Friday, December 11, 2009

Early comp pick projections for 2010, Part I

To begin my series of posts explaining at the compensatory pick possibilities for each team, I'll take a look at nine teams who definitely won't be getting any true comp picks in 2010. They are Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, New Orleans, the New York Giants, St. Louis and Washington. (Note that the posts in this series are not my final projections and are subject to change, but they are my best estimations at this point in time.) There might be other teams that won't get any comp picks, either, and they will be addressed later in the series.

Click here to review the Unrestricted Free Agents lost and signed by each team during the qualifying period of the 2009 offseason.

As a reminder, teams cannot receive a true comp pick if they signed more qualifying players than they lost. If they signed as many as they lost, the only true comp pick they could get is what I call a "net value" comp pick. Those are awarded at the end of the seventh round, after the normal comp picks. To get a "net value" pick, a team must have lost the same number of qualifying players as they signed, and the players they lost must have a combined value that is significantly higher than the players they signed.

Here's the situation for each of these nine teams —

Cleveland — The Browns signed three players who will qualify and two more who might qualify. They lost only one player who definitely will qualify and two others who are on the bubble to qualify. Even if both bubble players that were lost qualify for the equation and neither of the bubble players the Browns signed qualify, the combined value of the players signed is greater than that of the players lost. That means the Browns won't even get a "net value" comp pick.

Dallas — The Cowboys signed three qualifying players and lost two, plus one who is on the bubble for qualifying. Even if the bubble player qualifies and the Cowboys break even in the equation, the values on each side of the ledger are too close for the Cowboys to get a "net value" pick.

Denver — The Broncos lost only one qualifying player and signed 10. They definitely won't get anything.

Detroit — The Lions lost three qualifying players and one who might qualify. They signed seven players who qualify, so they will not get a comp pick.

Houston — The Texans lost only one qualifying player and signed three.

New Orleans — The Saints lost only one qualifying player. They signed three who will qualify and two more who are on the bubble.

New York Giants — The Giants lost two players who will qualify and one who might qualify. They signed four players who will qualify.

St. Louis — The Rams lost only one player who might qualify. They signed three players who will qualify and one who might.

Washington — The Redskins lost only one player who will qualify (Demetric Evans). They signed one who definitely will qualify (Albert Haynesworth) and two others who are on the bubble. Even if neither of the bubble players qualifies, Haynesworth's value is far greater than Evans' value, so the Redskins would not get a "net value" pick.

A few of those teams have a chance to get an additional non-compensatory pick, if the NFL awards fewer than 32 true comp picks. If fewer than 32 are awarded, the NFL adds picks as if the eighth round were starting, until a total of 32 additional comp picks and non-comp picks have been awarded.

The Rams, Browns, Lions, Redskins and possibly the Texans could be in contention for non-comp picks, depending on their position in the final draft order and how many non-comp picks are awarded, if any.


Anonymous said...

Nice... I cant wait til you get to the Atlanta Falcons... Allot of us discuss this at the Official Atlanta Falcons message board... I think we will receive a 4th, 5th, and 7th round comp pick.... I want to see what you think we will get. (Atlanta Falcons)

Anonymous said...

How do you see the Steelers comp picks working out?

I see two 4ths for McFadden and Washington, then a 6th for Leftwich.

Will Marvel Smith count for anything?