Jump to content
Indianapolis Colts
Indianapolis Colts Fan Forum

Are you guys aware of the fact that if Jerod Mayo becomes a HC somewhere, the Patriots get 2 third round picks?


Recommended Posts

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2021/1/15/22234044/patriots-draft-picks-jerod-mayo-eagles-head-coach-rooney-rule

 

49ers already get 2 additional draft picks awarded by the NFL for losing Saleh to the Jets. 

 

Similarly, if Todd Bowles becomes HC somewhere, the Bucs would gain compensatory picks. 

 

No one loses picks, the team losing the minority coach gains the picks. Thoughts???

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s odd.  Seems the picks would go to the team that hired, but think the logic is the team that promoted and fostered the minority candidate to getting a head coaching position is rewarded so some logic there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2021/1/15/22234044/patriots-draft-picks-jerod-mayo-eagles-head-coach-rooney-rule

 

49ers already get 2 additional draft picks awarded by the NFL for losing Saleh to the Jets. 

 

Similarly, if Todd Bowles becomes HC somewhere, the Bucs would gain compensatory picks. 

 

No one loses picks, the team losing the minority coach gains the picks. Thoughts???

 

That's interesting.

 

I wonder if that leads to strategic non-hires... like nobody in the NFC East would want to hire a minority coach from another NFC East team because it would be giving them two extra picks, and you don't want your division rivals to get those extra picks...  I bet nobody in the AFC East would want to give the Pats those two extra picks.

 

Doesn't it kinda decrease the chance a minority coach gets a HC job, since there's a competitive advantage for certain teams to NOT hire a certain candidate because it would give a certain team extra draft picks?  And if the candidate is good in the first place, they're probably coming from a winning team that's had recent success, and nobody wants those teams to get extra draft picks.

 

I wonder if it will be like how some players are traded from an AFC team to an NFC team or vice versa.  Or teams only hire minority coaches from bottom-feeder teams like the Jets because them getting two extra picks isn't as impactful as say the Chiefs getting two extra picks.

 

But most likely it will be bottom-feeder teams like the Lions giving extra picks to an already good team like the Rams, making the rich richer.  What a weird rule...  :scratch:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

That's interesting.

 

I wonder if that leads to strategic non-hires... like nobody in the NFC East would want to hire a minority coach from another NFC East team because it would be giving them two extra picks, and you don't want your division rivals to get those extra picks...  I bet nobody in the AFC East would want to give the Pats those two extra picks.

 

Doesn't it kinda decrease the chance a minority coach gets a HC job, since there's a competitive advantage for certain teams to NOT hire a certain candidate because it would give a certain team extra draft picks?  And if the candidate is good in the first place, they're probably coming from a winning team that's had recent success, and nobody wants those teams to get extra draft picks.

 

I wonder if it will be like how some players are traded from an AFC team to an NFC team or vice versa.  Or teams only hire minority coaches from bottom-feeder teams like the Jets because them getting two extra picks isn't as impactful as say the Chiefs getting two extra picks.

 

But most likely it will be bottom-feeder teams like the Lions giving extra picks to an already good team like the Rams, making the rich richer.  What a weird rule...  :scratch:

 

I do think it would matter more for intra-division hires like you inferred. Infra conference, not that much, unless you are the #2 or #3 seed chasing a coach from the #1 seed, which is unlikely because you get to where you are because of your coaching and players typically.

 

Eric Bienemy, do we want the Chiefs to get 2 more third rounders across 2 draft years? Valid question if you’re an AFC playoff team.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

That's interesting.

 

I wonder if that leads to strategic non-hires... like nobody in the NFC East would want to hire a minority coach from another NFC East team because it would be giving them two extra picks, and you don't want your division rivals to get those extra picks...  I bet nobody in the AFC East would want to give the Pats those two extra picks.

 

Doesn't it kinda decrease the chance a minority coach gets a HC job, since there's a competitive advantage for certain teams to NOT hire a certain candidate because it would give a certain team extra draft picks?  And if the candidate is good in the first place, they're probably coming from a winning team that's had recent success, and nobody wants those teams to get extra draft picks.

 

I wonder if it will be like how some players are traded from an AFC team to an NFC team or vice versa.  Or teams only hire minority coaches from bottom-feeder teams like the Jets because them getting two extra picks isn't as impactful as say the Chiefs getting two extra picks.

 

But most likely it will be bottom-feeder teams like the Lions giving extra picks to an already good team like the Rams, making the rich richer.  What a weird rule...  :scratch:


Like I said, the Lions won’t be giving up picks. The Rams would be awarded by the league 2 compensatory 3rd round picks across 2 years. That’s how it works.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, chad72 said:


Like I said, the Lions won’t be giving up picks. The Rams would be awarded by the league 2 compensatory 3rd round picks across 2 years. That’s how it works.

 

Right I understand that.  Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "giving" those picks to another team.  haha

 

And like you said, what if this rule is actually hurting the chances Bienemy gets hired as a HC?  Even if you're a bottom feeder in the NFC cleaning house and looking for a new HC, if you narrow it down to Bienemy and some white guy, or even another minority candidate, the fact that the best team in the league right now would be awarded two extra picks might tip the scale in favor of the other candidate instead of Bienemy...

 

I get the sentiment of the rule, but it seems flawed...  :dunno:

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Lucky Colts Fan said:

 

Right I understand that.  Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "giving" those picks to another team.  haha

 

And like you said, what if this rule is actually hurting the chances Bienemy gets hired as a HC?  Even if you're a bottom feeder in the NFC cleaning house and looking for a new HC, if you narrow it down to Bienemy and some white guy, or even another minority candidate, the fact that the best team in the league right now would be awarded two extra picks might tip the scale in favor of the other candidate instead of Bienemy...

 

I get the sentiment of the rule, but it seems flawed...  :dunno:

 

The upside of hiring someone as prominent as a head coach trumps the league giving a 3rd round pick to a contender when drafting is an inexact science with most GMs hitting below .500, IMO. Most hires are being done by teams with terrible records anyways. They aren’t worried about a team that’s a contender, they just are worried about getting back to the playoffs. :) 

 

I do agree giving 2 third rounders increases the odds of hitting, this might just be a kickstarting move that might get reduced to 1 third rounder eventually. Worrying about the Chiefs will only happen for an NFC team when they get to the SB. There’s that too.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a rule that could be abused, and what a surprise, New England's name is on this, because of course it is.

 

Also, how does the NFL determine who falls under this compensation rule? What if you're mixed Hispanic mixed African American? Do they use DNA kits, or what?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, TimetobringDfence! said:

Like the Rooney rule. But to compensate a team for losing a minority coach is flawed. No team should be gaining or losing pick overs their staffs race unless the are proven to have made statements or actions showing racism.

It is about encouraging teams to give minority coaches the chance to develop and advance within their organization, which gives them a chance to get an HC/Front office opportunity later on.

 

The Rooney rule is just exploited usually(Interview where it's to fulfill obligation). This is a fundamental way to build up more qualified candidates.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, w87r said:

It is about encouraging teams to give minority coaches the chance to develop and advance within their organization, which gives them a chance to get an HC/Front office opportunity later on.

 

The Rooney rule is just exploited usually(Interview where it's to fulfill obligation). This is a fundamental way to build up more qualified candidates.

I dont disagree, I guess it just bothers me theg have to go to that extent to insure fairness. We do t have rules for players, we get the best players out there. I dont see why owners wouldnt be getting the best staff out there.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

https://www.patspulpit.com/2021/1/15/22234044/patriots-draft-picks-jerod-mayo-eagles-head-coach-rooney-rule

 

49ers already get 2 additional draft picks awarded by the NFL for losing Saleh to the Jets. 

 

Similarly, if Todd Bowles becomes HC somewhere, the Bucs would gain compensatory picks. 

 

No one loses picks, the team losing the minority coach gains the picks. Thoughts???

i think its crap. It promotes an atmosphere of elevating the promotion of someone based entirely on the color of their skin.  As a black man, I feel this is a step BACKWARDS from what we ultimately want.  We can't preach and in some cases beg for equality and NOT to be pre-judged based on the color of our skin and then do something like this where a team is rewarded if a man(or woman) of color gets promoted.   This is why I've been against the Rooney rule forever and against those pre-employment questions where they ask you for your race/color/gender etc during the hiring process. People should be judge solely on their merits and not in any way, by the color of their skin. Nor should any team be rewarded for a person of color getting promoted or otherwise preferable treatment.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, csmopar said:

i think its crap. It promotes an atmosphere of elevating the promotion of someone based entirely on the color of their skin.  As a black man, I feel this is a step BACKWARDS from what we ultimately want.  We can't preach and in some cases beg for equality and NOT to be pre-judged based on the color of our skin and then do something like this where a team is rewarded if a man(or woman) of color gets promoted.   This is why I've been against the Rooney rule forever and against those pre-employment questions where they ask you for your race/color/gender etc during the hiring process. People should be judge solely on their merits and not in any way, by the color of their skin. Nor should any team be rewarded for a person of color getting promoted or otherwise preferable treatment.  

this exactly, its as if the NFL is trying to be like "hey look at us and how much we care we have all these rules in place". Its called grandstanding. In reality its quite the opposite of equality

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nesjan3 said:

this exactly, its as if the NFL is trying to be like "hey look at us and how much we care we have all these rules in place". Its called grandstanding. In reality its quite the opposite of equality

That last part is exactly true. And stinks heavily of the old “equal but separated” days. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Thread of the Week

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • I thought this was an interesting watch:     There are really only a handful of Superstar Free Agent signings that you can point to and say "that's why they won a SB":  Tom Brady to Tampa.  Reggie White to Green Bay.  Deion Sanders to Dallas/SF.  Brees to New Orleans.  Peyton to Denver.  And every one of those guys is in the conversation of being the best to play their position... like ever.  But the key is that the teams they went to had already been built through the draft, which is what Ballard is doing.  If you build it, they will come.  (We can kind of already see this with Rivers choosing the Colts last year and Wentz preferring the Colts this year)   I don't think anyone that was a free agent this year is in the conversation of being the GOAT at their respective position, so it really didn't make sense to break the bank for any of the "superstar" free agents this year.  I know @DEFENSE doesn't like Ballards "dollar general method", but it's pretty smart considering the big splash free agent signings rarely correlate to SBs, because those elite HoF-type Superstar Free Agents only come around once in a blue moon.   And Ballard has spent quite a bit the last two offseasons on arguably the two most important positions:  QB to make the offense run, and 3T to make the defense run.  He just didn't spent it on superstar free agents, he traded for proven guys still in their prime.  Ballard is being aggressive with trades and big contracts, but he isn't being stupid wasting big money on a FA when there isn't a guy worth that kind of money.
    • Of course that's within reason. Although... to be honest... I personally would draft one of the top 4 QBs if he falls even with Wentz on the roster... but I know I'm in the small minority here and I know Ballard would never do that. And I think it would be a mistake not to take him if he fell(Lance or Fields lets say) . Getting as many good shots at a franchise QB as possible to me is more valuable than a random late 1st DE or OT or WR or CB. Especially when you see what those QBs go for once they fail. Wentz failed and still managed to return 1st and a 3d. Darnold has been bottom 5 QB for his entire career and he still managed to return 2nd , 4th and 6th(this is about 1st round type value). QBs are valuable. I consider all top 4 QBs great prospects and amazing value at 21... so... if one of them falls... I run to the podium.   If Wentz returns to his MVP form... great... You have an MVP type QB and you have an amazing backup for a QB who's had injury problems for several years... or if he's amazing in practice and beats Wentz... maybe you trade Wentz. Or if he's good, but not better than Wentz I bet you can still get at least a second for him in a couple of years. And if Wentz fails you get a shot at a top tier talent with a modest investment.    So yeah... this is my line of thinking here. 
    • There are a lot of factors involved, but generally speaking, I believe,  a 2021 2nd round pick has the same value as a 2022 1st round pick..... so our 2021 1st round pick should be worth a 2022 1st round pick and additional pick(s).    But it takes 2 to tango and Ballard and another GM both need to be willing. 
    • "Best value" could be a trade(down ... or up?) too, I'm not excluding that. Because of the way NFL teams value picks IMO trade down should almost always be option no.1. Teams are gifting value trying to trade up IMO. So... I'm almost always team "trade down" if such opportunity presents itself.     
  • Members

    • dgierhart

      dgierhart 1

      New Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NewColtsFan

      NewColtsFan 9,169

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • C0LT5

      C0LT5 64

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • NannyMcafee

      NannyMcafee 1,694

      Senior Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • JPPT1974

      JPPT1974 835

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
×
×
  • Create New...