Mikie2times Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I'm sure all of us miss the 90's. It was a great time, and despite the SB losses the 90's left us with an incredible amount of fond memories. My problem is even outside the Bills the rest of the league doesn't have as many intriguing players and the games aren't as enjoyable to watch. FA has left the league overflowing with players who all feel like they’re "owed" something, and you never feel like the players are fighting for the fans, only for the $. The 90's had the me guys but when you think of the elite players you would be hard pressed to find many egocentrics. Rice was the man back then; today you have Owens and Moss. LT and Peyton are two examples of grounded character guys at RB and QB, from the 90's take your pick from Elway, Farve, Marino, Kelly, Aikman, Young, Bettis, Faulk, Barry, Emmit and a whole lot more. The icing on the cake was one of the most gifted high character stars the NFL has ever had in Reggie White. I'm sure a portion of my discontent is from the mass saturation of the NFL. Back then all we really had was Primetime, and Inside the NFL, and that was just enough of a fix to get you by until the next Sunday. Now with the Internet, ESPN, and NFL network it's easy to OD if you’re a fan. With the new CBA approaching and the NFL media machine expanding so rapidly it's hard to imagine what the league will be like further down the road. I imagine something like 52 Allen Iversons B word slapping the the HC if they aren't getting the ball enough.
RkFast Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I agree Kzoo. Its not the just Bills, though. I miss the fact you could sit down on Sunday, and watch all the teams with their own identities. Aikman's Cowboys, Elway's Broncos. Marino's Dolphins, on and on. Now, with free agency, its just a mish-mash year after year. No consistency, little stability from year to year with the teams. Who is great one year, stinks the next, and players move around so often you need a scoresheet to keep track.
Like A Mofo Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I compare the NFL now somewhat to a musical superstar, actor, or actress that does so well and what happens is that personality is so exposed that sometimes the appeal loses something. Its still great, but it is just not the same. I think in a small way the same can be said for the NFL: I think there is too much coverage now...and when the games do not live up to expectations...its disappointing. Plus some E$PN "personalities" for example are now so big (which was created by the networks themselves and foolishly the public buys into them) that they do not leave much to our own imaginations, because the opinions are given so fast now, that we subconscously formulate our opinions on the NFL based on what the tools on E$PN radio tell us.
34-78-83 Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I'm waiting for the day when they make a clause in the CBA that allows for veteran players with say 4 or 5 years service on a team to count less against the cap on a progressing basis for each additional year. This would encourage teams to keep players that fans identify with and keep some consistency with the team's identity.
VABills Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I'm waiting for the day when they make a clause in the CBA that allows for veteran players with say 4 or 5 years service on a team to count less against the cap on a progressing basis for each additional year. This would encourage teams to keep players that fans identify with and keep some consistency with the team's identity. 608528[/snapback] That is already in the current system.
sfladave Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 That is already in the current system. 608541[/snapback] How so?
VABills Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 How so? 608545[/snapback] As a player who is a vet is on a team, a portion of his salary does not count against a cap, to make him more "appealling" then a rookie. While more "real" money is outlayed for a vet the cap his is roughly the same as a rookie or 1st year player.
Orton's Arm Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 As a player who is a vet is on a team, a portion of his salary does not count against a cap, to make him more "appealling" then a rookie. While more "real" money is outlayed for a vet the cap his is roughly the same as a rookie or 1st year player. 608551[/snapback] What you're describing helps to keep veteran players from being displaced by cheaper rookies. It doesn't encourage teams to hold onto their own veterans versus signing other veterans from free agency. What 34-78 was suggesting was a system in which, if you kept a particular player a long time, the percentage of his salary that would count against the cap would grow smaller and smaller. If some other team tried to sign him, they'd start off counting 100% of his salary against their cap, so it would be hard to lose a player you wanted through a bidding war.
34-78-83 Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 What you're describing helps to keep veteran players from being displaced by cheaper rookies. It doesn't encourage teams to hold onto their own veterans versus signing other veterans from free agency. What 34-78 was suggesting was a system in which, if you kept a particular player a long time, the percentage of his salary that would count against the cap would grow smaller and smaller. If some other team tried to sign him, they'd start off counting 100% of his salary against their cap, so it would be hard to lose a player you wanted through a bidding war. 608562[/snapback] Thankyor Mr. Arm. That's exactly what I was saying.
finknottle Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 I agree Kzoo. Its not the just Bills, though. I miss the fact you could sit down on Sunday, and watch all the teams with their own identities. Aikman's Cowboys, Elway's Broncos. Marino's Dolphins, on and on. Now, with free agency, its just a mish-mash year after year. No consistency, little stability from year to year with the teams. Who is great one year, stinks the next, and players move around so often you need a scoresheet to keep track. 608432[/snapback] Absolutely - it's not about being good, it's the identity. Without that it's pretty hard to get excited about rivalries. Who are the Dolphins these days? I have no idea. Beating them or losing to them just doesn't seem to matter any more.
MartyBall4Buffalo Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Honestly do you miss it cause teams had faces or do you miss it cause we were good? A lot of it sounds like spoiled milk and I get the feeling if our team was competative now no one would give a damn about the 90's. Personally I'm sick of the 90's. It's nice to reflect upon, and yes teams had idenitys and you could associate a player with a certain team, but it was also a lot like baseball. You knew which team was good, and which teams were bad. There was no chance of bad teams getting better, and always seeing the same teams year in and year out got nauseating. I hope it never goes back to that.
R. Rich Posted February 22, 2006 Posted February 22, 2006 Absolutely - it's not about being good, it's the identity. Without that it's pretty hard to get excited about rivalries. Who are the Dolphins these days? I have no idea. Beating them or losing to them just doesn't seem to matter any more. 609062[/snapback] That's the thing w/ variety being the spice of life: there's a little something for everyone. Just as there's a generation of fans who didn't experience the Bills' "0 for the 70s" against Miami and more easily remember the recent, embarassing losses to the Patriots more (thus, in their minds, making the Pats a bigger rival), there's also those who are a victim of whatever region they live in. What I mean is this: people in the NYC area might think of the Jets as a bigger rival due to the obnoxious fans they deal w/ there, or VA residents may dislike the Redskins w/ a heated passion, or MD reisidents may despise the Ravens, PA residents may hate the Steelers-though they shouldn't hate-and so on. For those folks, Miami is a big rival, but if they don't have to deal w/ it as often or as intense as they do the "locals", they may be more inclined to dislike some other team more. Whatever the case, for those situations, it will always be about the team and not just the players. In those cases, the fans perpetuate the rivalry, regardless of who the players are. Conversely, there's a lot of people who do believe that w/ player movement being the way it is, rivalries don't necessarily matter as much any more. Personally, I don't agree w/ this, as I still stronly dislike Miami, but I can see where people can form this opinion. It's hard for some to root for their heroes, only to have said heroes up and leave for greener pastures (and bank accounts) some time later. Those folks tend to get jaded about the whole thing, thus condemning free agency and the effect it has had on the NFL. I think there's more than enough fans to support any side of the argument, meaning the rivalries will still be there, just like there will be those who feel free agency is ruining the game also. Plenty to go around for all. Variety.
Mikie2times Posted February 23, 2006 Author Posted February 23, 2006 Honestly do you miss it cause teams had faces or do you miss it cause we were good? A lot of it sounds like spoiled milk and I get the feeling if our team was competative now no one would give a damn about the 90's. Personally I'm sick of the 90's. It's nice to reflect upon, and yes teams had idenitys and you could associate a player with a certain team, but it was also a lot like baseball. You knew which team was good, and which teams were bad. There was no chance of bad teams getting better, and always seeing the same teams year in and year out got nauseating. I hope it never goes back to that. 609067[/snapback] Like I said it's not just the Bills, it is the whole league I miss. As for your point about knowing who will be good I disagree that it's much different today. In general we already know a large amount of the contenders next year, and a large amount of the teams that have no chance. You have more exceptions to the rule now then in the 90's but that's just because the product is watered down. Players in it for $ are less likely to reach their true potential. It's also difficult for teammates to play together for a long time leading to what Greggo would call a "lack of execution". IMO when lack of execution and effort leads to parity that's not a good thing, and that seems to be the NFL of today and the future.
Adam Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 I miss the 90's cause we didn't suck. 608424[/snapback] partly true- but there was something to shoot for then- the Bills, 49ers, Dallas, and maybe even the Cheifs were THE elite. Everybody is the same now, players drift from team to team, and fan are argry for some reason. The quality of the game has declined. by the way- Its not a business or a product- ITS A FREAKING GAME
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 I thought the division games used to have more intensity to them.....except for the Patriots now. Could always count on going against Marino, or Ken O'Brien.....Jets players (that seemingly) stayed for a long time.....Freeman McNeil, Al Toon, Mark Gastineau. Like people mentioned.....and I think the identity of so many of the team revolved around the quarterbacks.....Elway's Broncos, Marino's Dolphins, Montana's then Young's 49ers. There just seemed to be something more "cool" about the players having longevity with one team. These guys became the identity of their teams. Although the league is even more popular now.....I think that 1985-1995 era was a real good one. There were some fantastic players in that era, especially at QB.
Oneonta Buffalo Fan Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 Well for me I never experienced what it was like to be fan back then because I was too young. I'm 16 and at least I will have memories of a new generation of player.
Acantha Posted February 23, 2006 Posted February 23, 2006 What you're describing helps to keep veteran players from being displaced by cheaper rookies. It doesn't encourage teams to hold onto their own veterans versus signing other veterans from free agency. What 34-78 was suggesting was a system in which, if you kept a particular player a long time, the percentage of his salary that would count against the cap would grow smaller and smaller. If some other team tried to sign him, they'd start off counting 100% of his salary against their cap, so it would be hard to lose a player you wanted through a bidding war. 608562[/snapback] I don't pay too much attention to NBA, so I may be wrong, but I believe they have something similar....kind of. A couple of years ago I was reading about teams trying to bring in FA's, and it said that there is a max cap on what a player can earn, but that cap is different for his current team and other teams trying to get him. So, if a guy plays for the Knicks and his contract is up, the Knicks can pay him a max of 5mil a year (just an example), but if he goes to another team they would only be able to offer him 4mil a year. Sounded like a decent system. It woudn't translate to NFL, but the idea is the same.
.thumb.png.1b7fb4086290c3afc001a7900b31fab0.png)
Recommended Posts