The final word on why we only got a 5th rounder

by acrollet on Mar 25, 2009 11:45 PM EDT Comment 7 comments

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.

So it's a stupid rule, but it's a rule, and there's no "anti-Steelers bias" or knock-down for winning the Super Bowl. Doesn't take the sting off, but it's nice to know and be able to put an end to all the speculation...

0 recs | Comment 7 comments | Add comment | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

nice research

now I’m not as mad

by jonesjeffum on Mar 26, 2009 3:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Thanks!!!

by tkired on Mar 26, 2009 5:51 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily stupid

I guess the idea is that an older player doesn’t have as much left in the tank. Even if they perform at a high level for one year, they may go downhill quickly. Whereas losing a younger player in their prime is a greater loss for the team and therefore deserving of a higher compensatory pick.

by Steelin on Mar 26, 2009 7:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

at least the rule is objective for all

Interesting how no one knew that, including the newspapers and maybe the team itself. We wouldn’t have spent the last year licking our chops for a third-rounder when we never had a chance.

Thoughtful discussion with a sense of history

by maryrose on Mar 26, 2009 9:45 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

the more interest in this rule from bloggers etc, the more likely we will find out the formula...

the nfl doesn’t need a PR hit by being unfair to teams…

I'll drink your Milkshake, I'll drink it up!

by drinkyourmilkshake on Mar 26, 2009 11:31 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

agreed

I’m not sure I see the advantage to the NFL in keeping it secret – is it to try and keep teams from letting possible comp picks influence whether they keep players or not? Surely teams already do that, and just have less information to go on as it stands…

by acrollet on Mar 28, 2009 4:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs