Compensatory Picks and Options to Move Down

[Section 310]

The link is to the Great Blue North website. I think it is one of the more comprehensive sites out there. They note that Cincy and Baltimore stand to reap a windfall in compensatory picks for next season.

They also mention that there are several teams in this year's draft with 9-10 picks. It would seem that a team like Cincinnati could offer to drop down in Rounds 1 or 2 and grab a couple of these selections from the teams who are holding the multiple picks.

Given our history, I would much rather see Cincy stay out of Round 1 and have multiple selections in Rounds 2-4.

http://www.gbnreport.com/picksbyteam.html

[jditty47]

im not sure if i agree. depends on whos there at 18. 18 is a great spot to be. we could drop to say 24th like how we did with perry and add a 3rd or even a 2nd from someone, which would be fine. im not sure with this crop that i would want to drop out of the first round though.

[ArmyBengal]

There's going to be an impact defensive player available in the 1st at #18 and I for one would rather take whomever is there as opposed to trading out of the 1st all together. Now if we are talking trading "down" in the 1st under the assumption that said player may still be there when their pick comes up, then maybe, but I would rather not assume when it comes to getting a defensive playmaker...

WHODEY !!!

[chrishcovga]

Well, I for one am looking forward to the compensatory picks that will be alloted to teams for the 2008 season.

The Bengals should garner quite a bit. - The way Compensatory picks are awarded is simple, A team loses more free agents than it signs, the players lost garner higher salaries , and the guys we've lost so far clearly outweighs the GUY ( 1 ) that we've brought in value.

S Kevin Kaesviharn: UFA Saints; $10M/4 yrs, $3.25M SB.- led the team in interceptions

—LB Brian Simmons (released).- starter that played all 3 downs.

—OG Eric Steinbach: UFA Browns; $49.5/7 yrs, $17M guaranteed.- 2 time pro bowl alternate

—TE Tony Stewart: UFA Raiders; terms unknown. - probably not much value here

—WR Kelley Washington: UFA Patriots; terms unknown. - rumor is that his salary and bonuses from the Patriots was close to 20 million.

—LB Marcus Wilkins: UFA Falcons; $3.5M/3 yrs, $500,000 SB.- Top special teamer

I would figure that the losses of Steinbach and Washington would bring in 3rd, and 4th round compensatory picks.

- The Loss of Kaesviharn should bring in a 5th

- The loss of Stewart and Wilkins should bring considerations for 6th or 7th round selections.

- Simmons wouldn't bring anything in, simply because he was released and wasn't an un-restricted free agent.

So the 2008 draft could look like,

1st,

2nd,

3rd,

3rd,

4th

5th

5th,

6th,

7th,

7th - I'm guessing 10 picks next year.

[HoosierCat]

I'm guessing 10 picks next year.

Not sure if that would be a or a .

The Bengals seem to do better with fewer picks -- which is, I suppose, one reason for optomism this year. In '03 they had 9 picks, only 3 of which are still with the team (Carson, Jeremi and Koo). In '04 they had 11 picks and outside of Geathers and Madieu no one has really stood out. So out of 20 picks they got 3 starters (4 if you want to count the departed Eric Steinbach), a semi-starter in Geathers, and a backup tackle.

By comparision they had the usual 7 in '05 and 8 in '06 and have gotten 3 starters out of that -- 6 if you count Pollack, Thurman and Henry, who would be starters if it weren't for issues of injury and behavior. Plus there's at least 4 more guys (Peko, Kilmer, Tab and Fear the Fanene) with chances to grow into something. That's 15 picks with 6 starters and 4 more possibles.

[TJJackson]

I'm all in favor of trading down as long as we do not expect to lose out on an expected impact defender.

For example:

let's say pick 18 comes up, we're on the clock, and each of the following players (improbably, but hey, this is all hypothetical) remain available: Willis, Okoye, Revis, Houston, Nelson. Some among you would point to one or more of these players and say "you got to take that guy now". My reply would be that none of them are a "sure thing", and as long as we get ONE of them, we are drafting our potential impact player.

So the team drafting at 20, 21, or 22 offers us their pick and another pick in the 3rd or 4th round in exchange for pick 18. I'd look at that, realize that at least one of the 5 players will STILL be available at 20-22, and be happy to trade.

[Walrus]

I'm guessing 10 picks next year.

Not sure if that would be a or a .

The Bengals seem to do better with fewer picks -- which is, I suppose, one reason for optomism this year. In '03 they had 9 picks, only 3 of which are still with the team (Carson, Jeremi and Koo). In '04 they had 11 picks and outside of Geathers and Madieu no one has really stood out. So out of 20 picks they got 3 starters (4 if you want to count the departed Eric Steinbach), a semi-starter in Geathers, and a backup tackle.

By comparision they had the usual 7 in '05 and 8 in '06 and have gotten 3 starters out of that -- 6 if you count Pollack, Thurman and Henry, who would be starters if it weren't for issues of injury and behavior. Plus there's at least 4 more guys (Peko, Kilmer, Tab and Fear the Fanene) with chances to grow into something. That's 15 picks with 6 starters and 4 more possibles.

I don't understand why you're so down on the '03 draft. "If you count Steinbach" as a starter? Damn skippy you count him -- even though he's not on our team anymore. In addition to the 4 years of excellent play we got out of him, his selection will still have value next year in the form of the 3rd round comp pick we're likely to get just for letting him go. The other guys we picked up in '03 have performed well, although we did get unlucky with injuries to Weathersby and Abdullah. If you blame that on Marvin having "too many picks" you're just being superstitious.

I do agree, though, that the '04 class has been disappointing, esp Ratliff. But, again, Perry has been injured which really doesn't have anything to do with how good a pick he was when we got him. And the jury's still out on Greg Brooks -- he might turn out to be a player this season... But I'm not really holding my breath for that.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I don't understand why you're so down on the '03 draft. "If you count Steinbach" as a starter? Damn skippy you count him -- even though he's not on our team anymore. In addition to the 4 years of excellent play we got out of him, his selection will still have value next year in the form of the 3rd round comp pick we're likely to get just for letting him go. The other guys we picked up in '03 have performed well, although we did get unlucky with injuries to Weathersby and Abdullah. If you blame that on Marvin having "too many picks" you're just being superstitious.

I'll confess, I liked the 03 draft at the time. KW looked like a big receiver whose stock dropped due to a recoverable injury. Weathersby looked like a steal. We got Palmer and Steinbach. And personally, I was excited to see a WKU alum. Looked good all in all.

And the jury's still out on Greg Brooks -- he might turn out to be a player this season... But I'm not really holding my breath for that.

Wait, did Brooks get arrested too?

[HoosierCat]

I don't understand why you're so down on the '03 draft.

Well, if you're a team predicated on "building through the draft" and four years later only three of nine picks (one of them apparently a career backup) are left, it's tough to consider that a success.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I don't understand why you're so down on the '03 draft.

Well, if you're a team predicated on "building through the draft" and four years later only three of nine picks (one of them apparently a career backup) are left, it's tough to consider that a success.

Well, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. We did get 4 good years out of Steinbach and *chose* to let him go. It's not like he sucked. Also, don't overlook the fact that we got a top-5 QB in the NFL out of that draft. Throw in that and some bad luck and hey, s**t happens.

The question is, what did you think about the draft at the time? I liked it.

[HoosierCat]

Well, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. We did get 4 good years out of Steinbach and *chose* to let him go. It's not like he sucked.

Whether Steinbach was any good or not is irrelevant to the issue of building a team. We have now spent two second-round picks in four years to fill the same hole at guard -- and that's an expensive habit when a defense is as bad as ours. But even that is irrelevant to my initial point, which is that the Bengals seem to do worse the more picks they have. That's still clear even if you count Steinbach.

The question is, what did you think about the draft at the time? I liked it.

I like most drafts on draft day. I consider what the draft looks like 3-4 years down the line to be far more importanta, however.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Well, sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. We did get 4 good years out of Steinbach and *chose* to let him go. It's not like he sucked.

Whether Steinbach was any good or not is irrelevant to the issue of building a team. We have now spent two second-round picks in four years to fill the same hole at guard -- and that's an expensive habit when a defense is as bad as ours. But even that is irrelevant to my initial point, which is that the Bengals seem to do worse the more picks they have. That's still clear even if you count Steinbach.

The question is, what did you think about the draft at the time? I liked it.

I like most drafts on draft day. I consider what the draft looks like 3-4 years down the line to be far more importanta, however.

Well, sure, it's relevant. Because we let Steiny go we have a guy from the 1996 draft still on the team. How's that for team building? The fact is that there is a salary cap, and you can't pay everybody. In teh end, Steinbach was the casualty of an offensive line that was built *too* well - in the end, with Whitworth waiting around, they decided he wasn't worth it. That's *exactly* what team building is about - the teams that win consistently are the ones who can afford to let RFAs walk while plugging the hole with a draft pick. That's what we've done here. Our offense is completely draft-built, you can't possibly complain about that. 4 offensive linemen. All 3 WRs (counting Henry). The entire backfield. I mean come on, we have *9-10* (depending on whether you're going with a TE on the field) offensive starters for the draft. Come on.

Defense is certainly another matter. DEs are draftees, but the top 3 DTs aren't. One S is a FA, one drafted. One corner drafted, one FA castoff. I don't even know who are LBs are (and Marvin doesn't either), but none of them should be starters, so I'm counting 0 there. So we have like 4 legitimate starters drafted on defense. You want to find your problem, that's it. It's definitely NOT because we couldn't build an offensive line through the draft. We did. The question is where are all these players on the defensive side of the ball being developed? They're not, through a combination of bad luck, bad planning, and possibly bad defensive coaching.

[HoosierCat]

It's definitely NOT because we couldn't build an offensive line through the draft.

? Where did I say anything about the problem being not building an offensive line through the draft?

Fine. Whatever: Stienbach was the greatest pick ever in the history of the Bengals draft. Letting him go was exactly the right thing to do. The Bengals actually did an awesome incredible job drafting in 2003 and 2004. I'm completely off-base. Hopefully they have hundred picks in next year's draft because obviously the more picks they have the better they do.

[jditty47]

you know what our problem on defense is? losing our 1st and 2nd round picks from the 05 draft does not help our progress when we build through the draft. if we had pollack and thurman in there in our rotation all of us would be much more happier with our defense and our depth. we just have to weather the storm this season and next season we will be able to make up for them with our extra comp picks. this season though however, will be thin on defense and not as explosive as we could be even if brooks plays like a madman.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

It's definitely NOT because we couldn't build an offensive line through the draft.

? Where did I say anything about the problem being not building an offensive line through the draft?

Fine. Whatever: Stienbach was the greatest pick ever in the history of the Bengals draft. Letting him go was exactly the right thing to do. The Bengals actually did an awesome incredible job drafting in 2003 and 2004. I'm completely off-base. Hopefully they have hundred picks in next year's draft because obviously the more picks they have the better they do.

Passive aggressive doesn't suit you.

If you're saying we can't build a team, and the evidence of this is that we let Steinbach go, that would tend to be refuted by the fact that his replacement and other offensive starters are also draftees. You're getting hung up in picks per year, which is an inherently noisy trendline. Hell, we still have what, 4 people from 2001? This happens in the NFL

Note I didn't say letting Steinbach go was a good idea - being a heartless bastard, I'd have kept him over Willie. But you still haven't answered what you thought about the 2003 draft in April 2003, otherwise it's a bit of revisionist history. 2004 I think they reached for the wrong guy at a position that wasn't the problem anyway in the 1st round.

As for your theory of more picks == bad, I don't think you have the sample size (what, 5 years?) and I'm not sure what the mechanism would be since they have a draft board regardless that has hundreds of names on it - don't think it would matter how many they yank off. In any event, it depends where those picks are, as if you have 6 picks in rounds 5-7, those guys aren't going to make it from a sheer numbers perspective when cuts roll around.

My thesis is still this: The current coaching staff has not developed enough players on defense. Full stop. Don't need a more complicated theory than that. If you want to do analysis of picks and rounds, compare to other teams - in this case, the reason we don't have as many left from the '03 draft is because we have so many people left at similar positions as those we've let go from *other* drafts.

[HoosierCat]

Passive aggressive doesn't suit you.

Well, what option do I have when presented with the idea that spending two high picks in four years on the same spot, when the first pick got us a 10-year-starter type that we let go, represents a good way to build a team?

If you're saying we can't build a team, and the evidence of this is that we let Steinbach go

No, I said having just three picks work out when you have nine overall is a crappy performance and not conducive to building a team through the draft. What I thought of it at the time doesn't matter.

As for your theory of more picks == bad, I don't think you have the sample size (what, 5 years?) and I'm not sure what the mechanism would be since they have a draft board regardless that has hundreds of names on it - don't think it would matter how many they yank off. In any event, it depends where those picks are, as if you have 6 picks in rounds 5-7, those guys aren't going to make it from a sheer numbers perspective when cuts roll around.

Well, how much sample size do you want? As for where those picks were, of the 20 in 03-04, 8 were day one picks. Out of that we got three starters, Madieu, Carson and Steinbach. Out of 6 day one picks in '04 and '05 they selected five-starting caliber guys (and the other, Rucker, may round that to six). Or look at it this way: in the three drafts in which they had just 3 day one picks -- 03, 05, and 06 -- they drafted 7 starting-caliber players, one bust (Washington) and one question mark (Rucker). The one year they have five day one picks...they hit once.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

Well, what option do I have when presented with the idea that spending two high picks in four years on the same spot, when the first pick got us a 10-year-starter type that we let go, represents a good way to build a team?

Snide doesn't look good either! Here's why it's a good idea: Whitworth is probably about as good as Steinbach and will make much less money this year than Steinbach. Like I said, that's the winning model: keep developing your picks, let the overpriced guys go. For what Steinbach signed for, he's overpriced. I'd have been in favor of signing him instead of Willie before he hit the open market. Then his price got driven up into Hutchinson range by the idiot Browns. So sayonara. This is what the Patriots do - let the overpriced guys walk - and it's worked pretty well for them it seems.

Well, how much sample size do you want? As for where those picks were, of the 20 in 03-04, 8 were day one picks. Out of that we got three starters, Madieu, Carson and Steinbach. Out of 6 day one picks in '04 and '05 they selected five-starting caliber guys (and the other, Rucker, may round that to six). Or look at it this way: in the three drafts in which they had just 3 day one picks -- 03, 05, and 06 -- they drafted 7 starting-caliber players, one bust (Washington) and one question mark (Rucker). The one year they have five day one picks...they hit once.

I want more than a handful of years. Given the standard deviation you don't have even close to enough data to make a conclusion for the claim you're making. Nor have you made a statistical comparison of the Bengals to other teams. Come on now, if you're going to complain when people don't buy your conclusions, you better nail your stats!

If you want to be a stat nerd (like me), here's what I want: correlation coefficient and slope of a trendline of #successful picks vs. #picks in draft. Problem is, in math class, if you fit a trendline to 4 points, you'll get laughed at.

Finding patterns in data is what I do for a living, and one thing I learned years ago is that if you stare at the numbers long enough, you can force it to say what you want, but it doesn't make it real.

[HoosierCat]

I want more than a handful of years. Given the standard deviation you don't have even close to enough data to make a conclusion for the claim you're making. Nor have you made a statistical comparison of the Bengals to other teams.

I'll be happy to tak a look back at Bengals history and tell you what I find. But as for other teams, I made no claim that more picks = bad as a leaguewide rule, so I feel no need to look at 31 other teams to press a point that the Bengals do better with less.

Edit: OK, some additional data points for DC. I stopped at 1994, when the draft went to its current seven-round status, so that I'd have as apples-to-apples a comparison as possible. Numbers represent successful picks/total picks. Names in (parens) are players some might count, others might not.

2006: 3/8 - Joseph, Whitworth, Peko (Kilmer?)

2005: 5/7 - Pollack, Thurman, Henry, Bluto, Tab (Fanene?)

2004: 2/11 - Madieu, Geathers (Landon, Caleb?)

2003: 3/9 - Carson, Steinbach, Jeremi Johnson (Kooistra?)

2002: 4/7 - Levi, Lamont Thompson, Schobel, Marqand Manuel

2001: 4/7 - Justin, Chad, Rudi, TJ

2000: 3/7 - Warrick, Rackers, Brad St. Louis

1999: 1/9 - Cory Hall (Nick Williams, Kelly Gregg???)

1998: 5/9 - Spikes, Simmons, Foley, Goff, Glenn Steele

1997: 3/7 - Dillon, Tremain Mack, Canute Curtis

1996: 1/7 - Willie Anderson (Marco Battaglia?)

1995: 1/6 - Sam Shade (David Dunn?)

1994: 3/9 - Big Daddy, Darnay Scott, Kimo (Corey Sawyer?)

Years when they have 7 or fewer picks (7): 21/48 (44%)

Years when they have more than 7 picks (6): 17/55 (31%)

Even if you add in all the questionable players in the more than 7 years, and none in the 7 or fewer years, the more than seven number only rises to 24/55 (44%) -- the same as the 7 or fewer years. In other words, there's scant evidence that in the Bengals' case, more picks = better.

Addenda: If you chop the high and low years off each category, the numbers come into closer alignment, 12/35 (34%) for 7 or less, 11/37 (30%) for 8+.

[DC_Bengals_Fan]

I want more than a handful of years. Given the standard deviation you don't have even close to enough data to make a conclusion for the claim you're making. Nor have you made a statistical comparison of the Bengals to other teams.

Years when they have 7 or fewer picks (7): 21/48 (44%)

Years when they have more than 7 picks (6): 17/55 (31%)

Even if you add in all the questionable players in the more than 7 years, and none in the 7 or fewer years, the more than seven number only rises to 24/55 (44%) -- the same as the 7 or fewer years. In other words, there's scant evidence that in the Bengals' case, more picks = better.

I'll agree with the scant evidence part either way. What I see if I were trying to draw a conclusion - and I'm not - is that Bengal drafting is a crapshoot, with 2-3 decent players per draft. Hell, lately we've had about as good of luck with CFLers and UFAs and 2nd day picks as we have with 1st day picks.

But that's not to say that it's *worse* to have more picks, just not much better. In any event, trying to prove something like this is hard because of the subjectivity, noise in the data, and tons of confounding variables (coaches, etc).

Anyway, what's your theory on the mechanism here anyway? You think Mikey freezes like the Vikings when he gets on the clock? That would make some sense...

[HoosierCat]

Anyway, what's your theory on the mechanism here anyway? You think Mikey freezes like the Vikings when he gets on the clock? That would make some sense...

Can't say. To demonstrate causation I'd have to establish that the pattern was unique to the Bengals, so then I'd have to do the same analysis for other NFL teams, as you suggested before. My wild-assed guess would be that, if it was unique, it would be related to the team's smaller scouting staff. Fewer picks = more focus, more picks = too few people trying to do too much.

On the good side, if the pattern (such as it is) holds, there's no reason to expect that the upcoming draft won't result in 2-3 good players, despite the fact the team only has six picks.

[HairOnFire]

I'm guessing 10 picks next year.

Not sure if that would be a or a .

The Bengals seem to do better with fewer picks -- which is, I suppose, one reason for optomism this year.

I've got to hand it to you. You're taking negativity to a new level when you argue in favor of having fewer draft picks. In fact, if I'm following your lead correctly you're already writing off players who haven't even been drafted yet.

[schweinhart]

you know what our problem on defense is? losing our 1st and 2nd round picks from the 05 draft does not help our progress when we build through the draft. if we had pollack and thurman in there in our rotation all of us would be much more happier with our defense and our depth.

That there hurts the most.

[fattyjay]

I think something that's being overlooked in this arguement is the position of the "extra" draft picks, most of which are late rounders i.e. 6th or 7th round. Typically these are going to be marginal players any way, so I don't see how this detracts from the success of the that particular draft year. Another point that has been brought up but not explained fully is the success of other teams in the draft. If you look at teams that most people consider to be fairly successful on draft day (Pittsburgh, Baltimore, N.E., and Indy), you'll find the same trend. They typically get between 2-4 quality players per draft, just like the Bengals do. I think the biggest difference in the Bengals and the other teams is that the other teams haven't taken as many risks with the character picks. I'm not a big backer of drafting character over talent, but at some point they have to look at lost production due to this factor. Yes Chris Henry had a good number of TD's last season, but the argument could be made that his suspension coupled with the injuries at WR probably cost the Bengals a game or two. I think we can all see the effects that Odell's suspension had on the defense last year. Many people have said that the injury bug was a main reason the Bengals missed the playoffs, which is partially true. The other part of that fact is that the depth at some positions was compromised by the suspensions and legal proceedings that more than a few players faced. Others have said that the Bengals should have been able to take the injuries in stride because injuries happen to every team, also partially true. The other side of that is that teams that do succeed despite injuries (N.E.) don't have character issues to deplete their depth. This difference alone could contribute to the Bengals having more "successful" drafts. How many starters or first line backups on any of the teams I mentioned were suspended for more than one game last year?

[HoosierCat]

I think something that's being overlooked in this arguement is the position of the "extra" draft picks, most of which are late rounders i.e. 6th or 7th round.

Actually, in the Marvin era, their extra selections have been a fairly premium lot: one 2nd, one 3rd, three 4ths, and two 7ths. The interesting thing about these picks is that most of them were good choices -- but then the corresponding regular pick wasn't. For example, the extra 2nd netted us Madieu; our "real" pick that round was Ratliff. The extra 3rd was Landon; the real pick was Caleb. The two extra 4ths in '04 got us Geathers and The Dancing Bear, but we wasted out real selection on Askew. The extra 4th in '03 brought Jeremi Johnson, while our real pick was Dennis Weathersby. Our extra 7th last year was Kilmer, the regular pick Brazell. The only one that doesn't fit the mold is our extra 7th in 2003, which got us Elton Patterson, versus our alloted selection, which brough Kooistra.