Mort on ESPN

Discussion in 'New York Jets' started by championjets69, Mar 2, 2006.

  1. YoungJet

    YoungJet Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2002
    Messages:
    800
    Likes Received:
    0
    Exactly all the game weren't blow outs before the cap, granted there were maybe 10 good teams out of 28. However, it wasn't always the same teams, teams rose an fell. The cowboyd dissapeared during the 80's as did the Steelers, Colts, Packers, and Chiefs after dominating the 60's and 70's. Teams would rise and fall based on their drafting. It would mean good teams could stay together, because you could afford to resign your players. Not as many big stars would make it to free agency as they do now because there teams could resign them. I prefer having a Salary Cap, however,ss long as someone bought the Redskins from Snyder having no cap would work...
     
  2. Murrell2878

    Murrell2878 Lets go JETS!
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    24,453
    Likes Received:
    843
    The turnaround for those teams were 10 years. Currently the turnaround is within 2 or 3 years and in a lot of cases sooner than that. It keeps it exciting for a team like the Jets who were 4-12 last year to know that in 2 years we can be competitive again.
     
  3. JetsIn2004

    JetsIn2004 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    0
    The money now is much different than it was before the cap was in place.

    The difference between the "haves" and the "have nots" in terms of local revenue is far greater.
     
  4. nightowltom

    nightowltom New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    Snyder is not the real danger. Paul Allen is one of the richest in the world with $22 billion. Allen works quietly so he doesn't get Snyder's headlines but he makes Snyder look like a pauper.
     
  5. jaywayne12

    jaywayne12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    The turnaround was 10 years..but free agency would still be in place. It wouldnt take teams that long to resurface.

    I just think whats happening today, with all these cuts..is horrible for football. I never liked the fact that you couldnt keep your core guys for almost an entire career. This, is a disgrace. Teams cutting players that are valuable to them...that have been there awhile. Its a joke whats happening today...and by tonite...will be a full blown black eye for the sport.

    Some will say you have to pay the piper...well teams that drafted well and signed solid free agents shouldnt have to pay for teams like the Redskins who acted like fools...add the Jets to that list too.

    There has to be a way to relax the cap on players you draft. Almost a second cap. GM's that draft well should be rewarded. It would take away the major need for free agency. Replacing draft picks who become stars isnt fair at all. It allows the Daniel Snyders who dont do their homework to rob you of players because of a communistic type of parity...where the weak can be rewarded. I know on paper it doesnt make sense...and Im sure there is a better way to do it than that but this is nonsense whats happening today.


    ]
     
  6. Murrell2878

    Murrell2878 Lets go JETS!
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    24,453
    Likes Received:
    843
    hee-hee you contradicted yourself. well sorta. If we have FA but the team is still allowed to keep their own players they drafted within the 2nd salary cap there wouldn't be much of Free Agency :smile: But if you look at a non capped NFL the "haves" would be the ones who could turnaround their team rather quickly while the "have nots" would struggle for years. Just look at the Packers in the 70's and 80's. This is just awful for the league
     
  7. nightowltom

    nightowltom New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    874
    Likes Received:
    0
    No that's not fair either. A lot of the high income teams also have a lot more in expenses as well. NE has to pay $30 mil a year for the stadium. McNair is paying around $60 mil a year in Houston while some teams have no stadium expenses because they either extorted a free stadium out of taxpayers or stuck the bill directly on their fans with PSL's.

    When Bob Kraft bought the Patriots, they were the LOWEST revenue producing team in the entire NFL. Because of his business savvy, the Patriots are now one of the highest. Can you blame him for not wanting to give most of his money to the likes of Ralph Wilson, Bill Bidwill or Mike Brown, none of which have put any of their own money on the line to improve their teams and make no effort to look for new revenue streams? No wonder Jerry Jones has complained that he never thought he'd have to deal with other NFL owners coming to him looking for welfare handouts.

    What about the Jets? There's no way they should be a middle of the pack franchise. They have one of the strongest and wealthiest markets to tap into yet they make no real effort to market the team and won't even come up with the money to pay for their own stadium despite evidence that building your own stadium is the quickest way to build value in an NFL team. What is Johnson thinking?
     
  8. Serphnx

    Serphnx New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    1,863
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think there even was free agency in football before the salary cap, atleast not free agency that you think of now. The owners were pretty much able to keep salaries down that way I guess.

    How do you define quality? Points a game? Sacks a game? If anyone can give me an actual definition that can be quantitatively measured, maybe then this "quality" argument might mean something. But since these are journalists, somehow I doubt it.

    I'm sure a lot of us have entered competition. There is one rule of competition that pretty much always holds true: the best teams play at the level it takes to win. That's all. They don't play at a MUCH greater level than all their opponents, just the level just above their closest one, or the team they are currently playing. When there are only 5 teams with enough talent to compete, teams will only raise their level of play to that level. Against the rest of the league, you won't see "good" play, you will see sloppy play that still allows the "good" teams to win. Hence, you don't actually see quality games, until the playoffs usually.

    Contrast that to the current situation of football. Every team is good. There is no huge advantage in terms of talent over another. As a result, in order to win, you NEED to play a high level of football game in and game out. You can't just play sloppy games and hope to win because you have better talent than the other team. You need to gameplan, practice, minimize turnovers, minimize mistakes. That sounds to me like it is a "higher level" of play than the kind of play that occurs when there is competitive imbalance.

    Theres a competitive imbalance in college football. USC and Texas seemed to have better players than everyone else. As a result, that means there must have been a higher level of play right? Then why is it that nobody thinks USC can even beat the worst football team in the NFL? NFL play is supposed to suck...remember. Why is a "great" college team somehow worse than a "weak" NFL team with no good teams? Does Cutler suck because he was on a weak team? Were his games somehow more entertaining to watch as a result? Was the Rose Bowl the only game worth watching, since it had the "great" teams play against each other?

    You will not simply be able to convince me that the level of play we get today is low because some journalist told you so. You have to prove these things. I'm going to stick to my view until someone can actually prove me wrong.
     
  9. Barry the Baptist

    Barry the Baptist Hello son, would you like a lolly?
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2003
    Messages:
    17,740
    Likes Received:
    1,571
    I disagree with no cap being good for football, this is what seperates football from baseball. In baseball unless the Yankees or Red Sox screw up big time they are always going to be near the top of the league.

    As a society we are need it now people and with the cap in place it is possible for teams to go from far down he ladder to near the top almost overnight. Does anybody think the Rams would have made such a substaintial leap in one year if not for the cap? People can complain about mediocre players but I'd much rather have 32 teams be able to compete every year for a SB than 7-8 really great teams. If you want mediocrity go watch baseball where 20 teams are fielding minor league players to play in the bigs. Look no further than the KC Royals or the Pittsburgh Pirates... in this day and age in the NFL a lack of a salary cap will all but guaruntee a team going 0-16 and a team going undefeated. When you can afford to have backups as starters that is going to happen.....
     
  10. jaywayne12

    jaywayne12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2004
    Messages:
    7,991
    Likes Received:
    1,505
    How is that contradicting? Thats exactly what I said...the only free agency you would have would be teams that choose not to keep a player.

    Why did the Packers struggle so badly all of those years. It wasnt because teams were raiding their rosters...not back then. It was because they drafted poorly..or were coached poorly.

    Teams would still cut very good players...their would still be a form of a cap in place. Hey....I have no idea how it would be done. Perfect example would be Drob...yes..we drafted him...and yes..we would be allowed to offer him more money than on the free market...because we drafted him...but would we? Probably not...not yet at least
     
  11. JetsIn2004

    JetsIn2004 Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2004
    Messages:
    11,912
    Likes Received:
    0

    Sorry man, but you aren't right here. The income the Skins and Pats pull in from Local revenues far outweigh any stadium expenses.

    Without a cap, the NFL turns into MLB. Do you want that?
     
  12. Murrell2878

    Murrell2878 Lets go JETS!
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    24,453
    Likes Received:
    843
    That was Krafts decision to build his own stadium. He had one in Connecticut all set and ready to go. So he has to pay $30 million a year...actually it's you guys that are paying for it with your way too expensive parking, beers etc.
     
  13. CT. Jets Fan

    CT. Jets Fan New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    0
    SF and Dallas championship runs were prior to the salary cap era.

    The Patriots success in this era is a testament to good coaching and good front office decisions. Not throwiing $ at people.
     
  14. winstonbiggs

    winstonbiggs 2008/2009 TGG Bill Parcells "Most Respected" Award

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    12,786
    Likes Received:
    1
    And getting the best QB in the league at a bargain basement price. Now that Brady is being paid like he should lets see how many SB they win?
     
  15. championjets69

    championjets69 2008/2009 TGG Darksider Award Winner

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Messages:
    17,353
    Likes Received:
    866
    Sorry Dallas won 3 SBs during the salary cap era in the 90s. 2 under JJ & 1 under Switzer
     
  16. Mantana Soss

    Mantana Soss Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    9,480
    Likes Received:
    3
    Considering we are fans of a New York team, YES! :) :)
     
  17. CT. Jets Fan

    CT. Jets Fan New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    0
    Luck is the residue of design.

    Sure, they got "lucky" with having Brady on their roster..but he was on THEIR roster and no one elses.

    And he is surrounded on offensive and defense with quality PLAYERS, not workout wonders.

    I think its a great model for our new front office to emulate.. I hate losing to them every year!
     
  18. AMJets

    AMJets Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    22,507
    Likes Received:
    77
    The salary cap was introduced in the 1994 season. Johnson's championships were in 1992 and 1993.
     
  19. CT. Jets Fan

    CT. Jets Fan New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2006
    Messages:
    876
    Likes Received:
    0
    A matter of defining the era I guess.

    Salary cap came into play during 1994 season so first two championships (1992-93 seasons) were in an uncapped era and the third (1995 season) was with players basically obtained in the non-cap era.
     
  20. Murrell2878

    Murrell2878 Lets go JETS!
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    24,453
    Likes Received:
    843
    But you saw the team get taken apart right around the 94 - 95 seasons. They did win in 95 with the core players, but had lost a ton. That's the way I like it though.
     

Share This Page