BillsVet Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC.
DukeyBomb Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The salary cap is a necessary tool still imo. It levels the playing field for every team instead of just the big markets. I won't ever discuss changing it. Never would I want the NFL to be like MLB which system is a joke.
NoSaint Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC. I don't think the goal was to have every team represented equally in a random 5 year sample
boyst Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 It is a tool foe every team to have a chance to be equal. It does nothing at all to make them equal. The salary cap floor only assures that teams spend a certain amount of money and there is a lot of disparity with those teams spending that money. Spending money to target ticket sales on FA big names that are over the hill, often.
Rob's House Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Kind of makes sense that if you level the playing field some will be consistently better than others. Owners who are better at running teams and hiring the right people will consistently outperform those who aren't.
maddenboy Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The cap works. It does not achieve perfect parity because of the QB situation in the league. There arent enuf QBs. But without the cap, imagine if New England had unlimited cash to spend. Brady, Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson. And Adrian Peterson. I'd think that would skew your percentages even more sharply.
downunderbill Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The one constant is drafting a good QB. Some teams seem have the ability and some just don't. The teams that do find one are consistent playoff teams.
NoSaint Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The cap works. It does not achieve perfect parity because of the QB situation in the league. There arent enuf QBs. But without the cap, imagine if New England had unlimited cash to spend. Brady, Dez Bryant and Calvin Johnson. And Adrian Peterson. I'd think that would skew your percentages even more sharply. It doesn't give us 32 teams at 8-8 but rarely are teams terribly far out of playoff contention for long. Most teams are consistently competitive. That's pretty much the goal i think Edited January 20, 2015 by NoSaint
Mango Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The salary cap is a necessary tool still imo. It levels the playing field for every team instead of just the big markets. I won't ever discuss changing it. Never would I want the NFL to be like MLB which system is a joke. I've ling said the salary cap should include all staff. Obviously not secretaries, but scouts, GMs, coaches, and trainers. Whatever that number needs to be, make it so.
SJDK Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The "haves" still win. the big signing bonus money doesn't count against the cap as far as i understand it
John from Riverside Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Disagree a bit. Quarterback play is the number one reason why those teams have consistently seen the playoffs. Yes having an overall solid base of talent is obviously important, but if you don't have a QB around that talent you arent going any where. The Colts being the opposite of this. They're front office is suspect. The team around Luck is trash. Yet they make it to the AFC Championship because of him. They would win 3 to 4 games if not for him. You will see the Seahawks fall off a bit within the next couple years due to the Salary cap as they will be forced to pay Wilson while letting some of their all pro players on defense walk due to allocation of their money within the cap. All those statistics showed me was more proof that having a QB means wins. This has little to nothing to do with the salary cap. The rule changes in the league have made it this way... I feel that QB play is absolutely the mainstay identfier But look deeper There are no many ELITE qbs to go around So what do you do? Even if you have a number 1 overall pick you might not get a elite QB I think you increase your chances much more by finding a GOOD QB and then biuld up the team around that QB........is the QB playing well because he gets consistant protection from his offensive line? Is the QB playing well because he has a running game that takes pressure off him? Is a QB playing well because he has targets that catch balls that are not perfectly thrown? Is a QB playing well because he is allowed to get into a rythum by having a defense that gives him multiple opportunities with good field position?
NoSaint Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The "haves" still win. the big signing bonus money doesn't count against the cap as far as i understand it Not trying to insult but you don't understand it correctly
QCity Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 There's no such thing as parity in the league. There are teams with franchise quarterbacks, and there are those without.
SDS Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 You lost me when you included Cincinnati among your list of elite franchises.
Mango Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 You lost me when you included Cincinnati among your list of elite franchises. My heard a while back they have the smallest scouting department in the league. Also that Marvin Lewis does most of it, but not necassarily out of choice or job, but out of necessity. His job is more or less eternally safe because the franchise realizes that their ratio of success to resources is very high.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC. What does having a good front office have to do with a failing salary cap? Salary cap is fine, just need a good GM and cap guy.
Dragonborn10 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Pretty simple formula. Get an elite QB. Don't draft three RBs in the first round in under a decade. Build an offensive line. Rush the QB and hit him hard. Wait until you see Seattle blitz Brady to death. It's the only way to beat him. Rex knows that. The Bills have sat back and watched him throw darts into 7 man coverages for a decade.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The salary cap is a necessary tool still imo. It levels the playing field for every team instead of just the big markets. I won't ever discuss changing it. Never would I want the NFL to be like MLB which system is a joke. Amen to that!
Big Turk Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I was doing some research today about teams that make the playoffs and the results were pretty staggering, especially in the AFC. Overall the top 11 NFL teams of the past five seasons in terms of playoff appearances account for 70% of postseason participants. The top 16 NFL teams account for about 87% of postseason appearances. That means half the league represents about one out of eight playoff appearances. It should come as no surprise that the elite franchises of the NFL are pretty consistent reaching the postseason. In the AFC, New England, Denver, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh account for 24 playoff appearances out of 30 total going back to the 2010 season. The easy explanation is to talk about quarterback play. Yet, these franchises keep winning consistently and it's more than who is under center. If the salary cap was such an equalizing force, one would think eventually these teams would fall back to the middle. But they don't. Meanwhile you have eight AFC teams that have failed to reach the playoffs in that same span. Wasn't the salary cap intended to level competition? As important as quarterback play is, having front office brainpower is more integral to producing consistently high performing franchises. And as good as an attempt as it was to moderate spending, teams are at the mercy of who they hire to acquire personnel and coach. It looks like Buffalo has improved going into 2015. In order to fulfill Rex's promise to make the playoffs they'll need to do a lot of work to catch up with the elite in the AFC. All they need to do is get a viable QB and this team could realistically win the division
billsfan89 Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The reason playoff appearances get stacked to a set of teams disproportionately is because of the QB position. Teams with a top 5-7 QB are going to make the playoffs year in and year out if not close to that. Teams with good QB's 8-13 are going to be in contention for the playoffs every year. If you fall into the bottom half of the league in terms of QB play you are going to make the playoffs a lot less having to depend on a defense and a team effort to compensate for the QB. I am not sure what you could really do to remedy the situation. Maybe as advanced scouting and stats is aging scouts can predict which QB's out of college will do better. But still there are only so many people that can play the QB position. Either way QB's are the reason why you don't see more parity in the NFL. The salary cap does make committing 20+ million to a QB weaken the team and have a negative consequence. But overall the position is so much at a premium and rare that its not enough to overcome that one negative. Edited January 20, 2015 by billsfan89
Recommended Posts