[Preds]

I'm all in favor of more discussion before people actually vote, but before teams start spouting off inaccuracies (sorry Jim ;)) I want you to look again at the historical fact which I posted in the original post.

The fact is over the past 2 years, only 13 players out of 47 went unmatched (6 in 2002 and 7 in 2003). Further, of those 13, only 2 garnered what would be 1st round compensation (1 in each year), and again remember that 1st round pick would come at the END of the round, and would thus be more like a high 2nd. Being the present owner of the 2.1 I'd have no problem dropping a slot (even 2) for a supplimental pick to a team that lost an Edgerrin James or Corey Dillon (the 2 players that would have garnered END of 1st compensation). Nobody is going to lose any value on their 1st round picks, only the 2nd round and beyond will be impacted, mainly the 3rd round.

Looking even deeper into our actual history, over the past 2 years, only 8 RFA players of the 47 that were tagged were signed to contracts over 2000 cb's (3 in 2003 and 5 in 2002), and again of these 8, 2 of them were not matched (1 each season). I think the most increase you'd see here is say half the players over 2000 not being matched, thus likely a max of 2 (a very unlikely 3 supplimentals at the end of the 1st round each year. Big friggen deal to the guy with 2.1 (which just happens to be ME this year BTW). Wanna know who was picked at 2.1 the last 2 years... a very astute Llamas team hit the jackpot with Anquan Boldin (a much bigger surprise than most anyone anticipated) and the year before the Undead saddled themselves with Josh Reed (a suprise in what a disappointment he became after his 1st year). I don't think losing a Edgerrin James for the hit or miss that is Josh Reed vs. Anquan Boldin in unrealistic compensation.

Looking further into our actual history, 7 players out of the 13 that weren't matched would have garned supplimentals at the END of the 2nd round (2 in 2003 and 5 in 2002). Again, all of these supplimentals would essentially be high 3rd round picks. Anyone care to show me how many 3rd rounders are currently impact players the way Tiki Barber and Torry Holt were last year (2 players that would have garnered END of 2nd compensation)? Nobody is even close.

Finally 3 players out of the 13 unmatched players would garner picks at the END of the 3rd round which are essentially high 4th round picks (2 in 2003 and 1 in 2004) and 1 player garned a supplimental at the END of the 4th round (essentially a 5th round pick).

What I like about this concept is that it may actually encourage teams NOT to match. While this may slightly increase the picks at the end of the 2nd or 3rd, I doubt it'll have an huge impact at the end of the 1st. Instead of maybe 1 player garnering 1st round compensation we may have 2). Secondly, I think it will make teams think twice about what they want to bid knowing a match may indeed be passed up in exchange for the pick. Further, I think teams will think twice about how HIGH to bid a player knowing they may be pushing that player to the next plateau... we may see players bid up to 1990, but teams dropping off knowing that another bid knocks the player into 1st round compensation. This IMO will be 1 way to ensure bidding teams are truly interested in the player(s) they are bidding on.

I personally think the salaries paid to RFA's are somewhat inflated over the UFA period (since teams generally have more cap money to play with during thr RFA period which is the opening of the new season). To be honest, I've debated using a strategy of not tagging any players this year and instead rolling the dice in the UFA period. I think using a supplimental pick compensation system will encourageboth bidders and tagging teams to think twice, and may result in slightly lower RFA salaries (more in line with the UFA period) and possibly slighlty more player movement.

As for what salary scale to pay the players at, I would pay them all the same as the x.12 player taken in that same round. So a 1.13 would be paid the same as 1.12, a 2.14 or 2.16 would be paid the same as the 2.12, etc.

Further, I'd be in favor of passing up a 4th round (which I'm actually leaning more against than for lately) to make room for the 6-8 supplimentals each year. NOTE to Brian, I think the addition of a 4th round needs to be a seperate vote.

I also want to point out that when the NFL gives out supplimentals at the end of a round, it does exactly what I'm proposing and moves the rounds back, so supplimentals at the end of round 2 might be picks 65-70 with the 3rd round starting at pick 71 instead of 65.

Finally, I want to point out that I'd be majorly against having to actually give up your own pick if a RFA wasn't matched. This would hugely impact the bidding on RFA's, so much so that RFA's would sell much much cheaper than they currently do IMO. Until last year the NFL had I believe all of 2 or 3 players in the last 3 years move as RFA's, last year we had Coles and Morton move to the Skins, but that was mainly due to Snyder generally being a Jerry Jones wannabe and deciding to shake up the NFL.

If we're going to talk compensation, a supplimental system is the only way to go IMO, and the proposal I've structured is not going to have a huge impact other than slighlty decreasing the value of 2nd round selections, and seeing as only 1 player in each of the past 2 seasons would have garnered a 1st round supplimental it'd be a very limited impact on the 2nd. The 3rd round is the round most impacted by this, with the majority of players garnering end of 2nd supplimentals, and I mean come-on, how much impact does this really have on the draft. Are you really going to tell me that a team that passes on a Torry Holt or Tiki Barber doesn't deserve basically a high 3rd round pick as compensation?

Think about it, the proposal is sound and fair to all IMO.