Bedard: No, the Patriots weren't screwed out of a comp pick; With KC cuts, why rush for Brown?

Something bad happens to the Patriots, blame the NFL.

It's an annual tradition unlike any other in New England, right up there with saying, "If player/coach X was on the Patriots, they would have been vilified."

Some of that is not far off (well, at least when Tom Brady was here and the Patriots were still the Yankees of the NFL) and some well-earned paranoia. Some of it, obviously, is just wrong.

Take in point, The Great Case Of The Missing Compensatory Pick 2021.

According to Nick Korte of OverTheCap.com, who is highly accurate at predicting compensatory picks (no one, not even the teams know the exact formula ... and no one gets everything right all the time), had long projected the Patriots to wind up with a third (Brady), and two fourths (Kyle Van Noy and Jamie Collins) in this year's draft for losing more key free agents than they signed.

Considering the Patriots' bargain-basement shopping last offseason, that seemed accurate.

But when the NFL released the official comp picks, the Patriots only had a third and a fourth.

What happened to the other pick?

The NFL — which docked the Patriots a third-round pick for the Bengals filming scandal (stupid but the Patriots were guilty, and the Patriots predictably were rightfully hammered) — screwing the Patriots once again?

Uh, no.

I asked an NFL personnel executive, whose team makes compensatory picks a priority, if their analysts thought anything was amiss with the Patriots' situation.

The answer?

Nope. (He also said the Patriots could still recoup a comp pick for Joe Thuney, which we'll explain later.)

How? Well, you can blame the Patriots' lack of viable receivers — including N'Keal Harry — for something else.

Basically, Damiere Byrd having to play as much as he did took him from an off-the-books free agent signing because of his minimal $1.5 million salary, to a prime free agent.

And Elandon Roberts' lack of playing time in Miami did the opposite and Byrd canceled out Jamie Collins' contract the Lions.

Here's how it was explained to me:

"Byrd killed them with 89 percent playtime. Elandon Roberts killed them; he only played 38%," said the source. "Had Byrd played less or Roberts played more, they would have canceled each other out and the Pats would have gotten a 4th for Collins.

"What happened was Roberts didn’t play enough to be considered an eligible loss, and Byrd played so much that he became an eligible UFA signing. So Byrd canceled out Collins.

"Bad luck for them. It happens. It’s happened to us."

Of course, the Patriots would have another third comp pick and more cash available if ... you know.

Speaking of that, I asked the same source about Joe Thuney and the Patriots' decision. He thinks it's not out of the realm of possibility the Patriots get something back.

"Well, they can sign someone, just have to keep the value below a certain number (depending on what Thuney signs for). They’ve got other UFAs that can offset additions," he said.

"It’s all about the amount of the deal. So basically if Thuney signs a deal for $14 million AAV, they could sign players in another tax bracket if they lose another free agent (Cam Newton, Lawrence Guy, John Simon, etc.) provided the money for the player they sign is in the same range as the guy they lost. Or above but lower than Thuney's bucket (probably $13 million-plus).

"Basically as long as they have a surplus (meaning lose more players than they sign), they could be active and still benefit the 3rd rounder for Thuney. It’s complicated but certainly easy enough to do if you understand the rules and lose enough players to build a surplus)."

Of course my parting point to the source was this: the Patriots were 7-9 and haven't drafted well ... they better not have a surplus or New England is looking at another rough season.

Does Chiefs decision on tackles show Patriots overpaid for Trent Brown?

It was a mild surprise this morning that the Chiefs decided to release starting tackles Eric Fisher and Mitchell Schwartz. Both were at or near All-Pro levels, and their absences likely cost the Chief back-to-back Super Bowl titles. But both were injured and heading into the final year of their deals. Perhaps they return on one-year deals, we'll have to see.

What's interesting is that in my discussions with sources about the Trent Brown trade (basically for a 2022 fifth-round pick), the Chiefs' situation in the Super Bowl was rightfully brought up to explain that you can never have too much depth on the offensive line. And that dealing for Brown was valid because there would not be many tackles available in free agency or the draft.

But now there's two of the best available, which will likely drive down the price of tackles.

Let's take the reports at face value, that the Raiders were not going to release Brown and take him to camp (I'm very dubious of that ... Antonio Brown left a playbook on how to get your way out of Vegas, which Trent Brown obviously wanted). The Patriots, if David Andrews re-signs, already had a starting offensive line under contract that includes: LT Isaiah Wynn, LG Mike Onwenu, C Andrews, RG Shaq Mason, RT Marcus Cannon.

Why the need to deal for Brown now? Why give up a fifth-round pick and upwards of $11 million now when you could just want for the Raiders to either cutbait or, at worst, make the same deal later?

And now, you could choose/pit Fisher, Schwartz, Brown and more (others, like Nate Solder, could also be cut loose before the start of the league year) against each other, possibly getting a more reliable player than the mercurial Brown.

So, again, why the rush to trade for Trent Brown?

If Wynn, Mason and/or Cannon are included in a deal for a QB or Allen Robinson, then brilliant. If not, this Brown trade was iffy considering this offseason is going to be a shopper's paradise unlike any other.