I'm not talking about having a soft cap for vets. It's a soft cap for players that the team drafted on their own. So many teams lose players that they drafted due to the cap because those players are looking for big pay days. I'm not exactly sure how such a system would work when comparing drafted vs. FA signings, but it could help those teams who draft well.
i think you are talking about an nba like larry bird exemption. if you are the math is still the same. take bradys salary off the cap and they will spend it on someone else.
OK, let's have it your way. Let's talk about the AFC over the past 10 years. I have ripped word for word the following statistics from another Jets Fan Board, but they are all valid statistics: "Jets made the playoffs 3 times, with 2 AFC Championship losses. CIN made the playoffs 5x, KC 3x, HOU 3x SD 2x, Jax/Ten/Mia once each. San Diego made the AFC Championship once. The rest of the AFC: New England: 9 playoff appearances, AFC Championships: 3-4; Super Bowl: 1-2 Indianapolis: 7 playoff appearances, AFC Championships: 2-1, Super Bowl: 1-1 Baltimore: 7 playoff appearances, AFC Championship: 1-2, Super Bowl: 1-0 Pittsburgh: 6 playoff appearances, AFC Championshiop: 2-0, Super Bowl: 1-1 Denver: 5 playoff appearances, AFC Championship: 2-0, Super Bowl: 1-1 So, for the past ten years, it has been only 5 teams representing the AFC in the Super Bowl and the AFC championship game, except for the 1 SD appearance and 2 Jet appearances. Think of it this way; outside the 5 royalty teams, only the Jets got into the club the most!" Is this Parity?
Yes, because competitiveness, which is what parity is aimed at, does not equal championship ability. You are taking the two highest levels of success -- Super Bowl and conference championship, and arguing not reaching that level equates to an absence of competitiveness. I've already addressed why this is wrong. Why don't you conduct the more accurate analysis and show how many different teams have simply made the playoffs, and how many have finished at least .500. Being competitive does not equal being elite or even good for sustained periods.
It is "simple" to get around parity in the NFL. A good to great QB. A system in place. The knowledge is that you need to know you are building for a four to five year runs and retool.
You can cry parity all you want, but the fact is, if your ownership sucks and picks morons year after year to run the day-to-day, it's not going to matter. Consistently bad drafting and bad drafting will keep a team down. And there will never be a way to get around teams having elite players. Let's look at Cleveland, the definition of shit tier: Cody Kessler Johnny Manziel Brandon Weeden Coly McCoy Brady Quinn Charlie Frye Considering how high they pick every year, considering they don't invest their drafts into top tier QBs ever, no wonder they are consistently the worst.
3 1st round picks in that list. I'm not sure saying "they don't invest their drafts into top tier QBs ever" is an appropriate statement
Yeah, this. Protecting owners from their own stupidity. And when they figured out that they were stoopidest of all when it came to rookie contracts, flushing bazillions down the toilet on players like Jamarcus Russell, they instituted a ROOKIE cap to insulate their wealth even more. Surprised we haven't heard about a coaching cap, so owners like Terry Pegula won't waste $25 million guaranteed on a losing coach. The cap sounds like a wonderful idea to create "parity" - whatever the hell that means - but it does no such thing. Winning in the NFL will always be about identifying and signing good players to contracts. There are only 32 teams in the league, and the owners protect their own private billionaires by not allowing new owners into their insulated billionaires' club. Or allowing owners to move freely to better markets. THAT's all a salary cap too. They also bully taxpayers in cities like San Diego into subsidizing their business with stadiums, or leaving if the taxpayers don't agree. If these billionaire owners want to waste their money with stupid business decisions, why protect them from themselves. Get rid of the cap. Let the dumb money flow. Let teams fail. Let bad owners have to sell their teams at a loss and let smarter owners come in have a shot at doing it better.
One who didn't belong in the first round (Weeden), one who was a headcase most believe wouldn't survive NFL fame (Manziel), and Brady Quinn who was decent but didn't have the most challenging opponents in college. The years there were elite prospects, they ignored the QB position.
You said they ignored the position. They did not. They had bad judgement. What they did and what you said is completely different.
In an era of unrestricted player movement the difference between a cap and no cap is the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Pittsburgh Pirates. It's the difference between the Green Bay Packers and the Milwaukee Brewers. Seriously. It's not that Pirates and Brewers don't have good years now and then, because they do. However they have a significantly worse economic situation than the biggest market teams and so they have trouble holding onto their best stars over time when free agency beckons. Not all of their stars, just many of them. Even with a franchise player tag available unrestricted free agency with no cap would bleed talent out of small market teams and aggregate it in large market teams just like it does in baseball. That doesn't mean that wise ownership and management decisions don't rule in the NFL because they do but those qualities are protected by the existence of the salary cap.
We pretty much suck at drafting, especially over the past 25 years. So do most of the bottom of the barrel teams. So while it might helps little bit, the better drafting teams are able to recycle they're good players because they draft their replacements at a low cost.
