DaBruinz, in re your three consecutive posts.
1. I think you're actually agreeing with me here. But we've gone around in circles so much that it's hard to say. What "agenda" do you suppose I have? I have neither a grudge against Mike Reiss nor a need to be right.
Actually, no. From what I read, you are saying that the fact that the Pats have the Raiders 3rd round pick doesn't make a damn bit of difference in the supplemental draft. I disagree. I believe that it does.
Also, according to Brandt, there are 3 ways the NFL has determined the order for the supplemental draft. The 1st way was every teams name was put into a hat and drawn out. The second way (as stated in his 2003 article) was the previous year's draft order. And the 3rd way, based on the 2006 article, was that there are now 3 tiers (as you said). What I don't see, one way or the other, is that its strictly based on the TEAMS and not on the PICKS. Neither the Brandt article nor the about.com article imply anything either way.
2. All I'm pointing out is that the supplemental draft has been manipulated before, and any rules change the NFL has made has probably been to prevent this manipulation.
And what I pointed out was that you referecing something from 1985 doesn't necessarily apply since the supplemental draft seems to have had tweaks done to it since then. As seems to be the case with the difference in Brandt's explanations from 2003 to 2006.
3. More or less the entire page. It mentions that the names of teams go into a lottery. It does not say that 32 draft positions go into a lottery, nor that teams can get multiple entries in the lottery. So here's what we know about the process:
a. Commissioner determines priority order for supplemental draft.
b. Teams bid on which round they want to draft a player, if any.
c. The team which bids the highest round (or lowest, depending on viewpoint) is awarded the player.
d. If two teams bid the same round, the one with the higher priority receives the player.
e. The team forfeits it's pick in the corresponding round of the 2008 draft.
f. The team must own a pick in that round of the amateur draft to bid that round in the supplemental draft.
Why is it that you make assumptions about what people are saying and then presume that your interpretation is correct based on your misinterpretation of what they are saying?
No one said that the 32 draft positions go into the hat. What was said was that the order is determined via each tier through the weighted process and that ORDER applies to all the rounds.
As such, one of two things happens. Either the Patriots have two spots in the 3rd round, Oakland's spot and their own or Oakland, by default, doesn't have a spot and their pick is weighted the same as the Patriots pick. Based on what you are saying, a tie breaker is based on the PRIORITY level given to each team, NOT the priority level given to the pick. If that is the case, then the Pats having Oakland's pick means nothing and they would have to bid their 2nd round pick to get Oliver.
The process lends itself to my interpretation, don't you think? The key here is that the team bids which "round" they want to draft the player, not which "pick" if the article is accurate. I don't know which pick the Patriots would forfeit in this case, but there's probably a rule that it's the team's choice, or the first pick, or whatever. from the older Brandt article: The Texans forfeited one of their sixth-rounders because they selected OL Milford Brown in last year's supplemental draft. It still doesn't say which one, unfortunately.
Again, until we have the effect of trades specifically mentioned, we can't say for sure.
No, I don't believe the bid process lends itself to your interpretation because it seems that your interpretation is saying that the Pats having Oakland's pick means NOTHING and that if they and another team were to bid a 3rd round pick for Oliver, the Pats would lose out by virtue that their priority is not as high as another team.
