This logic doesn't make much sense to me. Using your logic, one could just say if Ted Thompson would have picked better players with his compensatory picks, there might have been better overall results. The same for the unrestricted free agents (UFA). UFA's are abosolutely no certainty, either. The point should be more focused on execution, not the preference of one method or another. If he would have pulled more Josh Sitton's out of his compensatory picks, things would be even more skewed. It's all about execution.
Moreover, the salary implications can't be overlooked here, which makes the benefit of compensatory picks even greater. I have no doubt that weighs heavily on the minds of Ted Thompson and the entire Packers organization. I think being fiscally conservative is a strict goal of the Packer's organization, whether we as fans like it or not. It's just the way it is.
Lastly, how many 3rd round compensatory picks has he had? I know he's had a few 4th rounders, and there has been some substantial success there. But I feel like most of the compensatory picks have been in the 5th round, or later. If he can consistently bring in 3rd and 4th round picks, I think the approach is well worth it. Let's not forget, one can't only examine the compensatory picks exclusively. Obtaining the additional picks gives Thompson more flexibility to pursue trades with his non-compensatory picks. The true value of compensatory selections can't be quantified by the picks themselves, imo. As usual, there is much more to it and it is much more complicated than that.
When 3rd and 4th round picks are rolling in, I rather like the approach. Not so much the 6th and 7th rounders.
Originally Posted by: DoddPower