Buffalo Gets 4th round comp pick

[HappyDays]

Using the Drafttek trade value chart, the most obvious candidate to get us our 3rd round pick back is Washington. Trade back from #28 to #36. In return we get #99 from them (last pick in the 3rd round), and a late round pick swap, something like we get #138 for #188. Washington would get two 1st round picks to support their new franchise QB and they have another 2nd round pick at #40 so the trade makes as much sense for them as it does for us.

[ExWNYer]

12 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Well clearly nobody knows the formula as well as they thought but there are some things that are very simple about it:

 

1. You lose a minority coordinator to a HC position or senior personnel guy to a GM position and you are awarded two 3rd round comp picks in the subsequent two drafts. 

 

Coaches salaries are not factored into the salary cap, and rightfully so, so it's asinine to have the hiring of coaches...minority or otherwise...factored into the compensatory pick formula, IMO. If they want to award draft picks for hiring minority coaches, that's fine, but those picks should all be given after the 'Mr. Irrelevant' selection is made. Goodell and his cronies never fail to disappoint.

[SoonerBillsFan]

21 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

Using the Drafttek trade value chart, the most obvious candidate to get us our 3rd round pick back is Washington. Trade back from #28 to #36. In return we get #99 from them (last pick in the 3rd round), and a late round pick swap, something like we get #138 for #188. Washington would get two 1st round picks to support their new franchise QB and they have another 2nd round pick at #40 so the trade makes as much sense for them as it does for us.

It depends on what WR's are there. 

[mannc]

3 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

 

Coaches salaries are not factored into the salary cap, and rightfully so, so it's asinine to have the hiring of coaches...minority or otherwise...factored into the compensatory pick formula, IMO. If they want to award draft picks for hiring minority coaches, that's fine, but those picks should all be given after the 'Mr. Irrelevant' selection is made. Goodell and his cronies never fail to disappoint.

That's the thing...the NFL doesn't actually award comp picks for hiring minority coaches...they are awarded for having your minority coaches hired away from you.  It makes absolutely no sense, but awarding teams picks for actually hiring minority coaches would be so flagrantly illegal, not even the NFL could get away with it.  It's a complete joke.   

[ExWNYer]

2 minutes ago, mannc said:

That's the thing...the NFL doesn't actually award comp picks for hiring minority coaches...they are awarded for having your minority coaches hired away from you.  It makes absolutely no sense, but awarding teams picks for actually hiring minority coaches would be so flagrantly illegal, not even the NFL could get away with it.  It's a complete joke.   

 

Regardless, my point was that, like the salary cap, coaches should not be included in the comp pick formula. It should strictly be for players lost and their salaries which directly affect the cap.

[HappyDays]

6 minutes ago, SoonerBillsFan said:

It depends on what WR's are there. 

 

Everyone seems to think at least one of Coleman, Franklin, and Legette will still be there before pick 40.

[BillsfaninChicago]

On 3/8/2024 at 2:57 PM, SydneyBillsFan said:

Why do I feel like the Griswolds when they got their hubcaps stolen in St Louis?

I have a Jelly of the Month Club vibe with this one lol

[DJB]

I want no part in trading back in round 1 just for us to pick behind KC and they grab the better WR. 
 

 

Edited March 10 by DJB

[jkeerie]

2 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Everyone seems to think at least one of Coleman, Franklin, and Legette will still be there before pick 40.

Out of that group, I would take Legette.

[mannc]

14 minutes ago, DJB said:

I want no part in trading back in round 1 just for us to pick behind KC and they grab the better WR. 
 

 

Everyone assumes KC is going to go after a WR with their first round pick (either at 32 or in a trade up), but their recent drafts have slanted heavily toward defense and it wouldn't surprise me to see them again use their first pick on a defensive player or an offensive tackle.  They have their own plan...  

Edited March 10 by mannc

[GunnerBill]

31 minutes ago, ExWNYer said:

 

Coaches salaries are not factored into the salary cap, and rightfully so, so it's asinine to have the hiring of coaches...minority or otherwise...factored into the compensatory pick formula, IMO. If they want to award draft picks for hiring minority coaches, that's fine, but those picks should all be given after the 'Mr. Irrelevant' selection is made. Goodell and his cronies never fail to disappoint.

 

I am not getting into whether the formula is right or wrong. But it is what it is.

[ExWNYer]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am not getting into whether the formula is right or wrong. But it is what it is.

 

I am not disputing that "it is what it is". We agree on that.

[HappyDays]

21 hours ago, mannc said:

It is overt and explicit discrimination on the basis of race…always illegal. The way they have structured the rule would make it a bit more  difficult to bring a successful case, but I don’t think there is any way that program would withstand legal scrutiny.

 

To be fair most of what the NFL does wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny. As an example the draft and the salary cap are laughably blatant violations of collusion laws. The league structure itself arguably represents an illegal monopoly. No one is stupid enough to slap the golden goose though, not as long as hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake and there is no measurable harm to the public.

[mannc]

7 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

To be fair most of what the NFL does wouldn't withstand legal scrutiny. As an example the draft and the salary cap are laughably blatant violations of collusion laws. The league structure itself arguably represents an illegal monopoly. No one is stupid enough to slap the golden goose though, not as long as hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake and there is no measurable harm to the public.

The draft and the salary cap are entirely legal because they are the result of collective bargaining with the players' union.  You are correct, however, that they would otherwise be illegal and could not have been unilaterally imposed by the league.  On the other hand, the awarding of incentives for the hiring of minority coaches is, to my knowledge, not part of the CBA, and at any rate, a union and an employer cannot collectively bargain to allow discrimination on the basis of race.     

[HappyDays]

4 minutes ago, mannc said:

On the other hand, the awarding of incentives for the hiring of minority coaches is, to my knowledge, not part of the CBA, and at any rate, a union and an employer cannot collectively bargain to allow discrimination on the basis of race.     

 

Someone would have to show a measurable negative impact on the hiring of white coaches to prove legal discrimination. I highly doubt any negative impact exists. I think the NFL came up with the most elegant solution they could. It is a fact that a league dominated by black players, and heavily biased towards former players as coaches, was somehow heavily imbalanced in favor of white coaches. The math didn't make sense. Still the NFL couldn't outright reward teams for hiring black coaches and GMs because the optics would have been terrible. So they have begun rewarding teams for developing and supporting their minority coaches for career advancement. To me two 3rd round comp picks is too rich of a reward but the concept makes sense and does not constitute discrimination. The NFL in fact was faced with the prospect of a real discrimination lawsuit if they didn't institute a policy like this.

[GunnerBill]

6 minutes ago, mannc said:

The draft and the salary cap are entirely legal because they are the result of collective bargaining with the players' union.  You are correct, however, that they would otherwise be illegal and could not have been unilaterally imposed by the league.  On the other hand, the awarding of incentives for the hiring of minority coaches is, to my knowledge, not part of the CBA, and at any rate, a union and an employer cannot collectively bargain to allow discrimination on the basis of race.     

 

In order to prove that the picks for minority hires policy (which I dislike because it is a gimmick not an actual way of addressing the problem it is supposed to be helping fix) equates to an employer discriminating on the basis of race you would likely have to show that there are employees being discriminated. To get there I think you'd have to get to a point where white coaches and execs can argue that they are not getting hired into those 2nd tier positions - OC, DC, Assit. GM, Director of Player Personnel - because teams are specifically hiring minorities into those jobs in the hope of earning a draft pick or two. At the moment I don't think that argument is made. One would assume if we ever got close to the point where it were the NFL would abandon its scheme because it would have served its purpose. Proving that a team is disadvantaged (by having fewer draft picks) isn't enough. A team isn't a legal person and can't be held to possess personal characteristics such as race or ethnicity.

 

 

[FireChans]

1 hour ago, HappyDays said:

Using the Drafttek trade value chart, the most obvious candidate to get us our 3rd round pick back is Washington. Trade back from #28 to #36. In return we get #99 from them (last pick in the 3rd round), and a late round pick swap, something like we get #138 for #188. Washington would get two 1st round picks to support their new franchise QB and they have another 2nd round pick at #40 so the trade makes as much sense for them as it does for us.

It all depends on how the first round shakes out. We got caught with the run on WR last year.

[mannc]

21 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

Someone would have to show a measurable negative impact on the hiring of white coaches to prove legal discrimination. I highly doubt any negative impact exists. I think the NFL came up with the most elegant solution they could. It is a fact that a league dominated by black players, and heavily biased towards former players as coaches, was somehow heavily imbalanced in favor of white coaches. The math didn't make sense. Still the NFL couldn't outright reward teams for hiring black coaches and GMs because the optics would have been terrible. So they have begun rewarding teams for developing and supporting their minority coaches for career advancement. To me two 3rd round comp picks is too rich of a reward but the concept makes sense and does not constitute discrimination. The NFL in fact was faced with the prospect of a real discrimination lawsuit if they didn't institute a policy like this.

The bolded is simply not true.  The policy is discriminatory on its face: Black coaches are given preferential treatment on the basis of their race...Teams that hire and develop them get rewarded if someone else hires them and that's not the case with white coaches. 

 

People just assume that in a league where more than 50% of the players are Black, at least 50% of the coaches and executives should also be Black, but that is a flawed premise.  There is no known correlation between success as a player and success as a head coach or GM.  If you look around the league, only about 1/3 of head coaches and a few GMs are former NFL players.  Most of the best coaches in the league right now have no NFL playing experience.  Why should the percentage of Black coaches (and especially GMs) be expected to greatly exceed the percentage of Black people in the general population?          

Edited March 10 by mannc

[HappyDays]

4 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

which I dislike because it is a gimmick not an actual way of addressing the problem it is supposed to be helping fix

 

I think it does help. I don't believe the problem was that NFL owners' racism was preventing them from hiring the best candidates. I think it was just classic nepotism which gave certain coaches an opportunity to get their foot in the door ahead of others. AKA the Buddy Ryan effect. The new policy actively encourages franchises to get their minority coaches a foot in the door at other organizations. Terry Pegula and Brandon Beane now have an incentive to campaign for Terrance Gray to get GM interviews. I've always thought if you could solve that foot in the door problem, the entire problem would go away.

 

Most importantly for the NFL's interests, now if another Brian Flores tries his hand in court the NFL can point to this policy as a clear example of promoting non-discriminatory hiring.

[mannc]

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

In order to prove that the picks for minority hires policy (which I dislike because it is a gimmick not an actual way of addressing the problem it is supposed to be helping fix) equates to an employer discriminating on the basis of race you would likely have to show that there are employees being discriminated. To get there I think you'd have to get to a point where white coaches and execs can argue that they are not getting hired into those 2nd tier positions - OC, DC, Assit. GM, Director of Player Personnel - because teams are specifically hiring minorities into those jobs in the hope of earning a draft pick or two. At the moment I don't think that argument is made. One would assume if we ever got close to the point where it were the NFL would abandon its scheme because it would have served its purpose. Proving that a team is disadvantaged (by having fewer draft picks) isn't enough. A team isn't a legal person and can't be held to possess personal characteristics such as race or ethnicity.

 

 

The bold is why I believe the policy has never been legally challenged.  Who would actually have legal standing to challenge it?  Not an easy hurdle to overcome, but the policy is discriminatory on its face.