- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Anyone else think compensatory picks are ridiculous?
Posted on 5/10/14 at 5:49 pm
Posted on 5/10/14 at 5:49 pm
(no message)
4
Posted on 5/10/14 at 5:50 pm to drizztiger
only cause we never get them
Posted on 5/10/14 at 5:51 pm to drizztiger
Hell yea cause we never hardly get em. 
you NFL non giving us compensatory pick types!
you NFL non giving us compensatory pick types!Posted on 5/10/14 at 5:54 pm to drizztiger
No.
LINK
LINK
quote:The first part of the following was in response to someone saying they shouldn't give out 3rd rounders.
We don't just build through the draft and are extremely aggressive in FA. That's why we never get them. No conspiracy. It's just that Payton and Loomis go with quality and knowns over quantity and unknowns.
So if you want to blame someone, blame Payton and Loomis for signing so many FAs year after year. Honestly I prefer it that way. Draft is a fricking crap shoot most of the time.
quote:
While they are technically 3rd rounders they are really in between the 3rd and the 4th, and that is where most experts agree the talent starts getting shallow.
Basically if you lose a pro bowler you get a shot at what is normally projected to be a role player or low grade starter.
Only teams that feel they draft very well even attempt to purposely lose pro bowlers without replacing them. That's teams like SF, GB, Pitt, and Baltimore. In other words, the teams that got 3rd rounders this year.
I don't think any other teams intentionally try to get 3rd or 4th rounders.
Imo, the risk outweighs the reward, and the Saints agree with that and never try to get them on purpose. Despite them drafting pretty well, the draft is too much of a risk over just signing known FAs.
If they really want a player in the draft they will find a way to get him and not rely on comp picks to bolster their chances.
Sure this hurts the cap, but that's why we have the best in the business at navigating those waters.
quote:
Main problem is we resigned just about all of our own UFAs. They chose to go with a lot of those guys on 1 year deals over getting a 6th or 7th for them.
Like I said, they value the known a lot more than late round unknowns, especially when you consider these are the same as 1 year rentals "traded" for late rounders.
Also these picks are the "rewards" people were asking for when saying it isn't fair that a team that drafts really well can lose all of their investment in 4 years when they bolt.
So we don't need another system because this one works just fine. You either resign your guys or get a small reward for your investments.
This post was edited on 5/10/14 at 5:57 pm
Posted on 5/10/14 at 5:57 pm to bonethug0108
I wasn't complaining because the Saints don't get any. I just think awarding teams extra picks because they can't manage their rosters is ridiculous.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 5:59 pm to drizztiger
Never said you were. 
Just pointing out my stance on them.
I find it funny that some of the same people that bitch about them are some of the same people that want the league to reward the better drafting teams that lose their investment after 4-5 years by doing something.
That's what comp picks are!
Just pointing out my stance on them.
I find it funny that some of the same people that bitch about them are some of the same people that want the league to reward the better drafting teams that lose their investment after 4-5 years by doing something.
That's what comp picks are!
This post was edited on 5/10/14 at 6:00 pm
Posted on 5/10/14 at 6:09 pm to bonethug0108
I understand the reasoning, I just disagree with it. It's not an arbitrary system, but it's also not completely transparent either.
The NFL is a collective, so I can go along with the want for parity. But that's what the salary cap is for me IMO. If a team can't manage their rosters under the salary cap to keep their best players, then I don't agree with rewarding them for it. Even if that reward is a watered down draft selection compared to player lost.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 6:14 pm to drizztiger
It's not just that. How many great Jags players bolt unless they are grossly overpaid? Bills players? Browns? Raiders over the last decade? Etc.?
The consistently winning teams can abuse the system, but this protects other teams where they either have to grossly overpay or lose their investment.
I would not be opposed to some kind of system that limits what you get the following year based on what you got the previous year so the Packers, 9ers, Ravens, and Steelers can't abuse the system.
Like you can't get 3rd and 4th rounders 2 years in a row or something like that.
The consistently winning teams can abuse the system, but this protects other teams where they either have to grossly overpay or lose their investment.
I would not be opposed to some kind of system that limits what you get the following year based on what you got the previous year so the Packers, 9ers, Ravens, and Steelers can't abuse the system.
Like you can't get 3rd and 4th rounders 2 years in a row or something like that.
This post was edited on 5/10/14 at 6:15 pm
Posted on 5/10/14 at 6:24 pm to bonethug0108
quote:There are other protections teams have to keep their best players. They can also resign them without using the safeguards in place.
It's not just that. How many great Jags players bolt unless they are grossly overpaid? Bills players? Browns? Raiders over the last decade? Etc.?
quote:This would be more to my point. Pitt, GB, Ravens, 49ers all got "free" 3rd round picks this year. It's not like these picks are going to the terrible teams - which would still be wrong IMO. But if players were leaving small markets/non-winners and the NFL stepped in a gave them picks, it still makes more sense than I draft well, I get 4-5 years out of player(s), can't manage to keep them so I get rewarded again by letting them go.
I would not be opposed to some kind of system that limits what you get the following year based on what you got the previous year so the Packers, 9ers, Ravens, and Steelers can't abuse the system.
This post was edited on 5/10/14 at 6:25 pm
Posted on 5/10/14 at 6:39 pm to drizztiger
quote:Some people were asking for a system like that. Some of the same people complaining about these picks.
it still makes more sense than I draft well, I get 4-5 years out of player(s), can't manage to keep them so I get rewarded again by letting them go.
I don't care for the system as is but I understand it and don' hate it. The Saints chose to basically ignore it and I agree with that approach. Worry about getting who you want and only letting the guys you don't want/can't afford go.
If we get bonus picks great.
If not who cares. We got the players we wanted in FA. To me that's ALWAYS more important. Known is always better than unknown(not saying FAs are always better than draft picks, but it's always better to know what you are getting than to take a gamble on the unknown).
Posted on 5/10/14 at 6:46 pm to bonethug0108
I get all of that and agree with most of it. I also agree with the Saints approach.
In all honestly, it's no skin off my back as a fan and I'm not changing the system. That said, it still makes little sense in the scope of how the NFL works - regardless of who complained and got what they wanted.
In all honestly, it's no skin off my back as a fan and I'm not changing the system. That said, it still makes little sense in the scope of how the NFL works - regardless of who complained and got what they wanted.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 6:54 pm to drizztiger
quote:
I also agree with the Saints approach.
quote:
it's no skin off my back
And that's why I could care less.
If they did away with it I would not complain, but I don't care that it's in place. It means teams are losing good players for the unknown.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 7:03 pm to bonethug0108
Couldn't care less.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 7:12 pm to bonethug0108
They only give them to teams they want to win superbowls like 49ers and seachickens and broncos and giants and packers.
Posted on 5/10/14 at 7:20 pm to saintsalwaysnumber1
To even get one you have to lose more UFAs than you gain(cut players and untendered RFAs and ERFAs don't count). The round is a little more complicated but easy enough to guess.
We just say frick the system and sign the guys we want.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News