cba fan Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 To be fair there has been a fair amount of talk from NFL they wish to do away with compensatory draft picks. This will probably put a thousand people out of work and lower Microsoft's stock price as that computer(that no one understands or can explain how they award these picks other than NE gets a couple good ones every yr..) will be shut down.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) 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. They also plan for these types of departures. They signed long (cap casualty), and already had sheard/ninkovich so they could absorb the loss of Jones. They drafted roberts, signed mcclellin who they liked enough to trade collins. This year they lost sheard, and acquired ealy. Ryan walked, so they signed gilmore. Bennett walked, so they traded nothing for allen's bad contract. Butler will probably cave and sign his tender because its a ton more money than he's recevied yet. Look for them to draft a corner early and either let him walk next season, or trade him post signing to get more value than the comp pick offers. We had no pressing need to draft gilmore's replacement, but waited until he was already gone to begin the process of replacing him. We could have signed someone last year, or drafted someone higher - instead of rb/wr/dt depth - and traded gilmore for 2017 picks. We're essentially relying on the comp pick formula to balance us out, instead of searching for alternative ways to back-fill his position. Edited March 13, 2017 by dneveu
wilcoam Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 No, we are currently negative 2 We signed 6 FA's against only losing 4 Now the Cowboys DE counts against the 2018 comp picks jc
H2o Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 It amazes me that this discussion is still going about comp picks. New levels around here. New levels.
thebandit27 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Honestly, I don't have an issue with keeping track of additions and losses of compensatory FAs for the sake of tracking. I do think it's rather silly to proclaim the loss of comp picks that the team never had as blatant stupidity less than a week into the process.
Boatdrinks Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 When you have 22 players with contacts expiring, you won't expect to be receiving comp picks in 2017. You still have to field a team in 2017.
r00tabaga Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 I wish BBMB was back up. Things were a lot cleaner here before.
BrooklynBills Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 We have lost 4 players already and are assuredly losing at least 3 more, maybe as many as 6 more. I think we are in good shape. They just brought in bodies for WR that don't count as UFAs signed also.
H2o Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 (edited) Honestly, I don't have an issue with keeping track of additions and losses of compensatory FAs for the sake of tracking. I do think it's rather silly to proclaim the loss of comp picks that the team never had as blatant stupidity less than a week into the process. That's cool and it's solid info to track, but I think the fact that we had 20+ roster spots to fill and only 6 draft picks makes it damn near impossible not to sign players. And it is ridiculous to think that we can sift through released players, post June 1 cuts, and UDFA's to fill our roster out along with trying to hold onto hopes of having any form of a competitive. I think these people going on and on so dramatically about this are clueless as to the current state of affairs. Edited March 13, 2017 by H2o
r00tabaga Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 "Winning non-conference games kills your playoff chances" is still the best thread of all time.
BrooklynBills Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 That's cool and it's solid info to track, but I think the fact that we had 20+ roster spots to fill and only 6 draft picks makes it damn near impossible not to sign players. And it is ridiculous to think that we can sift through released players, post June 1 cuts, and UDFA's to fill our roster out along with trying to hold onto hopes of having any form of a competitive. I think these people going on and on so dramatically about this are clueless as to the current state of affairs. Do we really have 20+ roster spots to fill though? I know we had a ton of FAs but alot of those guys were signed because we had a bunch of dudes go down with injury.
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 That's cool and it's solid info to track, but I think the fact that we had 20+ roster spots to fill and only 6 draft picks makes it damn near impossible not to sign players. And it is ridiculous to think that we can sift through released players, post June 1 cuts, and UDFA's to fill our roster out along with trying to hold onto hopes of having any form of a competitive. I think these people going on and on so dramatically about this are clueless as to the current state of affairs. Yeah and while were at it make the playoffs and win the Super Bowl.
BillsMedia Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 You're not a Front Office guy, leave that stuff up to them I think they know what they're doing. Nothing that happens will be uncalculated, understand that. Out of your element here.
KollegeStudnet Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 If the team was in a complete rebuild I would be all for the comp picks in 2018. However, I'm digging what they've been doing in FA.
thebandit27 Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 You're not a Front Office guy, leave that stuff up to them I think they know what they're doing. Nothing that happens will be uncalculated, understand that. Out of your element here. You're not going to enjoy this message board.
Wayne Cubed Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 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. Sorry but I agree with Gunner here, show me the causation. The Broncos, for all their smarts had 9 total comp picks from 1994 to 2014. They've only just recently started accumulating a lot of comp picks. Is that because they've had a talented team and can't keep everyone? They had already won 2 Super Bowls previously and had been to the SB in 14' and then won another SB after gaining 5 more picks. Are you suggesting those 5 picks are what led to that SB victory? And what about the Oakland Raiders? They have quietly become one of the best teams in the AFC in the past 4 years. They have received ZERO comp picks in that time. Why aren't they smartest teams in the league? What about the Atlanta Falcons, who also have received zero in the past 4 years and yet they were just in a Super Bowl and should have won? Which is further than the Cowboys have been in 22 years. Further than the Chiefs have been. And further than the Bengals have been.
BillsMedia Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 You're not going to enjoy this message board. I wasn't even trying to be a dick about it at all I just know people don't think about things like that.
Adam Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 If I asked you if signing guys like Vladimir Ducasse, Jordan Poyer & a Fulback was worth forgoing a 3rd round pick and a 4th round pick in next years draft would any smart GM say yes? Serious question, because that's what the Bills have done. You need to have a net loss of UFA's to lock in comp. picks the Bills have failed to do this. As of now, they have gained one more UFA than they've lost and they don't have many of their own UFA's left to be signed elsewhere. For a team that's no where near ready to compete for championships, to be blowing free draft picks to sign what amounts to depth players is asinine. http://overthecap.com/compensatory-draft-picks-cancellation-chart/ There are many ways to work the comp. pick system, something teams ike the Ravens, Patriots and Packers seem to do every yr., yet the Bills are still totally lost. You can use trades, pickup guys that are cut, sign guys post June 1. The NFL has put in place a system that compensates and rewards teams for losing good FA's. This year that happens to be Gilmore (3rd rounder) and Wood (4th rounder), but instead of taking advantage of this system the Bills were in a big rush to sign K's, FB's and backup OL that have essentially cost them those 2 solid draft picks. Now that comp. picks can be traded, they are even more valuable, IMO, which makes this error on the Bills part even more infuriating. Another important and often forgotten part of this is that you can fill in holes on your roster with these comp. picks for very low rookie salaries. So say you use the 3rd and 4th round comp. picks on a FB & an OL instead of Vlad Ducasse and Patrick Dimarco. So, instead of paying veteran FA's $2-$3M per year you pay guys close to the vet min. of 600-700k. That's a significant savings that can be reallocated to other areas of need on the roster. For those that want to make the argument that the rookie pleyers may suck compared to the vets that were brought in via FA......fair point: But, my counter tot hat would be to just keep guys like Felton and Corey Graham then & still pick up the free 3rd and 4th round comp. picks. This is one small aspect to roster building and player management, but it's an important one. And it's one that many of the consistently good teams have figured out how to maneuver......and one the Bills still continually EFF UP. Yes, we needed those picks so we can add players. Like we did with these signings
harmonkillebrew Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 Sorry but I agree with Gunner here, show me the causation. The Broncos, for all their smarts had 9 total comp picks from 1994 to 2014. They've only just recently started accumulating a lot of comp picks. Is that because they've had a talented team and can't keep everyone? They had already won 2 Super Bowls previously and had been to the SB in 14' and then won another SB after gaining 5 more picks. Are you suggesting those 5 picks are what led to that SB victory? And what about the Oakland Raiders? They have quietly become one of the best teams in the AFC in the past 4 years. They have received ZERO comp picks in that time. Why aren't they smartest teams in the league? What about the Atlanta Falcons, who also have received zero in the past 4 years and yet they were just in a Super Bowl and should have won? Which is further than the Cowboys have been in 22 years. Further than the Chiefs have been. And further than the Bengals have been. That doesn't show causation either. Oakland has started to turn it around recently due to some shrewd drafting. Atlanta has also drafted well recently, comp picks or not. The main thrust of the argument is that you build a consistent, winning team through the draft. Prioritize draft picks over FAs. So if signing FAs costs you more high-level comp picks, than maybe you should rethink your strategy. There is some argument that winning teams tend to prop up the value of their future FAs, but at the same time alot of those teams have drafted and groomed replacements with more long-term planning than the Bills have ever shown under Whaley. They don't hit on all their picks, but they have enough to build that kind of roster depth and let the cream rise to the top.
Wayne Cubed Posted March 13, 2017 Posted March 13, 2017 That doesn't show causation either. Oakland has started to turn it around recently due to some shrewd drafting. Atlanta has also drafted well recently, comp picks or not. The main thrust of the argument is that you build a consistent, winning team through the draft. Prioritize draft picks over FAs. So if signing FAs costs you more high-level comp picks, than maybe you should rethink your strategy. There is some argument that winning teams tend to prop up the value of their future FAs, but at the same time alot of those teams have drafted and groomed replacements with more long-term planning than the Bills have ever shown under Whaley. They don't hit on all their picks, but they have enough to build that kind of roster depth and let the cream rise to the top. Where did I say that I was showing causation? I asked to be shown it. Then I pointed out that the Oakland Raiders and Atlanta Falcons, both good teams, have had 0 comp picks in the past 4 years,
Recommended Posts