• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Steelers won't get 6th rounder for Cockrell

Steelerfan81

Steelerfan81

HERE WE GO
Forefather
Admin
Contributor
Joined
Apr 8, 2014
Messages
6,270
Reaction score
6,598
Points
113
Location
Western PA
Bob Labriola reported it during his asked and answered post on Steelers.com last week, but turned out he had bad info. Steelers still getting a 7th for Cockrell..not a 6th. Update your boards.
 
Something is better than nothing, and Cockrell would be our 5th CB on this team at best.
 
Just when he was building up his play, come to find out there was nothing there. He shrank back to pre-play.




Salute the nation
 
Wow, and he was a decent signing elsewhere. Thought it may merit a 4th.
 
This formula really makes no sense. I can understand Timmons being cancelled out by Haden, Maybe Alualu for Wheaton. But for Cockrell, who was a starter and played more snaps dealt on a trade no less, gives no compensation even though our two trades (McDonald and Wilcox) had almost no impact (except for McDonald for a couple of games).

Its like they are throwing dice on the craps table....
 
I thought LT was here for 10 years, the compensatory picks aren't awarded for players of that many years ( think same thing happened with Faneca)

So if LT doesn't figure into the comp equation we were a push or net gain thus resulting in the zero picks awarded,
 
I'd never seen age mentioned in comp pick consideration. I thought it had to do with the players contract amount issued from another team, though I did find this on the comp formula site:

Players who have ten or more accrued seasons may only yield a maximum of a 5th round compensatory pick, even if their actual value would otherwise be assigned higher. See Alan Faneca in 2009, who only awarded Pittsburgh with a 5th round pick instead of a 3rd despite his contract, playing time, and postseason honors.
Click to expand...

So there is a rule about 10 seasons, but it doesn't remove the pick, it just makes it a lower pick.

I do know that these players acquired weren't factored into the comp formula:

Wilcox (trade)
McDonald (trade)
Haden (Cut)

Also I think losing Jarvis technically didn't count as a loss, since he could have been retained under a 5th year option:

Players who have options declined by their former teams qualify for the compensatory formula, even though the team had a method to keep them under contract. See Donte Stallworth in 2009, who qualified in favor of New England despite having an option on his contract declined. This exception has in recent years been used far more often to protect teams’ compensatory pick potential, with the Patriots, Broncos and Ravens particularly standing out in their usage of team options.
Click to expand...

Here's the page I have bookmarked if you guys ever want to research it:

https://overthecap.com/the-basics-and-methodology-of-projecting-the-nfls-compensatory-draft-picks/
 
Cope said:
I'd never seen age mentioned in comp pick consideration. I thought it had to do with the players contract amount issued from another team, though I did find this on the comp formula site:



So there is a rule about 10 seasons, but it doesn't remove the pick, it just makes it a lower pick.

I do know that these players acquired weren't factored into the comp formula:

Wilcox (trade)
McDonald (trade)
Haden (Cut)

Also I think losing Jarvis technically didn't count as a loss, since he could have been retained under a 5th year option:



Here's the page I have bookmarked if you guys ever want to research it:

https://overthecap.com/the-basics-and-methodology-of-projecting-the-nfls-compensatory-draft-picks/
Click to expand...

I didnt know any of that. thanks for sharing.
 
So basically, there isn’t any logic to the formula this year.

Timmons, Wheaton, Cockrell (starters) = Aluala, Sensabaugh.


Sent from my iPad using Steeler Nation mobile app
 
Not much logic, or just too many damn rules and stipulations to the formula...it's like a bunch of politicians drew this **** up.

Think we traded ****, but losing Timmy and Wheaton for Alualu and Sensabaugh seems like a slight loss. I could see LT v Alualu as a push/slight loss and same with Wheaton v Sensabaugh. I guess we could've received a 7th, but there were likely just bigger losers in the FA game.
 
Ike Kelly said:
So basically, there isn’t any logic to the formula this year.

Timmons, Wheaton, Cockrell (starters) = Aluala, Sensabaugh.


Sent from my iPad using Steeler Nation mobile app
Click to expand...

I doubt Wheaton factors, since was not a statistically productive player with only 3 catches on the season. Sensabaugh was in on 24.5% of defensive plays and 31% of the ST (would have been higher, but B.Allen took his snaps in December). Alualu was a rotating player on 44% of defensive snaps.

Wheaton was in on 19% of offensive plays (amazing that he only has 3 receptions).
**** was in on 61.6 of defensive snaps, and 25% of ST snaps
Timmons was a true starter with nearly 84% of the defensive snaps.

I think Timmons being a 10yr player hurt us here. If he was released 2 years ago, His weight would be a 3rd or 4th, instead, by rule, he was at the most a 5th, but likely a 6th. If you handicap Timmons' worth due to the years played, I can see how the steelers gain/loss in FA looked even to the league.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top