Episode 1: How to Fix the...NFL

[norva13x]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

You guys are picking odd times to make them statements considering we have two teams 12-0 and 3 teams 1-11. If anything we are getting further away from 8-8. Last year we had a winless team, 2 years ago we had an undefeated team.(until the SB)

I was just kidding around, all teams being between 7-9 and 9-7 will never happen. There will always be strong teams and crappy teams. It would be epic though if every team went 8-8.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

I think what you want more than a done away salary cap is less teams and more guaranteed contracts.

Im not a big fan either of how many crap teams their are today but IMO it has more to do with QB'ing than the actual talent of whole teams. The elite teams of the NFL all have great QBs because there are so many of them now. Previously you had maybe 3-4 great ones playing at one time. I cant ever remember a time when Ive seen so many great QBs playing at one time.

These QBs are also spread out among the different divisions so it makes for some poor matchups. The NFC East stays pretty tight because none of the teams have elite QBs IMO and that division plays more of the "old school" type football. Romo, McNabb, and Eli are all at the top of the 2nd tier of QBs but they arent in the class of the greats.

Like I said, it might not be the salary cap causing this. I just assumed it was due to it's nature. But unlike you I believe it is the lack of good QB's in the league.

A lot of good qb's is better for the league than just say....10 really good one's. I remember a time when you had guys like Jim Kelly, Dan Marino, Grogan, Esiason, Warren Moon, Randal Cunnigham, John Elway, Doug Williams and Ripien (I forgot who came first) Steve Young, just to name a few. Even some of the scrub teams had decent QB's. All of these guys were good QB's. But not all of these guys were like Brady or Peyton Manning.

BTW, I am not for guaranteed contracts. That is not good for the NFL. Too many injuries. Plus if a player does not pan out you can drop him.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by turdfurgeson

Hard to say. Just taking a casual glance at historical standings and it does not seem to different. A few really good teams, a few really bad ones and a bunch in the 5 to 8 win area.

Maybe it is harder for those good teams to stay good now. Or consistency is more difficult now then it was then. Or bad teams are worse now, but get to beat up on equally bad teams.

I wasn't going by the standings. I was going by how the teams play.

What I mean is.....Even if all of the teams in the league are really good, you are still probably going to have some 9-7 teams. But at least those 9-7 teams look like they know what they are doing.

Take the Colts and the Saints now. They may have a great game if they played eachother. Now if every team in the league were like them, no one would care if the standings were all 9-7 and 8-8. Because you have great football. This is not the case right now.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

BTW, I am not for guaranteed contracts. That is not good for the NFL. Too many injuries.

It need not be either every contract is guaranteed or none are. You can have a middle ground where contracts are guaranteed, but clubs can opt out early of a contract for whatever reason by paying a buyout fee, which would be some percentage of the value remaining on the contract. MLB essentially had, and still has for players with less than six years of service, such buyout fees. The NHL has them too.

Note too that because NFL contracts are not guaranteed, a lot of the money has simply been shifted from the contract to the signing bonus, which the player gets to keep regardless.

[turdfurgeson]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

I wasn't going by the standings. I was going by how the teams play.

What I mean is.....Even if all of the teams in the league are really good, you are still probably going to have some 9-7 teams. But at least those 9-7 teams look like they know what they are doing.

Take the Colts and the Saints now. They may have a great game if they played each other. Now if every team in the league were like them, no one would care if the standings were all 9-7 and 8-8. Because you have great football. This is not the case right now.

That is what I thought you meant. I think the real problem is consistency. Both New Orleans and Indy have been involved in some good games. Miami and Washington played the saints tough, same with Baltimore, New England and Houston a couple times against the colts.

But you might be right. To me that Baltimore Green Bay monday night game could have been good, but the penalties made it seem so disjointed and lost all flow or rhythm. Pitt vs Minn was a pretty good one too.

Maybe you feel there is less good football being played now because if you do not have one of the elite or close to that level QB the chances of team success or consistency is pretty low.

I think one of the issues with QB play in the league now is that defenses have become so sophisticated that it makes it more difficult to play the position, even with the rules changes that have helped the offenses.

I think it was the Chargers versus the Raiders, Jawarski kept mentioning what a throwback defense the raiders were playing, how vanilla it was and it was straight from a 70's playbook. Basically man on man, one safety deep and he could not believe the chargers were not carving it up.

Now many teams have versatile players, linebackers who can rush the QB, lineman who can drop into coverage even if only to take up space but they can still run pretty fast, dbs who have the size of linebackers but run 4.4 40's.

If you are one of the lucky teams who have a QB that has both the talent and smarts (and work ethic to study film) to play the position and take advantage you have a huge leg up on most the league and a chance every game to win.

[MorseMoose]

Last one I can think of...

Whenever I go to the game, I am constantly standing up and letting people out. When they come back, they got their 3-4 beers. So...add a catheter to the price of admission and ban concessions.

But seriously...there is nothing more annoying that standing every drive for someone walking through the row of seats.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by turdfurgeson

That is what I thought you meant. I think the real problem is consistency. Both New Orleans and Indy have been involved in some good games. Miami and Washington played the saints tough, same with Baltimore, New England and Houston a couple times against the colts.

But you might be right. To me that Baltimore Green Bay monday night game could have been good, but the penalties made it seem so disjointed and lost all flow or rhythm. Pitt vs Minn was a pretty good one too.

Maybe you feel there is less good football being played now because if you do not have one of the elite or close to that level QB the chances of team success or consistency is pretty low.

I think one of the issues with QB play in the league now is that defenses have become so sophisticated that it makes it more difficult to play the position, even with the rules changes that have helped the offenses.

I think it was the Chargers versus the Raiders, Jawarski kept mentioning what a throwback defense the raiders were playing, how vanilla it was and it was straight from a 70's playbook. Basically man on man, one safety deep and he could not believe the chargers were not carving it up.

Now many teams have versatile players, linebackers who can rush the QB, lineman who can drop into coverage even if only to take up space but they can still run pretty fast, dbs who have the size of linebackers but run 4.4 40's.

If you are one of the lucky teams who have a QB that has both the talent and smarts (and work ethic to study film) to play the position and take advantage you have a huge leg up on most the league and a chance every game to win.

Ron Jawarski of all people should know what a Raiders throwback Defense looks like. It looks like the one that gave him and his Eagles the beat down in a Super Bowl back in January of '81 I think.

But I agree with your post. I think you did a good job of nailing some of the causes.

I think this season shows the league's lack of parity more than anything. In which case the cap is of no consequence. Which is why I said in an earlier post that I wasn't sure it (the cap) was the cause. But I was almost certain it wasn't doing any good.

On the other hand it could be causing this by too much player movement. The teams that stay together longer have a head start while the rest of the league catches up during the season. Which leads to a consistancy problem.

Put it this way. I'd rather have 1/3 good teams, 1/3 average teams, and 1/3 bad teams than all average teams. Which is what the cap tries, but fails to accomplish.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

It need not be either every contract is guaranteed or none are. You can have a middle ground where contracts are guaranteed, but clubs can opt out early of a contract for whatever reason by paying a buyout fee, which would be some percentage of the value remaining on the contract. MLB essentially had, and still has for players with less than six years of service, such buyout fees. The NHL has them too.

Note too that because NFL contracts are not guaranteed, a lot of the money has simply been shifted from the contract to the signing bonus, which the player gets to keep regardless.

But why a buy out fee? Why pay a player for nothing? If he is good enough then you have to pay him according to the contract. If he is of no use, tata. As it is now players do contract renegotiations. That's fine. Again, if he is good enough then so be it.

If not for that you'll get these aging players with about two good years left asking for 5-7 year contracts. That is a disaster when dealing with a cap.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

But why a buy out fee? Why pay a player for nothing? If he is good enough then you have to pay him according to the contract. If he is of no use, tata. As it is now players do contract renegotiations. That's fine. Again, if he is good enough then so be it.

If not for that you'll get these aging players with about two good years left asking for 5-7 year contracts. That is a disaster when dealing with a cap.

So you're saying a contract should be binding on the player's side, but not the owner's? That's messed up. Why even have a contract at all if one side is free to ignore it?

[MorseMoose]

Speaking of the NHL...NHL style draft. Team keeps the players rights.

[jbergey22]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

But why a buy out fee? Why pay a player for nothing? If he is good enough then you have to pay him according to the contract. If he is of no use, tata. As it is now players do contract renegotiations. That's fine. Again, if he is good enough then so be it.

If not for that you'll get these aging players with about two good years left asking for 5-7 year contracts. That is a disaster when dealing with a cap.

If you want more stability on teams the guaranteed contract is one way to make that happen.

How do you expect do get more stability on teams without either guaranteeing contracts or ?

If you want stability but think guys should be able to be cut at anytime than you really dont think stability is the answer.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by mlyons

So you're saying a contract should be binding on the player's side, but not the owner's? That's messed up. Why even have a contract at all if one side is free to ignore it?

Yes, the owner doesn't work for the player. I don't see anything wrong with it. He plays and helps out the team, he gets paid. No one gets something for nothing.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

If you want more stability on teams the guaranteed contract is one way to make that happen.

How do you expect do get more stability on teams without either guaranteeing contracts or ?

If you want stability but think guys should be able to be cut at anytime than you really dont think stability is the answer.

I don't mean stability by hamstringing a team with a player that either can't play, or a player they don't need. I don't like it even without a cap.

[mlyons]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

Yes, the owner doesn't work for the player. I don't see anything wrong with it. He plays and helps out the team, he gets paid. No one gets something for nothing.

Well, owners get something for nothing if they sign an unknown player to a longterm contract for league minimum and he performs like a Pro Bowler. If you don't have a problem with owners terminating contracts with players who are underperforming their salaries, why would you have a problem with players terminating contracts if they're overperforming their salaries?

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by mlyons

Well, owners get something for nothing if they sign an unknown player to a longterm contract for league minimum and he performs like a Pro Bowler. If you don't have a problem with owners terminating contracts with players who are underperforming their salaries, why would you have a problem with players terminating contracts if they're overperforming their salaries?

In a way sometimes they do. It's called a contract renegotiation. But it's usually not a long term contract anyway.