GunnerBill Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Incorrect. It is. The truth is none of us quite knows because the NFL are intentionally cloak and dagger about it. I have read the links on over the cap. They are interesting but it still comes down to what is a "qualifying" free agent. From my reading of that description to qualify as a factor in the comp pick formula a player's salary must be above a certain level and they must not have received certain honours (so someone like a LoRax last year would presumably not have met the salary requirement but then would be back in on the basis of the pro bowl). Only those players are "qualifying" FAs and only then does the head count game begin. I do not profess to be an expert in the formula by any means that is just my interpretation of the link Estro helpfully posted. It doesn't appear from that like it is quite as simple a numbers game as was first made out.
wilcoam Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 No Gunner Bill, last year we got zero comp picks because we only lost 2 FA's, none of which would have give n us much compensation To DW's credit it was good year to go out and sign more FA's than we lost This year it's completely different We lost a high profile top tier player, at least in terms of the annual salary he was signed for, which almost guarantee's a 2018 3rd round pick Then we also lost a middle tier player, in terms of the annual salary he was signed for, which almost guarantee's a 2018 4th round pick In return we didn't sign any great players, upgrades sure.... Which is why we are almost assured of high 2018 comp picks If we can fix the current negative one And that's not WGR mumbo jumbo, it's reality of how comps pick work, how the NFL compensates you Though its a head scratcher why many folks here don't seem to want the compensation jc
GunnerBill Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) No Gunner Bill, last year we got zero comp picks because we only lost 2 FA's, none of which would have give n us much compensation Which is what I said. The two guys who would have given us high comp picks this year were Richie and Cordy. Both of whom we signed. Looking into this a bit more my conclusiom on this year is so far we have 3 definitely qualifying added FAs (DiMarco, Haushka and Hyde) and 3 definitely qualifying lost FAs (Gilmore, Woods and McCray). Poyner, Ducasse and on the outgoing end Goodwin really depend on where the qualifying lines in terms of salary and playing time end up being for 2017. That line seems to be moveable year to year depending on how many teams qualify for picks (up to the limit of 32). The Bills did qualify for a 7th this year by the way but it was not within the top 32 and therefore was not awarded. Edited March 13, 2017 by GunnerBill
Thurman#1 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Sounds like WGR mumbo jumbo........this isn't hockey ......this isn't the collect the most picks draft., how did that work out for Cleveland last year,.... this is the NFL. as long as the GM continues to stock the team with good players that's all we should care about. So basically..... Bills fans don't care as long as we are heading in the right direction How it worked out for Cleveland this year is terrific!!!!!! They have a ton of draft picks over the next couple of years and a ton of cap space and frankly look like a team that is young, smart and looks like they have a pretty good shot going forward. They might even have worked it so that they will have another crappy year going forward and will have a shot at their franchise QB next year. Especially if they trade back a lot this year to get more draft capital next year. And saying the Bills are heading in the right direction is pure hope. We don't look like a good team, we don't have a lot of draft capital and we're still in cap trouble.
Thurman#1 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) Which is what I said. The two guys who would have given us high comp picks this year were Richie and Cordy. Both of whom we signed. Looking into this a bit more my conclusiom on this year is so far we have 3 definitely qualifying added FAs (DiMarco, Haushka and Hyde) and 3 definitely qualifying lost FAs (Gilmore, Woods and McCray). Poyner, Ducasse and on the outgoing end Goodwin really depend on where the qualifying lines in terms of salary and playing time end up being for 2017. That line seems to be moveable year to year depending on how many teams qualify for picks (up to the limit of 32). The Bills did qualify for a 7th this year by the way but it was not within the top 32 and therefore was not awarded. Again, teams can play this game. It's not that difficult. The Pats just did it by trading for Kony Ealy. He's a guy who might play decently for them this year, particularly as a platoon guy. Ealy is going to cost them about $900K this year. And guess what, his contract is up after the year. So if he leaves as he's likely to, guess what ... the Pats at very little cost have gamed the system to help them pursue comp picks, except they're already thinking about comp picks in 2019, 'cause they lose Ealy in 2018. And they do this constantly. Year after year. And we don't. More, the Pats don't pick up compensatory FAs very often at all. Instead they wait till after the signing period and guess what - they don't count against comp picks anymore. They're constantly doing this. And we don't. Edited March 13, 2017 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) Wayne, I'm happy the Bills have used this under some GMs. That's great. But ultimately, I don't care that much because it's not relevant to our present situation. I want them to start using this winning strategy now and in the future. And that's not happening under Whaley. 2017 zero 2016 4th (Cardale Jones) and 6th (Kevon Seymour) 2015 zero 2014 zero Whaley isn't doing this consistently. He just isn't. Same as he doesn't trade back for more picks. That's the smart play, you gather more picks and give yourself more chances, through trades and comp picks. Whaley doesn't even appear aware of these options. During the same four years when Whaley brought in those two guys, this is what some other teams got: Top Ten Ravens: 2014: a third, two fourths and a fifth ... 2015: a 4th and two 5ths ... 2016: two 4ths and a 6th ... 2017: a 3rd ... (over four years, that's two thirds, five 4ths, three 5ths and a 6th: total of 11 and consistent, at least one every year) Bengals: 2014: a 6th and a 7th ... 2015 a 3rd and a 4th ... 2017: a 4th, a 5th, a 6th and a 7th ... (over four years, that's a 3rd, two 4ths, a 5th, two 6ths and two 7ths: total of 8) Cowboys: 2014: three 7ths ... 2016: a 4th (Dak Prescott) and three 6ths ... (over four years, that's a 4th, three 6ths and three 7ths, including Dak Prescott: total 7) Packers: 2014: a 3rd and a 5th .... 2015: three 6ths ... 2016: two 4ths ... 2017: a 5th (over four years, that's a 3rd, two 4ths, two 5ths and three 6ths: total 7, and consistent, at least one each year) Patriots: 2014: a 4th ... 2015: a 3rd and a 7th ... 2016: a 3rd and three 6ths ... 2017: a 5th (over four years, that's two 3rds, a 4th, a 5th, three 6ths and a 7th: total of 8 and consistency, at least one each year) Steelers: 2014: a 3rd, a 5th and a 6th ... 2015 a 6th ... 2016: a 6th ... 2017: a 3rd ... (over four years, that's two 3rds, a 5th, three 6ths: total of 8 and consistency, at least one each year) Broncos: 2015: a 4th and three 7ths (including Trevor Siemian) ... 2016: a 3rd, a 4th and a 6th ... 2017: a 3rd, a 5th, and two 7ths ... (over four years, that's two 3rds, two 4ths, a 5th, a 6th and five 7ths (including Trevor Siemian): total of 11) Chiefs: 2015: a 3rd, two 5ths and a 6th ... 2017: a 3rd, a 5th and two 6ths ... (over four years, that's two 3rds, two 5ths and three 6ths: a total of 7) Seahawks: 2015: a 4th, a 5th and two 6ths ... 2016: a 3rd, a 5th and a 6th ... 2017: two 3rds ... (over four years, that's four 3rds!!!!!!!!!!!!!, a 4th, two 5ths and a 6th: a total of 8) 49ers: 2014: a 3rd ... 2015: a 4th ... 2016: a 4th, a 5th and two 6ths ... 2017: a 4th ... (over four years, that's a 3rd, three 4ths, a 5th and two 6ths: a total of 7 and consistency, at least one each year) Honorable Mention Texans: 2014: a 4th, a 6th and a 7th ... 2015: a 5th and two 6ths ... 2017: a 4th (over four years, that's two 4ths, a 5th, three 6ths and a 7th: a total of 7) Jets: 2014: a 4th and three 6ths, 2017: a 3rd (a 3rd, a 4th and two 6ths: a total of 3) Panthers: 2015 two 5ths ... 2017: a 3rd ... (over four years, that's a 3rd and two 5ths: a total of 3) Rams: 2014: a 6th and two 7ths ... 2015 a 6th ... 2017: a 4th ... (over four years, that's a 4th, two 6ths and two 7ths: a total of 5) Lions: 2014: two 4ths ... 2016: a third and a 6th ... (over four years, that's a 3rd, two 4ths and a 6th: a total of 4) And during those four years, Whaley managed a total of one 4th and one 6th. Oh, and today Belichick moved back eight spots in the draft, from 64th to 72nd, and picked up Kony Ealy, a guy whose contract is low and ends in one year, making him a likely UFA who'll count towards comp picks. They're always working this. We aren't. And should be. And what do you notice about those teams that have done best at getting comp picks over the last four years? They're basically the best, most consistent, smartest teams in the league. Ravens, Bengals, Cowboys, Packers, Pats, Steelers, Broncos, Chiefs, Seahawks, and 49ers. There's one crappy team on that list, and they made the NFC championship two years running about four years ago. As the article I posted earlier said, comp picks were created to help the worst teams in the league but they have instead helped the smartest teams in the league. Not surprising that we aren't one of the teams that's been helped. Edited March 13, 2017 by Thurman#1
xsoldier54 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 You can't spend what you ain't got. Can't lose what you never had.....Gregg Allman
GunnerBill Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 How it worked out for Cleveland this year is terrific!!!!!! They have a ton of draft picks over the next couple of years and a ton of cap space and frankly look like a team that is young, smart and looks like they have a pretty good shot going forward. They might even have worked it so that they will have another crappy year going forward and will have a shot at their franchise QB next year. Especially if they trade back a lot this year to get more draft capital next year. And saying the Bills are heading in the right direction is pure hope. We don't look like a good team, we don't have a lot of draft capital and we're still in cap trouble. See I am definitely with Sal on this. What the Browns have done can only be terrific once they have the results on the football field. Having picks and cap space are only a means to an end. The end is good football players that help you win on Sundays. Cleveland's plan might work, who knows? But they are going to have to use that capital and draft better than they did last year (and in all the years before) in order to make it work. And what do you notice about those teams that have done best at getting comp picks over the last four years? They're basically the best, most consistent, smartest teams in the league. Ravens, Bengals, Cowboys, Packers, Pats, Steelers, Broncos, Chiefs, Seahawks, and 49ers. What you need to prove to me is causation. I would submit that the reason a lot of the good teams currently are on that list is that they are good, have lots of good players and so frequently have more FAs coming up than they can keep (you can't pay everbody). I'd be interested to go back in each case to their last run of let's say 3 consecutive non playoff years. Because my opinion is that the comp pick system fails to help the poor teams and in effect helps the rich stay richer. Did any of those teams when in the process of getting good have huge number of comp picks? I don't know the answer but my guess would be no. My aim here is not to defend the Bills, I have already said in this thread that prioritising the signing of swing guards and full backs in the first wave of free agency makes little sense to me especially when you think ahead to possible comp pick time (though the article Estro himself linked suggests it is more than a pure numbers game). My point is purely there are a lot of causation assumptions around who the system helps and should help and the system is so complex it needs a more thorough investigation before conclusions can be drawn.
8-8 Forever? Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 We still have like 15 ufa who can sign with other teams, this doom and gloom is getting ridiculous. I don't think so. Gloom and doom is perfectly warranted. An absolute NFL dynasty sits atop the division, meaning you simply cannot make the playoffs by winning the division plus you start the season 0-2 in the division and the conference, meaning you must sweep the rest of the division and go at least 10-4 against the remainder of the schedule to even get into a WC tie breaker scenario, which you will most likely lose because of your division and conference records being poisoned by playing the dynasty in your division twice every year. Plus you have had complete turnover in coaches and schemes, meaning complete restart of the learning process with a pile of largely high school graduates. Oh and did i mention lack of confidence in the QB plus complete turnover of the WR/DB positions in a pass first league? No, I'd say gloom and doom is in order.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) well... New england traded several players coming up on extensions for picks. Rather than count them in the comp pick formula they acquired picks earlier. This is essentially trading glenn and dareus before extending them. They can sign a gilmore because they decided to trade jones and collins and get picks instead of waiting for comp picks - and won the super bowl without them. Also - they have no problem recruiting players to come to an annual super bowl contender. Cap casualties are typically guys going on their 3rd contract in their late 20s. They want to win when they get there. 3rd - they structure all their contracts as "option" years, so the team doesn't pick up the team option rather than cutting them. They can do this because they're the patriots and they can underpay everyone to play there. Jacksonville does this too, but they just overpay in general so thats their incentive to sign on the dotted line. We're in a tough spot because we had a few big cap hits they could get rid of to acquire players... and a ton of holes. It's not easy to play the comp pick game when you need 2 WRs, 2 starting safeties, a corner, and WLB, and a RT. Edited March 13, 2017 by dneveu
FireChan Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) See I am definitely with Sal on this. What the Browns have done can only be terrific once they have the results on the football field. Having picks and cap space are only a means to an end. The end is good football players that help you win on Sundays. Cleveland's plan might work, who knows? But they are going to have to use that capital and draft better than they did last year (and in all the years before) in order to make it work. What you need to prove to me is causation. I would submit that the reason a lot of the good teams currently are on that list is that they are good, have lots of good players and so frequently have more FAs coming up than they can keep (you can't pay everbody). I'd be interested to go back in each case to their last run of let's say 3 consecutive non playoff years. Because my opinion is that the comp pick system fails to help the poor teams and in effect helps the rich stay richer. Did any of those teams when in the process of getting good have huge number of comp picks? I don't know the answer but my guess would be no. My aim here is not to defend the Bills, I have already said in this thread that prioritising the signing of swing guards and full backs in the first wave of free agency makes little sense to me especially when you think ahead to possible comp pick time (though the article Estro himself linked suggests it is more than a pure numbers game). My point is purely there are a lot of causation assumptions around who the system helps and should help and the system is so complex it needs a more thorough investigation before conclusions can be drawn. Hasn't the argument been that Whaley has put together one of the most talented teams in the NFL, though? If we have been truly as talented as the Bills PR wing would say, why have we only had 3 qualifying FA's for comp picks since 2014, while Baltimore and NE have had 9, and KC has had 11? Edited March 13, 2017 by FireChan
thebandit27 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 I don't think so. Gloom and doom is perfectly warranted. An absolute NFL dynasty sits atop the division, meaning you simply cannot make the playoffs by winning the division plus you start the season 0-2 in the division and the conference, meaning you must sweep the rest of the division and go at least 10-4 against the remainder of the schedule to even get into a WC tie breaker scenario, which you will most likely lose because of your division and conference records being poisoned by playing the dynasty in your division twice every year. Plus you have had complete turnover in coaches and schemes, meaning complete restart of the learning process with a pile of largely high school graduates. Oh and did i mention lack of confidence in the QB plus complete turnover of the WR/DB positions in a pass first league? No, I'd say gloom and doom is in order. Literally everything you just said applied to Miami last year (except that you need to swap OL with WR)...and they made the playoffs.
GunnerBill Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Hasn't the argument been that Whaley has put together one of the most talented teams in the NFL, though? If we have been truly as talented as the Bills PR wing would say, why have we only had 3 qualifying FA's for comp picks since 2014, while Baltimore and NE have had 9, and KC has had 11? I think it brings into focus some of their contract decisions because too many of the players you might say that has applied to have been lost in such a way that they don't count on the formula. The likes of Alan Branch, Mario Williams and Chris Hogan should be netting you something when you lose them. If Aaron Williams decides to play on he might be another in that category.
FireChan Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 I think it brings into focus some of their contract decisions because too many of the players you might say that has applied to have been lost in such a way that they don't count on the formula. The likes of Alan Branch, Mario Williams and Chris Hogan should be netting you something when you lose them. If Aaron Williams decides to play on he might be another in that category. Agreed. But that speaks to the Bills' decision-making as well.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) I think it brings into focus some of their contract decisions because too many of the players you might say that has applied to have been lost in such a way that they don't count on the formula. The likes of Alan Branch, Mario Williams and Chris Hogan should be netting you something when you lose them. If Aaron Williams decides to play on he might be another in that category. The patriots are willing to trade bad contacts, or players who will seek better contracts before that comp pick arises. With Gilmore for example, we knew we were probably going to lose him. We also stood to lose several other players. We should have begun searching for a trade at that time like they did with collins and jones. That way we arent bound to a comp pick formula.... They also trade FOR expiring contracts, to add to their comp pick number at the end of the year. They just added Ealy (on an expiring deal) for the cost of moving from a 2nd to a 3rd, and added another 4th to get the 4th they lost back in the cooks deal. Last year they acquired bennett for a late round pick, just to lose him this year and possibly get the pick back as a comp pick (bennett/ryan/sheard for gilmore). They did similar moves for mingo and cooper (they cut cooper, but i assume the idea was to let him walk for the comp pick anyway had he stayed on the roster). The fact is we aren't active enough in the trade market and overvalue our own guys... that's the difference. Edited March 13, 2017 by dneveu
2003Contenders Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 You're absolutely correct, but good luck trying to explain this. The football IQ of some of the replies in this thread is embarrassing. I watch other teams manipulate picks years down the road with the shrewdness of a chess grandmaster, while Doug Whaley can't figure out how to open the box. Incorrect. It is. Huh? In what way is "The net-loss vs. net-gain is not purely based on head count" incorrect? That is 100% correct! For example, losing a high-priced player who is a huge factor for the acquiring team in 2017 versus acquiring a low-cost depth player who may not even make the 2017 squad does not equate to a 1-for-1 wash (meaning no compensatory pick) via the formula.
FireChan Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Huh? In what way is "The net-loss vs. net-gain is not purely based on head count" incorrect? That is 100% correct! For example, losing a high-priced player who is a huge factor for the acquiring team in 2017 versus acquiring a low-cost depth player who may not even make the 2017 squad does not equate to a 1-for-1 wash (meaning no compensatory pick) via the formula. It results in max a 7th.
YoloinOhio Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) The patriots are willing to trade bad contacts, or players who will seek better contracts before that comp pick arises. With Gilmore for example, we knew we were probably going to lose him. We also stood to lose several other players. We should have begun searching for a trade at that time like they did with collins and jones. That way we arent bound to a comp pick formula.... They also trade FOR expiring contracts, to add to their comp pick number at the end of the year. They just added Ealy (on an expiring deal) for the cost of moving from a 2nd to a 3rd, and added another 4th to get the 4th they lost back in the cooks deal. Last year they acquired bennett for a late round pick, just to lose him this year and possibly get the pick back as a comp pick (bennett/ryan/sheard for gilmore). They did similar moves for mingo and cooper (they cut cooper, but i assume the idea was to let him walk for the comp pick anyway had he stayed on the roster). The fact is we aren't active enough in the trade market and overvalue our own guys... that's the difference. the difference is that they have Tom Brady. Because of this they can trade guys like Chandler Jones and Jamie Collins and still win. The Bills cannot trade guys like Gilmore if they want to try to make the playoffs, which was the goal. They need every good player they have under contract in order to make that realistic. The Pats can mess around with every position and still win the SB. Because. Brady. Edited March 13, 2017 by YoloinOhio
xsoldier54 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 I can't believe there is an 11 page thread about losing picks that we never had in the first place.
Recommended Posts