There's been much teeth gnashing in the past couple of days since the NFL announced its compensatory picks and the Steelers did not get the third-round selection everyone assumed they'd receive for the loss of Pro Bowl guard Alan Faneca, instead getting a fifth-round pick.
Turns out, it's part of the rules.
According to the compensatory pick rules, teams that lose a player with 10 or more NFL seasons under their belt are awarded a pick no higher than the fifth round for that player.
Thus the Steelers were awarded the highest pick they could have received for losing Faneca.
I guess even AdamJT13 doesn't know everything about how compensatory picks are awarded.
13 comments:
Well there we go. Thanks for clearing that up.
I can only think of 1 other guy in recent years who'd fit the bill. Donnie Edwards. In Adam's defence on that one, he predicted Donnie Edwards as a 4th round compensatory pick for the Chargers, but right on the cusp of 4th or 5th round. He had I think 12 years NFL experience at the time. At the time Adam probably just thought Edwards fell the other side of the cusp into the 5th round, as several players do every year. In reality he was probably affected by this rule which prior to today no-one outside of the NFL seems to have known about. From what we read it also seems despite having access to a booklet on the subject which AdamJT doesn't have, the Steelers didn't know about that rule either...
Last year Colbert didn't know that the transition tag woudl guarantee Starks $7m. This year it seems the FO don't know the compensatory pick rules. Better lawyers needed perhaps?
I think they just made up that rule after the fact to justify screwing the Steelers.
This pretty much cools the fire in me. Knowing that there is a rule- albeit a kind of dumb rule- in place that the league followed to a T when awarding the comp picks makes me feel a lot better about the addition of a 5th rounder. No longer is this the league totally arse-raping us, but a methodological following of the formula.
I feel people's agony over the recent rule changes is pretty out of hand as well, all things considered. Considering that they were/are considering a rule that prevents a defender from hitting a receiver who is in the air, allowing rules that prevent someone from hitting shoulder/helmet/forearm to helmet are tame by comparison. No, I don't believe that this will outlaw all crackback or blindside blocks, and I believe Ryan Clark will still annihilate receivers over the middle. Both the Clark and Ward hits, by definition of the new rules, are still legal. My real fear though is that refs will become too timid when calling penalties with the addition of these new rules, and several tickytack or non penalties will be called this season. But it's a far cry from the fears of flag football.
How stupid is an age rule?
We don't care what a team pays you, if you go to a pro bowl or if your team would have signed you if money wasn't an issue?
If the point is to compensate teams that lose good players to free agency why in the heck are salary and performance completely overridden by age?
This is worse than the baseball rule blocking the trade of draft choices because you can actually make a small case for the baseball rule.
If the steelers truly expected a third round pick for Faneca, then it is disappointing that they were unaware of this rule.
Dale I swear there was a post yesterday about Rookies visiting and I left a comment?
The whole post was deleted?
Thanks for the clear up on the comp picks by the way.
AdamJT did some more looking through past picks and found that the Steelers had been subject to this rule before, back in 1999. The Steelers lost both John Jackson (a 10 year vet) and Yancey Thigpen & Adam had predicted 3rd rounders for both. Instead they got a 3rd and a 5th. He assumed that the change in picks was for other reasons, but it's clear now that the 10 year rule was invoked.
I hate this rule, but at least now I know what actually happened.
BTW - here's the link to AdamJT's blog entry about the 10 year rule:
http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2009/03/ten-year-rule-has-been-used-before.html
I did have something about rookie visits up, Patrick, but I took it down.
I'll post more information on those at a later date as they roll in.
Colbert never said they expected a third for Faneca. That was speculation.
I believe Ed Bouchette's article on the subject did mention that the Steelers were "privately expecting a 3rd round pick". No mention of Colbert and his source could've been anyone in the organisation.
If we've been hit with it twice before (though before Colbert's time I think) you'd have to think someone in the organisation had figured out we'd only get a 5th for Faneca!
"Privately," the coaches may have been hoping for something, not knowing the rules.
Privately, one of the secretaries could have been hoping for it, not knowing the rules.
Bouchette's report about the Steelers expectations for a third round pick seem to be backed up by the reports that the team found out about the 10 year rule when they asked the league, at the owners meetings, why they were given a 5th rounder. At the level of representation they had at that meeting, we're not talking a secretary here. And they wouldn't have asked about it if they got what they were expecting to get.
I wonder how this will affect the negotiations on the 2nd contract a guy signs down the road. Look at Smith who just left for San Fran...9 years a Steeler. What if they just had put 1 less year on that 2nd contract with Faneca? If you are going to let the guy go anyway, you might as well get a high draft pick...
Post a Comment