AdamJT13

A note about the 2011 comp picks

2011-03-21T02:28:00.000-07:00

   The 2011 compensatory picks should be awarded this week during the NFL Annual Meeting in New Orleans, possibly as soon as today. [UPDATE: The announcement is not expected this week. See the note below.] Obviously, I did not post projections this year, which marks the first time since 2001 that I haven't done so. Call it another consequence of the NFL's labor dispute, although it pales in comparison to the consequences for the thousands of people whose livelihood has been affected or will be affected if the labor dispute continues.

   My goal in projecting the comp picks has always been to try to solve the puzzle — to analyze the comp picks that have been awarded and the factors involved enough to be able to achieve 100 percent accuracy, with every pick in the correct round and all of them in the correct order. It might have been an impossible goal, but I had fun trying. With the NFL's Collective Bargaining Agreement now expired, there is no guarantee that there will ever be compensatory picks awarded after this week — or, for that matter, that the draft will continue as we know it after next month. For that reason, I chose not to spend the time that it takes to make my projections. Had the owners and players resolved their issues before the CBA expired, thus ensuring that comp picks would continue to be awarded each year, I would have projected this year's picks and posted my projections, as usual. If the next CBA includes comp picks, I fully plan to resume making my projections for my own entertainment and for the benefit of anyone who might be interested.

   I do plan to analyze this year's picks after they are awarded, and I should be able to post a breakdown of which picks were awarded for which specific players. I'll also try to answer any questions posted here about this year's picks or about comp picks in general.

   UPDATE: According to ESPN.com's Mike Reiss, the comp picks will not be announced during the Annual Meeting, as they usually are. They will be announced at a later date.

The trade value of NFL draft picks

2010-04-18T02:57:00.000-07:00

By now, surely every NFL general manager, every draftnik and everyone who claims to be a professional draft expert has seen a version of the draft pick value chart. Many fans consider strict adherence to the value chart to be mandatory when discussing possible or proposed trades between teams. The values must balance out to ensure that neither team is giving up too much or receiving too little. In reality, though, draft picks are worth only what two teams decide they're worth. Some teams might be willing to pay more to trade up for a player they really like or take less to trade down when they have multiple players they like and know they can get one with a lower pick. And it's not always possible to find a trading partner with exactly the right combination of picks to make the trade balance out using the values on the chart. A look at the trades made by teams from 1993 to 2009 makes it apparent that teams usually don't quibble over a few points on the value chart: 59 percent of the trades were simple two-for-one deals, and only 11 percent involved more than one pick going to each team.

The value chart can be a handy reference tool, but it's only a guide. Another — perhaps more accurate — way of determining the value of draft picks is to look at previous trades involving those picks. After all, the true value of draft picks is determined by the teams themselves, not the chart.

Below is a list that should include every trade from 1993 to 2009 that involved only draft picks (not players). If there are any trades missing, they would be picks-only trades made that were made well before draft day. Picks in the following year's draft are referred to as "next 1st," "next 2nd," etc. And those are not typos at the end of the 1995 and 1997 trades. Two teams — New England in 1995 and Green Bay in 1997 — really did trade a higher pick for a lower pick, straight up. The Patriots moved down just three spots, but the Packers moved down 20 spots and got absolutely nothing extra in return. GM Ron Wolf said he "just wanted to make a trade."

With that said, here's the list —

1993 DRAFT

11 = 14, 83
13 = 19, 75
18 = 20, 116
20 = 26, 81
29, 112 = 46, 54, 94, 213
33 = 36, 120
41 = 58, 81
41, 82, 110, 138 = 48, next 1st
44 = 49, 107
64 = 82, 104
65 = 73, 127
72 = 81, 152
92 = 100, 156
99 = 110, 138
112 = 119, 156

1994 DRAFT

5 = 7, 83
7 = 15, 56, 100
12 = 13, 144
16 = 20, 89
23, 217 = 28, 62
29 = 40, next 2nd
37 = 40, 118
52 = 55, 125
53 = 84, 149, 175, 190
65 = 89, 115, 121
80 = 94, 152
107 = 121, 135
120 = 126, 169

1995 DRAFT

1 = 5, 36
7, 72 = 12, 43, 63
10 = 30, 94, 119, next 1st
19 = 31, 97, 134, next 4th
22, 188 = 32, 63, 173
28 = 41, 63
29 = 34, 98, 100
33 = 40, 71
41 = 46, 110
51 = next 1st
70 = 82, 115
84 = 90, 160
111 = 121, 196
112 = next 3rd
123 = 136, next 6th
119 = 147, next 5th
138 = 152, 226
169, 219 = 208, 210, 248
191 = next 6th
231 = 234

1996 DRAFT

9 = 17, 48, 109
13 = 18, 83, 201
17 = 21, 91
30 = 37, 67
41 = next 1st
49 = 60, 99
55 = 65, 100, 213
57 = 76, 124, 149
60, 99 = 79, 98, 134, 150
76 = 86, 119, 195
97 = 112, 137
98, next 7th = 113, 125
99 = 110, 146
111 = 122, 159, 235
135 = 161, 162
157 = next 4th
192 = next 5th

1997 DRAFT

1 = 6, 67, 102, 207
3, 63 = 11, 41, 70, 100
6 = 8, 104
6 = 12, 63
13, 110 = 18, 91, 116, 181
22 = 25, 155, next 3rd
38 = 40, 173
54 = 65, 101
55 = 57, 190, 227
67 = 88, 191, 229, next 6th
71 = 84, 188
77 = 86, 156
107 = 116, 165
112 = 121, 170, 173
123 = 157, 166, 203
138 = 215, next 4th
140 = 180, 222
146, 218 = next 3rd
193 = 213

1998 DRAFT

19 = 29, 60
23 = 34, 59
41 = 56, 87, 149
43 = 1st in two years (2000)
45 = 53, 114
59 = 1st in two years (2000)
60 = 79, 143, 172
65 = 67, 195
70 = 85, 116
93 = 103, 124, 154
102 = 112, 142
104 = next 3rd
109 = 113, 191
137 = 199, 203, 215
138 = 162, 197
152 = 156, next 6th
200 = next 6th
215 = next 6th

1999 DRAFT

5 = 12, 71, 107, 144, 179, 218, next 1st, next 3rd
7 = 12, 71, 106, 143, next 3rd
17 = 20, 82, 191
20 = 22, 140
24 = 27, 134
27 = 39, 70, 142
37 = 40, 144
40, 102 = 47, 78, 111
42 = next 1st
43 = 54, 84, next 6th
44 = 59, 73, 163
46 = 52, 117
70 = 72, 232
96 = 99, 171
137 = next 4th
146, 163 = next 3rd
165 = 179, 218
170 = 187, 191
174 = 184, 207
182 = 195, 233
207 = 221, 253

2000 DRAFT

3 = 12, 24, 119, 154
10 = 15, 45
12 = 16, 48
51 = 57, 120
61 = 68, 135
86 = 119, 154
98 = 108, 132
111 = next 3rd
104 = 125, 150, 225
138 = 158, 195
150 = 170, 209
154 = 175, 231
209, 225 = 223, 232, 254
212 = next 6th
231 = next 6th
238 = next 6th

2001 DRAFT

7, 191 = 9, 82, 222
14 = 21, 51
22 = 30, 91, 193
37 = 52, 81
39 = 50, 112
48 = 50, 173
51 = 58, 110
52 = 56, 122
53 = 70, 81
61 = 78, 114
69 = 86, 119
88, 187 = next 2nd
96 = 112, 139
145 = 154, 186
149 = 180, 216
170 = next 5th
215, 219, 226 = next 4th

2002 DRAFT

6 = 8, 75, next 6th
14 = 15, 110
18 = 21, 89
17 = 18, 158
20, 156 = 28, 60
21 = 32, 96, 234
52, 96 = 56, 87
61 = 69, 102
63, 129 = 72, 104, 140
67 = 73, 145
79 = 89, 118
96 = 112, 155
116 = next 3rd
117 = 131, 144
122 = 147, 189
168 = 237, next 5th

2003 DRAFT

4 = 13, 22, 116
6, 37, 102 = 17, 18, 54
13 = 14, 193
15 = 30, 62
16 = 27, 92, 200
19 = 41, next 1st
36, 117 = 41, 75
45 = 50, 120
78 = next 2nd
79 = 94, 127
82 = 108, 120, 227
83, 262 = next 2nd
120 = 128, 157
138 = next 4th
143 = 176, 193, 218
147 = 165, 203
150, 200 = 153, 189
154, 225 = 164, 201, 243
166 = 185, 244
181 = 226, 247
245 = next 6th

2004 DRAFT

1 = 4, 65, next 1st, next 5th
6 = 7, 37
16 = 28, 58
19 = 20, 119
22 = 43, 144, next 1st
24 = 26, 123
27, 159 = 40, 71, 103, 138
28 = 31, 127
29, 90 = 38, 69, 125
30 = 36, 105, next5th
38 = 44, 107
48 = 50, 151
55 = 70, 102
59, 161 = 68, 141, 173
72 = 86, 118
81, 151 = 139, next 2nd
82 = 88, 155
87 = 102, 153
104 = 112, 147
153 = 160, 222
156 = 182, 206
159 = 175, 210
174 = 186, 219
179 = 188, 226
182 = 205, 223

2005 DRAFT

13 = 16, next 3rd
23 = 26, 105
25 = 76, next 1st, next 4th
37 = 41, 113
45 = 54, 121
64 = 84, 195, next 3rd
89 = 115, 126
94 = 102, 175
112 = 120, 154
123 = 127, 185
126 = 167, 175, 245
132, next 6th = 148, next 4th
144 = 155, 231
145, 206 = next 4th
148 = next 4th
175 = 195, 246
175 = 230, next 5th

2006 DRAFT

11 = 15, 68
12 = 13, 181
22 = 37, 68
25 = 32, 96, 129
26 = 42, 73
35 = 53, 189, next 2nd
36 = 52, 75
37, 139 = 47, 93, 148
39 = 45, 116
44 = 56, 87
49 = 53, 189, 211
64 = 83, 95
71 = 76, 220
80 = 92, 125
93 = 109, 183
109 = 115, 185
138 = 150, 189
197 = 213, 236
238 = next 6th

2007 DRAFT

14, 191 = 25, 59, 164
17 = 21, 86, 198
22 = 36, next 1st
26 = 36, 87, 159
28 = 110, next 1st
33 = 38, 105
34 = 43, 74
37 = 62, 93, 167, next 3rd
41 = 44, 121
42 = 126, next 1st
47, 235 = 63, 89, 191
53, 195 = 67, 103, 178
58 = 66, 145
61 = 74, 101
86 = 101, 166, 203
91 = 211, next 3rd
102 = 106, 182
107 = 123, 163
112 = 119, 192
117 = 139, 154
121 = 176, 233, next 3rd
149 = 194, 198, 203
195 = 200, 234

2008 DRAFT

7, 164 = 10, 78
8 = 26, 71, 89, 125
15, 76 = 17, 66, 136
18 = 26, 89, 173
19 = 43, 109, next 1st
21, 84, 154 = 34, 48, 103
25 = 28, 163, 235
30 = 36, 113
38 = 55, 86
43, 152 = 47, 117
52 = 58, 158, next 7th
64 = 66, 176
69 = 160, next 2nd
92 = 111, next 4th
103 = 124, 157
100 = 104, 213
102 = 113, 162
104 = 122, 155
110 = 115, 208
111 = next 3rd
115, 175 = 120, 158
123 = 130, 194
128 = 137, 217
137 = 150, 209
143 = 155, 213
144 = 146, 218
153 = 160, 238
157, 228 = 168, 180
191 = next 5th
237 = next 6th

2009 DRAFT

17 = 19, 191
19 = 21, 195
23 = 26, 162
26, 162 = 41, 73, 83
37 = next 1st
40, 164 = 47, 124, 199
43, 111 = next 1st
49 = 68, 105
51 = 75, 110
56 = 61, 165
64, 132 = 79, 84
65 = 76, 115, 228
73 = 232, next 2nd
85 = 91, 164
89 = next 2nd
91 = 137, 213, next 3rd
117 = 120, 229
123, 198 = 137, 141
141 = 156, 210
150 = 158, 221
164 = 222, next 5th
174 = 235, next 5th
202 = 216, next 6th
222 = next 6th
237 = next 7th

Values for trading down

Here's the same list (minus the Patriots' 1995 trade from 231 to 234 and the Packers' 1997 trade from 193 to 213) in order of the highest pick traded by the team that traded down —

1 = 4, 65, next 1st, next 5th
1 = 5, 36
1 = 6, 67, 102, 207
3, 63 = 11, 41, 70, 100
3 = 12, 24, 119, 154
4 = 13, 22, 116
5 = 7, 83
5 = 12, 71, 107, 144, 179, 218, next 1st, next 3rd
6 = 7, 37
6 = 12, 63
6 = 8, 75, next 6th
6 = 8, 104
6, 37, 102 = 17, 18, 54
7, 191 = 9, 82, 222
7, 164 = 10, 78
7, 72 = 12, 43, 63
7 = 12, 71, 106, 143, next 3rd
7 = 15, 56, 100
8 = 26, 71, 89, 125
9 = 17, 48, 109
10 = 15, 45
10 = 30, 94, 119, next 1st
11 = 14, 83
11 = 15, 68
12 = 13, 144
12 = 13, 181
12 = 16, 48
13 = 14, 193
13 = 16, next 3rd
13 = 18, 83, 201
13, 110 = 18, 91, 116, 181
13 = 19, 75
14 = 15, 110
14 = 21, 51
14, 191 = 25, 59, 164
15, 76 = 17, 66, 136
15 = 30, 62
16 = 20, 89
16 = 27, 92, 200
16 = 28, 58
17 = 18, 158
17 = 19, 191
17 = 20, 82, 191
17 = 21, 86, 198
17 = 21, 91
18 = 20, 116
18 = 21, 89
18 = 26, 89, 173
19 = 20, 119
19 = 21, 195
19 = 29, 60
19 = 31, 97, 134, next 4th
19 = 41, next 1st
19 = 43, 109, next 1st
20 = 22, 140
20 = 26, 81
20, 156 = 28, 60
21 = 32, 96, 234
21, 84, 154 = 34, 48, 103
22 = 25, 155, next 3rd
22 = 30, 91, 193
22, 188 = 32, 63, 173
22 = 36, next 1st
22 = 37, 68
22 = 43, 144, next 1st
23 = 26, 105
23 = 26, 162
23, 217 = 28, 62
23 = 34, 59
24 = 26, 123
24 = 27, 134
25 = 28, 163, 235
25 = 32, 96, 129
25 = 76, next 1st, next 4th
26 = 36, 87, 159
26, 162 = 41, 73, 83
26 = 42, 73
27 = 39, 70, 142
27, 159 = 40, 71, 103, 138
28 = 110, next 1st
28 = 31, 127
28 = 41, 63
29 = 34, 98, 100
29, 90 = 38, 69, 125
29 = 40, next 2nd
29, 112 = 46, 54, 94, 213
30 = 36, 105, next 5th
30 = 36, 113
30 = 37, 67
33 = 36, 120
33 = 38, 105
33 = 40, 71
34 = 43, 74
35 = 53, 189, next 2nd
36, 117 = 41, 75
36 = 52, 75
37 = 40, 118
37 = 40, 144
37 = 41, 113
37, 139 = 47, 93, 148
37 = 52, 81
37 = 62, 93, 167, next 3rd
37 = next 1st
38 = 40, 173
38 = 44, 107
38 = 55, 86
39 = 45, 116
39 = 50, 112
40, 102 = 47, 78, 111
40, 164 = 47, 124, 199
41 = 44, 121
41 = 46, 110
41, 82, 110, 138 = 48, next 1st
41 = 56, 87, 149
41 = 58, 81
41 = next 1st
42 = 126, next 1st
42 = next 1st
43, 111 = next 1st
43 = 1st in two years
43, 152 = 47, 117
43 = 54, 84, next 6th
44 = 49, 107
44 = 56, 87
44 = 59, 73, 163
45 = 50, 120
45 = 53, 114
45 = 54, 121
46 = 52, 117
47, 235 = 63, 89, 191
48 = 50, 151
48 = 50, 173
49 = 53, 189, 211
49 = 60, 99
49 = 68, 105
51 = 57, 120
51 = 58, 110
51 = 75, 110
51 = next 1st
52 = 55, 125
52 = 56, 122
52 = 58, 158, next 7th
52, 96 = 56, 87
53, 195 = 67, 103, 178
53 = 70, 81
53 = 84, 149, 175, 190
54 = 65, 101
55 = 57, 190, 227
55 = 65, 100, 213
55 = 70, 102
56 = 61, 165
57 = 76, 124, 149
58 = 66, 145
59 = 1st in two years
59, 161 = 68, 141, 173
60 = 79, 143, 172
60, 99 = 79, 98, 134, 150
61 = 68, 135
61 = 69, 102
61 = 74, 101
61 = 78, 114
63, 129 = 72, 104, 140
64 = 66, 176
64, 132 = 79, 84
64 = 82, 104
64 = 83, 95
64 = 84, 195, next 3rd
65 = 67, 195
65 = 73, 127
65 = 76, 115, 228
65 = 89, 115, 121
67 = 73, 145
67 = 88, 191, 229, next 6th
69 = 160, next 2nd
69 = 86, 119
70 = 72, 232
70 = 82, 115
70 = 85, 116
71 = 76, 220
71 = 84, 188
72 = 81, 152
72 = 86, 118
73 = 232, next 2nd
76 = 86, 119, 195
77 = 86, 156
78 = next 2nd
79 = 89, 118
79 = 94, 127
80 = 92, 125
80 = 94, 152
81, 151 = 139, next 2nd
82 = 108, 120, 227
82 = 88, 155
83, 262 = next 2nd
84 = 90, 160
85 = 91, 164
86 = 101, 166, 203
86 = 119, 154
87 = 102, 153
88, 187 = next 2nd
89 = 115, 126
89 = next 2nd
91 = 137, 213, next 3rd
91 = 211, next 3rd
92 = 100, 156
92 = 111, next 4th
93 = 103, 124, 154
93 = 109, 183
94 = 102, 175
96 = 112, 139
96 = 112, 155
96 = 99, 171
97 = 112, 137
98 = 108, 132
98, next 7th = 113, 125
99 = 110, 138
99 = 110, 146
100 = 104, 213
102 = 106, 182
102 = 112, 142
102 = 113, 162
103 = 124, 157
104 = 112, 147
104 = 122, 155
104 = 125, 150, 225
104 = next 3rd
107 = 116, 165
107 = 121, 135
107 = 123, 163
109 = 113, 191
109 = 115, 185
110 = 115, 208
111 = 121, 196
111 = 122, 159, 235
111 = next 3rd
111 = next 3rd
112 = 119, 156
112 = 119, 192
112 = 120, 154
112 = 121, 170, 173
112 = next 3rd
115, 175 = 120, 158
116 = next 3rd
117 = 120, 229
117 = 131, 144
117 = 139, 154
119 = 147, next 5th
120 = 126, 169
120 = 128, 157
121 = 176, 233, next 3rd
122 = 147, 189
123 = 127, 185
123 = 130, 194
123 = 136, next 6th
123, 198 = 137, 141
123 = 157, 166, 203
126 = 167, 175, 245
128 = 137, 217
132, next 6th = 148, next 4th
135 = 161, 162
137 = 150, 209
137 = 199, 203, 215
137 = next 4th
138 = 150, 189
138 = 152, 226
138 = 158, 195
138 = 162, 197
138 = 215, next 4th
138 = next 4th
140 = 180, 222
141 = 156, 210
143 = 155, 213
143 = 176, 193, 218
144 = 146, 218
144 = 155, 231
145 = 154, 186
145, 206 = next 4th
146, 163 = next 3rd
146, 218 = next 3rd
147 = 165, 203
148 = next 4th
149 = 180, 216
149 = 194, 198, 203
150, 200 = 153, 189
150 = 158, 221
150 = 170, 209
152 = 156, next 6th
153 = 160, 222
153 = 160, 238
154, 225 = 164, 201, 243
154 = 175, 231
156 = 182, 206
157 = next 4th
157, 228 = 168, 180
159 = 175, 210
164 = 222, next 5th
165 = 179, 218
166 = 185, 244
168 = 237, next 5th
169, 219 = 208, 210, 248
170 = 187, 191
170 = next 5th
174 = 184, 207
174 = 186, 219
174 = 235, next 5th
175 = 195, 246
175 = 230, next 5th
179 = 188, 226
181 = 226, 247
182 = 195, 233
182 = 205, 223
191 = next 5th
191 = next 6th
192 = next 5th
195 = 200, 234
197 = 213, 236
200 = next 6th
202 = 216, next 6th
207 = 221, 253
209, 225 = 223, 232, 254
212 = next 6th
215, 219, 226 = next 4th
215 = next 6th
222 = next 6th
231 = next 6th
237 = next 6th
237 = next 7th
238 = next 6th
238 = next 6th
245 = next 6th

Values for trading up

Here's the same list (minus the Patriots' 1995 trade from 231 to 234 and the Packers' 1997 trade from 193 to 213) in order of the highest pick traded by the team that traded up —

4, 65, next 1st, next 5th = 1
5, 36 = 1
6, 67, 102, 207 = 1
7, 83 = 5
7, 37 = 6
8, 75, next 6th = 6
8, 104 = 6
9, 82, 222 = 7, 191
10, 78 = 7, 164
11, 41, 70, 100 = 3, 63
12, 24, 119, 154 = 3
12, 71, 107, 144, 179, 218, next 1st, next 3rd = 5
12, 63 = 6
12, 43, 63 = 7, 72
12, 71, 106, 143, next 3rd = 7
13, 22, 116 = 4
13, 144 = 12
13, 181 = 12
14, 83 = 11
14, 193 = 13
15, 56, 100 = 7
15, 45 = 10
15, 68 = 11
15, 110 = 14
16, 48 = 12
16, next 3rd = 13
17, 18, 54 = 6, 37, 102
17, 48, 109 = 9
17, 66, 136 = 15, 76
18, 83, 201 = 13
18, 91, 116, 181 = 13, 110
18, 158 = 17
19, 75 = 13
19, 191 = 17
20, 89 = 16
20, 82, 191 = 17
20, 116 = 18
20, 119 = 19
21, 51 = 14
21, 86, 198 = 17
21, 91 = 17
21, 89 = 18
21, 195 = 19
22, 140 = 20
25, 59, 164 = 14, 191
25, 155, next 3rd = 22
26, 71, 89, 125 = 8
26, 89, 173 = 18
26, 81 = 20
26, 105 = 23
26, 162 = 23
26, 123 = 24
27, 92, 200 = 16
27, 134 = 24
28, 58 = 16
28, 60 = 20, 156
28, 62 = 23, 217
28, 163, 235 = 25
29, 60 = 19
30, 94, 119, next 1st = 10
30, 62 = 15
30, 91, 193 = 22
31, 97, 134, next 4th = 19
31, 127 = 28
32, 96, 234 = 21
32, 63, 173 = 22, 188
32, 96, 129 = 25
34, 48, 103 = 21, 84, 154
34, 59 = 23
34, 98, 100 = 29
36, next 1st = 22
36, 87, 159 = 26
36, 105, next 5th = 30
36, 113 = 30
36, 120 = 33
37, 68 = 22
37, 67 = 30
38, 69, 125 = 29, 90
38, 105 = 33
39, 70, 142 = 27
40, 71, 103, 138 = 27, 159
40, next 2nd = 29
40, 71 = 33
40, 118 = 37
40, 144 = 37
40, 173 = 38
41, next 1st = 19
41, 73, 83 = 26, 162
41, 63 = 28
41, 75 = 36, 117
41, 113 = 37
42, 73 = 26
43, 109, next 1st = 19
43, 144, next 1st = 22
43, 74 = 34
44, 107 = 38
44, 121 = 41
45, 116 = 39
46, 54, 94, 213 = 29, 112
46, 110 = 41
47, 93, 148 = 37, 139
47, 78, 111 = 40, 102
47, 124, 199 = 40, 164
47, 117 = 43, 152
48, next 1st = 41, 82, 110, 138
49, 107 = 44
50, 112 = 39
50, 120 = 45
50, 151 = 48
50, 173 = 48
52, 75 = 36
52, 81 = 37
52, 117 = 46
53, 189, next 2nd = 35
53, 114 = 45
53, 189, 211 = 49
54, 84, next 6th = 43
54, 121 = 45
55, 86 = 38
55, 125 = 52
56, 87, 149 = 41
56, 87 = 44
56, 122 = 52
56, 87 = 52, 96
57, 120 = 51
57, 190, 227 = 55
58, 81 = 41
58, 110 = 51
58, 158, next 7th = 52
59, 73, 163 = 44
60, 99 = 49
61, 165 = 56
62, 93, 167, next 3rd = 37
63, 89, 191 = 47, 235
65, 101 = 54
65, 100, 213 = 55
66, 145 = 58
66, 176 = 64
67, 103, 178 = 53, 195
67, 195 = 65
68, 105 = 49
68, 141, 173 = 59, 161
68, 135 = 61
69, 102 = 61
70, 81 = 53
70, 102 = 55
72, 104, 140 = 63, 129
72, 232 = 70
73, 127 = 65
73, 145 = 67
74, 101 = 61
75, 110 = 51
76, next 1st, next 4th = 25
76, 124, 149 = 57
76, 115, 228 = 65
76, 220 = 71
78, 114 = 61
79, 143, 172 = 60
79, 98, 134, 150 = 60, 99
79, 84 = 64, 132
81, 152 = 72
82, 104 = 64
82, 115 = 70
83, 95 = 64
84, 149, 175, 190 = 53
84, 195, next 3rd = 64
84, 188 = 71
85, 116 = 70
86, 119 = 69
86, 118 = 72
86, 119, 195 = 76
86, 156 = 77
88, 191, 229, next 6th = 67
88, 155 = 82
89, 115, 121 = 65
89, 118 = 79
90, 160 = 84
91, 164 = 85
92, 125 = 80
94, 127 = 79
94, 152 = 80
99, 171 = 96
100, 156 = 92
101, 166, 203 = 86
102, 153 = 87
102, 175 = 94
103, 124, 154 = 93
104, 213 = 100
106, 182 = 102
108, 120, 227 = 82
108, 132 = 98
109, 183 = 93
110, next 1st = 28
110, 138 = 99
110, 146 = 99
111, next 4th = 92
112, 139 = 96
112, 155 = 96
112, 137 = 97
112, 142 = 102
112, 147 = 104
113, 125 = 98, next 7th
113, 162 = 102
113, 191 = 109
115, 126 = 89
115, 185 = 109
115, 208 = 110
116, 165 = 107
119, 154 = 86
119, 156 = 112
119, 192 = 112
120, 154 = 112
120, 158 = 115, 175
120, 229 = 117
121, 135 = 107
121, 196 = 111
121, 170, 173 = 112
122, 155 = 104
122, 159, 235 = 111
123, 163 = 107
124, 157 = 103
125, 150, 225 = 104
126, next 1st = 42
126, 169 = 120
127, 185 = 123
128, 157 = 120
130, 194 = 123
131, 144 = 117
136, next 6th = 123
137, 213, next 3rd = 91
137, 141 = 123, 198
137, 217 = 128
139, next 2nd = 81, 151
139, 154 = 117
146, 218 = 144
147, next 5th = 119
147, 189 = 122
148, next 4th = 132, next 6th
150, 209 = 137
150, 189 = 138
152, 226 = 138
153, 189 = 150, 200
154, 186 = 145
155, 213 = 143
155, 231 = 144
156, 210 = 141
156, next 6th = 152
157, 166, 203 = 123
158, 195 = 138
158, 221 = 150
160, next 2nd = 69
160, 222 = 153
160, 238 = 153
161, 162 = 135
162, 197 = 138
164, 201, 243 = 154, 225
165, 203 = 147
167, 175, 245 = 126
168, 180 = 157, 228
170, 209 = 150
175, 231 = 154
175, 210 = 159
176, 233, next 3rd = 121
176, 193, 218 = 143
179, 218 = 165
180, 222 = 140
180, 216 = 149
182, 206 = 156
184, 207 = 174
185, 244 = 166
186, 219 = 174
187, 191 = 170
188, 226 = 179
194, 198, 203 = 149
195, 246 = 175
195, 233 = 182
199, 203, 215 = 137
200, 234 = 195
205, 223 = 182
208, 210, 248 = 169, 219
211, next 3rd = 91
213, 236 = 197
215, next 4th = 138
216, next 6th = 202
221, 253 = 207
222, next 5th = 164
223, 232, 254 = 209, 225
226, 247 = 181
230, next 5th = 175
232, next 2nd = 73
235, next 5th = 174
237, next 5th = 168
next 1st = 37
next 1st = 41
next 1st = 42
next 1st = 43, 111
next 1st = 51
next 2nd = 78
next 2nd = 83, 262
next 2nd = 88, 187
next 2nd = 89
next 3rd = 104
next 3rd = 111
next 3rd = 111
next 3rd = 112
next 3rd = 116
next 3rd = 146, 163
next 3rd = 146, 218
next 4th = 137
next 4th = 138
next 4th = 145, 206
next 4th = 148
next 4th = 157
next 4th = 215, 219, 226
next 5th = 170
next 5th = 191
next 5th = 192
next 6th = 191
next 6th = 200
next 6th = 212
next 6th = 215
next 6th = 222
next 6th = 231
next 6th = 237
next 6th = 238
next 6th = 238
next 6th = 245
next 7th = 237
1st in two years = 43
1st in two years = 59

Edited March 21, 2011: A 2007 trade was originally noted as "14 = 25, 59, 164." It actually was "14, 191 = 25, 59, 164." ESPN.com's Mike Sando gets the credit for spotting the error.

Should comp picks affect teams' personnel decisions?

2010-04-04T19:36:00.000-07:00

When the Seattle Seahawks signed Unrestricted Free Agent special-teamer Sean Morey to a three-year contract last week, ESPN.com blogger Mike Sando noticed that the Seahawks might have cost themselves a compensatory draft pick in 2011 while also giving the rival Arizona Cardinals a comp pick for the loss of Morey.

Based on speculation by ESPN.com reporter John Clayton, Sando said Morey might cost the Seahawks a sixth-round comp pick that they could have gotten for losing Cory Redding to the Baltimore Ravens. Clayton's speculation might be a bit optimistic. Redding signed for $2.5 million per season, not the $3 million that Clayton reported, so he would be on the borderline for a sixth- or seventh-round pick, depending on his playing time in 2010. (Clayton's speculation that the Seahawks could get a fourth-round comp pick for Nate Burleson might be optimistic, too. Burleson's $5 million-per-year contract would put him on the borderline for a fourth- or fifth-round pick, depending on playing time.)

It's true that Morey could cost the Seahawks a comp pick if their list of qualifying players lost (Burleson and Redding) and signed (Morey) does not change, but is it really a poor decision for a team to forgo what might be a late seventh-round draft pick in order to sign a former Pro Bowl special-teamer? Even if Redding ends up with a sixth-round value in the comp picks formula, how likely is it that a late sixth-round draft choice will be more than a special-teams contributor, anyway? Yes, a team could strike gold with a late sixth-round choice, but it's also possible that the player taken with that pick won't even make the team. Morey, on the other hand, is a known commodity. The Seahawks very well might have taken potential comp picks into account and decided that Morey would be worth more than the comp pick they might get for losing Redding.

The Seahawks' situation might not be the best example of a team costing itself a comp pick because of a poor decision in free agency, but it does raise the issue of whether teams should factor comp picks into their personnel decisions. Sando noted that "the Cardinals' decision to sign UFA fullback Jason Wright might have cost the team a 2010 third- or fourth-round compensatory choice for losing Antonio Smith." Based on the fact that Baltimore received a third-rounder for Dominique Foxworth, the Cardinals surely would have gotten a third-rounder for Smith.

After this year's comp picks were awarded, Darren Urban, who blogs for the Cardinals' official Web site, responded to one fan's criticism of the team's front office by saying, "If you are managing your free agency based on hoping for a certain comp pick, you aren’t running your football team correctly." I would agree with Urban, to some extent. In fact, I would argue that it wasn't the Cardinals' decision to sign Wright in free agency that cost them a third-round comp pick, rather it was their decision to keep the third-string running back on their roster past Week 9. When they signed Wright in March 2009, they couldn't have known if, for example, they would be able to draft Beanie Wells a month later, or if Wells or Tim Hightower would get hurt early in the season and force Wright to get more playing time. But by Week 9, the Cardinals had Wells and Hightower carrying the load at running back and Wright contributing very little on offense while playing a fair amount on special teams. If they had waived Wright at that point in the season, he would not have counted in the comp picks equation, and the Cardinals would have received that third-round comp pick for losing Smith. Instead, they kept Wright all season. After Week 9, including the playoffs, he had only nine touches for 53 yards on offense, although he did play more than half of the snaps on special teams. Is that type of production from a six-year veteran worth a late third-round draft pick? I don't think it is. Wright is unlikely to develop into anything more than the player he is right now, but a player drafted in the third round is reasonably likely to develop into someone who can contribute more than Wright will – possibly much more. And if the Cardinals had waived Wright and either Wells or Hightower had gotten injured later in the season, the Cardinals could have simply re-signed Wright if no other team had claimed him or signed him by then.

The Cardinals might argue that they were in the hunt for a playoff spot, a division title or even a championship, and getting rid of a trusted veteran who provides depth at running back and contributes on special teams wouldn't help them achieve their ultimate goal. Whether that's a good enough reason to forgo a third-round comp pick is debatable, but it at least can be taken into consideration when judging the Cardinals' decision.

Clearly, releasing a player in midseason just to get a high comp pick the next year is not the best move for every team. The Dallas Cowboys, for example, were not going to release Igor Olshansky, Keith Brooking or Gerald Sensabaugh in Week 9 just to make sure that they would get a fourth-round comp pick for losing Chris Canty. Having a solid defensive starter during a playoff run is more important than obtaining a late fourth-round draft choice the following year.

There are times, though, when a team probably should make comp picks a factor in their personnel decisions. The Oakland Raiders, for example, had a 2-6 record when they went into their bye in Week 9 last season. During the previous offseason, they had lost only one free agent who could qualify for the comp pick equation: Jake Grove, whose contract almost certainly would (and did) give him a fourth-round value. They had signed three players who might have qualified, but after releasing Jeff Garcia and Lorenzo Neal before the season, they only one remaining on the team was Khalif Barnes, an offensive tackle who was signed to a one-year contract. Before the Raiders' bye week, Barnes filled in – not very well, by most accounts – as the starter at right tackle for two games while Cornell Green was out with a calf injury. After Week 9, Barnes was inactive for every game except the season finale, when he didn't even play. In retrospect, the Raiders certainly would have been better off releasing Barnes during their bye week. Barnes was under contract for only eight more games, Green was returning to the lineup, the season already was a lost cause, and the Raiders had two other backup tackles who either had started ahead of Barnes earlier in the season (Erik Pears) or would replace Barnes as the backup tackle who was activated for games after the bye (Langston Walker). If the Raiders had taken their potential comp pick into account, there would have been little reason for them to keep Barnes for the rest of the season, but that's what they did. So instead of receiving the 131st pick of the draft as compensation for losing Grove, they received the 251st pick as compensation for the difference in net value after losing Grove and signing Barnes. The Raiders fell 120 spots in the draft by keeping Barnes, who never played another snap for the rest of the season.

As I mentioned, I think Urban is mostly correct when he says that teams shouldn't manage their free agency just to get comp picks. Every team's goal during the offseason should be to acquire better players through any means possible, which would include signing Unrestricted Free Agents. If signing a quality starter would cost a team a potential fourth-round comp pick, so be it. However, it would be foolish for teams not to include comp picks in the decision-making process and even more foolish for teams to be unaware of their potential comp picks. If a team that stands to gain a high comp pick the following season is looking at signing either a UFA who would qualify for the comp picks equation or a player who was released by his former team and therefore would not qualify, the released player likely would be the better choice if the players were considered relatively equal – especially if the players under consideration would be mere backups. Potential comp picks are an even more important factor when the player being signed has a value that is far less than that of the player that was lost, such as in the case of the Cardinals and Raiders. In those cases, the team should be able to recognize that the low-value player could end up costing a high comp pick. That's why it would be wise for teams to monitor their potential comp picks during the regular season and consider making personnel moves before Week 10 to ensure that they aren't unnecessarily costing themselves a high draft pick by keeping a player who won't even contribute. A team could always decide that it wants to keep a certain player even if he might be worth less than the potential comp pick it will be forgoing, but any team that never takes potential comp picks into consideration is likely to end up costing itself valuable draft picks without even knowing it.

Do NFL teams know the formula for comp picks?

2010-03-24T09:02:00.000-07:00

One question I'm frequently asked is whether NFL teams know the formula that is used to determine the compensatory draft picks — and in this instance, by "formula," I mean all of the rules for qualification, the rules for determining players' values, the rules for determining the rounds for every pick and any special rules that would affect the comp picks.

Some people assume that the teams have been given the rules or even the entire formula and that it remains a secret only to those of us in the general public. However, although some teams probably have much of the formula figured out, it's obvious that many teams do not know how the NFL determines the comp picks. Every year, we see examples of teams hoping to get certain comp picks that they don't end up getting and examples of teams expressing surprise or confusion after the comp picks are awarded.

This year, Atlanta Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff said he expected his team to receive three comp picks. An article on the Falcons' Web site quoted Dimitroff as saying, "That was one of the reasons that we were able to decide on doing that Tony Gonzalez trade, because we knew that we were going to be set up to possibly guard our three compensatory draft picks with some of the free agents we lost. As it stands right now, I’m thinking we possibly will get three compensatory picks, given the play of Domonique Foxworth, Michael Boley and Keith Brooking. Those are the three that I think are going to factor in strongly into our compensatory acquisitions.” In addition, The Atlanta Journal Constitution's D. Orlando Ledbetter reported that Dimitroff said that Mike Peterson would not count as a player signed by the Falcons. When the comp picks were announced, however, the Falcons received only two of them, and Peterson did count in the formula.

On the Jacksonville Jaguars' Web site, senior editor Vic Ketchman reported that Jaguars GM Gene Smith was "hopeful of receiving two" comp picks this year. The Jaguars, who lost three qualifying players and signed two, received only one comp pick.

And in an article on the Cincinnati Bengals' Web site, team president Mike Brown acknowledged that his team went years without knowing how to get comp picks. "Over the whole history of compensatory choices, we went many years without any and being slow to figure things out," Brown said. "We finally did and in recent years we’ve been the recipient of them."

We could find many more examples from previous seasons, but clearly, whatever information the NFL teams have been given regarding comp picks is not sufficient for all of them to know how many picks they'll be getting — or even if they'll be getting any — let alone the placement of those picks.

For teams to know what comp picks will be awarded, they have to try to project them based on whatever information they have. As Green Bay Packers GM Ted Thompson found out, though, that is no easy task. Thompson was quoted in an article at ESPNMilwaukee.com as saying that he and former GM Ron Wolf became so frustrated when they tried to project the comp picks that they gave up on it.

“A long time ago, I decided I wasn’t going to try to predict,” Thompson said. “Ron and I used to try to figure it out, and it would wind up making him really mad and me sort of mad. Some people think they have cracked the code, and that’s OK, (but) I don’t have time for that. Somebody will tell us.”

Comparing 2010 projection to the actual comp picks

2010-03-22T18:06:00.000-07:00

Below is a chart showing a comparison of my projections to the comp picks the NFL awarded today. Picks shaded green are those that I projected in the correct round, and picks shaded yellow are those on which I was off by one round. Although I correctly projected Tampa Bay to get a seventh-round pick, I projected it to be a non-compensatory pick, but it turned out to be a net-value pick, so I'm not counting it as a correct pick. I'm also not counting Miami's net-value pick in the seventh round as being off by one round, even though I projected the Dolphins to receive a sixth-round pick.

(Click on the image to see a larger version.)

In the third round, I had the picks for Tennessee and Cincinnati switched. I'll try to figure out why Albert Haynesworth's contract value used in the formula was so low.

In the fourth round, Cincinnati got a pick for Stacy Andrews because Laveranues Coles did not count in the equation. Although I projected Coles to count, I did say that the Bengals probably would get a fourth for Andrews if Coles did not count.

In the fifth round, I had the first three picks correct and in the correct order, but I missed the next three because the cutoff point for the fifth round did not increase nearly as much as I projected — if at all. The lower cutoff point bumped the picks for Minnesota and Green Bay into the fifth round and gave San Diego a fifth for Igor Olshansky instead of a seventh for Mike Goff, as I explained in my projections.

In the sixth round, I had the first three picks correct and in the correct order, but I again missed the next three because the cutoff point did not increase nearly as much as I projected — if at all. In addition, Miami did not get the sixth I projected, because Joe Berger qualified for the equation and I did not project him to qualify.

In the seventh round, I again missed several because players qualified who were not projected to qualify (namely Mark Jones, Hunter Smith, Larry Izzo and Brandon McGowan). In addition, it appears that I need to change the playing time I use for special-teamers (in this case, Hunter Smith and Lonie Paxton). I missed the net-value pick for Miami because Berger qualified, and I missed the net-value pick for Tampa Bay because Angelo Crowell did not, possibly because he was on Injured Reserve for every game of the only season of his contract.

Using the correct cutoff points and the correct playing time for special-teamers, I've been able to recreate the order of all but the first two comp picks of the third round. Figuring out why Tennessee's third-round comp pick for Haynesworth was not the highest pick should help me learn more about what elements in a contract are not included in the formula.

I'll post more as I continue to analyze this year's comp picks.

Looking at the qualifiers and non-qualifiers

2010-03-22T14:59:00.000-07:00

To see who officially qualified for the compensatory picks equation this year, click here and scroll down.

As you can tell, the NFL did not include Laveranues Coles in the equation. I suspected that this would happen (click here and scroll to the bottom of the post), but I did not project it because there was no precedent set for disqualifying a player whose contract had voided. (EDIT: Coles' disqualification from the equation was not simply because his "contract was voided last offseason." Many players have qualified after having their contract voided. Coles' voided contract was different, though, because the void was renegotiated into the contract after the end of the final regular season that he played for the Jets. On Feb. 25, 2009, Coles renegotiated his contract to include the void. Two days later, it voided, and he became a true Unrestricted Free Agent. Apparently, and even though the Jets reportedly claimed that Coles would qualify, that method of becoming a true UFA didn't satisfy the requirements for qualification.)

Surprisingly, Angelo Crowell did not qualify, either.

In addition, all four of the players I projected to be just below the qualifying bubble -- Joe Berger, Hunter Smith, Mark Jones and Larry Izzo -- did, in fact qualify. This fact and the fact that several picks ended up one round higher than projected mean that the NFL didn't raise the cutoff points nearly as much as I had projected.

I'll have more analysis later.

UPDATE: Brandon McGowan actually qualified as a player signed by New England, even though his contract value that counts in the formula was only $765,000 per season. I'll try to figure out why.

This year's comp picks mystery

2010-03-22T14:46:00.000-07:00

Last year, the biggest mystery surrounding the comp picks concerned Alan Faneca and why the Pittsburgh Steelers got only a fifth-round comp pick for him.

This year, the biggest mystery seems to be why Angelo Crowell did not count as a player signed by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. He was a true UFA last offseason, he signed on March 18, and he signed for $2.5 million (plus incentives) for one season. Yes, he spent the entire season on Injured Reserve, but players who were on IR have qualified in the past. Perhaps it is because he signed a one-year contract and spent that season on IR. If that is the case, however, would he also be disqualified from the equation next year if he leaves this offseason? Or could he actually count as a player lost after not counting as a player signed?

Another mystery is how the NFL deemed T.J. Houshmandzadeh's value to be greater than Albert Haynesworth's value, which is the reason that Cincinnati got a higher third-round comp pick than Tennessee. Perhaps a big chunk of the money in Haynesworth's contract doesn't count in the formula. I'll take a closer look and see what I can find.

Complete list of 2010 comp picks

2010-03-22T14:26:00.000-07:00

As expected, the NFL announced the compensatory picks today. I got 21 correct and was off by one round on five more. I'm not counting Tampa Bay's net value comp pick in the seventh round as a correct projection, because I projected it to be a non-compensatory seventh-rounder. (To see the projections I posted on March 8, click here.) I'll provide an analysis of this year's comp picks as soon as I can.

Here are the 2010 compensatory draft picks, along with the qualifying players signed and lost for each team that received a comp pick --

3 33-96 Cincinnati
3 34-97 Tennessee
3 35-98 Atlanta
4 33-131 Cincinnati
5 33-164 Pittsburgh
5 34-165 Atlanta
5 35-166 Pittsburgh
5 36-167 Minnesota
5 37-168 San Diego
5 38-169 Green Bay
6 33-202 Carolina
6 34-203 Jacksonville
6 35-204 Carolina
6 36-205 New England
6 37-206 San Francisco
6 38-207 Tennessee
7 33-240 Indianapolis
7 34-241 Tennessee
7 35-242 Pittsburgh
7 36-243 Philadelphia
7 37-244 Philadelphia
7 38-245 Seattle
7 39-246 Indianapolis
7 40-247 New England
7 41-248 New England
7 42-249 Carolina
7 43-250 New England
7 44-251 Oakland (net value)
7 45-252 Miami (net value)
7 46-253 Tampa Bay (net value)
7 47-254 St. Louis (non-compensatory)
7 48-255 Detroit (non-compensatory)

And here are the official qualifying players for each team that received a true comp pick or net-value comp pick --

ATLANTA

Lost: Michael Boley, Keith Brooking, Domonique Foxworth, Grady Jackson

Signed: Mike Peterson, Brett Romberg

CAROLINA

Lost: Geoff Hangartner, Mark Jones, Frank Omiyale

CINCINNATI

Lost: Stacy Andrews, Ryan Fitzpatrick, T.J. Houshmandzadeh

Signed: J.T. O’Sullivan

GREEN BAY

Lost: Colin Cole

INDIANAPOLIS

Lost: Darrell Reid, Hunter Smith

JACKSONVILLE

Lost: Khalif Barnes, Mike Peterson, Gerald Sensabaugh

Signed: Sean Considine, Tra Thomas

MIAMI

Lost: Andre’ Goodman, Renaldo Hill

Signed: Joe Berger, Jake Grove

MINNESOTA

Lost: Matt Birk, Darren Sharper

Signed: Karl Paymah

NEW ENGLAND

Lost: Heath Evans, Jabar Gaffney, Larry Izzo, LaMont Jordan, Lonie Paxton

Signed: Brandon McGowan

OAKLAND

Lost: Jake Grove

Signed: Khalif Barnes

PHILADELPHIA

Lost: Correll Buckhalter, Sean Considine, Brian Dawkins, L.J. Smith, Tra Thomas

Signed: Stacy Andrews, Sean Jones, Leonard Weaver

PITTSBURGH

Lost: Byron Leftwich, Bryant McFadden, Nate Washington

SAN DIEGO

Lost: Mike Goff, Igor Olshansky

Signed: Kevin Burnett

SAN FRANCISCO

Lost: Ronald Fields, Bryant Johnson, J.T. O’Sullivan, Donald Strickland

Signed: Demetric Evans, Brandon Jones, Moran Norris

SEATTLE

Lost: Rocky Bernard, Maurice Morris, Leonard Weaver, Floyd Womack

Signed: Colin Cole, T.J. Houshmandzadeh, John Owens

TAMPA BAY

Lost: Phillip Buchanon, Jovan Haye

Signed: Byron Leftwich, Derrick Ward

TENNESSEE

Lost: Chris Carr, Albert Haynesworth, Brandon Jones, Eric King, Daniel Loper, Chris Simms

Signed: Jovan Haye, Mark Jones, Nate Washington

Comp picks appear to be out

2010-03-22T13:40:00.000-07:00

There are reports of some teams receiving their comp picks today. If the report of the Bengals' comp picks is true, it looks as though Laveranues Coles did not count in the equation.

I'll post more when I find the complete list.

UPDATE: Those reported so far are a third and a fourth for Cincinnati, a third and a fifth for Atlanta and a seventh for Tampa Bay (likely a non-compensatory pick).

MORE UPDATES: Also reported are a third for Tennessee, a sixth and three sevenths for New England, two sixths and a seventh for Carolina (which means that Mark Jones did qualify), and two fifths and a seventh for Pittsburgh.

It looks like the cutoff points for qualifying and for the rounds increased by less than I projected.

Comp picks could be announced today

2010-03-22T00:18:00.000-07:00

The NFL doesn't reveal ahead of time when the compensatory draft picks will be announced, but if the league follows the same timetable as in recent years, the announcement should come today.

The comp picks typically have been announced on the second day of the Annual Meeting, which started Sunday in Orlando, Fla. Last year, when the Annual Meeting was held in California, the picks were announced just after 4:30 p.m. Pacific. If the schedule for the second day of the owners' meeting is similar this year, with the meeting being in the Eastern time zone, I would expect the announcement to come about 4:30 p.m. Eastern today. However, the announcement could come at any time today or possibly not until Tuesday.

As soon as I see that the picks have been announced, I will post them here, but they should be available at NFL.com and most major media Web sites just as quickly, if not sooner. I'll also post an analysis as soon as possible and will answer any questions posted in the comments section of this blog. You do not need to register to post a comment.

To review my projections for this year's comp picks, click here.

To see how my projections have fared in previous years, click here.

UPDATE: Joe Reedy, the Bengals beat writer for the Cincinnati Enquirer, reports via his Twitter account that the announcement "could get delayed until tomorrow."

MORE UPDATES: Philly.com, the Charlotte Observer and the official Twitter feed of the Washington Redskins also reported that the announcement is expected to come tomorrow.

Projecting the 2010 Compensatory NFL Draft Picks

2010-03-08T09:22:00.000-08:00

Note: In order to save me the time I could spend visiting numerous forums and message boards answering questions about this year's projections, please direct anyone with questions to this blog. Questions that are posed in the comments section of this post and subsequent related posts will be answered. You do not need to register to comment.

For the ninth consecutive year and 10th overall, I’ve attempted to project all of the compensatory draft picks that the NFL will award. In my past seven projections, I’ve averaged 24.4 out of 32 exactly correct (going to the correct team in the correct round) and have been off by only one round on an average of four more. Last year, I got 26 correct and was off by one round on three more. Unless the NFL has unexpectedly changed the formula, I'm expecting similar results this year. My recent projections also have been successful at projecting much of the exact order of the comp picks, regardless of round, and I'm hoping to have that trend continue as well.

As the NFL explains, compensatory picks are awarded to teams that lose more or better compensatory free agents than they acquire. The number of picks a team can receive equals the net loss of compensatory free agents, up to a maximum of four. Compensatory free agents are determined by a secret formula based on salary, playing time and postseason honors. Not every free agent lost or signed is covered by the formula.

Although the formula has never been revealed, by studying the compensatory picks that have been awarded since they began in 1994, I’ve determined that the primary factor in the value of the picks awarded is the average annual value of the contract the player signed with his new team, with an adjustment for playing time and a smaller adjustment for postseason honors. It should be noted that the contract value used in the equation does not include some parts of the contract, and that the contract information reported in the media is often incorrect.

Each qualifying player has a value based on his contract, playing time and postseason honors, and that value corresponds to a round in the draft. In the compensatory equation, each qualifying player that a team signs cancels out a qualifying player that the team lost whose value is the highest in the same round. If there are no lost players remaining in that round, the signed player cancels out the lost player whose value is the next-highest. A signed player will cancel out a lost player whose value falls in a higher round only if there are no remaining lost players. After all of a team's qualifying signed players have canceled out a lost player, the team can receive a comp pick for each qualifying player who remains. For example, consider a team that loses one qualifying player whose value falls in the third round and another qualifying player whose value falls in the sixth round but signs a qualifying player whose value falls in the third round. That team would receive a sixth-round comp pick because the signed player would cancel out the loss of the higher-valued player. If the signed player’s value were equal to a fourth-round pick or lower, however, the team would receive a third-round comp pick, because the signed player would cancel out the loss of the lower-valued player.

It is possible for a team to get a compensatory pick even if it doesn’t suffer a net loss of qualifying free agents. That type of comp pick comes at the end of the seventh round, after the normal comp picks and before the non-compensatory picks that are added if fewer than 32 comp picks are awarded. There have been 14 of these “net value” type of comp picks awarded, and in each case, the combined value of the free agents lost was significantly higher than the combined value of the free agents added. In all 14 cases, those teams lost the same number of qualifying free agents as they signed. No team has been awarded a comp pick after signing more qualifying free agents than it lost, no matter how significant the difference in combined value. This year, I’m projecting that Oakland will receive a net-value comp after losing Jake Grove and signing Khalif Barnes, whose value is less than one-sixth of Grove's value. According to my projections, none of the other teams that lost and signed the same number of qualifying players suffered a loss in value that was significant enough to warrant a net-value comp pick. Arizona came the closest, followed by Baltimore and Buffalo, but they all fell short of the projected loss in value that is necessary to receive a net-value comp pick.

For the third consecutive year, I’ve used a mathematical formula to weight the three factors that determine a player’s value in the comp equation (his contract, his playing time and his postseason awards, if any). Using this formula, I’ve been able to reconstruct almost precisely the order of the comp picks that were awarded in 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009. In two of those years, I have been able to reconstruct the exact order, and in other year, the only difference was that the order of two consecutive picks was switched because of a minuscule difference in values. I don’t know if I have the factors weighted correctly, but given that my projected order of a number of comp picks has frequently matched the order of the actual comp picks, I think I’m probably pretty close.

As always, please note that my comp pick formula is merely an attempt to project the results of the actual (secret) formula. I don’t pretend to know the actual formula, but I think previous results indicate that the formula I use is a pretty good simulation.

In order to qualify for the comp equation, a player must have been a true Unrestricted Free Agent whose contract had expired or was voided after the previous season (i.e., he cannot have been released by his old team); he must sign during the UFA signing period (which ended July 27 last year); if he signs after June 1, he must have been tendered a June 1 qualifying offer by his old team; his compensatory value or contract value must be above a specific minimum amount; and he cannot have been permanently released by his new team before a certain point in the season (which seems to be after Week 10) or, possibly, before getting a certain amount of playing time, unless he was claimed off waivers by another team.

The most difficult part about projecting the comp picks is determining all of the cutoff points – the minimum value needed to qualify and the value ranges for each round of the draft. The comp picks awarded in previous years suggest that the cutoff points increase each year by a small percentage – approximately the same percentage by which the leaguewide salary cap increases. From 2008 to 2009, the cap went up 9.65 percent, so I used a 9.65 percent increase when estimating the cutoff points for this year’s comp picks. In some cases, I used the percentage increases since 2007, 2006 or even 2005 to compare the values of this year's players to the values of qualifying players from previous years whose draft round value is known.

Last year, the lowest-paid player who is known to have qualified for the NFL’s comp equation was Aaron Glenn, who signed for a one-year deal for $870,000 and played a little less than 20 percent of the snaps in 2008. The highest-paid player who is known to have not qualified was Pierson Prioleau, who signed a one-year deal for $830,000 and also played a little less than 20 percent of the snaps. This year, there are eight players I consider "on the bubble" for qualifying. Floyd Womack, Jason Wright, Brett Romberg and John Owens each signed for at least $950,000 and should qualify, based on Glenn qualifying last year. Joe Berger, Mark Jones, Hunter Smith and Larry Izzo each signed for between $875,000 and $909,000 and are not projected to qualify, based more on Marcus Wilkins ($816,667) not qualifying for the 2008 comp picks than for Prioleau not qualifying in 2009.

There were two unusual cases this year, one involving Laveranues Coles and one involving Bobby Engram.

Coles renegotiated his contract on Feb. 25, 2009, giving up a $6 million guaranteed salary in exchange for allowing his 2009 season to void. Two days later, his contract voided, and he became an Unrestricted Free Agent. Plenty of players have qualified for the comp equation after becoming UFAs because their contract voided, even if the voidable year was put in the contract through renegotiation. However, Coles' situation is a little less clear because of the timing involved. Normally, a player "earns" a void in his contract by doing something more than simply waiting two days, so it's possible that the NFL will not consider Coles eligible for the comp picks equation. Players who have had contract years simply deleted — not converted to voidable years — by renegotiation have never qualified for the equation, and Coles' situation is close to that. However, because a voidable year has never disqualified a player from the equation, I am projecting that Coles will qualify.

Engram's situation is a little less complicated. He was released by Kansas City on Monday, Nov. 9, which was the last day of Week 9 and the start of Week 10. Previous cases of players being released during the season seem to indicate that players who are released by Week 10 and not claimed off waivers will not qualify for the comp picks equation. For that reason, I am projecting that Engram will not qualify, but because he released close to the deadline, it is possible that he will qualify.

Last year, regardless of playing time or postseason honors, the third-round comp players had signed for at least $6.5 million per season, the fourth-round comp players had signed for $4.8 million to $6 million, all but one of the fifth-round comp players had signed for $4 million to $5 million, the sixth-round comp players had signed for $2.7 million to $3.9 million, and the seventh-round comp players had signed for less than $2.65 million per season. Note that there are huge gaps between some rounds, and that there is an overlap between the fourth and fifth rounds because of the adjustments for playing time. You’ll find the contract values for each round of this year’s projected picks in the list a few paragraphs below this one.

I mentioned that all but one of last year's fifth-round comp players had signed for $4 million to $5 million. Because of a rule that had never been revealed until after last year's comp picks were awarded, the Pittsburgh Steelers got only a fifth-round comp pick for Alan Faneca, even though he signed for $7.8 million per season, played more than 98 percent of the Jets' offensive snaps and made the Pro Bowl. A rule stipulates that a team cannot receive more than a fifth-round comp pick for a player with 10 or more seasons of NFL experience. After the rule was revealed, I found several times in previous seasons when it had been invoked. What still is not known, however, is whether the rule applies to the player's value in the equation or whether it applies only for the placement of a comp pick. In other words, does it affect which player a 10-year veteran cancels out by being signed or lost, or does it come into play only when a team is due to receive a comp pick for a player with 10 or more seasons of experience? This year, there are no qualifying players with at least 10 years of experience whose value in the formula is higher than a fifth-round pick, so that question will remain unanswered for at least another year.

As I alluded to earlier, the NFL adds non-compensatory picks if fewer than 32 comp picks are awarded. The non-compensatory picks are given, in order, to the teams that would be drafting if there were an eighth round, until the maximum of 32 has been reached. If there are 29 comps, for example, the NFL would give additional picks to the teams that would have the first three picks in the eighth round, if there were one. This year, I’m projecting that 27 true comp picks will be awarded, including Oakland’s comp pick for a net-value loss, which I mentioned earlier. Therefore, I’m projecting that St. Louis, Detroit, Tampa Bay, Kansas City and Washington will receive non-compensatory picks to fill out the maximum number of picks. If the NFL’s equation results in more than three non-compensatory picks being added, the next five teams in line to receive one would be Cleveland, Oakland, Seattle, Buffalo and Chicago, in that order.

Here are the projected picks for 2010, along with the compensatory player, their contract value that was used in the equation, their games played and their games started (I’ve also noted the eight picks that fall near a cutoff point and could end up in a different round, along with two other picks that could be affected by the cutoff points) —

THIRD ROUND

Tennessee (Albert Haynesworth, $11.37 million per season, 12 GP/12 GS)

Cincinnati (T.J. Houshmandzadeh, $8 million, 16/16) — possibly a fourth- or fifth-round pick for Stacy Andrews

Atlanta (Dominique Foxworth, $6.8 million, 16/16) — possibly a fourth-round pick

FOURTH ROUND

None

FIFTH ROUND

Pittsburgh (Bryant McFadden, $4.75 million, 16/16)

Atlanta (Michael Boley, $4.8 million, 11/11)

Pittsburgh (Nate Washington, $4.47 million, 16/15) — possibly a sixth-round pick

SIXTH ROUND

Minnesota (Matt Birk, $4 million, 16/16) — possibly a fifth-round pick

Green Bay (Colin Cole, $4.28 million, 16/15) – possibly a fifth-round pick

Carolina (Geoff Hangartner, $3.15 million, 16/16)

Jacksonville (Mike Peterson, $3 million, 16/16)

Carolina (Frank Omiyale, $2.64 million, 16/12) — possibly a seventh-round pick

Miami (Renaldo Hill, $2.5 million, 15/15) — possibly a seventh-round pick

SEVENTH ROUND

New England (Jabar Gaffney, $2.5 million, 16/7) — possibly a sixth-round pick

Tennessee (Chris Carr, $2.5 million, 16/4) — possibly a sixth-round pick

Indianapolis (Darrell Reid, $2.27 million, 16/0)

Tennessee (Eric King, $2.125 million, 4/1)

Tennessee (Daniel Loper, $2 million, 8/5)

Pittsburgh (Byron Leftwich, $2 million, 3/3)

Philadelphia (Sean Considine, $1.45 million, 11/6)

Philadelphia (L.J. Smith, $1.5 million, 12/0)

San Diego (Mike Goff, $1.35 million, 8/7) — possibly a fifth- or sixth-round pick for Igor Olshansky

San Francisco (Donald Strickland, $1.11 million, 9/2)

New England (Lonie Paxton, $1.03 million, 16/0)

New England (Heath Evans, $1.05 million, 6/5)

Seattle (Floyd Womack, $950,000, 13/9)

New England (LaMont Jordan, $1.01 million, 9/0)

Oakland (net-value comp pick; lost $5.7 million, 12/10; signed $1 million, 6/2)

St. Louis (non-compensatory pick)

Detroit (non-compensatory pick)

Tampa Bay (non-compensatory pick)

Kansas City (non-compensatory pick)

Washington (non-compensatory pick)

As noted, the values of eight comp picks fell near the cutoff points between rounds, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the comp picks for Foxworth is in the fourth round, if the comp picks for Washington is in the sixth round, if the comp picks for Birk and/or Cole are in the fifth round, if the comp picks for Omiyale and/or Hill are in the seventh round or if the comp picks for Gaffney and/or Carr are in the sixth round. Of course, other projected picks could be off by one round (or more) if the NFL happened to change the formula or increase the cutoff points by significantly more or less than I projected.

In addition to those eight picks, two of the other comp picks could be affected by the cutoff points between rounds, if a player who was canceled out has a value in a round different from where I projected their value to be.

For Cincinnati, Laveranues Coles' value as a player signed is projected to be in the fourth round, but there is a chance that his value could be just enough to fall in the third round. If so, his signing will cancel out the loss of T.J. Houshmandzadeh, and the Bengals will receive a comp pick for the loss of Stacy Andrews, most likely in the fourth round but possibly in the fifth. In addition, if Coles is disqualified from the equation because his contract was renegotiated to void the 2009 season, the Bengals will receive comp picks for both Houshmandzadeh and Andrews.

For San Diego, Igor Olshanky's value as a player lost is on the borderline of the fifth and sixth rounds, and Kevin Burnett's value as a player signed is on the borderline of the sixth and seventh rounds. My projections put both of them in the sixth round, leaving the Chargers with a seventh-round comp pick for Mike Goff. However, if the values of Olshansky or Burnett – or both – do not fall in the sixth round, the Chargers will receive a comp pick for Olshansky instead of one for Goff. The placement of that pick will depend on whether Olshansky's value falls in the fifth round or the sixth round.

Here are the qualifying players lost and signed (in order of value) for the 16 teams that I’m projecting will receive comp picks, with the projected compensatory players in bold —

ATLANTA

Lost: Dominique Foxworth, Michael Boley, Keith Brooking, Grady Jackson

Signed: Mike Peterson, Brett Romberg

CAROLINA

Lost: Geoff Hangartner, Frank Omiyale

Signed: None

CINCINNATI

Lost: T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Stacy Andrews, Ryan Fitzpatrick

Signed: Laveranues Coles, J.T. O’Sullivan

GREEN BAY

Lost: Colin Cole

Signed: None

INDIANAPOLIS

Lost: Darrell Reid

Signed: None

JACKSONVILLE

Lost: Mike Peterson, Gerald Sensabaugh, Khalif Barnes

Signed: Tra Thomas, Sean Considine

MIAMI

Lost: Andre Goodman, Renaldo Hill

Signed: Jake Grove

MINNESOTA

Lost: Matt Birk, Darren Sharper

Signed: Karl Paymah

NEW ENGLAND

Lost: Jabar Gaffney, Lonie Paxton, Heath Evans, LaMont Jordan

Signed: None

OAKLAND

Lost: Jake Grove

Signed: Khalif Barnes

PHILADELPHIA

Lost: Brian Dawkins, Tra Thomas, Correll Buckhalter, Sean Considine, L.J. Smith

Signed: Stacy Andrews, Sean Jones, Leonard Weaver

PITTSBURGH

Lost: Bryant McFadden, Nate Washington, Byron Leftwich

Signed: None

SAN DIEGO

Lost: Igor Olshansky, Mike Goff

Signed: Kevin Burnett

SAN FRANCISCO

Lost: Bryant Johnson, Ronald Fields, J.T. O’Sullivan, Donald Strickland

Signed: Brandon Jones, Moran Norris, Demetric Evans

SEATTLE

Lost: Rocky Bernard, Maurice Morris, Leonard Weaver, Floyd Womack

Signed: T.J. Houshmandzadeh, Colin Cole, John Owens

TENNESSEE

Lost: Albert Haynesworth, Brandon Jones, Chris Simms, Chris Carr, Eric King, Daniel Loper

Signed: Nate Washington, Jovan Haye

Anyone else who was lost or signed by one of those teams last offseason is not projected to qualify for the equation, for one reason or another. Remember, players have to meet certain criteria in order to qualify for the equation (see the eighth paragraph of these projections for a summary of the criteria), so a lot of players will not count in the equation. Most of the time, it’s either because the player had been released by his previous team and therefore was not a true UFA or because the player didn’t sign for enough money to qualify.

If I’m wrong about the values of certain players or whether some players will or will not qualify for the equation, that will affect the comp picks. Here’s what would happen in certain instances –

If Laveranues Coles does not qualify, Cincinnati will receive a comp pick for Stacy Andrews in either the fourth or fifth round, most likely the fourth, in addition to the third-round comp pick for T.J. Houshmandzadeh.

If Kevin Burnett's value falls in the seventh round instead of the sixth round, San Diego will receive a comp pick for Igor Olshansky instead of a comp pick for Mike Goff. The comp pick for Olshansky will be in either the fifth or sixth round, between Pittsburgh's comp pick for Nate Washington and Minnesota's comp pick for Matt Birk. Or, if Olshansky's value falls in the fifth round, San Diego will receive a fifth-round comp pick for him, regardless of whether Burnett's value falls in the sixth round or seventh round.

If Bobby Engram qualifies, Seattle will receive a seventh-round comp pick for him immediately before its comp pick for Floyd Womack.

If John Owens does not qualify, Seattle will receive a seventh-round comp pick for Leonard Weaver, between Tennessee's comp picks for Eric King and Daniel Loper.

If Floyd Womack does not qualify, Seattle will not receive a comp pick for him.

If Joe Berger qualifies, Miami will not receive a comp pick for Renaldo Hill.

If Jason Wright does not qualify, Arizona will receive a comp pick for Antonio Smith in either the third round or fourth round, most likely in the third, after Cincinnati's comp pick for T.J. Houshmandzadeh.

If Brett Romberg does not qualify, Atlanta will receive a seventh-round comp pick for Grady Jackson, before Indianapolis' comp pick for Darrell Reid.

If Hunter Smith qualifies, Indianapolis will receive a seventh-round comp pick for him, after New England's comp pick for LaMont Jordan.

If Mark Jones qualifies, Carolina will receive a seventh-round comp pick for him after New England's comp pick for LaMont Jordan (and Indianapolis' comp pick for Hunter Smith, if there is one), and Tennessee will not receive a seventh-round comp pick for Daniel Loper.

If Larry Izzo qualifies, it will not affect the comp picks, because New England already will have received the maximum of four comp picks, but his name will appear on New England's list of qualifying players lost.

If Arizona, Baltimore and/or Buffalo receive net-value comp picks, they would come after Oakland's net-value pick in the seventh round.

Any combination of these additional comp picks and/or fewer comp picks being awarded could increase or reduce the number of non-compensatory picks added to the end of the draft. As I mentioned earlier, the next five teams in line for non-compensatory picks are Cleveland, Oakland, Seattle, Buffalo and Chicago.

Under no circumstances will more than 32 picks be awarded, so if I have made numerous significant mistakes and there are more true comp picks than I have projected, one or more of the lowest-valued picks in my projection or in my summary of possible other scenarios might not be awarded, if they’re not one of the 32 highest-valued comp picks. Only the 32 highest-valued comp picks will be awarded.

The NFL typically awards the compensatory picks on the second day of the Annual Meeting, which will be March 22 this year (the meeting will be March 21-24 in Orlando, Fla.). After the comp picks are announced, I’ll review what the NFL did and where my projections were incorrect, although I’ve already presented some other possibilities.

Note: For a look at why any of the 16 other teams are not projected to receive comp picks, click on the team's name to see my preliminary summary for that team — Arizona, Baltimore, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Dallas, Denver, Detroit, Houston, Kansas City, New Orleans, N.Y. Giants, N.Y. Jets, St. Louis, Tampa Bay, Washington. You also can click here to see the list of every UFA lost or signed who had the potential of qualifying.

Accuracy of previous projections

2010-03-07T22:59:00.000-08:00

I'm in the process of writing up this year's final projections. For now, though, here's a look at the accuracy of my projections in previous years. My first attempt in 1998 was done using very little history on which to base my projections and questionable contract information from media reports. As my sources have gotten better and my information more precise, my projections have gotten much more accurate. Aside from the 2007 comp picks, which were more difficult to project because of the huge jump in the salary cap after the 2006 CBA extension, I've typically gotten 25 or 26 exactly correct and missed by one round on about four others. More precise information also has allowed me to project the exact order of picks in many cases. Although my ultimate goal is to project all 32 comp picks correctly and in the precise order of the actual comp picks, there are too many judgment calls every year to make that reasonably possible. I will, however, keep trying.

Here are the result of my previous comp pick projections (with links to all of the projections since 2002) --

1998 — I projected 23 comps; the NFL awarded 19. I had 15 of them going to the correct team, with 10 going to the correct team in the correct round and three more off by one round.
2002 — 22 correct, four others off by one round
2003 — 26 correct, four others off by one round
2004 — 26 correct, two others off by one round
2005 — 22 correct, six others off by one round
2006 — 26 correct, four others off by one round
2007 — 20 correct, five others off by one round
2008 — 25 correct, four others off by one round
2009 — 26 correct, three others off by one round

Note: I do not count "cheap" correct picks. For example, if I project a team to receive a fifth-round pick and a sixth-round pick but they instead receive a sixth and a seventh, I would count both of them as being off by one round. If, however, I am certain that the sixth-round pick was for the player I projected in that slot, I will count that pick as correct. The team's other pick, which I projected as being a fifth but was a seventh instead (and almost certainly for a different player), would simply be incorrect.

Comp pick projections coming soon

2010-03-03T02:03:00.001-08:00

Many people have wondered when I will post my final projections for the 2010 compensatory picks. I am in the process of finalizing those now. That process consists of verifying all of my information for this year's qualifying players and re-verifying certain information for previous years' qualifying players and comp picks, which were used to help project the values for this year's picks. Once I have verified all of this information and I am satisfied that the projections are the best I can do, all that's left is to write up the explanation of my projections and all other possible scenarios for this year's comp picks. At this point, I am hoping to post my final projections no later than March 9.

Explaining the Joey Porter fiasco

2010-02-13T13:31:00.000-08:00

The league's refusal to allow the Miami Dolphins to release Joey Porter this week caused some confusion, and not just in the Dolphins' front office. The confusion arises from the fact that many people don't realize that this still is the 2009 League Year; the 2010 League Year doesn't begin until March 5. Not only that, the 2009 League Year also is the Final Capped Year, which means that releases at this time of year are treated differently this season from how they normally are treated.

In the Final Capped Year, whenever a player is removed from the roster — even after June 1 — all bonus prorations from future seasons accelerate into that season. In all other seasons but the Final Capped Year, when a player is removed from the roster after June 1, the bonus prorations from future seasons accelerate into the following season. So, in other seasons, when a player is released between the Super Bowl and the start of the next league year, the acceleration hits the coming season's cap. This still is the Final Capped Year, though, so when a player is removed from a team's roster before the start of the 2010 League Year, the acceleration hits the 2009 salary cap. If the acceleration would put the team over the 2009 cap, that roster move is not allowed.

The Dolphins have less than $4.15 million of cap room remaining for the 2009 League Year. Porter's bonus prorations for 2010 and 2011 are $2.4 million each, so the accelerated cap charges for him would be $4.8 million. Thus, releasing Porter was not allowed.

Some reports have said that Porter has a $1 million roster bonus due on a specific date, such as March 1, March 5 or March 10, but those reports are incorrect. His roster bonus is due on the fifth day of the league year, which currently is scheduled to be March 9. If the NFL and NFLPA delay the start of the league year while CBA negotiations are going on, the date of Porter's bonus also gets pushed back. No matter what, the Dolphins will have four days after the start of the 2010 League Year to release Porter without having to pay his roster bonus. If Porter is released after the start of an uncapped 2010 season and before June 2, his 2011 bonus proration will not accelerate into 2010; acceleration into the current season occurs only in the Final Capped Year and the years prior to the Final Capped Year.

Projecting career rushing yardage

2010-02-02T16:47:00.000-08:00

A blog post by a Dallas Morning News reporter in December claimed that LaDainain Tomlinson "remains on pace to match" Emmitt Smith's all-time rushing record, but anyone who watched Tomlinson trudge along at 3.27 yards per carry this season knows that Tomlinson's chances of approaching Smith's record are almost nil. Bill Nichols' claim was based on the fact that Tomlinson had played 137 career games and had 12,321 career rushing yards, which was just 26 yards fewer than Smith had through the same number of games. Of course, Nichols ignored the two most important factors that go into determining the likelihood of a player ever reaching Smith's total of 18,355 yards, those being the player's age and his recent level of production.

Smith's 137th career game came when he was 29 years, 205 days old. Tomlinson's came when he was 30 years, 166 days old — essentially a full year older. And after 137 games, the younger Smith was far more productive than the older Tomlinson. The 29-year-old Smith rushed for 4.2 yards per carry and 1,332 yards, including seven 100-yard games. The 30-year-old Tomlinson rushed for just 730 yards and has gone 22 straight games without reaching the 100-yard mark. Smith at 30 also was far more productive than Tomlinson at 30, rushing for 1,397 yards at 4.2 yards per carry, with nine 100-yard games despite missing one game and having just one carry in another game. Smith, of course, remained productive for several years after that, even surpassing at age 35 what Tomlinson produced at age 30.

As the example of Smith and Tomlinson shows, being nearly equal in games played and career rushing yards does not make two running backs equal at that stage of their careers. A similar example is that of Steven Jackson and Priest Holmes. Jackson has 6,707 rushing yards after 84 career games, which is almost equal to Holmes' 6,692 after 87 career games. Jackson just completed a 1,416-yard season. Holmes after 87 games had just completed a 1,420-yard season. They were nearly equal in career games, career yards and current level of production. The difference, though, is their age. Jackson is 26 years old. Holmes, who was a rookie at age 26, was 30 years old after 87 games. He would go on to rush for just 1,480 more yards in his career.

A running back's career rushing yardage can be projected based on the two factors I mentioned earlier: age and recent level of production. Doug Drinen at pro-football-reference.com once attempted to do this by using a variation of Bill James' Favorite Toy, a method used to project career statistics for baseball players. The Favorite Toy calculates a player's remaining seasons based on his age and calculates his established level of production based on his previous three seasons. Those figures are then used to project his totals for future seasons, which can be added to his previous totals to project his career totals. Realizing that a running back's production would decline more quickly than a baseball player's production, Drinen made a slight adjustment to James' formula, changing one value from 0.7 to 0.6. Testing Drinen's formula by comparing its projections to the actual results for 20 running backs who had completed their careers since the mid-1980s, I found that their projected career totals using his formula were too low early in their careers and too high later in the careers. It became apparent to me that the shape of a running back's career doesn't match what is projected by the formula Drinen used.

The formula that James and Drinen used to determine a player's established level of production is this: three times the most recent season's total, plus two times the previous season's total, plus the total from the season before that, all divided by six. (Or, put another way, half of the most recent season's total, plus one-third of the previous season's total, plus one-sixth of the total from the season before that.) Drinen then calculated the player's remaining seasons by subtracting 70 percent of a player's age from 24. For example, a 27-year-old running back would be said to have 5.1 seasons remaining, because 70 percent of 27 is 18.9. (At the time of Drinen's post, James calculated baseball players' remaining seasons by using 24 minus 60 percent of the players age, but he since has changed his formula to use 21 minus half of the player's age, with a minimum of 1.5 seasons remaining.) The established level of production times the number of remaining seasons would then give the projected totals in future seasons. Adding that total to the player's actual total so far would yield the player's projected career total.

In my attempts to find a more accurate projection, it became apparent to me that, at least for running backs, a player's "remaining seasons" should not be considered to be the specific number of seasons that he will yet play. Rather, it merely is a number equivalent to his number of remaining seasons at his established level of production. In other words, a 28-year-old running back whose established level of production is 1,000 yards and who is projected to have four seasons remaining isn't necessarily projected to rush for 1,000 yards each season at ages 28, 29, 30 and 31, then end his career. Rather, he simply is projected to rush for 4,000 more yards in his career, which could mean rushing for 900 yards at age 28, then 800 at 29, 700 at 30, 600 at 31, 500 at 32 and 500 at age 33, or some other comination of ages and production that would equal a total of 4,000 yards. After moving past the idea that a player's career has a predetermined end point, and thus a certain number of "remaining seasons" based on a formula, I realized that it is not necessary to project how many more seasons a player will play. Rather, it's necessary only to project how many more total yards he will gain. That might seem obvious now, but it greatly simplified the exercise of coming up with a more accurate way to project the career yardage for running backs.

What I did next was to take the list of running backs with more than 9,000 career rushing yards, then choose those who had ended their careers most recently. I eliminated three players — Barry Sanders, Warrick Dunn and Tiki Barber — for several reasons. Sanders walked away from the game too soon, so using his numbers to help project career totals would skew the results. Dunn never carried the ball more than 286 times in a season and averaged just 222 carries per season. My primary goal was to project career totals for running backs who might challenge Smith's record, and a player with that few carries wouldn't have a chance. Using Dunn's numbers might not have affected the results significantly, but I saw no reason to include him. I excluded Barber for reasons that were a combination of those for excluding Dunn and Sanders. Barber averaged just 126 carries in his first five seasons, then retired at age 31 after rushing for 1,662 yards in a season. No player with so few carries in his first five seasons or who retires early will challenge Smith's record, so I saw no reason to include Barber, either.

That left me with nine of the top running backs whose careers had ended recently. I decided to include the No. 2 all-time rusher as well, although I adjusted Walter Payton's 1982 yardage to account for the strike-shortened, nine-game season. That left me with these 10 running backs —

Name	Career yards
Emmitt Smith	18,355
Walter Payton	16,726
Curtis Martin	14,101
Jerome Bettis	13,662
Marshall Faulk	12,279
Thurman Thomas	12,074
Corey Dillon	11,241
Rickey Watters	10,643
Eddie George	10,441
Shaun Alexander	9,453

For those 10 running backs, I calculated their established performance level at each age (starting at 24) and the total yardage they gained after each age, then determined the average mathematical relationship between those numbers for each age. By dividing their average remaining career yardage by their average established performance level at each age, I arrived at a more realistic equivalent of James' and Drinen's "remaining seasons." For now, I'll just call it the "age coefficient." I used some smoothing of the numbers starting after age 31, because players' careers were ending and the sample size was getting smaller.

Here is the age coefficient I ended up with for each age, along with the "remaining seasons" projected by Drinen's formula (note that "after age" refers to the remaining seasons after the completion of the season in which the player was that age on Dec. 31) —

	AC	RS
After age 24	8.05	6.5
After age 25	6.39	5.8
After age 26	4.84	5.1
After age 27	3.90	4.4
After age 28	3.18	3.7
After age 29	2.54	3.0
After age 30	1.52	2.3
After age 31	.96	1.6
After age 32	.83	0.9
After age 33	.72	0.2
After age 34	.62	??

These numbers confirm my initial observation that Drinen's formula underestimated career totals early in a player's career and overestimated them later in their careers, although it again underestimates them after age 33. Perhaps Drinen set a minimum number of remaining seasons, as James did, but he did not mention it in his blog post. Comparing each method to the actual career yardage for various running backs from recent seasons, my method was consistently closer to the actual results. So, although the numbers could be adjusted if necessary, they seem for now to be a pretty good method of projecting career rushing yardage.

Going back to Tomlinson, he has 12,490 rushing yards after his season at age 30. Based on his past three seasons, his current level of production is 980.67 yards. Using an age coefficient of 1.52, he is projected to rush for just 1,491 more yards in his career, which would leave him at 13,981 yards, good for merely fifth on the all-time list.

Another player who some people think could make a run at Smith's record is Adrian Peterson, who has 4,484 yards after age 24. His current production level of 1,501.67 yards multiplied by the age coefficient of 8.05 would give him 12,088 future yards for a total of 16,572 yards, which would leave him third all-time. As impressive as Peterson has been, he hasn't been able to match Smith thus far in his career. At the same age, Smith had rushed for 1,215 more yards than Peterson and had a production level of about 73 more yards in a season. Smith's projected career total at Peterson's age would have been 18,216 yards, which is just 139 yards less than his actual total of 18,355 yards.

Peterson's chances of making a run at Smith's record might be slim, but they're better than the chances of any other current player. Here's a look at the active running backs who are projected to finish with more than 10,000 career yards, along how far they are behind Smith at the same age —

Name	Age on Dec. 31	Current total	Smith's total at same age	Deficit at same age
Adrian Peterson	24	4,484	5,699	1,215
LaDainian Tomlinson	30	12,490	13,963	1,473
Clinton Portis	28	9,696	11,234	1,538
Maurice Jones-Drew	24	3,924	5,699	1,775
Steven Jackson	26	6,707	8,956	2,249
Chris Johnson	24	3,234	5,699	2,465
Edgerrin James	31	12,246	15,166	2,920
Jamal Lewis	30	10,607	13,963	3,356
Frank Gore	26	5,561	8,956	3,395
Matt Forte	24	2,167	5,699	3,532
DeAngelo Williams	26	3,850	8,956	5,106
Fred Taylor	33	11,540	17,162	5,622
Thomas Jones	31	9,217	15,166	5,949

And here are their projected totals —

Name	Age on Dec. 31	Current level	AC	Projected yards	Projected career total
Adrian Peterson	24	1,501.67	8.05	12,088	16,572
Chris Johnson	24	1,617.0*	8.05	13,017	16,251
LaDainian Tomlinson	30	980.67	1.52	1,491	13,981
Clinton Portis	28	953	3.18	3,031	12,727
Edgerrin James	31	437.5	0.96	420	12,666
Maurice Jones-Drew	24	1,098.17	8.05	8,840	12,764
Steven Jackson	26	1,222.33	4.84	5,916	12,623
Fred Taylor	33	520.17	0.72	375	11,915
Jamal Lewis	30	801.33	1.52	1,218	11,825
Frank Gore	26	1,089.00	4.84	5,271	10,832
Matt Forte	24	1,083.5*	8.05	8,722	10,889
Thomas Jones	31	1,324.83	0.96	1,272	10,489
DeAngelo Williams	26	1,183.00	4.84	5,726	9,576

*—For Chris Johnson and Matt Forte, each of whom have played only two seasons, I calculated their current level as if they had rushed for the same yardage in 2007 as they did as rookies in 2008. The result, then, is equal to their career average.

One other active running back I should mention is Jonathan Stewart, whose 1,969 career yards at age 22 are just 531 behind Smith's 2,500 at the same age. Given that Stewart shares carries with DeAngelo Williams, he's unlikely to challenge Smith's record unless Williams suffers a major injury or one of the two players changes teams soon. The age coefficients that I calculated begin after age 24, by which age most running backs have played at least three seasons, so I can't project Stewart's career total using that method. I can, however, project a total using Smith's career path. At age 22, Smith had a production level (calculated the same way I did for Chris Johnson and Matt Forte) of 1,250 yards. In the remainder of his career, he rushed for 15,855 yards, which would give him an age coefficient of 12.68. Multiplying that by Stewart's current level of production (984.5) gives him 12,483 projected yards for a projected career total of 14,452 yards. It's highly doubtful that Stewart will be able to match Smith's career path, especially given that Stewart currently is a backup, but even doing so would leave him almost 4,000 yards behind Smith's record.

So, exactly what will it take for a running back to challenge Smith's record, short of the NFL expanding the regular season? Most likely, it will take a player who entered the NFL by age 21, as Smith did. Smith essentially has a head start over any back who is a rookie at age 22 or 23. It obviously also will take a player who is among the most productive backs in history during his prime. Smith remains the most productive back in history from ages 22 to 27 — a period of his career that has nothing to do with entering the NFL early or his extraordinary longevity. And it almost certainly will take a player who can match or surpass that longevity. Smith holds the record for rushing yards at 28 and older by more than 1,000 over Walter Payton and by more than 1,700 over every other back who had a heavy workload before age 28. And Smith had 14 seasons with at least 240 rushing attempts and 900 rushing yards; no other player has had more than 10 of either one.

Finally, what would have happened if Barry Sanders had not retired after age 30? Based on this method of projecting yardage, he would have gained 2,567 more yards in his career (a production level of 1,688.67 times an age coefficient of 1.52). That would have given him 17,836 career yards, which is 519 fewer than Smith's record. Sanders would have had to exceed his projected longevity and production in order to finish with more yards than Smith's career total of 18,355. It's possible that he could have, if only he would have had the desire to keep playing, but it's not something we can say was statistically likely to happen.

Early comp pick projections for 2010, Part VII

2010-01-10T20:20:00.000-08:00

The final post in my series explaining the compensatory pick possibilities for each team takes a look at the remaining teams in the AFC South.

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

Click here to read why Denver will not get any comp picks this year.

San Diego — The Chargers lost two qualifying players and signed one. They should receive one comp pick for the loss of Igor Olshansky, in either the fifth or sixth round.

Oakland — The Raiders lost one qualifying player (Jake Grove) and signed one (Khalif Barnes) who likely will qualify. If Barnes does qualify, the Raiders will receive a net-value comp pick at the end of the seventh round, after the true comp picks but before any non-compensatory picks that might be added. If Barnes does not qualify, the Raiders will receive a comp pick for Grove, likely in the fourth round but possibly in the fifth.

Kansas City — The Chiefs did not lose any qualifying players and will not receive a comp pick.

The first six posts in this series covered a handful of the teams who will not receive a comp pick, the NFC East and NFC North, the NFC South and NFC West, the AFC East, the AFC North and the AFC South.

Early comp pick projections for 2010, Part VI

2010-01-08T09:58:00.000-08:00

The penultimate post in my series explaining the compensatory pick possibilities for each team takes a look at the remaining teams in the AFC South.

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

Click here to read why Houston will not get any comp picks this year.

Indianapolis — The Colts did not sign any qualifying players. They should receive a seventh-round comp pick for the loss of Darrell Reid and possibly a seventh-rounder for the loss of Hunter Smith, if he qualifies.

Jacksonville — The Jaguars signed two players who will qualify and lost two players who definitely will qualify and one (Khalif Barnes) who likely will qualify. If Barnes does qualify as a player lost, the Jaguars should receive a sixth-round comp pick for Mike Peterson. If Barnes does not qualify, the Jaguars will not get a comp pick.

Tennessee — The Titans lost six players who will qualify, including the highest-valued player who qualifies, Albert Haynesworth. They signed two players who will qualify and one (Mark Jones) who is on the bubble. They will get the highest third-round comp pick for Haynesworth and either two or three other comp picks, depending on whether Jones qualifies. The Titans' other comp picks should be in the seventh round, but one has an outside chance of being in the sixth round.

The final installment will cover the remaining AFC West teams — San Diego, Oakland and Kansas City.

Previous posts covered a handful of the teams who will not receive a comp pick, the NFC East and NFC North, the NFC South and NFC West, the AFC East and the AFC North.

Early comp pick projections for 2010, Part V

2010-01-07T09:34:00.000-08:00

The fifth post in this series explaining the compensatory pick possibilities for each team takes a look at the remaining teams in the AFC North.

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

Click here to read why Cleveland will not receive a comp pick this year.

Cincinnati — The Bengals will receive a comp pick for the loss of T.J. Houshmandzadeh, and it almost certainly will be in the third round. If Laveranues Coles counts in the equation, the Bengals will not receive another comp pick. If Coles does not count, they also will receive a comp pick for Stacy Andrews, in either the fourth or fifth round. Click here and scroll down to read about why Coles might not count in the equation.

Baltimore — The Ravens signed four players who will qualify and lost four players who will qualify, so they will not receive a true comp pick. They might receive a "net value" comp pick, if the combined value of the players they lost is sufficiently higher than the combined value of the players they signed. Whether that is the case will be determined by the final values of the players involved.

Pittsburgh — The Steelers lost three qualifying players and didn't sign any, so they will receive three comp picks. They should receive a fifth-round comp pick for Bryant McFadden, a fifth or sixth (most likely a fifth) for Nate Washington and a seventh for Byron Leftwich.

Early comp pick projections for 2010, Part IV

2010-01-05T11:11:00.000-08:00

In the fourth post of my series explaining the compensatory pick possibilities for each team, I'll look at the teams in the AFC East.

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

New England — The Patriots should get four comp picks. They lost four players who will qualify and didn't sign any players who definitely will qualify. They also have one player signed and one player lost who are on the bubble for qualifying. Because the player they lost has a higher value than the one they signed, there is no way for the player signed to qualify without the player lost also qualifying, so those players will not affect the Patriots' comp picks. Three of the Patriots' comp picks will be in the seventh rouond. One, for Jabar Gaffney, likely will be in the seventh round but has a small chance of being in the sixth round.

Miami — Whether the Dolphins get a comp pick depends on whether Joe Berger qualifies for the equation. If he does, the Dolphins will not get a comp pick, because they would have lost two qualifying players and signed two qualifying players. If Berger does not qualify, though, they would have signed only one qualifying player and would get a comp pick for Renaldo Hill in either the sixth or seventh round.

New York Jets — The Jets will not receive a comp pick. They signed three players who will qualify and one who is on the bubble for qualifying. They lost no more than three players who will qualify. As I explained in a previous post (scroll to the bottom of that post), Laveranues Coles might not qualify for the equation, which would mean that the Jets lost only two qualifying players. Either way, the Jets did not suffer a net loss of free agents and will not receive a comp pick.

Buffalo — The Bills signed two qualifying players and lost two qualifying players, so they will not receive a true comp pick. There is an outside chance that the Bills will receive a "net value" comp pick at the end of the seventh round if the players they lost have a combined value that is sufficiently more than the combined value of the players they signed. Whether that is the case will be determined by the final values of the players involved.

Early comp pick projections for 2010, Part III

2009-12-21T01:22:00.000-08:00

The third post of my series explaining at the compensatory pick possibilities for each team takes a look at the remaining teams in the NFC South and NFC West.

Click here to read why the other teams in the NFC South and NFC West won't get any comp picks in 2010.

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

Atlanta — The Falcons lost four qualifying players and signed either one or two. They should receive a third- or fourth-round pick for losing Dominique Foxworth and a fifth or sixth for losing Michael Boley. If Brett Romberg does not qualify, the Falcons also will receive a pick as compensation for losing Grady Jackson, likely in the seventh round.

Carolina — The Panthers didn't sign any qualifying players, so they will receive a comp pick for each qualifying player lost. They should get a fifth or sixth for Geoff Hangartner and a sixth or seventh for Frank Omiyale. There is a small chance that Mark Jones also will qualify. If so, the Panthers would get a seventh for him.

Tampa Bay — The Buccaneers will not get a comp pick. They lost only two qualifying players, and they signed either three or four.

Arizona — The Cardinals could get a third- or fourth-round pick, or they could get nothing. They lost one player who definitely will qualify and signed one player who definitely will qualify. The question is whether Terrelle Smith will count as a player lost and whether Jason Wright will count as a player signed. At this point, I would project that both of them will qualify based on their contract values, leaving the Cardinals with no comp picks. If Wright qualfies and Smith doesn't, they wouldn't get a comp pick, either. But if Smith qualifies and Wright doesn't, the Cardinals would get a third- or fourth-round pick as compensation for losing Antonio Smith.

San Francisco — The 49ers should get one comp pick, with a very small chance that they'll get two. They signed three players who qualify and lost four who qualify and one who is on the bubble but almost certainly will not qualify. Their comp pick would be in the sixth or seventh round, most likely the seventh. If they do get a second comp pick, it would be in the seventh.

Seattle — Any comp picks the Seahawks get will be in the seventh round. The only question is how many. They signed two players who will qualify and one who might qualify. They lost three players who will qualify and two who might. The various combinations of John Owens qualifying as a player signed, Bobby Engram qualifying as a player lost and/or Floyd Womack qualifying as a player lost could result in the Seahawks getting one, two or even three seventh-round comp picks.

Early comp pick projections for 2010, Part II

2009-12-19T01:36:00.000-08:00

In the second post of my series explaining at the compensatory pick possibilities for each team, it's time to take a look at the remaining teams in the NFC East and NFC North.

Click here to read why the other teams in the NFC East and NFC North won't get any comp picks in 2010.

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

Philadelphia — The Eagles signed three players who will qualify for the comp picks equation and lost five players who will qualify, so they should receive two picks. The only player they lost whose compensatory value is higher than a seventh-round pick is Brian Dawkins, and the signing of Stacy Andrews, whose average contract value is almost twice as much, cancels out the loss of Dawkins. Therefore, the Eagles should receive two comp picks in the seventh round.

Minnesota — The Vikings lost two qualifying players and signed one, giving them one comp pick. The signing of Karl Paymah cancels out the loss of their lower-valued player lost, and that is Darren Sharper, whose performance this season is irrelevant to the equation. That leaves the Vikings with a pick as compensation for losing Matt Birk, in either the fifth or sixth round.

Green Bay — The Packers lost Colin Cole and didn't sign anyone who will qualify. They should receive a comp pick in either the fifth or sixth round.

Chicago — The Bears will not receive a comp pick. They signed two players who will qualify, and they lost one who will qualify and one (Brandon McGowan) who almost certainly will not qualify. Even if McGowan somehow qualifies, the combined values of the players signed is more than that of the players lost, so the Bears will not even receive a "net value" pick.

Early comp pick projections for 2010, Part I

2009-12-11T18:16:00.000-08:00

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.

An updated look at the 2010 comp picks

2009-11-30T09:48:00.000-08:00

Here's an updated look at the players eligible for the 2010 compensatory picks equation. For players who were cut during the season, the date is included, as is the date they re-signed, if applicable. Players on the bubble to qualify for the equation are listed either as "high bubble" or "low bubble." The "high bubble" players typically have a better chance of qualifying, depending on their playing time. "NQ" indicates that the player did not sign for enough money to qualify for the equation.

The list --

ARIZONA
Lost – DE Antonio Smith, CB Eric Green (cut), RB Terrelle Smith, LB Monty Beisel (low bubble, cut 9/29), RB J.J. Arrington (cut)
Signed – CB Bryant McFadden, RB Jason Wright (high bubble)

ATLANTA
Lost – CB Dominique Foxworth, LB Michael Boley, LB Keith Brooking, DT Grady Jackson
Signed – LB Mike Peterson, C Brett Romberg (high bubble)

BALTIMORE
Lost – LB Bart Scott, C Jason Brown, S Jim Leonhard, QB Kyle Boller, CB Corey Ivy (low bubble, cut), FB Lorenzo Neal (low bubble, cut), WR Terrance Copper (NQ)
Signed – CB Dominique Foxworth, C Matt Birk, CB Chris Carr, TE L.J. Smith

BUFFALO
Lost – CB Jabari Greer, LB Angelo Crowell, C Duke Preston (high bubble, cut), DE Tony Hargrove (NQ)
Signed – C Geoff Hangartner, QB Ryan Fitzpatrick, RB Dominic Rhodes (cut), G Seth McKinney (NQ), LB Patrick Thomas (NQ, cut)

CAROLINA
Lost – C Geoff Hangartner, T Frank Omiyale, WR Mark Jones (high bubble, cut 9/5, re-signed 9/29), LB Adam Seward (NQ, cut)
Signed – none

CHICAGO
Lost – T John St. Clair, S Brandon McGowan (low bubble)
Signed – T Frank Omiyale, S Josh Bullocks

CINCINNATI
Lost – WR T.J. Houshmandzadeh, T Stacy Andrews, QB Ryan Fitzpatrick, G Eric Ghiaciuc (NQ, cut)
Signed – WR Laveranues Coles, QB J.T. O’Sullivan, DT Tank Johnson (NQ)

CLEVELAND
Lost – S Sean Jones, RB Jason Wright (high bubble), G Scott Young (cut), TE Darnell Dinkins (low bubble), G Seth McKinney (NQ), CB Travis Daniels (NQ, cut)
Signed – LB Eric Barton, T John St. Clair, DE C.J. Mosley, T Floyd Womack (high bubble), CB Corey Ivy (low bubble, cut), CB Hank Poteat (low bubble)

DALLAS
Lost – DE Chris Canty, LB Kevin Burnett, LB Zach Thomas (cut), G Joe Berger (high bubble), DT Tank Johnson (NQ), S Keith Davis (NQ, cut)
Signed – DT Igor Olshansky, LB Keith Brooking, S Gerald Sensabaugh

DENVER
Lost – CB Karl Paymah, QB Patrick Ramsey (low bubble, cut 10/3)
Signed – CB Andre Goodman, S Brian Dawkins, QB Chris Simms, NT Ronald Fields, WR Jabar Gaffney, CB Renaldo Hill, DT Darrell Reid, RB Correll Buckhalter, RB LaMont Jordan, LS Lonie Paxton, T Brandon Gorin (NQ), RB J.J. Arrington (cut), G Scott Young (cut)

DETROIT
Lost – NT Shaun Cody, QB Dan Orlovsky, RB Moran Norris, TE John Owens (high bubble), LB Paris Lenon (low bubble, cut), WR Shaun McDonald (NQ)
Signed – CB Phillip Buchanon, WR Bryant Johnson, DT Grady Jackson, T Daniel Loper, CB Eric King, RB Maurice Morris, RB Terrelle Smith, LB Cody Spencer (NQ, IR in preseason), TE Will Heller (NQ)

GREEN BAY
Lost – DT Colin Cole
Signed – C Duke Preston (high bubble, cut)

HOUSTON
Lost – S C.C. Brown, CB DeMarcus Faggins (cut), LS Bryan Pittman (NQ, cut)
Signed – DE Antonio Smith, QB Dan Orlovsky, NT Shaun Cody, OL Adrian Jones (NQ, cut)

INDIANAPOLIS
Lost – DT Darrell Reid, RB Dominic Rhodes (cut), P Hunter Smith (low bubble), CB Keiwan Ratliff (NQ)
Signed – LB Adam Seward (NQ, cut)

JACKSONVILLE
Lost – LB Mike Peterson, S Gerald Sensabaugh, T Khalif Barnes, S Pierson Prioleau (low bubble)
Signed – T Tra Thomas, S Sean Considine

KANSAS CITY
Lost – LB Patrick Thomas (NQ, cut), OL Adrian Jones (NQ, cut)
Signed – LB Zach Thomas (cut), G Mike Goff, WR Bobby Engram (cut 11/9), LB Monty Beisel (low bubble, cut 9/29), WR Terrance Copper (NQ), G Eric Ghiaciuc (NQ, cut), CB Travis Daniels (NQ, cut 9/4, re-signed 11/4), TE Sean Ryan (NQ)

MIAMI
Lost – CB Andre Goodman, CB Renaldo Hill, C Al Johnson (high bubble, cut)
Signed – C Jake Grove, CB Eric Green (cut), G Joe Berger (high bubble)

MINNESOTA
Lost – C Matt Birk, S Darren Sharper, T Marcus Johnson (NQ, cut)
Signed – CB Karl Paymah

NEW ENGLAND
Lost – WR Jabar Gaffney, FB Heath Evans, LS Lonie Paxton, RB LaMont Jordan, LB Larry Izzo (low bubble)
Signed – C Al Johnson (high bubble, cut), LB Paris Lenon (low bubble, cut), S Brandon McGowan (low bubble), DT Damane Duckett (cut)

NEW ORLEANS
Lost – S Josh Bullocks
Signed – CB Jabari Greer, S Darren Sharper, FB Heath Evans, TE Darnell Dinkins (low bubble), S Pierson Prioleau (low bubble), DE Tony Hargrove (NQ), C Nick Leckey (NQ)

NEW YORK GIANTS
Lost – RB Derrick Ward, S James Butler, DE Renaldo Wynn (low bubble, cut 10/12, re-signed 10/12, cut 10/18, re-signed 10/19)
Signed – DE Chris Canty, LB Michael Boley, DT Rocky Bernard, S C.C. Brown

NEW YORK JETS
Lost – WR Laveranues Coles, LB Eric Barton, DE C.J. Mosley, K Mike Nugent (cut 10/5), CB Hank Poteat (low bubble), LB Cody Spencer (NQ)
Signed – LB Bart Scott, S Jim Leonhard, CB Donald Strickland, LB Larry Izzo (low bubble), DT Howard Green (NQ, cut 10/17, re-signed 10/20)

OAKLAND
Lost – C Jake Grove, S Rashad Baker (high bubble, cut)
Signed – T Khalif Barnes, QB Jeff Garcia (cut), FB Lorenzo Neal (low bubble, cut), T Marcus Johnson (NQ, cut), DT Ryan Boschetti (NQ, cut), S Keith Davis (NQ, cut)

PHILADELPHIA
Lost – S Brian Dawkins, T Tra Thomas, RB Correll Buckhalter, TE L.J. Smith, S Sean Considine
Signed – T Stacy Andrews, S Sean Jones, RB Leonard Weaver, S Rashad Baker (high bubble, cut)

PITTSBURGH
Lost – CB Bryant McFadden, WR Nate Washington, QB Byron Leftwich, T Marvel Smith (retired)
Signed – WR Shaun McDonald (NQ), CB Keiwan Ratliff (NQ)

SAN DIEGO
Lost – DT Igor Olshansky, G Mike Goff, LB Marques Harris (NQ, cut 10/28)
Signed – LB Kevin Burnett

SAN FRANCISCO
Lost – WR Bryant Johnson, NT Ronald Fields, QB J.T. O’Sullivan, CB Donald Strickland, TE Billy Bajema (low bubble), TE Sean Ryan (NQ), DT Damane Duckett (cut)
Signed – WR Brandon Jones, RB Moran Norris, DE Demetric Evans, T Marvel Smith (retired), LB Marques Harris (NQ, cut 10/28)

SEATTLE
Lost – DT Rocky Bernard, RB Maurice Morris, RB Leonard Weaver, WR Bobby Engram (cut 11/9), T Floyd Womack (high bubble), TE Will Heller (NQ), DT Howard Green (NQ, cut 10/17, re-signed 10/20)
Signed – WR T.J. Houshmandzadeh, DT Colin Cole, TE John Owens (high bubble), LS Bryan Pittman (NQ, cut)

ST. LOUIS
Lost – C Brett Romberg (high bubble), C Nick Leckey (NQ), T Brandon Gorin (NQ)
Signed – C Jason Brown, S James Butler, QB Kyle Boller, TE Billy Bajema (low bubble)

TAMPA BAY
Lost – CB Phillip Buchanon, DT Jovan Haye, QB Jeff Garcia (cut)
Signed – RB Derrick Ward, LB Angelo Crowell (IR in preseason), K Mike Nugent (cut 10/5), QB Byron Leftwich

TENNESSEE
Lost – DT Albert Haynesworth, WR Brandon Jones, QB Chris Simms, CB Chris Carr, CB Eric King, T Daniel Loper
Signed – WR Nate Washington, DT Jovan Haye, CB DeMarcus Faggins (cut), WR Mark Jones (high bubble, cut 9/5, re-signed 9/29), QB Patrick Ramsey (low bubble, cut 10/3)

WASHINGTON
Lost – DE Demetric Evans, DT Ryan Boschetti (NQ, cut)
Signed – DT Albert Haynesworth, DE Renaldo Wynn (low bubble, cut 10/10, re-signed 10/12, cut 10/17, resigned 10/19), P Hunter Smith (low bubble)

The curious case of Laveranues Coles

Someone recently asked me whether Laveranues Coles might not be eligible for the compensatory picks equation because he was "cut" by the Jets. Coles was not released by the Jets, although some media reports said he was. The Jets actually renegotiated his contract to make his 2009 season voidable, so his contract voided, and he became a true Unrestricted Free Agent.

Plenty of players have qualified for the comp equation after becoming UFAs because their contract voided, even if the voidable year was put in the contract through renegotiation. However, Coles' situation is a little less clear because of the timing involved. Coles' renegotiation was signed on Feb. 25, and his contract voided on Feb. 27. Normally, a player "earns" a void in his contract by doing something more than simply waiting two days, so it's possible that the NFL will not consider Coles eligible for the comp picks equation. Players who have had contract years simply deleted -- not converted to voidable years -- by renegotiation have never qualified for the equation, and Coles' situation is close to that. However, because a voidable year has never disqualified a player from the equation, I'm currently projecting that Coles will be eligible.

While researching Coles' case, I discovered that Andra Davis had his 2009 and 2010 seasons deleted by renegotiation, so he no longer appears on this list. Because Davis' current team (Denver) and his former team (Cleveland) both signed more players than they lost, he likely wouldn't have affected the comp picks anyway.

As always, corrections and questions are welcomed.

A quick update

2009-06-07T19:30:00.000-07:00

ESPN.com's Mike Sando mentioned this blog again in his June 7 post about the 2010 comp picks, and he provided a helpful piece of information, as well. Sando said he can confirm that, as expected, no teams extended June 1 tenders to any of their remaining Unrestricted Free Agents. As I explained in my most recent post on this blog, that means any additional UFA signings this year won't be included in the equation for the 2010 comp picks.

Sando also asked for my analysis of the Seahawks' outlook for 2010 comp picks. That's a pretty easy one, so I'll oblige. The Seahawks signed four UFAs and lost seven UFAs by June 1. One player they signed (Bryan Pittman) and two players they lost (Will Heller and Howard Green) did not sign for enough money to qualify. That leaves three signed and five lost who might qualify. Of those, one player they signed (John Owens) and one player they lost (Floyd Womack) are on the bubble for qualifying. I labeled both of them as "high bubble" players in my previous post, meaning that their average contract values rank near the upper end of the players on the bubble. The Seahawks also signed T.J. Houshmandzadeh and Colin Cole, and they lost Rocky Bernard, Maurice Morris, Leonard Weaver and Bobby Engram. As long as none of them get released before a certain point in time (seemingly Week 10 of the regular season), all six of those players should qualify for the comp equation. Whether Owens and Womack qualify might depend on their playing time, although they also might qualify even if they never play a single snap.

Unless Seattle releases and thereby disqualifies Houshmandzadeh and/or Cole, the Seahawks once again won't get a comp pick higher than the seventh round. (They got three seventh-round comp picks this year.) Houshmandzadeh and Cole both signed for more money per season than anyone the Seahawks lost, and they would cancel out the losses of the two highest-valued players the Seahawks lost, Bernard and Morris. The other players Seattle lost, Weaver, Engram and Womack (if he qualifies), would be worth seventh-round comp picks at best, based on their average contract values.

If none of the players involved are released, the Seahawks could receive one, two or three seventh-round comp picks, depending on whether Owens and Womack qualify. If they both qualify, or of neither qualifies, the Seahawks would get two comp picks. If Owens qualifies and Womack does not, Seattle would get one comp pick. And if Womack qualifies but Owens does not, the Seahawks could get three comp picks.

There are two other details that I should mention. The first is that if Owens does qualify, even if just barely, he would cancel out the loss of the Seahawks' highest-valued seventh-round comp player, which almost certainly will be Weaver. That would leave Seattle with a comp pick for Engram and possibly one for Womack, if he qualifies. It's a small detail, but it would mean that the Seahawks' first seventh-round comp pick would be a little lower than it would be if Owens did not qualify. The second detail is that if Womack does qualify and Owens does not, even though the Seahawks' equation would say they should get a comp pick for Womack, it's possible that the maximum of 32 comp picks could be reached before the pick for Womack is awarded. In that case, Seattle would not get a comp pick for him. There's only a slim chance of that happening, but it does need to be mentioned.

As I said, the Seahawks' situation is an easy one to analyze, but that doesn't mean we already know exactly what they'll be getting when the NFL hands out comp picks next year. There still are far too many factors involved in the equation that could change between now and the end of the regular season.

Qualifying free agents for the 2010 comp picks

2009-06-05T14:34:00.000-07:00

The NFL free agency period doesn’t end until July 22, but in regard to the equation for 2010 compensatory picks, the signing deadline essentially passed on June 1. My research indicates that any free agent signed after June 1 will not qualify for the comp picks equation unless his former team gave him a “June 1 tender” – basically an offer of a 10 percent raise (see Article XIX, Section 1, Subsection (b)(i) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement for the details of June 1 tender requirements). Because most players worthy of a 10 percent raise are signed in the early stages of free agency, very few (if any) players receive a June 1 tender. Because June 1 tenders for Unrestricted Free Agents don’t count against the salary cap, it’s not known at this time whether any remaining UFAs received a June 1 tender.

Not all UFAs who signed by June 1 will count in the equation for comp picks. Some player will be disqualified by being released by their new team before or during training camp, during the preseason or early in the regular season. Other players didn’t sign for enough money to qualify, no matter what they do.

Below is a preliminary list of all of the UFAs – true UFAs, not players who had been released by their former team – who were lost or signed by each team by June 1. Each group is listed by average contract value per season (counting only the money included in the comp formula), from highest to lowest. I’ve labeled any player with a contract value of $670,000 per season or less as NQ, for non-qualifier. I’ve labeled any player with a contract value between $765,000 and $895,000 per season as a “low bubble” player, meaning that there might be a chance of that player qualifying, depending on his playing time and any “postseason honors.” (No player signed a contract valued at more than $670,000 per season but less than $765,000 per season.) Any player who signed a contract valued between $900,000 and $975,000 per season is listed as a “high bubble” player, meaning that the player might not qualify if he doesn’t play enough this season.

ARIZONA
Lost – DE Antonio Smith, CB Eric Green, RB Terrelle Smith, LB Monty Beisel (low bubble), RB J.J. Arrington (cut)
Signed – CB Bryant McFadden, RB Jason Wright (high bubble)

ATLANTA
Lost – CB Dominique Foxworth, LB Michael Boley, LB Keith Brooking, DT Grady Jackson
Signed – LB Mike Peterson, C Brett Romberg (high bubble)

BALTIMORE
Lost – LB Bart Scott, C Jason Brown, S Jim Leonhard, QB Kyle Boller, CB Corey Ivy (low bubble), FB Lorenzo Neal (low bubble), WR Terrance Copper (NQ)
Signed – CB Dominique Foxworth, C Matt Birk, CB Chris Carr, TE L.J. Smith

BUFFALO
Lost – CB Jabari Greer, LB Angelo Crowell, C Duke Preston (high bubble)
Signed – C Geoff Hangartner, QB Ryan Fitzpatrick, RB Dominic Rhodes, G Seth McKinney (NQ), LB Patrick Thomas (NQ), DE Tony Hargrove (NQ)

CAROLINA
Lost – C Geoff Hangartner, T Frank Omiyale, WR Mark Jones (high bubble), LB Adam Seward (NQ)
Signed – none

CHICAGO
Lost – T John St. Clair, S Brandon McGowan (low bubble)
Signed – T Frank Omiyale, S Josh Bullocks

CINCINNATI
Lost – WR T.J. Houshmandzadeh, T Stacy Andrews, QB Ryan Fitzpatrick, G Eric Ghiaciuc (NQ)
Signed – WR Laveranues Coles, QB J.T. O’Sullivan, DT Tank Johnson (NQ)

CLEVELAND
Lost – S Sean Jones, LB Andra Davis, RB Jason Wright (high bubble), G Scott Young (cut), TE Darnell Dinkins (low bubble), G Seth McKinney (NQ), CB Travis Daniels (NQ)
Signed – LB Eric Barton, T John St. Clair, DE C.J. Mosley, T Floyd Womack (high bubble), CB Corey Ivy (low bubble), CB Hank Poteat (low bubble)

DALLAS
Lost – DE Chris Canty, LB Kevin Burnett, LB Zach Thomas, G Joe Berger (high bubble), DT Tank Johnson (NQ), S Keith Davis (NQ)
Signed – DT Igor Olshansky, LB Keith Brooking, S Gerald Sensabaugh

DENVER
Lost – CB Karl Paymah, QB Patrick Ramsey (low bubble)
Signed – CB Andre Goodman, S Brian Dawkins, QB Chris Simms, CB Renaldo Hill, WR Jabar Gaffney, NT Ronald Fields, DT Darrell Reid, RB Correll Buckhalter, LB Andra Davis, LS Lonie Paxton, RB LaMont Jordan, T Brandon Gorin (NQ), RB J.J. Arrington (cut), G Scott Young (cut)

DETROIT
Lost – NT Shaun Cody, QB Dan Orlovsky, RB Moran Norris, TE John Owens (high bubble), LB Paris Lenon (low bubble), WR Shaun McDonald (NQ)
Signed – CB Phillip Buchanon, WR Bryant Johnson, DT Grady Jackson, CB Eric King, RB Maurice Morris, T Daniel Loper, RB Terrelle Smith, LB Cody Spencer (NQ), TE Will Heller (NQ)

GREEN BAY
Lost – DT Colin Cole
Signed – C Duke Preston (high bubble)

HOUSTON
Lost – S C.C. Brown, CB DeMarcus Faggins, LS Bryan Pittman (NQ)
Signed – DE Antonio Smith, QB Dan Orlovsky, NT Shaun Cody, OL Adrian Jones (NQ)

INDIANAPOLIS
Lost – DT Darrell Reid, RB Dominic Rhodes, P Hunter Smith (low bubble), CB Keiwan Ratliff (NQ)
Signed – LB Adam Seward (NQ)

JACKSONVILLE
Lost – LB Mike Peterson, S Gerald Sensabaugh, T Khalif Barnes, S Pierson Prioleau (low bubble)
Signed – T Tra Thomas, S Sean Considine

KANSAS CITY
Lost – LB Patrick Thomas (NQ), OL Adrian Jones (NQ)
Signed – LB Zach Thomas, G Mike Goff, WR Bobby Engram, LB Monty Beisel (low bubble), WR Terrance Copper (NQ), G Eric Ghiaciuc (NQ), CB Travis Daniels (NQ), TE Sean Ryan (NQ)

MIAMI
Lost – CB Andre Goodman, CB Renaldo Hill, C Al Johnson (high bubble)
Signed – C Jake Grove, CB Eric Green, G Joe Berger (high bubble)

MINNESOTA
Lost – C Matt Birk, S Darren Sharper, T Marcus Johnson (NQ)
Signed – CB Karl Paymah

NEW ENGLAND
Lost – WR Jabar Gaffney, FB Heath Evans, LS Lonie Paxton, RB LaMont Jordan, LB Larry Izzo (low bubble)
Signed – C Al Johnson (high bubble), LB Paris Lenon (low bubble), S Brandon McGowan (low bubble), DT Damane Duckett (cut)

NEW ORLEANS
Lost – S Josh Bullocks
Signed – CB Jabari Greer, S Darren Sharper, FB Heath Evans, TE Darnell Dinkins (low bubble), S Pierson Prioleau (low bubble), C Nick Leckey (NQ), DE Tony Hargrove (NQ)

NEW YORK GIANTS
Lost – RB Derrick Ward, S James Butler, DE Renaldo Wynn (low bubble)
Signed – DE Chris Canty, LB Michael Boley, DT Rocky Bernard, S C.C. Brown

NEW YORK JETS
Lost – WR Laveranues Coles, LB Eric Barton, DE C.J. Mosley, K Mike Nugent, CB Hank Poteat (low bubble), LB Cody Spencer (NQ)
Signed – LB Bart Scott, S Jim Leonhard, CB Donald Strickland, LB Larry Izzo (low bubble), DT Howard Green (NQ)

OAKLAND
Lost – C Jake Grove, S Rashad Baker (high bubble)
Signed – T Khalif Barnes, QB Jeff Garcia, FB Lorenzo Neal (low bubble), T Marcus Johnson (NQ), DT Ryan Boschetti (NQ), S Keith Davis (NQ)

PHILADELPHIA
Lost – S Brian Dawkins, T Tra Thomas, RB Correll Buckhalter, TE L.J. Smith, S Sean Considine
Signed – T Stacy Andrews, S Sean Jones, RB Leonard Weaver, S Rashad Baker (high bubble)

PITTSBURGH
Lost – CB Bryant McFadden, WR Nate Washington, QB Byron Leftwich, T Marvel Smith
Signed – WR Shaun McDonald (NQ), CB Keiwan Ratliff (NQ)

SAN DIEGO
Lost – DT Igor Olshansky, G Mike Goff, LB Marques Harris (NQ)
Signed – LB Kevin Burnett

SAN FRANCISCO
Lost – WR Bryant Johnson, NT Ronald Fields, QB J.T. O’Sullivan, CB Donald Strickland, TE Billy Bajema (low bubble), TE Sean Ryan (NQ), DT Damane Duckett (cut)
Signed – WR Brandon Jones, RB Moran Norris, DE Demetric Evans, T Marvel Smith, LB Marques Harris (NQ)

SEATTLE
Lost – DT Rocky Bernard, RB Maurice Morris, RB Leonard Weaver, WR Bobby Engram, T Floyd Womack (high bubble), TE Will Heller (NQ), DT Howard Green (NQ)
Signed – WR T.J. Houshmandzadeh, DT Colin Cole, TE John Owens (high bubble), LS Bryan Pittman (NQ)

ST. LOUIS
Lost – C Brett Romberg (high bubble), C Nick Leckey (NQ), T Brandon Gorin (NQ)
Signed – C Jason Brown, S James Butler, QB Kyle Boller, TE Billy Bajema (low bubble)

TAMPA BAY
Lost – CB Phillip Buchanon, DT Jovan Haye, QB Jeff Garcia
Signed – RB Derrick Ward, LB Angelo Crowell, K Mike Nugent, QB Byron Leftwich

TENNESSEE
Lost – DT Albert Haynesworth, WR Brandon Jones, QB Chris Simms, CB Chris Carr, CB Eric King, T Daniel Loper
Signed – WR Nate Washington, DT Jovan Haye, CB DeMarcus Faggins, WR Mark Jones (high bubble), QB Patrick Ramsey (low bubble)

WASHINGTON
Lost – DE Demetric Evans, DT Ryan Boschetti (NQ)
Signed – DT Albert Haynesworth, DE Renaldo Wynn (low bubble), P Hunter Smith (low bubble)

It’s still far too early to determine which teams will get comp picks in which rounds, because any team’s situation could change if a qualifying player is released, traded, benched, injured, etc. But the list above provides a starting point for determining which teams are more likely to receive comp picks. Pittsburgh, for example, with four players lost who could qualify and no players signed who are likely to qualify, stands to receive up to four comp picks in 2010. On the other hand, teams such as Denver, St. Louis, New Orleans, Kansas City and Washington aren’t likely to receive any comp picks.

Remaining UFAs

Below is a list of the remaining UFAs. If any of them received a June 1 tender, they would be included in the formula if they sign with a new team by July 22.

Arizona – Scott Peters, Jerame Tuman, Wayne Gandy

Atlanta – Lawyer Milloy, Marcus Pollard

Baltimore – Lorenzo Neal, Chad Slaughter, Matt Stover, Daniel Wilcox

Buffalo – Melvin Fowler, Teddy Lehman, J.P. Losman, Jason Whittle

Carolina – Donte Curry, Jason Kyle, Darwin Walker

Chicago – Mike Brown, Rex Grossman
Chicago – Brandon Lloyd, Darrell McClover, Fred Miller, Cameron Worrell

Cincinnati – Jamar Fletcher, John Thornton

Cleveland – Lennie Friedman, Kris Griffin, Daven Holly, Willie McGinest, Shantee Orr

Dallas – Brooks Bollinger, Carlos Polk

Denver – Tatum Bell, Ebenezer Ekuban, Darrell Jackson, Marlon McCree, Tom Nalen, Michael Pittman, Edell Shepherd, Nate Webster

Detroit – Rudi Johnson, Andy McCollum, Langston Moore, Ryan Nece, Corey Smith, Stanley Wilson

Green Bay – Mark Tauscher

Houston – Mark Bruener, Scott Jackson, Cecil Sapp, Jimmy Williams, Jeff Zgonina

Indianapolis – Josh Thomas

Jacksonville – Chris Naeole, Reggie Williams

Kansas City – Jason Babin, Rocky Boiman, Oliver Celestin

Miami – Tab Perry, Derek Smith

Minnesota – Kenderick Allen, Michael Boulware, Napoleon Harris, Dontarrious Thomas, Ellis Wyms

N.Y. Giants – John Carney, Jerome McDougle, R.W. McQuarters, Grey Ruegamer, Rich Scanlon, Amani Toomer, Anthony Wright

N.Y. Jets – Jesse Chatman, Ty Law, J.R. Reed

New England – Rosevelt Colvin, Rodney Harrison, Deltha O’Neal, Lewis Sanders, Junior Seau, Barry Stokes

New Orleans – Mark Campbell, Aaron Glenn, Martin Gramatica, Terrence Holt, Antwan Lake, Michael Lehan, Matt Lehr, James Reed, Aaron Stecker

Oakland – Drew Carter, Ashley Lelie, Marques Tuiasosopo

Philadelphia – Jon Runyan

Pittsburgh – Mitch Berger, Orpheus Roye

San Diego – Jeremy Newberry

San Francisco – DeShaun Foster, Roderick Green, Jamie Martin

Seattle – Charlie Frye, Chris Gray, Wesly Mallard, Steve McKinney, Jeff Robinson, Koren Robinson

St. Louis – Fakhir Brown, Jason Craft, Anthony Davis, La’Roi Glover, Dante Hall, Dane Looker, Ricky Manning, Travis Minor, Rob Petitti, Gary Stills, Cory Withrow

Tampa Bay – Kevin Carter, Patrick Chukwurah

Tennessee – Reynaldo Hill, Justin McCareins, Tyrone Poole

Washington – Khary Campbell, Jason Fabini, Mike Green, Pete Kendall

In an upcoming post (or posts), I’ll take a look at the situation for some teams in regard to the 2010 comp picks. As always, any comments, questions or corrections are welcome.

(EDIT: Updated to include Adrian Jones, Tony Hargrove and Lorenzo Neal signings.)

Matthew Stafford's contract

2009-05-11T07:52:00.000-07:00

No. 1 draft pick Matthew Stafford's contract with the Detroit Lions is an example of how the value of a contract often gets exaggerated when reported by the media. Stafford's contract has been reported as being for six years and $72 million, with $41.7 million guaranteed and an additional $6 million in incentives that could push the total value to $78 million. Those numbers could be correct -- if Stafford plays a certain percentage of the Lions' offensive snaps. However, if Stafford doesn't achieve certain qualifying incentives in his contract, he'll never receive close to that $41.7 million he's supposedly "guaranteed."

The only parts of Stafford's contract that he's fully guaranteed to receive right now are most of his base salaries and the protected value of his option bonus. He did not receive a signing bonus, which isn't unusual for a high draft pick. In 2008, none of the first seven players drafted got a signing bonus. Stafford's base salaries are $3.1 million for 2009, $395,000 for 2010, $1.17 million for 2011, $1.95 million for 2012 and $2.7 million for 2013. In 2010, the Lions will have to decide whether to exercise an option for 2014 by paying Stafford a $17.4 million option bonus. If they exercise the option, the bonus gets prorated from 2010 to 2014, and Stafford gets a base salary of $3.495 million for 2014.

Here are Stafford's salary cap numbers if the Lions exercise the option and Stafford does not achieve any playing-time or performance incentives --

2009 $3.1 million
2010 $3.875 million ($395,000 base salary plus $3.48 million option bonus proration)
2011 $4.65 million ($1.17 million base salary plus $3.48 million option bonus proration)
2012 $5.425 million ($1.945 million base salary plus $3.48 million option bonus proration)
2013 $6.2 million ($2.72 million base salary plus $3.48 million option bonus proration)
2014 $6.975 million ($3.495 million base salary plus $3.48 million option bonus proration)

Those are the basic elements of Stafford's contract, and they illustrate the 25 Percent Rule, which applies to rookies' contracts. The 25 Percent Rule essentially says that certain amounts in a rookie's contract can't increase each year by more than 25 percent of the first-year total of those amounts. Signing bonus prorations and most other amounts treated as signing bonuses aren't included in the calculation of the 25 Percent Rule, but option bonus prorations are included. The only first-year money Stafford gets is his base salary of $3.1 million, 25 percent of which comes to $775,000. So the applicable amounts in his contract -- in his case, those are his base salaries and option bonus prorations -- can't increase by more than $775,000 each year. And not coincidentally, that's exactly how much they increase each year.

The amounts listed in the chart represent the minimum he is scheduled to earn if he's on the Lions' roster through the 2014 season. The total of those amounts is $30.21 million. Not only is that not anywhere close to $41.7 million, Stafford isn't even guaranteed to receive all of that $30.21 million. The actual amount he's absolutely guaranteed to receive under any circumstances is a mere $17.05 million.

Let's take a look at what happens if the Lions decide very early in Stafford's career that they made an egregious mistake, and Stafford is closer to being the next Bobby Garrett than he is to being the next Bobby Layne. Suppose Stafford plays less than 35 percent of the Lions' offensive snaps during the 2009 regular season, and the team decides not to exercise the option in his contract for 2014. Stafford's option bonus is mostly protected, which means that if it's not exercised, a clause in his contract automatically kicks in and assures that he'll get most of the money anyway. If the option isn't exercised, Stafford's base salaries automatically increase to $3.875 million in 2010, $4.65 million in 2011, $5.425 million in 2012 and $6.2 million in 2013, and he becomes a free agent in 2014. You'll notice that those amounts are the same as his cap numbers if the option is exercised, and the total amount is the same. However, there's a catch to that $6.2 million in 2013.

In an NFL contract, base salaries can be guaranteed "for skill" and "for injury" and against cap considerations. A fully guaranteed salary protects a player in all three scenarios. If he can no longer play effectively, suffers a career-ending injury or simply has too high of a cap number, he'll still receive his salary if it's fully guaranteed. And Stafford's base salaries are fully guaranteed through 2012. His 2013 base salary, however, is not fully guaranteed, because of a rule in the Collective Bargaining Agreement that deals with guaranteed salaries. Article XXIV, Section 7, (d)(ii) of the CBA says, "In a Player Contract entered into in a Capped Year, 50% of the Salary fully guaranteed for any League Year beyond three years after the Final Capped Year will be included in Salary and Team Salary during the League Year or Years of the Contract in which the Salary Cap is in effect in a proportion to be determined by the Team." The "Final Capped Year" currently is 2009, which means that half of any salary fully guaranteed beyond 2012 would be charged against the Lions' salary cap in 2009. As a result, Stafford's 2013 base salary (and 2014, if his option is exercised) is not fully guaranteed. It's guaranteed against cap considerations and "for injury," but it's not guaranteed "for skill." So if the Lions decide Stafford simply doesn't have the skill to play for them, they can cut him without paying his salary for 2013. If that happens, and if Stafford never acheives any playing-time or performance incentives, the Lions will have paid him only $17.05 million.

So, why has Stafford's contract been reported as having $41.7 million in guaranteed money? Most likely, it's because Stafford's agent, Tom Condon, wants everyone to think that he got his client that much guaranteed money. In reality, though, that's not the amount that Stafford is guaranteed to receive -- it's the amount that he COULD BE guaranteed to receive, if he achieves certain qualifiers and the Lions exercise his option. If Stafford achieves his qualifiers in 2009, there's a $9.105 million roster bonus in 2010, an additional $7.83 million in fully guaranteed salary for 2011 and an additional $755,000 in fully guaranteed salary for 2012. Along with the $17.4 million option bonus and his standard base salaries for 2009 through 2012, the total comes to $41.7 million, the figure cited by the media. But $24.65 million of that "guaranteed" money is dependent upon Stafford meeting his qualifiers. (The contract also includes built-in ways for Stafford to receive most or all of that money even if it takes him until 2010, 2011 or 2012 to achieve his qualifiers.)

The rest of Stafford's $72 million consists of a potential $7.8 million salary escalator in 2012 and escalated salaries of $11.5 million in 2013 and $11 million in 2014. But again, the only way for him to have those salaries is by reaching his qualifiers in certain seasons. And if those aren't enough, he has additional escalators of up to $1.5 million in certain seasons that could push his total contract value to its maximum of $78 million.

On a related note, I hate to correct ESPN.com's NFC North blogger, Kevin Seifert, considering that he has cited my blog three times. But in his May 8 entry about Stafford's contract, he mistakenly says that the use of the option bonus is "exact strategy" I wrote about in this post that I made on March 21 about a loophole around the 30 Percent Rule (and possibly the 25 Percent Rule for rookies). But it's not the same strategy. Option bonuses aren't a loophole around the rules, because the CBA specifically states that option bonuses count in the calculations for either rule. The loophole involves completion bonuses, which can be guaranteed but do not count in the calculations for the 30 Percent Rule.

A review of the 2009 NFL draft trades

2009-05-01T10:25:00.001-07:00

Three weeks ago, I posted a list of almost every trade from 1992 to 2008 that involved NFL draft picks but not active players. Using that list and a mathematical formula, a fan who posts as Mr. Bighead on the KFFL message boards created a draft pick value chart that indicates the historical value of each draft pick. The value of the No. 1 pick was fixed at 3,000 points, the same value it has in the commonly used value chart. Not surprisingly, though, the chart based on actual trades from 1992 to 2008 is much different from the commonly used chart. In general, higher picks are worth more in the historical chart than in the commonly used chart, and the higher the pick, the greater the difference between the charts.

I tested the historical value chart against certain benchmark trades in the list of trades that I posted, and I found that the chart is quite accurate, at least through five rounds or so. Late in the draft, teams are less likely to have picks that will balance out a trade, so they generally just make two-for-one trades out of the picks they have left and don't worry as much about point values.

In this post, I'll take a look at the trades made during the 2009 NFL draft and see whether teams that traded down got more value or less value than expected, based on trades made from 1992 to 2008.

Here are all of this year's trades that involved only draft picks --

2009 DRAFT

17 = 19, 191
19 = 21, 195
23 = 26, 162
26, 162 = 41, 73, 83
37 = next 1st
40 = 47, 124, 199
43, 111 = next 1st
49 = 68, 105
51 = 75, 110
56 = 61, 165
64, 132 = 79, 84
65 = 76, 115, 228
73 = 232, next 2nd
85 = 91, 164
89 = next 2nd
91 = 137, 213, next 3rd
117 = 120, 229
123, 198 = 137, 141
141 = 156, 210
150 = 158, 221
164 = 222, next 5th
174 = 235, next 5th
202 = 216, next 6th
222 = next 6th
237 = next 7th

Now let's take a look at each trade and the historical values of the picks involved --

17 = 19, 191

The historical value of the 17th pick is 1,419 points. The 19th is worth 1,319, and the 191st is worth 16, for a total of 1,335. Cleveland took 84 points less than the expected value to trade down with Tampa Bay (roughly the value of the 118th or 119th pick).

19 = 21, 195

Again, Cleveland took less than the expected value to trade down, this time with Philadelphia. The 19th pick has a historical value of 1,319 points, the 21st pick is worth 1,229, and the 19th is worth 15, for a total of 1,244 points. Based on those values, Cleveland got 75 fewer points than expected.

23 = 26, 162

This time, it was New England that took less value than expected when it traded down to Baltimore's spot. The 23rd pick's historical value is 1,147 points, compared to a combined 1,068 points for the picks it received (1,037 for the 26th and 31 for the 162nd).

26, 162 = 41, 73, 83

New England traded down again, this time getting higher-than-expected value from Green Bay. For two picks with a combined value of 1,068 points, New England got three picks with a combined value of 1,111 points (646, 263 and 202, respectively).

40 = 47, 124, 199

Oakland traded down with New England, getting a little less value than expected (665 points, compared to 540, 74 and 14 for a total of 628).

49 = 68, 105

This was another trade down for less than expected, with Chicago sending one pick with a historical value of 510 points to Seattle for two picks worth 416 (300 and 116, respectively).

51 = 75, 110

In 2001, Buffalo had the 51st pick and traded down with Denver, dropping seven spots to No. 58 and adding the 110th pick. This year, Dallas had the same original pick (No. 51) but had to drop 24 spots to get the same additional pick (No. 110). Historically, this was 481 points for 352 points (249 plus 103).

56 = 61, 165

Miami traded down with Indianapolis and got less-than-expected value, but not by much. The 56th pick has a historical value of 418 points, compared to 392 for the 61st (363) and 165th (29).

64, 132 = 79, 84

Pittsburgh got slightly better than the expected value for trading down with Denver. Pittsburgh gave up a combined 396 points (335 plus 61) and received 421 (224 plus 197).

65 = 76, 115, 228

Detroit traded the first pick of the draft's second day to the New York Jets for higher-than-expected value. The 65th pick has a historical value of 326 points, compared to a combined 341 for the three picks the Jets sent to Detroit (243, 91 and 7, respectively).

85 = 91, 164

The trade was about as equal as can be, considering that teams usually don't have two picks that add up to the precise value of the one pick for which they want to trade. In this case, Philadelphia traded No. 85, which is valued at 192 points, to the New York Giants for Nos. 91 (165) and 164 (30), which are worth a combined 195 points.

117 = 120, 229

This was another relatively equal trade, with Dallas trading 87 points to Tampa Bay for 88 points (81 plus 7).

123, 198 = 137, 141

Baltimore traded down with New England, getting 15 points more than expected. The 123rd pick is worth 75 and the 198th is worth 14 (89 total), compared to 54 points and 50 points (104 total) for the picks Baltimore received.

141 = 156, 210

Baltimore traded down again, this time getting relatively equal value from Denver. The 141st pick is worth 50 points, compared to a combined 46 points for the 156th (35) and 210th (11) picks.

150 = 158, 221

In another trade for almost equal values, Washington sent 40 points to Minnesota for a combined 43 points (34 plus 9).

37 = next 1st
43, 111 = next 1st

Based on trades from 1992 to 2008, a first-round pick in the next draft is worth 635 points, on average (equal to the value of the 41st or 42nd pick in the current draft). Seattle gave Denver a pick (No. 37) worth 729 points, and San Francisco gave Carolina two picks worth a combined 709 (608 plus 101). Both times, this year's picks yielded less value than expected.

73 = 232, next 2nd
89 = next 2nd

On average, a second-round pick in the next draft is worth 223 points (approximately the 79th pick). New England made both of these trades, getting less than expected from Jacksonville in the first trade (263 points for 223 plus 7) but more than expected from Tennessee in the second trade (178 for 223).

91 = 137, 213, next 3rd

A third-round pick in the next draft has an average value of 91 points, which is equal to the 115th pick. Philadelphia traded down with Seattle, giving up 165 points and getting back 155 (54 plus 10 plus 91) for a relatively equal trade.

164 = 222, next 5th
174 = 235, next 5th

Both of these were relatively equal trades. A fifth-round pick in the next draft is worth an average of 19 points, which is the value of picks No. 183-185. Philadelphia had the 164th pick (30 points) and traded down with New Orleans, getting 27 points in return (8 plus 19). Detroit traded down from No. 174 (24 points), getting 25 points (6 plus 19) back from Denver.

202 = 216, next 6th
222 = next 6th

Historically, a sixth-round pick in the next draft has had an average value of eight points, which is the value of picks Nos. 222-227. Philadelphia traded No. 222 to Indianapolis in a trade for equal values. Carolina got a little more than expected by trading No. 202 to Oakland, giving up a pick worth 13 points and getting 18 points in return (10 plus eight).

237 = next 7th

This was the first known draft-day trade since at least 1992 that involved a seventh-round pick in the following draft and did not involve an active player. Miami sent Kansas City the fifth-to-last pick that could be traded (compensatory picks can't be traded) in exchange for a seventh-round pick next year. Unless Kansas City surprises almost everyone, Miami at least will get a higher seventh-round pick next year than it gave up this year.

2009 draft trends

Here's a look at all 25 trades, with the historical point values traded by each team. The points traded by the team trading down are on the left side, the points dealt by the team trading up are on the right. A > symbol indicates that the team trading down lost value, a < symbol indicates that the team trading down gained value, a ~ symbol indicates that the trade was relatively equal, and a = symbol indicates a trade that was exactly equal.

1,419 > 1,335
1,319 > 1,244
1,147 > 1,068
1,068 < 1,111
729 > 635
709 > 635
665 > 628
510 > 416
481 > 352
418 > 392 (Trade down from pick No. 56)

396 < 421 (Trade down from pick No. 64)
326 < 341
263 > 230
192 ~ 195
178 < 223 (Trade down from pick No. 89)

165 ~ 155 (Trade down from pick No. 91)
87 ~ 88
89 < 104
50 ~ 46
40 ~ 43
30 ~ 27
24 ~ 25
13 < 18
8 = 8
6 > (next 7th)

From this chart, it's apparent that teams didn't value picks in the first two rounds nearly as much as usual. Nine of the first 10 trades down went for less than the historical value of the pick(s) involved. Through 10 trades, the average value lost was 7.7 percent. Starting with the last pick of the second round, picks started trading for higher or equal value than on average from 1992 to 2008. Of the final 15 trades, the team trading down got higher-than-normal value in return five times and equal or relatively equal value eight times. Only twice did a trade down yield less than would be expected. The average value gained in the final 15 trades, starting with the last pick of the second round, was 5.9 percent. These numbers confirm the reports that many teams believed that the 2009 draft was weak at the top but deep in talent.

The rookie pool and the salary cap

2009-04-15T14:24:00.000-07:00

A lot of people, including many in the media, have a misunderstanding of how the salary cap and rookie pools are intertwined, beyond the misnomer of "a cap within a cap." This post is an attempt to explain exactly how the rookie pool works and how it relates to the cap.

First, a couple of definitions:

Rule of 51: This is the commonly used name for the rule explained in Article XXIV, Section 7, subsection (a)(i) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The rule states, "between March 1 and the first day of the regular playing season, only the following amounts from Paragraph 5 shall be included for players whose Player Contracts are not among the Team’s 51 highest valued Player Contracts, tenders and Offer Sheets (as determined under this Section 7): (1) Any amount that exceeds the Minimum Active/Inactive List Salary for Undrafted Rookie Free Agents; and (2) Any amount that exceeds twice the applicable Minimum Active/Inactive List Salary for all other players."

In simple terms, it means that during the offseason, for any player whose cap number is not among his team's 51 highest cap numbers, his base salary ("Paragraph 5" salary) does not count against the cap. The two exceptions listed above ("any amount that exceeds ...") are not known to have ever come into play, because teams traditionally give undrafted rookies minimum base salaries, and it would be extremely unlikely for a team to have a player outside its Top 51 with a base salary more than twice his applicable minimum.

As an example of how the Rule of 51 works, consider a team whose 51st-highest cap number for current players (contracts, tenders or offer sheets) is $400,000. The team's next-highest cap number is $397,280, which is for a second-year player with a base salary of $385,000, a signing bonus proration of $5,000 and a standard workout bonus of $7,280. Because this player is outside the hypothetical team's Top 51, his minimum base salary does not count against the cap, but the other $12,280 does. The same thing would apply to the rest of the team's players outside its Top 51: their minimum base salaries would not count against the cap, but everything else would. (All "dead money" also counts against the cap.)

Rookie pool: On a league-wide basis, the rookie pool (described in Article XVII of the CBA) is the total amount of money that can be spent on rookies, except that the minimum base salaries for undrafted rookies do not count toward the rookie pool. Each team's rookie pool is its portion of the league-wide total and is determined by the number, round and position of the draft choices it uses.

Basically, the entire first-year cap numbers for all of a team's draft choices must fit into its rookie pool, along with any first-year cap charges for undrafted rookies other than their minimum base salaries.

After the draft, teams are told the amount of their rookie pool, but they never are told the rookie pool value for each draft pick. However, astute teams — presumably all of them — could estimate with reasonable precision the specific rookie pool value of each pick prior to the draft. When teams sign a drafted player, his first-year cap number does not have to be equal, or even close to, the rookie pool value of the pick used to select him, as long as the team's combined rookie pool charges for all of its rookies don't exceed its limit.

How it all works

Saying that the rookie pool is "a cap within a cap" is a bit of a misnomer because the rookie pool actually is a separate accounting from the salary cap, although rookies count toward both limits. The calculations are different, though, so the amount a rookie counts against the rookie pool isn't necessarily the same as the amount he counts against the salary cap.

When a player is drafted, he automatically is tendered a one-year contract for the rookie minimum base salary (for 2009, that is $310,000). This amount immediately is applied to the team's rookie pool and salary cap. Because most teams have at least 51 players with cap numbers higher than the rookie minimum salary before the draft, the automatic tenders for drafted players won't affect those teams' cap at all. It sometimes is mistakenly reported that teams must have cap room in order to use their draft choices, but that applies only to teams that have fewer than 51 players signed or tendered at the time of the draft. And even then, it applies only to the number of draft choices a team uses until it has 51 players signed or tendered. So, for example, if a team had 49 players signed or tendered before the draft, it would need only $620,000 of cap room in order to make all of its selections. After the first two draftees are automatically tendered, the team would have 51 players signed or tendered, and the rest of the team's draftees would fall outside its 51 highest cap numbers and would not affect its cap.

When a drafted player signs his contract, the team is charged against its salary cap according to the Rule of 51, and it is charged against its rookie pool according to the rules in Article XVII.

Let's consider a seventh-round draft pick who signs a four-year contract with minimum base salaries and a $44,000 signing bonus and who was selected by a team with its 51st-highest cap number being $400,000 (for a second-year player with a $385,000 base salary). His first-year cap number would be $321,000, consisting of his $310,000 base salary and his $11,000 bonus proration. Because he was drafted, the entire $321,000 would count against his team's rookie pool, replacing his automatic tender. But because he is below his team's top 51 cap numbers, only his $11,000 bonus proration counts against the salary cap during the offseason.

Now consider a third-round draft pick for the same team. He signs a four-year contract with minimum base salaries and a signing bonus of $700,000. His first-year cap number would be $485,000, consisting of his $310,000 base salary and his $175,000 bonus proration. All $485,000 would count against his team's rookie pool and against his team's salary cap. However, by assuming his place in the team's top 51 cap numbers, he knocks the player with a $400,000 cap number ($385,000 base salary) out of the team's top 51. For that player, his base salary no longer counts against the cap, leaving only the other $15,000 counting against the cap. The net result is that the team's cap room is reduced by only $100,000 — the draftee's $485,000 is charged against the cap, but the second-year player's $385,000 base salary no longer is.

As you can see, as long as his team already has at least 51 players signed or tendered — as all 32 teams did by April 15 — a draftee's effect on his team's salary cap is far less than his rookie pool charge. Most people forget this when they consider how much cap room must be "set aside" for rookies. You'll often see people say that, for example, if a team has $5 million of cap room and a rookie pool of $4 million, it has only $1 million available to spend on other players. Of course, if the team already has close to or more than 51 players signed or tendered, that's wrong, because that team's rookies will reduce its salary cap by far less than $4 million, as shown above.

As long as a team has at least 51 players already signed or tendered, it is impossible for its entire rookie class to reduce its cap room by more than its rookie pool minus the amount equal to the minimum rookie salary times the number of draftees signed. For example, if a team with a rookie pool of $5.1 million already has at least 51 players signed or tendered, then signs all 10 of its draftees and any number of undrafted rookies, it is impossible for the team's entire rookie class to reduce its cap room by more than $2 million. That's because the $310,000 base salary of every undrafted rookie and every draftee who doesn't make the team's top 51 won't count against the cap, and every draftee who does make the top 51 will knock another player's base salary of at least $310,000 out of the top 51.

To determine the maximum amount that a team's entire rookie class could reduce its cap room, it is necessary to know how many players it has signed or tendered, how many of its draftees are likely to have first-year cap numbers that qualify for its top 51 and the cap numbers and base salaries for as many players at the bottom of its top 51 as it has draftees who will qualify for the top 51.

If all of that is not known, a reasonable estimate for most teams this season can be made by starting with the team's rookie pool, then subtracting $385,000 for each draft pick in the first four rounds and $310,000 for each draft pick in the fifth, sixth or seventh rounds. For example, a team with a rookie pool of $4 million and one draft pick in each round will use approximately $1.53 million of cap room to sign all of its rookies ($4 million, minus the $1.54 million for the four players displaced in the team's top 51, minus $930,000 for the three late-round draftees whose base salaries won't count against the cap). Using this method might not be precise for every team, but it will give you a pretty good estimate.

NFL draft pick trade history

2009-04-08T13:30:00.000-07:00

How much does it take to trade up? What can a team get by trading down? Just check the draft pick value chart to find out, right? Well, maybe not. While the value chart might be a valuable reference tool, it's only a guide. In reality, picks are worth whatever teams decide they're worth. Teams might be willing to pay more to trade up for a player they really like or take less to trade down when they have multiple players they like and know they can get one with a lower pick.

Along with looking the value chart, another way of determining the value of picks is to look at previous trades involving those picks. After all, the true value of draft picks is determined by the teams themselves, not the chart. And given that 58 percent of the trades from 1992 to 2008 were simple two-for-one deals and that only 12 percent involved more than one pick going to each team, it's apparent that teams don't usually quibble over a few points on the value chart.

Below is a list of almost every trade from 1992 to 2008 that involved only draft picks (not players). I might be missing some trades from the 1992 draft, and I don't have the trades from the second day (Rounds 5-7) of the 1995 draft. And there might be some trades made prior to draft day that are missing, as well. But this should be every other trade since 1992. Picks in the following year's draft are referred to as "next 1st," "next 2nd," etc. And that is not a typo at the end of the list of 1997 trades. The Green Bay Packers really did give up the 193rd pick for the 213th pick -- straight up. They moved down 20 spots and got absolutely nothing in return. GM Ron Wolf said he "just wanted to make a trade."

With that said, here's the list --

1992 DRAFT

4 = 6, 28
17, 120 = 19, 104
13, 71 = 19, 37, 104
20 = 37, 64, 108
36, 121 = 52, 78, 163, 222, 329
40 = 47, 74
47, 74 = 56, 58
56 = 82, 109, 250

1993 DRAFT

11 = 14, 83
13 = 19, 75
18 = 20, 116
20 = 26, 81
29, 112 = 46, 54, 94, 213
33 = 36, 120
41 = 58, 81
41, 82, 110, 138 = 48, next 1st
44 = 49, 107
64 = 82, 104
65 = 73, 127
72 = 81, 152
92 = 100, 156
99 = 110, 138
112 = 119, 156

1994 DRAFT

5 = 7, 83
7 = 15, 56, 100
12 = 13, 144
16 = 20, 89
23, 217 = 28, 62
29 = 40, next 2nd
37 = 40, 118
52 = 55, 125
53 = 84, 149, 175, 190
65 = 89, 115, 121
80 = 94, 152
107 = 121, 135
120 = 126, 169

1995 DRAFT

1 = 5, 36
7, 72 = 12, 43, 63
10 = 30, 94, 119, next 1st
19 = 31, 97, 134, next 4th
22, 188 = 32, 63, 173
28 = 41, 63
29 = 34, 98, 100
33 = 40, 71
41 = 46, 110
51 = next 1st
70 = 82, 115
84 = 90, 160
111 = 121, 196
112 = next 3rd

1996 DRAFT

9 = 17, 48, 109
13 = 18, 83, 201
17 = 21, 91
30 = 37, 67
41 = next 1st
49 = 60, 99
55 = 65, 100, 213
57 = 76, 124, 149
60, 99 = 79, 98, 134, 150
76 = 86, 119, 195
97 = 112, 137
98, next 7th = 113, 125
99 = 110, 146
111 = 122, 159, 235
135 = 161, 162
157 = next 4th
192 = next 5th

1997 DRAFT

1 = 6, 67, 102, 207
3, 63 = 11, 41, 70, 100
6 = 8, 104
6 = 12, 63
13, 110 = 18, 91, 116, 181
22 = 25, 155, next 3rd
38 = 40, 173
54 = 65, 101
55 = 57, 190, 227
67 = 88, 191, 229, next 6th
71 = 84, 188
77 = 86, 156
107 = 116, 165
112 = 121, 170, 173
123 = 157, 166, 203
138 = 215, next 4th
140 = 180, 222
146, 218 = next 3rd
193 = 213

1998 DRAFT

19 = 29, 60
23 = 34, 59
41 = 56, 87, 149
43 = 1st in two years (2000)
45 = 53, 114
59 = 1st in two years (2000)
60 = 79, 143, 172
65 = 67, 195
70 = 85, 116
93 = 103, 124, 154
102 = 112, 142
104 = next 3rd
109 = 113, 191
137 = 199, 203, 215
138 = 162, 197
152 = 156, next 6th
200 = next 6th
215 = next 6th

1999 DRAFT

5 = 12, 71, 107, 144, 179, 218, next 1st, next 3rd
7 = 12, 71, 106, 143, next 3rd
17 = 20, 82, 191
20 = 22, 140
24 = 27, 134
27 = 39, 70, 142
37 = 40, 144
40, 102 = 47, 78, 111
42 = next 1st
43 = 54, 84, next 6th
44 = 59, 73, 163
46 = 52, 117
70 = 72, 232
96 = 99, 171
137 = next 4th
146, 163 = next 3rd
165 = 179, 218
170 = 187, 191
174 = 184, 207
182 = 195, 233
207 = 221, 253

2000 DRAFT

3 = 12, 24, 119, 154
10 = 15, 45
12 = 16, 48
51 = 57, 120
61 = 68, 135
86 = 119, 154
98 = 108, 132
111 = next 3rd
104 = 125, 150, 225
138 = 158, 195
150 = 170, 209
154 = 175, 231
209, 225 = 223, 232, 254
212 = next 6th
231 = next 6th
238 = next 6th

2001 DRAFT

7, 191 = 9, 82, 222
14 = 21, 51
22 = 30, 91, 193
37 = 52, 81
39 = 50, 112
48 = 50, 173
51 = 58, 110
52 = 56, 122
53 = 70, 81
61 = 78, 114
69 = 86, 119
88, 187 = next 2nd
96 = 112, 139
145 = 154, 186
149 = 180, 216
170 = next 5th
215, 219, 226 = next 4th

2002 DRAFT

6 = 8, 75, next 6th
14 = 15, 110
18 = 21, 89
17 = 18, 158
20, 156 = 28, 60
21 = 32, 96, 234
52, 96 = 56, 87
61 = 69, 102
63, 129 = 72, 104, 140
67 = 73, 145
79 = 89, 118
96 = 112, 155
116 = next 3rd
117 = 131, 144
122 = 147, 189
168 = 237, next 5th

2003 DRAFT

4 = 13, 22, 116
6, 37, 102 = 17, 18, 54
13 = 14, 193
15 = 30, 62
16 = 27, 92, 200
19 = 41, next 1st
36, 117 = 41, 75
45 = 50, 120
78 = next 2nd
79 = 94, 127
82 = 108, 120, 227
83, 262 = next 2nd
120 = 128, 157
138 = next 4th
143 = 176, 193, 218
147 = 165, 203
150, 200 = 153, 189
154, 225 = 164, 201, 243
166 = 185, 244
181 = 226, 247
245 = next 6th

2004 DRAFT

1 = 4, 65, next 1st, next 5th
6 = 7, 37
16 = 28, 58
19 = 20, 119
22 = 43, 144, next 1st
24 = 26, 123
27, 159 = 40, 71, 103, 138
28 = 31, 127
29, 90 = 38, 69, 125
30 = 36, 105, next 5th
38 = 44, 107
48 = 50, 151
55 = 70, 102
59, 161 = 68, 141, 173
72 = 86, 118
81, 151 = 139, next 2nd
82 = 88, 155
87 = 102, 153
104 = 112, 147
153 = 160, 222
156 = 182, 206
159 = 175, 210
174 = 186, 219
179 = 188, 226
182 = 205, 223

2005 DRAFT

13 = 16, next 3rd
23 = 26, 105
25 = 76, next 1st, next 4th
37 = 41, 113
45 = 54, 121
64 = 84, 195, next 3rd
89 = 115, 126
94 = 102, 175
112 = 120, 154
123 = 127, 185
126 = 167, 175, 245
132, next 6th = 148, next 4th
144 = 155, 231
145, 206 = next 4th
148 = next 4th
175 = 195, 246
175 = 230, next 5th

2006 DRAFT

11 = 15, 68
12 = 13, 181
22 = 37, 68
25 = 32, 96, 129
26 = 42, 73
35 = 53, 189, next 2nd
36 = 52, 75
37, 139 = 47, 93, 148
39 = 45, 116
44 = 56, 87
49 = 53, 189, 211
64 = 83, 95
71 = 76, 220
80 = 92, 125
93 = 109, 183
109 = 115, 185
138 = 150, 189
197 = 213, 236
238 = next 6th

2007 DRAFT

14 = 25, 59, 164
17 = 21, 86, 198
22 = 36, next 1st
26 = 36, 87, 159
28 = 110, next 1st
33 = 38, 105
34 = 43, 74
37 = 62, 93, 167, next 3rd
41 = 44, 121
42 = 126, next 1st
47, 235 = 63, 89, 191
53, 195 = 67, 103, 178
58 = 66, 145
61 = 74, 101
86 = 101, 166, 203
91 = 211, next 3rd
102 = 106, 182
107 = 123, 163
112 = 119, 192
117 = 139, 154
121 = 176, 233, next 3rd
149 = 194, 198, 203
195 = 200, 234

2008 DRAFT

7, 164 = 10, 78
8 = 26, 71, 89, 125
15, 76 = 17, 66, 136
18 = 26, 89, 173
19 = 43, 109, next 1st
21, 84, 154 = 34, 48, 103
25 = 28, 163, 235
30 = 36, 113
38 = 55, 86
43, 152 = 47, 117
52 = 58, 158, next 7th
64 = 66, 176
69 = 160, next 2nd
92 = 111, next 4th
103 = 124, 157
100 = 104, 213
102 = 113, 162
104 = 122, 155
110 = 115, 208
111 = next 3rd
115, 175 = 120, 158
123 = 130, 194
128 = 137, 217
137 = 150, 209
143 = 155, 213
144 = 146, 218
153 = 160, 238
157, 228 = 168, 180
191 = next 5th
237 = next 6th

Values for trading down

Here's the same list (minus the Packers' 1997 trade from 193 to 213) in order of the highest pick traded by the team that traded down --

1 = 4, 65, next 1st, next 5th
1 = 5, 36
1 = 6, 67, 102, 207
3 = 12, 24, 119, 154
3, 63 = 11, 41, 70, 100
4 = 13, 22, 116
4 = 6, 28
5 = 12, 71, 107, 144, 179, 218, next 1st, next 3rd
5 = 7, 83
6 = 12, 63
6 = 7, 37
6 = 8, 104
6 = 8, 75, next 6th
6, 37, 102 = 17, 18, 54
7 = 12, 71, 106, 143, next 3rd
7 = 15, 56, 100
7, 164 = 10, 78
7, 191 = 9, 82, 222
7, 72 = 12, 43, 63
8 = 26, 71, 89, 125
9 = 17, 48, 109
10 = 15, 45
10 = 30, 94, 119, next 1st
11 = 14, 83
11 = 15, 68
12 = 13, 144
12 = 13, 181
12 = 16, 48
13 = 14, 193
13 = 16, next 3rd
13 = 18, 83, 201
13, 71 = 19, 37, 104
13 = 19, 75
13, 110 = 18, 91, 116, 181
14 = 15, 110
14 = 21, 51
14 = 25, 59, 164
15 = 30, 62
15, 76 = 17, 66, 136
16 = 20, 89
16 = 27, 92, 200
16 = 28, 58
17 = 18, 158
17 = 20, 82, 191
17 = 21, 86, 198
17 = 21, 91
17, 120 = 19, 104
18 = 20, 116
18 = 21, 89
18 = 26, 89, 173
19 = 20, 119
19 = 29, 60
19 = 31, 97, 134, next 4th
19 = 41, next 1st
19 = 43, 109, next 1st
20 = 22, 140
20 = 26, 81
20 = 37, 64, 108
20, 156 = 28, 60
21 = 32, 96, 234
21, 84, 154 = 34, 48, 103
22 = 25, 155, next 3rd
22 = 30, 91, 193
22 = 36, next 1st
22 = 37, 68
22 = 43, 144, next 1st
22, 188 = 32, 63, 173
23 = 26, 105
23 = 34, 59
23, 217 = 28, 62
24 = 26, 123
24 = 27, 134
25 = 28, 163, 235
25 = 32, 96, 129
25 = 76, next 1st, next 4th
26 = 36, 87, 159
26 = 42, 73
27 = 39, 70, 142
27, 159 = 40, 71, 103, 138
28 = 110, next 1st
28 = 31, 127
28 = 41, 63
29 = 34, 98, 100
29 = 40, next 2nd
29, 112 = 46, 54, 94, 213
29, 90 = 38, 69, 125
30 = 36, 105, next 5th
30 = 36, 113
30 = 37, 67
33 = 36, 120
33 = 38, 105
33 = 40, 71
34 = 43, 74
35 = 53, 189, next 2nd
36 = 52, 75
36, 117 = 41, 75
36, 121 = 52, 78, 163, 222, 329
37 = 40, 118
37 = 40, 144
37 = 41, 113
37 = 52, 81
37 = 62, 93, 167, next 3rd
37, 139 = 47, 93, 148
38 = 40, 173
38 = 44, 107
38 = 55, 86
39 = 45, 116
39 = 50, 112
40 = 47, 74
40, 102 = 47, 78, 111
41 = 44, 121
41 = 46, 110
41 = 56, 87, 149
41 = 58, 81
41 = next 1st
41, 82, 110, 138 = 48, next 1st
42 = 126, next 1st
42 = next 1st
43 = 1st in two years
43 = 54, 84, next 6th
43, 152 = 47, 117
44 = 49, 107
44 = 56, 87
44 = 59, 73, 163
45 = 50, 120
45 = 53, 114
45 = 54, 121
46 = 52, 117
47, 235 = 63, 89, 191
47, 74 = 56, 58
48 = 50, 151
48 = 50, 173
49 = 53, 189, 211
49 = 60, 99
51 = 57, 120
51 = 58, 110
51 = next 1st
52 = 55, 125
52 = 56, 122
52 = 58, 158, next 7th
52, 96 = 56, 87
53 = 70, 81
53 = 84, 149, 175, 190
53, 195 = 67, 103, 178
54 = 65, 101
55 = 57, 190, 227
55 = 65, 100, 213
55 = 70, 102
56 = 82, 109, 250
57 = 76, 124, 149
58 = 66, 145
59 = 1st in two years
59, 161 = 68, 141, 173
60 = 79, 143, 172
60, 99 = 79, 98, 134, 150
61 = 68, 135
61 = 69, 102
61 = 74, 101
61 = 78, 114
63, 129 = 72, 104, 140
64 = 66, 176
64 = 82, 104
64 = 83, 95
64 = 84, 195, next 3rd
65 = 67, 195
65 = 73, 127
65 = 89, 115, 121
67 = 73, 145
67 = 88, 191, 229, next 6th
69 = 160, next 2nd
69 = 86, 119
70 = 72, 232
70 = 82, 115
70 = 85, 116
71 = 76, 220
71 = 84, 188
72 = 81, 152
72 = 86, 118
76 = 86, 119, 195
77 = 86, 156
78 = next 2nd
79 = 89, 118
79 = 94, 127
80 = 92, 125
80 = 94, 152
81, 151 = 139, next 2nd
82 = 108, 120, 227
82 = 88, 155
83, 262 = next 2nd
84 = 90, 160
86 = 101, 166, 203
86 = 119, 154
87 = 102, 153
88, 187 = next 2nd
89 = 115, 126
91 = 211, next 3rd
92 = 100, 156
92 = 111, next 4th
93 = 103, 124, 154
93 = 109, 183
94 = 102, 175
96 = 112, 139
96 = 112, 155
96 = 99, 171
97 = 112, 137
98 = 108, 132
98, next 7th = 113, 125
99 = 110, 138
99 = 110, 146
100 = 104, 213
102 = 106, 182
102 = 112, 142
102 = 113, 162
103 = 124, 157
104 = 112, 147
104 = 122, 155
104 = 125, 150, 225
104 = next 3rd
107 = 116, 165
107 = 121, 135
107 = 123, 163
109 = 113, 191
109 = 115, 185
110 = 115, 208
111 = 121, 196
111 = 122, 159, 235
111 = next 3rd
111 = next 3rd
112 = 119, 156
112 = 119, 192
112 = 120, 154
112 = 121, 170, 173
112 = next 3rd
115, 175 = 120, 158
116 = next 3rd
117 = 131, 144
117 = 139, 154
120 = 126, 169
120 = 128, 157
121 = 176, 233, next 3rd
122 = 147, 189
123 = 127, 185
123 = 130, 194
123 = 157, 166, 203
126 = 167, 175, 245
128 = 137, 217
132, next 6th = 148, next 4th
135 = 161, 162
137 = 150, 209
137 = 199, 203, 215
137 = next 4th
138 = 150, 189
138 = 158, 195
138 = 162, 197
138 = 215, next 4th
138 = next 4th
140 = 180, 222
143 = 155, 213
143 = 176, 193, 218
144 = 146, 218
144 = 155, 231
145 = 154, 186
145, 206 = next 4th
146, 163 = next 3rd
146, 218 = next 3rd
147 = 165, 203
148 = next 4th
149 = 180, 216
149 = 194, 198, 203
150 = 170, 209
150, 200 = 153, 189
152 = 156, next 6th
153 = 160, 222
153 = 160, 238
154 = 175, 231
154, 225 = 164, 201, 243
156 = 182, 206
157 = next 4th
157, 228 = 168, 180
159 = 175, 210
165 = 179, 218
166 = 185, 244
168 = 237, next 5th
170 = 187, 191
170 = next 5th
174 = 184, 207
174 = 186, 219
175 = 195, 246
175 = 230, next 5th
179 = 188, 226
181 = 226, 247
182 = 195, 233
182 = 205, 223
191 = next 5th
192 = next 5th
195 = 200, 234
197 = 213, 236
200 = next 6th
207 = 221, 253
209, 225 = 223, 232, 254
212 = next 6th
215 = next 6th
215, 219, 226 = next 4th
231 = next 6th
237 = next 6th
238 = next 6th
238 = next 6th
245 = next 6th

Values for trading up

Here's the same list (minus the Packers' 1997 trade from 193 to 213) in order of the highest pick traded by the team that traded up --

4, 65, next 1st, next 5th = 1
5, 36 = 1
6, 67, 102, 207 = 1
6, 28 = 4
7, 83 = 5
7, 37 = 6
8, 75, next 6th = 6
8, 104 = 6
9, 82, 222 = 7, 191
10, 78 = 7, 164
11, 41, 70, 100 = 3, 63
12, 24, 119, 154 = 3
12, 71, 107, 144, 179, 218, next 1st, next 3rd = 5
12, 63 = 6
12, 43, 63 = 7, 72
12, 71, 106, 143, next 3rd = 7
13, 22, 116 = 4
13, 144 = 12
13, 181 = 12
14, 83 = 11
14, 193 = 13
15, 56, 100 = 7
15, 45 = 10
15, 68 = 11
15, 110 = 14
16, 48 = 12
16, next 3rd = 13
17, 18, 54 = 6, 37, 102
17, 48, 109 = 9
17, 66, 136 = 15, 76
18, 91, 116, 181 = 13, 110
18, 83, 201 = 13
18, 158 = 17
19, 37, 104 = 13, 71
19, 75 = 13
19, 104 = 17, 120
20, 89 = 16
20, 82, 191 = 17
20, 116 = 18
20, 119 = 19
21, 51 = 14
21, 86, 198 = 17
21, 91 = 17
21, 89 = 18
22, 140 = 20
25, 59, 164 = 14
25, 155, next 3rd = 22
26, 71, 89, 125 = 8
26, 89, 173 = 18
26, 81 = 20
26, 105 = 23
26, 123 = 24
27, 92, 200 = 16
27, 134 = 24
28, 58 = 16
28, 60 = 20, 156
28, 62 = 23, 217
28, 163, 235 = 25
29, 60 = 19
30, 94, 119, next 1st = 10
30, 62 = 15
30, 91, 193 = 22
31, 97, 134, next 4th = 19
31, 127 = 28
32, 96, 234 = 21
32, 63, 173 = 22, 188
32, 96, 129 = 25
34, 48, 103 = 21, 84, 154
34, 59 = 23
34, 98, 100 = 29
36, next 1st = 22
36, 87, 159 = 26
36, 105, next 5th = 30
36, 113 = 30
36, 120 = 33
37, 64, 108 = 20
37, 68 = 22
37, 67 = 30
38, 69, 125 = 29, 90
38, 105 = 33
39, 70, 142 = 27
40, 71, 103, 138 = 27, 159
40, next 2nd = 29
40, 71 = 33
40, 118 = 37
40, 144 = 37
40, 173 = 38
41, next 1st = 19
41, 63 = 28
41, 75 = 36, 117
41, 113 = 37
42, 73 = 26
43, 109, next 1st = 19
43, 144, next 1st = 22
43, 74 = 34
44, 107 = 38
44, 121 = 41
45, 116 = 39
46, 54, 94, 213 = 29, 112
46, 110 = 41
47, 93, 148 = 37, 139
47, 78, 111 = 40, 102
47, 74 = 40
47, 117 = 43, 152
48, next 1st = 41, 82, 110, 138
49, 107 = 44
50, 112 = 39
50, 120 = 45
50, 151 = 48
50, 173 = 48
52, 78, 163, 222, 329 = 36, 121
52, 75 = 36
52, 81 = 37
52, 117 = 46
53, 189, next 2nd = 35
53, 114 = 45
53, 189, 211 = 49
54, 84, next 6th = 43
54, 121 = 45
55, 86 = 38
55, 125 = 52
56, 87, 149 = 41
56, 87 = 44
56, 58 = 47, 74
56, 87 = 52, 96
56, 122 = 52
57, 120 = 51
57, 190, 227 = 55
58, 81 = 41
58, 110 = 51
58, 158, next 7th = 52
59, 73, 163 = 44
60, 99 = 49
62, 93, 167, next 3rd = 37
63, 89, 191 = 47, 235
65, 101 = 54
65, 100, 213 = 55
66, 145 = 58
66, 176 = 64
67, 103, 178 = 53, 195
67, 195 = 65
68, 141, 173 = 59, 161
68, 135 = 61
69, 102 = 61
70, 81 = 53
70, 102 = 55
72, 104, 140 = 63, 129
72, 232 = 70
73, 127 = 65
73, 145 = 67
74, 101 = 61
76, next 1st, next 4th = 25
76, 124, 149 = 57
76, 220 = 71
78, 114 = 61
79, 98, 134, 150 = 60, 99
79, 143, 172 = 60
81, 152 = 72
82, 109, 250 = 56
82, 104 = 64
82, 115 = 70
83, 95 = 64
84, 149, 175, 190 = 53
84, 195, next 3rd = 64
84, 188 = 71
85, 116 = 70
86, 119 = 69
86, 118 = 72
86, 119, 195 = 76
86, 156 = 77
88, 191, 229, next 6th = 67
88, 155 = 82
89, 115, 121 = 65
89, 118 = 79
90, 160 = 84
92, 125 = 80
94, 127 = 79
94, 152 = 80
99, 171 = 96
100, 156 = 92
101, 166, 203 = 86
102, 153 = 87
102, 175 = 94
103, 124, 154 = 93
104, 213 = 100
106, 182 = 102
108, 120, 227 = 82
108, 132 = 98
109, 183 = 93
110, 138 = 99
110, 146 = 99
111, next 4th = 92
112, 139 = 96
112, 155 = 96
112, 137 = 97
112, 142 = 102
112, 147 = 104
113, 125 = 98, next 7th
113, 162 = 102
113, 191 = 109
115, 126 = 89
115, 185 = 109
115, 208 = 110
116, 165 = 107
119, 154 = 86
119, 156 = 112
119, 192 = 112
120, 154 = 112
120, 158 = 115, 175
121, 135 = 107
121, 196 = 111
121, 170, 173 = 112
122, 155 = 104
122, 159, 235 = 111
123, 163 = 107
124, 157 = 103
125, 150, 225 = 104
126, 169 = 120
127, 185 = 123
128, 157 = 120
130, 194 = 123
131, 144 = 117
137, 217 = 128
139, 154 = 117
139, next 2nd = 81, 151
146, 218 = 144
147, 189 = 122
148, next 4th = 132, next 6th
150, 209 = 137
150, 189 = 138
153, 189 = 150, 200
154, 186 = 145
155, 213 = 143
155, 231 = 144
156, next 6th = 152
157, 166, 203 = 123
158, 195 = 138
160, 222 = 153
160, 238 = 153
161, 162 = 135
162, 197 = 138
164, 201, 243 = 154, 225
165, 203 = 147
167, 175, 245 = 126
168, 180 = 157, 228
170, 209 = 150
175, 231 = 154
175, 210 = 159
176, 233, next 3rd = 121
176, 193, 218 = 143
179, 218 = 165
180, 222 = 140
180, 216 = 149
182, 206 = 156
184, 207 = 174
185, 244 = 166
186, 219 = 174
187, 191 = 170
188, 226 = 179
194, 198, 203 = 149
195, 246 = 175
195, 233 = 182
199, 203, 215 = 137
200, 234 = 195
205, 223 = 182
211, next 3rd = 91
213, 236 = 197
215, next 4th = 138
221, 253 = 207
223, 232, 254 = 209, 225
226, 247 = 181
230, next 5th = 175
237, next 5th = 168
next 1st, 110 = 28
next 1st = 41
next 1st, 126 = 42
next 1st = 42
next 1st = 51
next 2nd, 160 = 69
next 2nd = 78
next 2nd = 83, 262
next 2nd = 88, 187
next 3rd = 104
next 3rd = 111
next 3rd = 111
next 3rd = 112
next 3rd = 116
next 3rd = 146, 163
next 3rd = 146, 218
next 4th = 137
next 4th = 138
next 4th = 145, 206
next 4th = 148
next 4th = 157
next 4th = 215, 219, 226
next 5th = 170
next 5th = 191
next 5th = 192
next 6th = 200
next 6th = 212
next 6th = 215
next 6th = 231
next 6th = 237
next 6th = 238
next 6th = 238
next 6th = 245
1st in two years = 43
1st in two years = 59

Ten-year rule has been used before

2009-03-26T01:30:00.000-07:00

The newly revealed rule that prevented the Steelers from getting a compensatory pick higher than a fifth-rounder for Alan Faneca has been used at least twice before this year, including at least once with the Steelers.

The rule, according to two media reports out of Pittsburgh, says that a team can't receive anything higher than a fifth-round compensatory pick for a player with 10 or more seasons of NFL experience. So, for example, even though Faneca's value in the compensatory formula was the second-highest among all qualifying players, the Steelers got only a fifth-round comp pick for him because he had played 10 seasons before signing with the New York Jets.

In 1999, the same rule prevented the Steelers from getting a third-round pick for losing John Jackson, who had played 10 seasons for Pittsburgh before signing with San Diego in 1998. The Steelers did get a third-round comp pick in 1999, as well as a fifth-rounder, but it's now apparent that the third-round pick was for Yancey Thigpen, not Jackson, as I had thought at the time. Jackson and Thigpen each had a third-round value, with Jackson's value being slightly higher than Thigpen's. The Steelers also lost two lower-valued players, but those losses were negated by the signings of two lower-valued players. At the time, I questioned whether the Steelers' fifth-round comp pick was some type of "compromise" between the value of Thigpen and one of the lower-valued players lost, since none of them had a fifth-round value. But now we know that the third-round comp pick was for Thigpen, and the fifth-rounder was the highest the pick for Jackson could be, because of the 10-year rule.

One year later, in 2000, as many as four teams could have been affected by the 10-year-rule. One is definite -- the Arizona Cardinals got a fifth-round pick for losing Lomas Brown, who had a fourth-round value. The other three teams who might have gotten higher comp picks if not for the 10-year-rule were Kansas City (Rich Gannon), Pittsburgh again (Carnell Lake) and Minnesota (Jerry Ball). The Chiefs, Steelers and Vikings each had other players whose value might have been the reason they received fifth-round comp picks, but Wednesday's revelation of the 10-year-rule raises the possibility that those veteran players were the reason.

Although the Faneca fifth-rounder raised questions when first announced, it ultimately has resulted in far more answers about the process of awarding compensatory picks.

UPDATE: Add last year's fifth-round comp pick for San Diego to the list of possible picks affected by the 10-year rule. Although Donnie Edwards' value was on the borderline for a fourth- or fifth-round pick, his status as an 11-year veteran when he signed with Kansas City made it impossible for the Chargers to receive a fourth-rounder. Whether Edwards' value definitely was in the fifth round anyway, I'm not sure.

The explanation for the Faneca pick

2009-03-25T19:51:00.000-07:00

Scott Brown of the Tribune-Review in Pittsburgh is reporting that there is a rule that says a team can't receive higher than a fifth-round compensatory pick for a player with 10 or more seasons of NFL experience.

Click here to read Brown's blog entry.

UPDATE: The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is reporting the same thing and says the Steelers weren't aware of the rule until they asked for an explanation why they received a fifth-round comp pick. (Neither was I.)

Click here to read the Post-Gazette's article.

Comparing projected comp picks to the actual results

2009-03-24T16:02:00.001-07:00

Here's how my projections compare to the actual compensatory picks announced by the NFL (correct projections highlighted in green, projections missed by one round in yellow; CLICK THE CHART FOR A LARGER VERSION) —

As you can see, other than the Steelers' curious fifth-round comp pick and a flip-flop of the San Francisco and New England fifth-round picks, I had the correct order of picks through the early seventh round. The order got a little jumbled in the middle of the seventh, even though I had most of the picks correct, so I'll have to try to figure out what happened there.

Thanks for all of the questions in the comments here. I will answer all of them, hopefully by tomorrow. Any other questions or thoughts are welcome, as well.

NFL announces comp picks

2009-03-23T18:34:00.000-07:00

The NFL announced the compensatory picks this afternoon. I got 26 correct this year, with almost all of them coming in the order I projected. I was off by one round on three more, all of which I said were possible. I barely missed my goal of 30 correct or within one round, but I had more picks correct and fewer off by one round than I expected, so I'm fairly pleased.

I missed two seventh-rounders, with the NFL awarding picks to Jacksonville and Cincinnati (both of which I said would happen if Aaron Glenn and Alex Stepanovich qualified, and they did qualify). Seattle didn't get one of the seventh-rounders I projected because Keary Colbert wound up qualifying (I explained his situation in my original post). Detroit didn't end up getting a net-value pick as I projected, so I'll have to re-examine the players involved there. It was a close call anyway, so it's not a big surprise.

The one surprise that I can't explain is the Steelers getting only a fifth-round pick after losing two players (Alan Faneca and Clark Haggans) and signing one (Mewelde Moore). Haggans and Moore had seventh-round values and should have canceled out each other. Faneca played 99 percent of the snaps, made the Pro Bowl and got a huge contract ($7.8 million per season, plus a little more that doesn't count in the equation). He clearly had a third-round value, so I'm curious about why the Steelers got a fifth. Hopefully the media in Pittsburgh will look into it and get an answer.

I'll provide a little more analysis later. In the meantime, here are the 2009 comp picks and the players signed and lost by each team that got a true comp pick:

THIRD ROUND

New England

Cincinnati

Chicago

NY Giants

FOURTH ROUND

San Diego

Tennessee

Indianapolis

FIFTH ROUND

Pittsburgh

New England

San Francisco

Dallas

Tennessee

SIXTH ROUND

Tennessee

New England

Dallas

Cincinnati

SEVENTH ROUND

Tennessee

Washington

San Francisco

Seattle

Chicago

Seattle

Cincinnati

Jacksonville

Chicago

Cincinnati

Jacksonville

Arizona (net value)

Detroit (non-compensatory)

Kansas City (non-compensatory)

ARIZONA

Lost:Bryant Johnson, Calvin Pace, Keydrick Vincent

Signed: Clark Haggans, Travis LaBoy, Bryan Robinson

CHICAGO

Lost: Brendon Ayanbadejo, Bernard Berrian, John Gilmore

CINCINNATI

Lost: Landon Johnson, Bryan Robinson, Justin Smith, Alex Stepanovich, Madieu Williams

Signed: Antwan Odom

DALLAS

Lost: Julius Jones, Jacques Reeves

INDIANAPOLIS

Lost: Jake Scott

JACKSONVILLE

Lost: Terry Cousin, Aaron Glenn, Sammy Knight, Bobby McCray, Ernest Wilford

Signed: Drayton Florence, Cleo Lemon, Jerry Porter

NEW ENGLAND

Lost: Randall Gay, Asante Samuel, Donte’ Stallworth

NY GIANTS

Lost: Kawika Mitchell, Reggie Torbor, Gibril Wilson

Signed: Danny Clark, Sammy Knight

PITTSBURGH

Lost: Alan Faneca, Clark Haggans

Signed: Mewelde Moore

SAN DIEGO

Lost: Drayton Florence, Michael Turner

SAN FRANCISCO

Lost: Marques Douglas, Kwame Harris, Maurice Hicks, Justin Smiley

Signed: Bryant Johnson, Justin Smith

SEATTLE

Lost: Kevin Bentley, Josh Brown, Chuck Darby, D.J. Hackett, Niko Koutouvides, Ellis Wyms

Signed: Keary Colbert (acquired via trade from Denver), T.J. Duckett, Julius Jones

TENNESSEE

Lost: Jacob Bell, Chris Brown, Ben Hartsock, Travis LaBoy, Antwan Odom, Randy Starks

Signed: Jake Scott

WASHINGTON

Lost: Mark Brunell

To see the projections I posted 13 days ago, click here.

A loophole around the NFL's 30 Percent Rule

2009-03-21T18:19:00.000-07:00

I originally intended this blog to be only for the discussion of compensatory picks, but I'm making an exception for this post.

The 30 Percent Rule explained

Because the NFL is in the final year of the salary cap, teams aren't able to structure contracts quite in the same way they typically do, with the first-year cap number being especially small. The 30 Percent Rule limits the annual increase in certain components of a player's cap number to 30 percent of those components in the Final Capped Year, starting in the first uncapped year. Because this is the Final Capped Year, this year's cap details are what determines how much a contract can increase each season after this. That limits how small this year's cap number can be when using the normal structure of a contract.

For example, consider a five-year veteran signing a three-year contract for $15 million, with a $6 million signing bonus and a total of $9 million in base salaries. If the cap currently extended through 2011, that contract could be structured with a cap hit this season of $2.62 million ($620,000 base salary and $2 million signing bonus allocation). But in reality, because 2010 and 2011 currently are uncapped, the contract must comply with the 30 Percent Rule. In the case of this particular contract, that means the base salaries can't increase by more than 30 percent of this year's base salary. So the lowest this year's base salary could be is $2,307,693, which could increase to $3 million in 2010 and $3,692,307 in 2011, for a total of $9 million in base salaries. This year's cap number would be $4,307,693 — or almost $1.7 million more than it would be using the normal contract structure.

The key to structuring contracts that comply with the 30 Percent Rule is knowing which components are included in the calculations (most of them) and which components are not included (mostly signing bonuses and other amounts treated as signing bonuses, except that option bonuses paid to extend a contract are included).

The challenge most teams are having while structuring contracts this year is finding a way to minimize this year's cap hit while also guaranteeing the player as much money as possible. Other cap rules limit the types of payments that can be guaranteed in future seasons without affecting this year's cap, and the 30 Percent Rule limits the amounts of those payments as compared to this year's cap number.

Many teams are using a protected option bonus in 2010 to increase a player's guaranteed money while limiting this year's cap hit. Because option bonus prorations start in the season they're paid, this year's cap number isn't affected by an option bonus paid in 2010. But because option bonus prorations are included in the calculations for the 30 Percent Rule, the other cap components that are included in the calculations have to be large enough this season to keep the contract compliant in 2010, when the option bonus proration is included. That restricts just how low this year's cap number can be.

The loophole

One team, though, has found a loophole in the 30 Percent Rule that can be used essentially to guarantee money while at the same time minimizing this year's cap number in the usual manner. The New Orleans Saints have used what is known as a "completion bonus" in the contracts of Jonathan Vilma, Jon Stinchcomb and Jabari Greer.

Here is Artcle XXIV, Section 7(b)(iv)(16) of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, which is under "Amounts Treated as Signing Bonuses" —

(16) Any bonus to be paid to a player solely for fulfilling his obligations to play under his Player Contract without seeking to renegotiate and/or “holding out” (i.e., a “completion bonus”), and which bonus is otherwise guaranteed for skill and injury, except that the amount of any such completion bonus shall be calculated at its present value, computed at the one-year Treasury Note rate published in The Wall Street Journal on February 1 of the League Year in which the Player Contract is executed. Further, if any event occurs which extinguishes the player’s right to receive such completion bonus, any amount of the bonus that has previously been included in Team Salary shall be immediately added to the Team’s Salary Cap for the current League Year, if such event occurs prior to June 1, or for the next League Year, if such event occurs after such date, with the remainder of the bonus that has been allocated to Team Salary for future League Years immediately extinguished.

Essentially, Vilma, Stinchcomb and Greer will receive a completion bonus in 2010 if they fulfill their contract obligations this year without holding out or seeking to renegotiate. Completion bonuses can be fully guaranteed for skill or injury, they aren't included in the calculations for the 30 Percent Rule, and the key to the loophole is that their prorations don't begin until 2010, the season in which they're paid. This loophole allows the Saints, or any other team that uses a completion bonus, to guarantee more money while also minimizing this year's cap hit to a greater degree than any other method of structuring a contract.

Although the Saints' use of completion bonuses has been reported in the media, including by Jason Cole of Yahoo.com and by Mike Triplett of The Times-Picayune, the issue has gone largely unnoticed. This might be because Cole's article focused on the "good behavior" aspect of completion bonuses or because the Saints' completion bonuses are relatively small ($5.5 million for Stinchcomb, $3.53 million for Vilma and $2 million for Greer). It would have received much more attention if the Washington Redskins had used a completion bonus to give Albert Haynesworth a first-year cap number of, say, $3.8 million — or, theoretically, as low as $2.796 million — instead of $7 million. If the "highest-paid defensive player in NFL history" had a lower first-year cap number than free-agent signings such as Frank Omiyale ($4.95 million) and Phillip Buchanan ($4.0 million), that would get attention.

Haynesworth got a seven-year contract worth $80 million, with $41 million of that guaranteed. He also has $35 million in Not Likely To Be Earned incentives. His guaranteed money consists of a $5 million signing bonus, a $21 million protected option bonus in 2010 and $15 million in base salaries during his first three years. His first-year base salary is $6 million, which along with his $1 million signing bonus proration gives him a cap number of $7 million for 2009. He will receive a total of $11 million this year ($5 million signing bonus and $6 million base salary) and $24.6 million in 2010 ($21 million option bonus and $3.6 million base salary) if the Redskins exercise the option. If the Redskins don't exercise the option, several of the base salaries would increase and become fully or partially guaranteed, adding up to the same $21 million in additional guarantees, making the option bonus "protected" and that money guaranteed.

By using a completion bonus instead of an option bonus, the Redskins could have given Haynesworth a much lower cap number while still paying the same amount of money in the same seasons. For example, the Redskins could have paid him a $9 million signing bonus and $2 million base salary this season, giving him the same $11 million this year but a cap hit of just $3.8 million. In 2010, the Redskins could pay him a base salary of $2.6 million, which would comply with the 30 Percent Rule, plus a $22 million guaranteed completion bonus for fulfilling his obligations in 2009. The total payout for 2010 would be $24.6 million, and his cap number (if 2010 becomes capped) would be $8.8 million, with both numbers being the same as in his actual contract. The rest of the contract theoretically could follow the same pattern, with completion bonuses and base salaries combining to match the annual payouts in the current contract.

Most of the major signings this offseason occurred before the Saints signed Vilma, Stinchcomb and Greer. It will be interesting to see if any other teams use the same contract structure this offseason. In particular, it could help teams fit rookies' contracts into the rookie pool while still complying with the 25 Percent Rule for rookies (although the CBA doesn't specify whether a completion bonus would be treated the same for the 25 Percent Rule as it is for the 30 Percent Rule). And it could help a team looking to give a player a huge contract or contract extension without making a huge dent in the salary cap, such as the Dallas Cowboys' attempts to extend DeMarcus Ware's contract. Using the completion bonus loophole around the 30 Percent Rule, the Cowboys theoretically could give Ware a contract larger than Haynesworth's but with a much smaller impact on their salary cap.

A review of last year's projections

2009-03-17T13:11:00.000-07:00

While I'm waiting for this year's compensatory picks to be announced (most likely next Monday), I thought I'd show how my projections last year compared to the actual comp picks that were awarded by the NFL.

To see my projections for LAST YEAR, you can click on one of these links or just Google "AdamJT13" and "2008 compensatory" --

http://forums.kffl.com/showthread.php?t=225687

http://www.footballsfuture.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=208336

As I mentioned in this year's projections, I got 25 correct and was off by one round on four more.

The chart below shows how my projections compared to the actual comp picks. Those shaded green are the ones I had in the correct round. Those shaded yellow were the ones I missed by one round (three of which I had indicated were possible, as highlighted in green type). And the blue lines show where I had the order correct for the picks I had going in the correct round.

(Click for full-size image.)

The three picks I missed were Atlanta's third-round pick, Miami's seventh-round pick and St. Louis' net-value pick at the end of the seventh round. Instead, I had projected a seventh for Indianapolis, a net-value pick for Atlanta and a non-compensatory pick for Miami. Even though I projected that Miami would get a seventh-rounder and Miami did get a seventh-rounder, I don't count that as a correct pick, because it was a different type of pick than I projected.

Although I missed Atlanta's third-round pick, I did say in my projections that it was possible. I had Marcus Wilkins listed as a bubble player, and I projected him to qualify for the comp picks equation, which gave them an equal number of qualifying players signed and lost, making them eligible for only a net-value comp pick at the end of the seventh round. However, I did say, "If Marcus Wilkins does not qualify, Atlanta would receive a third-round comp pick for Patrick Kerney instead of a net-value comp pick in the seventh round. The third-round comp pick for Kerney would be between Cincinnati’s pick for Steinbach and Baltimore’s pick for Thomas." Wilkins did not qualify, and Atlanta's pick did indeed fall between the third-round picks given to Cincinnati and Baltimore. So my only mistake was not hitting the correct cutoff point for the minimum value needed to qualify.

The same mistake is why I missed Miami's seventh-round pick, athough I again had said it was possible. This time, the bubble players involved were Chris Liewinski and Mike Doss. I had projected that both of them would qualify, and that Indianapolis would receive a seventh-round comp pick for Doss. But neither of them qualified. In my projections, I said, "If neither Chris Liewinski nor Mike Doss qualify and Vinny Ciurciu does qualify, Miami would get a seventh-round comp pick for Jeff Zgonina between Chicago’s pick for Justin Gage and Cincinnati’s pick for Anthony Wright, Indianapolis would not receive a seventh-round comp pick for Doss, and Miami would keep its non-compensatory pick at the end of the seventh round." Ciurciu did qualify, and Miami's seventh-round comp pick for Zgonina fell right where I projected it. Miami did not get a non-compensatory pick at the end of the seventh round because 32 picks were awarded, and I mentioned in my projections that if the NFL awarded more comp picks than I had projected, the lowest picks in my projection would not be awarded.

The final pick I missed was the net-value pick for St. Louis. I didn't list St. Louis' players signed and lost in my projections because I didn't project a pick for the Rams. I had the Rams signing three qualifying players (Drew Bennett, Chris Draft and Todd Johnson) and losing three qualifying players (Kevin Curtis, Travis Fisher and Shaun McDonald), but I didn't have the difference in their combined values being enough to warrant a net-value comp pick. The NFL said the difference was enough. In this year's projections, I said the difference in net values for the net-value picks I projected for Detroit and Arizona would be the smallest of any net-value comp pick in the past six years. But after re-examining St. Louis' net-value pick that I missed last year, the difference for the Rams' players signed and lost appears to have been even smaller. That makes me feel more confident about my projections for Detroit and Arizona this year, but if neither of them qualify for a comp pick this year, it means I'll have to do a little more digging to figure out why.

Projecting the 2009 Compensatory NFL Draft Picks

2009-03-10T20:21:00.000-07:00

For the eighth consecutive year and ninth overall, I’ve attempted to project all of the compensatory draft picks that the NFL will award. In my past seven projections, I’ve averaged 23.9 out of 32 exactly correct (going to the correct team in the correct round) and have been off by only one round on an average of 4.1 more. Last year, I got 25 correct and was off by one round on four more. With this year’s projections, I’m hoping to get a combined score of at least 30, although it’s possible that more than the usual number of them could be off by one round because so many projected compensatory picks fell near the cutoff points between rounds.

As the NFL explains, compensatory picks are awarded to teams that lose more or better compensatory free agents than they acquire. The number of picks a team can receive equals the net loss of compensatory free agents, up to a maximum of four. Compensatory free agents are determined by a secret formula based on salary, playing time and postseason honors. Not every free agent lost or signed is covered by the formula.

Although the formula has never been revealed, by studying the compensatory picks that have been awarded since they began in 1994, I’ve determined that the primary factor in the value of the picks awarded is the average annual value of the contract the player signed with his new team, with an adjustment for playing time and a smaller adjustment for postseason honors. It should be noted that the contract values used in the equation seemingly do not include things such as workout bonuses, incentives and conditional bonuses. (Also, keep in mind that the contract figures reported in the media often are incorrect.) And the playing time used in the equation seemingly is the percentage of offensive or defensive snaps played.

A simple method of determining for which qualifying free agents a team will be compensated is this – for every player acquired, cancel out a lost player of similar value. For example, consider a team that loses one qualifying player whose value would bring a third-round comp pick and another qualifying player whose value would bring a sixth-round comp pick but signs a qualifying player whose value would be in the range of a third-round pick. That team would receive a sixth-round comp pick because the signed player would cancel out the loss of the higher-valued player. If the signed player’s value was equal to a fourth-round pick or lower, however, the team would receive a third-round comp pick, because the signed player would cancel out the loss of the lower-valued player.

It is possible for a team to get a compensatory pick even if it doesn’t suffer a net loss of qualifying free agents. That type of comp pick comes at the end of the seventh round, after the normal comp picks and before the non-compensatory picks that are added if fewer than 32 comp picks are awarded. There have been 13 of these “net value” type of comp picks awarded, and in each case, the combined value of the free agents lost was significantly higher than the combined value of the free agents added. In all 13 cases, those teams lost the same number of qualifying free agents as they signed. No team has been awarded a comp pick after signing more qualifying free agents than it lost, no matter how significant the difference in combined value. This year, I’m projecting that Detroit and Arizona will receive a net-value comp picks. Detroit lost three qualifying players (Damien Woody, Boss Bailey and T.J. Duckett) and signed three qualifying players (Brian Kelly, Michael Gaines and Chuck Darby). Arizona lost three (Calvin Pace, Bryant Johnson and Keydrick Vincent) and signed three (Travis LaBoy, Clark Haggans and Bryan Robinson). The combined values of the players Detroit and Arizona lost each exceeded 50 percent more than the combined values of the players they signed. That would be the smallest difference in value of any net-value comp in the past six years, but I’m projecting that it will be enough for both teams.

For the second consecutive year, I’ve used a mathematical formula to weight the three factors that determine a player’s value in the comp equation (his contract, his playing time and his postseason awards). Using this formula, I’ve been able to reconstruct almost precisely the order of the comp picks that were awarded in 2006, 2007 and 2008. In two of those years, the only difference between the reconstructed order and the actual order was that a very small difference in values had the order of two consecutive picks switched. I don’t know if I have the factors weighted correctly, but given that my projected order last year (not the reconstructed order after the actual comps were awarded) matched the exact order of the comp picks in many cases – including one instance of 11 straight, out of the projected picks I had correct – I think I’m probably pretty close.

As always, please note that my comp pick formula is merely an attempt to project the results of the actual (secret) formula. I don’t pretend to know the actual formula. But I think previous results indicate that the formula I use is a pretty good simulation.

In order to qualify for the comp equation, a player must have been a true Unrestricted Free Agent whose contract had expired or was voided after the previous season (i.e., he cannot have been released by his old team); he must sign during the UFA signing period (which ended July 22 last year); if he signs after June 1, he must have been tendered a June 1 qualifying offer by his old team; his compensatory value must be above a specific minimum amount; and he cannot have been permanently released by his new team before a certain point in the season (which seems to be after Week 10) or, possibly, before getting a certain amount of playing time, unless he was claimed off waivers by another team.

The most difficult part about projecting the comp picks is determining all of the cutoff points – the minimum value needed to qualify and the value ranges for the comp picks in each round of the draft. The comp picks awarded in previous years suggest that the cutoff points increase each year by a small percentage – approximately the same percentage by which the leaguewide salary cap increases. From 2007 to 2008, the cap went up 6.96 percent, so I used a 7 percent increase when estimating the cutoff points for this year’s comp picks.

Last year, the lowest-paid player who is known to have qualified for the NFL’s comp equation was Michael Myers, who signed for $825,000 per season and saw significant playing time. The highest-paid player who is known to have not qualified was Mike Doss, who signed for $900,000 per season by saw very little playing time except on special teams. The non-qualifying player with the highest value using the compensatory formula was Chris Liwienski, who signed for $740,000 per season and played almost 90 percent of his team’s offensive snaps. This year, only one player was “on the bubble” for qualifying – Tony Richardson, who left the Vikings and signed with the Jets for $860,000 per season. However, regardless of whether Richardson qualifies, the Vikings and the Jets each signed more qualifying players than they lost, which means Richardson doesn’t affect the comp picks at all.

I’m fairly confident that the players I consider a little “above the bubble” this year (Terry Cousin, Keydrick Vincent and Danny Clark) will qualify for the equation, and that the players I consider slightly “below the bubble” (Alex Stepanovich and Aaron Glenn), will not qualify. The lowest-valued player “above the bubble,” Danny Clark, has a value in the formula that is more than 20 percent higher than that of last year’s lowest-valued qualifying player. And the highest-valued player “below the bubble,” Alex Stepanovich, has a value that is less than that of the lowest-valued qualifying player last year (Michael Myers) and less than 1 percent more than the highest-valued non-qualifying player last year (Chris Liwienski). If I’m wrong about any of those players, it will represent by far the largest or smallest increase in the minimum value needed to qualify that the NFL has used since comp picks were first awarded.

There were two unusual cases this year, one involving Keary Colbert and the other involving Marques Douglas, and they each might or might not count in the comp picks equation.

Colbert was a UFA for Carolina who signed with Denver, was traded to Seattle on Sept. 17, then was cut by the Seahawks on Nov. 12. The only clue about how the NFL handles a player like this in the compensatory formula is the case of Qadry Ismail in 1998. He was a free agent for Minnesota in 1997, signed with Green Bay, then was traded to Miami during the preseason. He did not count in the equation for Minnesota or Green Bay. It’s not known whether he counted for Miami, because the Dolphins didn’t receive any comp picks in 1998, so the NFL never revealed which players counted as lost or signed for Miami. In Colbert’s case, it doesn’t matter whether he counts for Carolina and/or Denver, because neither team will receive a comp pick either way. They each signed more qualifying players than they lost, regardless of whether Colbert counts. It does matter for Seattle, though. If Colbert counts as a player added, the Seahawks would receive three comp picks. If he does not, the Seahawks would receive four. Because Colbert was a member of the Seahawks for only eight weeks, I am projecting that he will not count in the equation.

Douglas was a UFA for San Francisco who signed with Tampa Bay, then was traded to Baltimore on Aug. 27 and played in every game for the Ravens. Whether he counts for Tampa Bay and/or Baltimore is irrelevant, because they each signed more qualifying players than they lost. However, it does matter if he counts for San Francisco. If he counts as a player lost by the 49ers, they will receive two comp picks. If not, they will get one comp pick. I am projecting that Douglas will count as a player lost by the 49ers.

Last year, regardless of playing time or postseason honors, the third-round comp players had signed for at least $6.25 million per season, the fourth-round comp players had signed for $4.67 million to $5.225 million, the only fifth-round comp player had signed for $4.5 million, the sixth-round comp players had signed for $2.25 million to $3.75 million, and the seventh-round comp players had signed for $2.5 million or less per season. Note that there are huge gaps between some rounds, and that there is an overlap between the sixth and seventh rounds because of the adjustments for playing time. You’ll find the contract values for each round of this year’s projected picks in the list a few paragraphs below this one.

As I alluded to earlier, the NFL adds non-compensatory picks if fewer than 32 comp picks are awarded. The non-compensatory picks are given, in order, to the teams that would be drafting if there were an eighth round, until the maximum of 32 has been reached. If there are 28 true comps, for example, the NFL would give additional picks to the teams that would have the first four picks in the eighth round, if there were one. This year, I’m projecting that 30 true comps will be awarded, including Detroit’s and Arizona's comp picks for net-value losses, which I mentioned earlier. Therefore, I’m projecting that Detroit and Kansas City will receive non-compensatory picks to fill out the maximum number of picks. If the NFL’s equation results in more than three non-compensatory picks being added, the next six teams in line to receive one would be St. Louis, Cleveland, Seattle, Cincinnati, Jacksonville and Oakland, in that order.

Here are the projected picks for 2009, along with the compensatory player, their average contract value, their games played, their games started and other notes (I’ve also noted the nine picks that fall near a cutoff point and could end up in a different round) –

THIRD ROUND

New England (Asante Samuel, $9.3567 million per season, 15 GP/15 GS, Pro Bowl)

Pittsburgh (Alan Faneca, $7.8 million, 16/16, Pro Bowl)

Cincinnati (Justin Smith, $7 million, 16/16) – possibly a fourth-round pick

FOURTH ROUND

Chicago (Bernard Berrian, $6.9 million, 16/13) – possibly a third-round pick

N.Y. Giants (Gibril Wilson, $6.5008 million, 16/15) – possibly a third-round pick

San Diego (Michael Turner, $5.75 million, 16/16, Pro Bowl) – possibly a third-round pick

San Diego (Drayton Florence, $5.9333 million, 15/8)

Tennessee (Antwan Odom, $5.9 million, 12/8)

Indianapolis (Jake Scott, $4.8 million, 16/16) – possibly a fifth-round pick

FIFTH ROUND

San Francisco (Kwame Harris, $4.6667 million, 14/11)

New England (Donte Stallworth, $4.5393 million, 11/7)

Dallas (Jacques Reeves, $4 million, 16/16) – possibly a sixth-round pick

Tennessee (Travis LaBoy, $4.4 million, 13/12) – possibly a sixth-round pick

SIXTH ROUND

Tennessee (Randy Starks, $3.885 million, 16/4)

New England (Randall Gay, $3.3125 million, 14/13)

Dallas (Julius Jones, $2.9 million, 15/10)

Cincinnati (Landon Johnson, $2.733 million, 15/0) – possibly a seventh-round pick

San Francisco (Marques Douglas, $2.525 million, 16/0) – possibly a seventh-round pick

SEVENTH ROUND

Tennessee (Ben Hartsock, $2.25 million, 11/11)

Washington (Mark Brunell, $1.755 million, 2/0)

Seattle (Chuck Darby, $1.467 million, 15/15)

Seattle (Ellis Wyms, $1.4 million, 16/0)

Chicago (John Gilmore, $1.333 million, 16/10)

Seattle (Kevin Bentley, $1.3 million, 16/7)

Chicago (Brendon Ayanbadejo, $1.223 million, 16/0, Pro Bowl)

Cincinnati (Bryan Robinson, $1.2125 million, 16/15)

Seattle (D.J. Hackett, $1.2 million, 9/2)

Jacksonville (Terry Cousin, $1.115 million, 16/0)

Detroit (net-value comp pick, lost three for $10.721 million, 38/22; signed three for $7.134 million, 42/31)

Arizona (net-value comp pick, lost three for $9.45 million, 46/42; signed three for $6.9625 million, 40/27)

Detroit (non-compensatory pick)

Kansas City (non-compensatory pick)

As noted, the values of nine comp picks fell near the cutoff points between rounds, so it wouldn’t surprise me if the comp pick for Smith is in the fourth round, if the comp picks for Berrian, Wilson and/or Turner are in the third round, if the comp pick for Scott is in the fifth round, if the comp picks for Reeves and LaBoy in the sixth round or if the comp picks for Johnson and/or Douglas are in the seventh round. (Actually, if Douglas’ value falls in the seventh round, the 49ers’ comp pick would be for Maurice Hicks and would fall between Chicago’s pick for John Gilmore and Seattle's pick for Kevin Bentley.)

Of course, other projected picks could be off by one round (or more) if the NFL happened to change the formula or increase the cutoff points by significantly more or less than I projected.

Here are the qualifying players lost and signed (in order of value) for the 15 teams that I’m projecting will receive comp picks –

ARIZONA

Lost: Calvin Pace, Bryant Johnson, Keydrick Vincent

Signed: Travis LaBoy, Clark Haggans, Bryan Robinson

CHICAGO

Lost: Bernard Berrian, John Gilmore, Brendon Ayanbadejo

Signed: None

CINCINNATI

Lost: Justin Smith, Madieu Williams, Landon Johnson, Bryan Robinson

Signed: Antwan Odom

DALLAS

Lost: Jacques Reeves, Julius Jones

Signed: None

DETROIT

Lost: Damien Woody, Boss Bailey, T.J. Duckett

Signed: Brian Kelly, Michael Gaines, Chuck Darby

INDIANAPOLIS

Lost: Jake Scott

Signed: None

JACKSONVILLE

Lost: Bobby McCray, Ernest Wilford, Sammy Knight, Terry Cousin

Signed: Drayton Florence, Jerry Porter, Cleo Lemon

NEW YORK GIANTS

Lost: Gibril Wilson, Kawika Mitchell, Reggie Torbor

Signed: Sammy Knight, Danny Clark

NEW ENGLAND

Lost: Asante Samuel, Donte Stallworth, Randall Gay

Signed: None

PITTSBURGH

Lost: Alan Faneca, Clark Haggans

Signed: Mewelde Moore

SAN DIEGO

Lost: Michael Turner, Drayton Florence

Signed: None

SAN FRANCISCO

Lost: Justin Smiley, Kwame Harris, Marques Douglas, Maurice Hicks

Signed: Justin Smith, Bryant Johnson

SEATTLE

Lost: Josh Brown, Niko Koutouvides, Chuck Darby, Ellis Wyms, Kevin Bentley, D.J. Hackett

Signed: Julius Jones, T.J. Duckett

TENNESSEE

Lost: Jacob Bell, Antwan Odom, Travis LaBoy, Randy Starks, Ben Hartsock, Chris Brown

Signed: Jake Scott

WASHINGTON

Lost: Mark Brunell

Signed: None

Anyone else who was lost or signed by one of those teams last offseason is not projected to qualify for the equation, for one reason or another. Remember, players have to meet certain criteria in order to qualify for the equation (see the eighth paragraph of these projections for a summary of the criteria), so a lot of players will not count in the equation. Most of the time, it’s either because the player had been released by his previous team and was not a true UFA, or because the player didn’t sign for enough money to qualify.

If I’m wrong about the values of certain players or whether some players will or will not qualify for the equation, that would affect the comp picks. Here’s what would happen in certain instances –

If Jacob Bell’s value as a player lost for Tennessee falls into the range of a third-round comp pick, instead of a fourth-rounder as I projected, then the Titans would get a third-round comp pick for him instead of a fourth-round comp pick for Antwan Odom.

If Jake Scott’s compensatory value is in the fifth round, then the Colts would get a fifth-round pick for him, and the Titans would get a comp pick for Jacob Bell (either in the third or fourth round) instead of a fifth-round comp pick for Travis LaBoy.

If Keary Colbert does qualify as a player signed for Seattle, the Seahawks would not get a seventh-round comp pick for Chuck Darby but would get the other three seventh-round comp picks, and St. Louis would get a non-compensatory pick to fill out the draft order.

If Marques Douglas does not qualify as a player lost by San Francisco, the 49ers would not get a sixth-round comp pick for him. And as I mentioned earlier, if Douglas’ value falls in the range of a seventh-round comp pick, the 49ers’ comp pick would not be for him, but for Maurice Hicks, and it would fall between Chicago’s pick for John Gilmore and Seattle's pick for Kevin Bentley.

If Terry Cousin does not qualify as a player lost by Jacksonville, the Jaguars would not get a seventh-round comp pick for him, and St. Louis would get a non-compensatory pick to fill out the draft order.

If Keydrick Vincent does not qualify as a player lost by Arizona, the Cardinals would not get a third-round comp pick for Calvin Pace, and St. Louis would get a non-compensatory pick to fill out the draft order.

If Danny Clark does not qualify as a player signed by the Giants, they would get a sixth-round comp pick for Reggie Torbor, between New England’s pick for Randall Gay and Dallas’ pick for Julius Jones, and Kansas City would not get a non-compensatory pick at the end of the seventh round.

If Alex Stepanovich does qualify as a player lost by Cincinnati, the Bengals would receive a seventh-round comp pick for him, between Jacksonville’s comp pick for Terry Cousin and Detroit’s net-value comp pick, and Kansas City would not get a non-compensatory pick at the end of the seventh round.

If Aaron Glenn does qualify as a player lost by Jacksonville, the Jaguars would receive a seventh-round comp pick for him, after their comp pick for Terry Cousin (and after Cincinnati’s comp pick for Stepanovich, if the Bengals get one) and before Detroit’s net-value comp pick, and Kansas City would not get a non-compensatory pick at the end of the seventh round.

Under no circumstances will more than 32 picks be awarded, so if I have made numerous significant mistakes and there are more true comp picks than I have projected, one or more of the lowest-valued picks in my projection (starting with the non-compensatory picks and going backward) might not be awarded, if they’re not one of the 32 highest-valued comp picks. Only the 32 highest-valued comp picks are awarded. So, for example, if Stepanovich and Glenn both qualify as players lost, there would be no non-compensatory picks at the end of the seventh round.

The NFL typically awards the compensatory picks on the second day of the Annual Meeting, which would be March 23 this year (the meeting will be March 22-25 in Dana Point, Calif.). After the comp picks are announced, I’ll review what the NFL did and where my projections were incorrect (although I’ve already presented some other possibilities).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feel free to post my projections on message boards, as long as you give proper credit. Because I cannot register for and regularly visit every single message board where my projections are posted by others, please encourage anyone who has questions for me to post them in the comments here at adamjt13.blogspot.com.