Per a source with extensive knowledge of the design and implementation of the cap, the formula will experience a “smoothing” in the coming years, with no one year resulting in a dramatic leap. The thinking is that, if the cap shoots up dramatically from one year to the next, it won’t be fair to the players who signed a big contract in the year in which the cap was lower. The smoothing phenomenon is more likely to unfold even in 2015 because, in 2012, money from future cap years was shifted to a year in which the cap was poised to drop, due to the revenue decreases from 2011, the year of the lockout. (Even though only one game was missed during to the lockout, months of uncertainty affected fan and sponsor spending during the offseason shutdown.) This robbing of Peter to pay Paul means that the expected growth will peter out when otherwise expected to spike. As a result, teams that deal with current cap problems by pushing money into the future under the assumption that there will be extra space at some point could be positioning themselves for a perpetual cap purgatory. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/02/15/salary-cap-spike-not-expected-this-year-or-any-year/ The Jets are in purgatory. To expound on that -- The money in the television deals rises gradually from 2015 to 2022, in part to prevent a spike in the salary cap. https://twitter.com/AlbertBreer/status/302500686111862784 Flat caps.
I do see what Junc is saying. Even though I am not defending our shitty former GM and what he did. As for Newsome and the Ravens despite what Ozzie says after 2000 up until this year they always had competitive teams (outside of 2 years) who were in the playoffs and could have won it all and nobody would of been completely shocked but they didn't have the QB to get them to the big game... This year Flacco stepped it up hugely (10TD and 0 INT in the playoffs+super bowl) and they won it all. For us to hope that Sanchez suddenly play like Flacco did this year and into the playoffs and super bowl...I don't think that will happen.
He wasn't restructured to appease him; he was restructured for cap room. It was still a terrible decision, but it allowed us to sign Landry, Bell and Schillens (yes, I know...).
hey look at that a successful nfl executive whose team has won the superbowl twice since y2k realizes he made a mistake and hurt his team, even though they were still very competitive, and wont make hte same mistake again... that bastard! what exactly are you trying to argue about here junc?
Obviously there is no spectrum here of talent level on teams. You are either a team capable of winning it or not, it is black and white. And if the team fails then the QB must have failed with no allowance for other teams simply being better. How ridiculous.
It's not uncommon for a great QB to be unable to put his team over the top. That happens every year with teams losing despite having a great QB play for them. It is exceedingly rare for a team to win a Super Bowl despite having a below average QB. In fact in the salary cap era I can only think of one Super Bowl won by a team with a clearly below average QB and that was the Ravens in 2000 with Trent Dilfer. The test to win a Super Bowl right now is not whether or not you have a great QB. The test is whether or not you have a highly competent QB.
I agree with all of this. I was mocking the idea that you can simply blame a QB because he has "enough" talent around him. As if another team couldn't have more talent than another. A QB can step up his game in the playoffs and win a SB like we saw with Flacco but also we have seen good QBs teams raise their game to said QBs level which results in a SB. The idea that this discounts the QBs credit/involvement is absurd when the QB is the constant.
"So is the OC" is pertaining to what part of my quoted post? How is the OC the constant when he has had 2? Please at least attempt to post with some clarity so we don't muddle things up with these posts where I am just trying to figure out what exactly it is you are saying. I didn't backtrack on anything. If you have a specific question please ask it.
Well, shitty OCs has been a constant for the last seven years, or we're you intending to defend them?
Seeing as how I never came close to saying anything like that, I must come to the conclusion you are just trying to draw someone into one of your black-hole type arguments. Pass
