Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

I wonder if comp picks entered equation to cut Trusnik/Todman

top dawg

By top dawg,
in Carolina Panthers

Recommended Posts

top dawg Grand Master

top dawg

Posted
Posted

I don't get the intricacies of compensatory picks (and don't really care to), I just loosely know that we have the possibility of getting one due to losing Hardy. 

My question is whether or not comp picks could have been on Gettleman's mind when he decided to dump Trusnik, Todman, and Boykin for that matter? Yes, I know there were other reasons to cut them (and obvious reasons to keep them), but could the possibility of as much as a third round pick have been a compelling enough of a reason to cut ties with these vets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jdpanther5 Newbie

jdpanther5

Posted
Posted

Why wouldn't the other two qualify (if you can explain it in elementary terms)?

Only true UFAs count, cut and renounced players don't. Trusnik, Tillman, and Coleman were signed as true UFAs, with no real connection to their former team anymore. On the other end, the same is true of Hardy, Bell, and Dockery. 

Oher, Ginn, and Jonathan Martin were released by their former teams, so they weren't true UFAs. Likewise, the rights to Boykin, Todman, and Teddy Williams were held by other teams, they just declined to bring them back, so they are also not considered UFAs.

Dockery was cut during the first round a couple days ago, but then Trusnik was cut today, so we're still breaking even. 

Full disclosure: the algorithm used is kept under wraps, so no one outside the NFL REALLY knows how it works. Given they have a meeting to decide the picks, my hunch is that it's less a formula and more an arbitrary system ranking gained/lost UFAs.

For instance, we got a pick for losing Hixon, a player who signed with the Bears and retired in preseason after an ACL tear, so it's pretty unpredictable. History shows though that only true UFAs that stick with their new team for at least 10 weeks of the season USUALLY count however. And it's entirely possible that Hardy may hold more weight via salary and performance, who knows. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
csx Grand Master

csx

Posted
Posted

I thought the basis of comp picks was losing free agents. Ive been confused by all the comp pick talk as I would assume cutting someone disqualifies them from the equation. Especially if that person never played a down for you. Im not even sure Hardy gets us much. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JawnyBlaze Grand Master

JawnyBlaze

Posted
Posted

it's not just bodies replaced, salary and playing time come in to the equation as well. 

No one knows the formula but the NFL. They're weird about it. 

Pretty much this.  It's not body for body, there are multiple factors.  There are lots of rumors and wive's tales circulating about how comp picks are decided, but no one actually knows except the NFL.  How these factors are calculated to come up with final multiples to rank is anybody's guess.  Most evidence points towards salary and playing time being the major factors, but I don't know if there are other factors involved.  For example, a team losing a huge FA (such as Suh, this year) wouldn't lose out on comp picks if that was their only FA loss and they signed two bench players with minimum contracts.  They'd probably still get a 3rd.

Hardy didn't get a big contract, and will play at least 12 games (barring injury) so if we get a comp pick at all, it'll probably be a really low one anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jdpanther5 Newbie

jdpanther5

Posted
Posted

Obviously cut players don't count. But if the player you lost gets cut by their new team, then what is there to be "compensated" for? It's a weird system that forces fans to keep rooting for guys for a year after they've left their team. 

While it's not just "bodies for bodies" per se, historically signing (and keeping) as many or more UFAs than you lost is typically a non-starter when it comes to compensatory picks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • PNW_PantherMan
      Off Season Thread

      By PNW_PantherMan · Posted

      That's my biggest concern with making him the 2C.  You split up the Aho Jarvis bromance that accounted for a lot of points.  If Jarvis excels as a C, it could help the team even more though.
    • PanthersNCSU
      Barnwell - Ranking WR, TE, RB Groups in NFL

      By PanthersNCSU · Posted

      The Saints being that high is the one that killed me. Chris Olave might not know his name at this point, Shaheed is coming off injury as well, so 31 year old Brandin Cooks might be your best WR...coming off a 260 yard season over 10 games. Kamara is Kamara, but didn't have 1,000 yards last year and is about to turn 30.  Toss in the fact that Taysom Hill may be the best QB on the team and I truly don't understand Barnwell's thoughts beside seeing the names "Olave" and "Kamara" and going yep, that sounds better than "Chuba" and "Thielen". 
    • TD alt
      Barnwell - Ranking WR, TE, RB Groups in NFL

      By TD alt · Posted

      Now now now, I wouldn't say there is no logic, but there's just not a lot of in-depth thought put into Barnwell's  "analysis." Now to be fair to him (and other national writers), pre-season team rankings are basically clickbait. And...Barnwell, himself, said that "there's a lot of projection here." He basically admits that he doesn't know how the hell things are going to turn out with our receiver group. He also said that "I find myself" more intrigued by Coker than Legette; that does not mean that he said that fans should be, or that Coker will even be better than Legette (regardless of ESPN's per-route-run stat). So, yeah, Barnwell said some things, but even he has to basically admit that he doesn't know how bad or good that our playmakers will be in 2025.  Overall, what Barnwell is basically thinking is that the Panthers have gotten worse at the offensive skill positions, and baked into that is that others have gotten better. That's the argument in July (meaning, please don't give this any more weight than it's due). I would personally be surprised (not shocked) if we end up worse than the Titans, Pats and Giants at least. Once you throw in the Bills, Giants, Jets, Steelers, and even the Chargers, I personally think there are several teams' skill groups that may end up ranked lower than ours by the end of 2025.  @kungfoodudeis one of my dudes, but like others he is over the tipping point. He's had enough. Seeing is believing. I will say this though: Barnwell's piece is less about logic than just good ol' opinion. And to be honest, he might as well be a Huddler throwing out sh¡t in the summer based upon nothing but good feels or bad feels.  Our offense as a whole (just like any other team's) is going to depend upon the play of the O-line and especially the QB. How you can even rank the skill positions without expressly baking those two things in the cake is beyond me. I would dare say that that's not even logical. 
×
×
  • Create New...