Big Turk Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Part of the problem is because of the new huge TV deals that have been staggered the last few seasons with ESPN, NBC, CBS, FOX, Direct TV Sunday Ticket, selling part of the Thursday Night Schedule for dual broadcast , etc...the cap has been rising significantly pretty much every year, meaning its pretty easy to keep who you want if you pay them...
QB Bills Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The NFL is not a team game, as much as they'd love to preach that. It's all about the QB. Put Luck on this year's Bills, and we probably win the Super Bowl.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 But i don't think revenue is why some teams are consistently better, i think it is the rule changes and QB's. It is, outside of a a hot goalie in a short playoff run, the most important position in sports, by far! If Bills had Wilson or Luck on their team right now, or even when Ralph was owner, they would be getting same contracts as they are due for in the respective cities. Same top QBs produce playoff appearances and playoff wins, just the way it is now. And with QB's playing well into their late 30's now, means team can go on an extended run , cap or no cap. I don't disagree at all. QB & coaching are reasons 1-10 that a team wins or loses. I was simply looking for an answer to the original question other than the obvious. If you have Aaron Rodgers you will be good. In 10 years (if it keeps going this way) the Cowboys are going to have substantially more "buying power" than the Bills. Jerry Hughes could sign the same contract with the Bills or Cowboys and it will account for a substantially higher % of the Bills revenue. It may be 2% of the Cowboys revenue & 8% of the Bills (just as an example those are by no means an accurate calculation).
hondo in seattle Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) The salary cap equalizes - to an extent - the one thing that could be equalized: spending on player salaries. This helps prevent big market teams from dominating the NFL the way they do in baseball. It does not equalize the distribution of good owners, good scouts, good coaches, or even good players. To do all that would be goofy: * We could allow, for example, the 6 worst teams to pick a HC from another team. * We could allow the 3 worst teams each year to hire a current GM of another team as well as scouts from other teams. * We could allow the very worst team to sign any QB in the NFL regardless of their current contract. * The fans of the worst 4 teams each year could be allowed to choose a new owner from the existing pool of owners. I think absolute parity would be boring. The drama of football includes the rise and fall of dynasties and heroes. Instead of parity we have a meritocracy that isn't driven entirely by money. Each team will achieve what it has the will & talent to achieve. This gives hope to all 32 cities. Hope, btw, drive attendance, TV viewership, souvenir sales and so on. I think the salary cap works exactly as intended. Edited January 20, 2015 by hondo in seattle
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 The salary cap equalizes - to an extent - the one thing that could be equalized: spending on player salaries. This helps prevent big market teams from dominating the NFL the way they do in baseball. Again, MLB has far more parity than the NFL.
Webster Guy 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. Hmmmm. Well take a look at the playoff teams and their qb's, then take a look at the head coaches around the league. You won't see any that "consistently outperform" anyone else, unless they have a great qb. As far as owners go, Irsay and Al Davis are probably the worst of the lot, but when they have good qb's they still win and when they don't they stink. Just like the rest of the league.
8-8 Forever? 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... yeah seahawks hit the jackpot with all kinds of FAs and lower draft picks turning into all pros. that one will come back to roost big time.
Jets Hater Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 I disagree and believe that is 100% about the QB. How good were the Pats before Tom Brady and especially before Drew Bledsoe? They were terrible for about 10 years. How were the Colts before Peyton and Luck? Terrible. How were the Saints before Brees? Terrible. Denver without Peyton hadn't really done anything significant since Elway. Cincy was terrible between Boomer and Dalton, Steelers may be your exception as they seem to do well consistently even without an elite QB, but they are way more consistent with one in Big Ben. Ravens Flacco now, before they had one of the best D's of all time, but prior to that they were terrible for 10 years since Bernie was running the show. San Fran, terrible between Young and Kaep (with one or two good years from Garcia). The list goes on and on. Elite QBs always lead to consistent playoff appearances. What was GB doing before the Favre / Rodgers years? Yep, nothing for about 20 years. I agree 100% with this. ALL about the QB ! Without it, nothing else matters ( with very few exceptions like Trent Dilfer ). Once you have it, then build around him.
Big Turk Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 It may not be all of the way there yet but it is coming. if you look at how fast the cap is growing it isn't just a function on the new TV deal(s). It is because places like Levi's Stadium opened up. The Jets and Giants make something like $50M a year on suites, the Bills make like $8 and are full (or just about). Over 5 years the Jets and Giants are making $250M and the Bills $40 on suites. These all go into the league revenue number but it isn't shared (at least it didn't used to be). If it changed I am not aware of it. The players are entitled to a % of league revenue (not shared). As these teams find more creative ways to generate nonshared revenue (which they put a great deal of time into figuring out) that gap will widen. We may not be all the way there yet but that gap is growing. We have one of the richest owners in the NFL so that mostly is irrelevant now...remember if he wants more money he can just go dig a new well, lol
Kirby Jackson Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) We have one of the richest owners in the NFL so that mostly is irrelevant now...remember if he wants more money he can just go dig a new well, lol That is true!! Can you imagine if JBJ would have gotten the team? He'd be out in front of the Harbor Center with a hat out playing his guitar. Edited January 20, 2015 by Kirby Jackson
BillsVet Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 I don't disagree at all. QB & coaching are reasons 1-10 that a team wins or loses. Who picks the coaches and QB? The root cause is a little deeper than the surface level.
mattsox 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. Exactly. Couldn't have been said better to end this discussion.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 Who picks the coaches and QB? The root cause is a little deeper than the surface level. It's not that hard though. Outside of Russell Wilson (2012 draft), Brady and Romo (a decade earlier) people aren't uncovering these gems as QBS. It doesn't matter much who picks the franchise QB it just matters that you pick early enough to get one. The Bills made the mistake of insisting on drafting their QB in a year when one wasn't available. Bottom line is that you have to find one but other than the mistake of not drafting Wilson who is the guy that we missed out on? We wanted Ben and he went right before we picked. Jacksonville wouldn't trade down a few spots because they wanted to secure Reggie Williams. We wanted Christian Ponder and he went way early (thankfully). It's not like we have missed a ton of chances on QBs.
DukeyBomb Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 MLB has far more parity than the NFL does. It's not even close. That's because of the way baseball THE GAME is set up. Not the salary cap structure. In baseball there is only one position that can truly take over a game, and that is the pitcher. Those guys get rotated and don't play every game like a QB, so it's impossible to have one position truly dominate in baseball for a team the way a QB can.
BillsVet Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 (edited) It's not that hard though. Outside of Russell Wilson (2012 draft), Brady and Romo (a decade earlier) people aren't uncovering these gems as QBS. It doesn't matter much who picks the franchise QB it just matters that you pick early enough to get one. The Bills made the mistake of insisting on drafting their QB in a year when one wasn't available. Bottom line is that you have to find one but other than the mistake of not drafting Wilson who is the guy that we missed out on? We wanted Ben and he went right before we picked. Jacksonville wouldn't trade down a few spots because they wanted to secure Reggie Williams. We wanted Christian Ponder and he went way early (thankfully). It's not like we have missed a ton of chances on QBs. As I suspected, we're right back at the "luck" narrative which states that teams acquire their QB without much skill or savvy manuevering. It's the same mantra preached over and over again that said Polian just happened to have Peyton fall in his lap 17 years ago. And the one cited here, which cherry-picks 2 QB's who were picked later. (EDIT: or found in UDFA. There are zero starting QB's found in the 3rd round or later aside from Romo, Brady or Wilson and if you want, Mettenberger. That means 27-28 teams have a guy who was originally drafted in the 1st or 2nd as the top guy on their depth chart. Or their QB situation is in flux and will be answered this off-season) I stand by my point that the cap does not level the playing field much. When half of the teams in the NFL account for almost 87% of the playoff appearances, it tells me there isn't enough top personnel people, which invariably leads to the same teams making the playoffs. And while we're selectively finding examples, how about the Packers, who transitioned nicely from Favre to Rodgers, missing the playoffs once since 2007. I guess Ted Thompson just happened to be lucky in that 2005 draft. The front office matters. Perhaps as much as the QB, because they're the ones picking that QB. Edited January 20, 2015 by BillsVet
GunnerBill Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 And while we're selectively finding examples, how about the Packers, who transitioned nicely from Favre to Rodgers, missing the playoffs once since 2007. I guess Ted Thompson just happened to be lucky in that 2005 draft. The front office matters. Perhaps as much as the QB, because they're the ones picking that QB. He got lucky that Rodgers slipped that far definitely, but then he showed some balls to say "I have my franchise QB and a team with other needs but we need the next franchise QB and this guy could be him so we will take him." Polian did luck into getting Peyton in 1998. They appointed him having finished with the worst record and he had an all age QB drop into his lap. Does he deserve some credit for picking Manning and not Leaf? Sure. But it was not his genius that led to Colts to Manning. The Bills have never had the luck for a guy like that to drop to them at the right moment... could they have taken more fliers on 2nd and 3rd round guys when they had other needs? Yes they could and that is where being good and taking the Ted Thompson risk comes to the fore. However, drafting QBs is some scouting, a lot luck and some balls. Once you have one then regardless of the salary cap you have a great chance to be good for a long period. To be good without one you have to exceptional at talent evaluation and cap management almost everywhere else.
GaryPinC Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 As I suspected, we're right back at the "luck" narrative which states that teams acquire their QB without much skill or savvy manuevering. It's the same mantra preached over and over again that said Polian just happened to have Peyton fall in his lap 17 years ago. And the one cited here, which cherry-picks 2 QB's who were picked later. (EDIT: or found in UDFA. There are zero starting QB's found in the 3rd round or later aside from Romo, Brady or Wilson and if you want, Mettenberger. That means 27-28 teams have a guy who was originally drafted in the 1st or 2nd as the top guy on their depth chart. Or their QB situation is in flux and will be answered this off-season) I stand by my point that the cap does not level the playing field much. When half of the teams in the NFL account for almost 87% of the playoff appearances, it tells me there isn't enough top personnel people, which invariably leads to the same teams making the playoffs. And while we're selectively finding examples, how about the Packers, who transitioned nicely from Favre to Rodgers, missing the playoffs once since 2007. I guess Ted Thompson just happened to be lucky in that 2005 draft. The front office matters. Perhaps as much as the QB, because they're the ones picking that QB. Ok, seriously, who besides you believes that the salary cap was intended to level/equalize the talent of each team, comrade? It equalizes the total compensation each team is allowed to spend on their roster. Nothing else. It's working as it's supposed to. What a pointless thread.
TheLynchTrain Posted January 20, 2015 Posted January 20, 2015 To play devil's advocate here, when owner's pushed the idea of draft slotting to stop the insane year to year increases for first round draft picks, the players agreed under the premise that the money saved would go to veterans. However, I'd argue it hasn't really played out that way - it appears that most of that money (or at least higher percentages of team salary caps) are now going to quarterbacks. Flacco opened the floodgates, and after him players like Brees, Cutler, Romo and Ryan all got contracts in the ~ $20 million range. This has brought downward pressure on all other roster spots for teams with elite QBs (or at least teams that are paying their QBs elite money). This also means teams don't have the same versatility at signing their own premium guys at other positions that they may have had in the not so distant past (when elite QBs commanded $10-12 M). This in turn allows teams that aren't paying elite money for QBs to assign a higher portion of the cap to non-QB guys. While guys like Kaepernick and Dalton have provided a new avenue for teams to get their QBs on the team friendly, pay-as-you-go, cut-anytime contracts, I'm not so sure that scenario is here to stay for the next class of QBs. In my opinion, while it's ultimately up to the players, there's no way agents and the NFLPA allow Wilson or Luck to take anything less than market rate, which in their cases may be the two highest paid QB contracts of all time. There's just way too much precedent at stake here for the NFLPA to push these guys on this point, but De Smith never ceases to amaze me on his lack of interest on advocating on the players behalf. Either way, it just shows how important it is to get your franchise guy put a team around him that can peak in his 3rd or 4th year when he's still making peanuts, a la Russell Wilson. Or somehow get your guy like Tom Brady to take less money in return for future flexibility.
BillsVet Posted January 20, 2015 Author Posted January 20, 2015 Ok, seriously, who besides you believes that the salary cap was intended to level/equalize the talent of each team, comrade? It equalizes the total compensation each team is allowed to spend on their roster. Nothing else. It's working as it's supposed to. What a pointless thread. Who believed Galileo? Who believed Billy Mitchell? Thanks for not debating.
Captain Caveman 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 It can be spread over the length of the contract, but it certainly counts. All your doing is pushing the pain out by a few years (see next years NO Saints.)
Recommended Posts