would be a total over multiple seasons.

 

As for the playoffs standard, I get it. I think 11-5 teams missing the playoffs and 7-9 teams making them are uncommon occurrences, so I'm not too worried about that, especially if you're making it a 2 out of 3 standard.

 

Also, I don't have a problem with an 11-5 team that missed the playoffs getting comp picks, or a 7-9 team that makes the playoffs not getting comp picks. But maybe it could be tweaked to say that in certain situations, teams don't qualify for any comps picks earlier than the 5th round.

[Valpo2004]

I disagree. It offsets the salary cap restrictions that teams who draft well are more likely to be affected by.

 

Every team is restricted by the salary cap.  You are not entitled to re-sign the players you drafted nor are you entitled to be rewarded for other team's signing them to big money deals.

 

There are 32 comp picks, I say just add an 8th round to the draft and be done.  

[Superman]

Every team is restricted by the salary cap.  You are not entitled to re-sign the players you drafted nor are you entitled to be rewarded for other team's signing them to big money deals.

 

There are 32 comp picks, I say just add an 8th round to the draft and be done.  

 

That's your stance. The existence of the comp system clashes with your stance directly.

 

And by nature, the teams that draft well have more players with high money market demands. It goes right back to promoting parity. None of these systems are perfect, but they serve a purpose and have a considerable impact. 

[BrentMc11]

It is close to being ready for the NFL.  When are the winter meetings.....UHH UHHH....winter?

 

Some good thoughts here.

[alawai]

Much of the issues debated here are way over my head but I don't want a good drafting team, play-off team or team doing well be penalized! Every team has the same set of NFL rules and guildlines and some are doing better than others but that's in all facets of life! Some use loopholes/circumvents policies but there's no punishment so it must be legal. If changes need to be made fine lets change but the same set of rules for everyone!

[wig]

I like the first two but not the third. The third would encourage teams not to use the franchise tag, which I think is fair to both sides as is.

[CanuckColt]

Why not eliminate Comp Picks completely? The 3rd round comps steal players from the 4th round from teams who need the picks and award them to manipulators like New England and Baltimore especially. If anything, start them at the END of the 5th round.

If you lose a player, then tough...you weren't willing to pay him market value.

 

It is essential to eliminate the 3rd round comps...should probably eliminate 4th round comps also.

[Defjamz26]

Honestly I'd rather just trash the comp pick program period. I think it's silly.

The only teams that should even get comp picks are teams who finish under .500

Or if you're going to reward picks, make it after the 7th round, basically first dibs at UDFA.

[Valpo2004]

The only teams that should even get comp picks are teams who finish under .500

Or if you're going to reward picks, make it after the 7th round, basically first dibs at UDFA.

 

Meh most of the teams that finish under .500 arn't the ones letting talent go anyways.  Thats why I just don't think we should even worry about it.  There are always 32 comp picks anyways, so IMO why not just add an 8th round and call it even.

 

I don't think anyone deserves compensation for letting a high priced FA go.  Yeah it sucks if you can't afford the guy but that's the NFL and that's the salary cap.  It's ment to make sure that if you have a stacked team that you can't stay stacked for very long.  

 

Besides with only a few comp picks at the end of the 3rd and 4th rounds and the vast majority of them at the bottom end of the draft, the likelyhood that you can find someone of comparable talent to the guy that just walked from your team is small anyways.

[Clem-Dog]

I was thinking about how the compensation pick system is kind of broken and filled with loopholes so I have some proposals:

1. A comp. pick can not be rewarded for a player who's contract the team opted out of (ex. the Patriots wouldn't get a pick for Revis next year)

2. A comp. pick cannot be awarded for a player with less than 2 1/2 accrued seasons on that team.

1 & 2 seem very logical.

Why should a team be rewarded for declining an option.... They absolutely shouldn't.

It's a proven fact that teams who manipulate the compensatory system prosper. Might as well squash these loopholes to truly create a more level playing field.

[dgambill]

Didn't it also have to do with helping teams that couldn't afford to keep their players due financial reasons (not cap but franchises that were in small markets etc vs large market richer franchises). With the new cap rules etc teams all have to stay under a certain limit and all have to spend as well so the playing field is pretty even. I honestly don't mind having it...but sure some loop holes could be cleaned up. I would mostly like to see this with teams that had originally drafted a player or some type of lengthy period with a guy whether that is 4 years etc but overall it is like anything else...if you have a good gm and work all the systems well then you can benefit from this too. Good GMs generally are good in all areas of how to build a team.

[Superman]

Didn't it also have to do with helping teams that couldn't afford to keep their players due financial reasons (not cap but franchises that were in small markets etc vs large market richer franchises). With the new cap rules etc teams all have to stay under a certain limit and all have to spend as well so the playing field is pretty even. I honestly don't mind having it...but sure some loop holes could be cleaned up. I would mostly like to see this with teams that had originally drafted a player or some type of lengthy period with a guy whether that is 4 years etc but overall it is like anything else...if you have a good gm and work all the systems well then you can benefit from this too. Good GMs generally are good in all areas of how to build a team.

 

That's one of Dustin's changes. He said 2.5 years, which makes sense (or some kind of combination between active roster and practice squad, or even IR). You've had this guy for a while, you've coached him, you've developed him to an extent, and now he walks in free agency. Not just a one year rental of a top notch guy.

 

Also, while the salary floor and cap even things out a bit, there are still advantages some teams have over others. Teams in high profile markets, teams in states with no income tax, etc., get a little bit of an edge in free agency.