I Miss the 90's NFL

[eball]

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.

609073[/snapback]

Well said. I laugh when I read "the NFL is ruined now" posts. Fine. If that's the way you feel, stop watching -- and why again are you posting on an NFL team message board? Ya gotta love the hypocrisy.

[Spiderweb]

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]

 

Where's Clump? I'd bet he has a better handle on this vet issue. IRCC, it only applies to a vet/team when the vet is also playing for vet minimum and has a signing bonus of under 25K or the like. Even then it does NOT reduce the cap hit to a 1st year player min salary. IRCC it more like the high 480's, wheras a 1st year guy could be in the 200's. A number of years back, both the league and the players saw vets getting the short end (those who were good enough still to make the team as a spot or situational player) and were often cut due to cap reasons. It has only provided marginal benefit to the vet who may fall into this category. There is also a minimum number of years of service before this could apply and that number is higher than say 4,5 or 6 years if memory serves. This would be an area that I hope a new CBA can remedy a bit more.

 

In short, a quasi "soft" cap that would benefit those borderline vets would be something that I would be in favor of. With the current system, it's still very difficult for teams to afford the luxury of a Mark Pike type, excellent ST guy with long vet tenure and stil be "decent" contract wise.