Something Is Wrong When Good Teams Lose Good Players

The NFL salary cap means 32 teams have a chance every single year. I wouldn't trade the NFL system for anything else.

 

Except the Browns

 

NFL parity is what keeps it interesting, i wouldnt do anything that allows a team to get lucky in the draft and then translate that into long period of dominance (more than already happens). I would scrap the franchise tag as it is tbh (in its current abused form at least)

 

Also starting next year EVERY team must spend 90% of their cap so the parity will continue to rise. The teams that werent spending, have to spend now(looks at Bucs, Bengals, Browns, Broncos)

 

The Texans probably could have kept Williams if they let Foster (UDFA) go and made some cap saving moves.

 

Bottom line Mario likes his hand in the ground and not to stand up he is a True DE

 

I'd say that parity works, except it doesn't. Championships are still won by a small number of teams over long periods of time. There have been 46 Super Bowls now and 24 of them have been won by 5 teams. 3 of those 5 teams have won a Super Bowl in the last 4 seasons.

The other Super Bowls are dominated by mini-dynasties over a period of a decade or so. 9 more of the Super Bowls have been won by a team winning 3 of them in a decade or less. That's 33 out of 46 Super Bowls won by 8 dominant organization/teams.

The number of teams that have not won a Super Bowl since the merger?

16. That's half of the NFL.

NYJ, Buffalo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Houston, Jacksonville, Tennessee, San Diego, Kansas City, Philadelphia, Detroit, Arizona, Atlanta, Carolina, Minnesota and Seattle.

Parity is an illusion for most teams. The salary cap's primary function, as expressed by the results it produces, is to protect the superior small market organizations from wide-open competition. It's there to keep the Steelers and Packers viable.

 

The NFL has at least 5 teams every year in the playoffs that weren't in the playoffs the year before. That's where you see the parity.

 

no, the parity isn't an illusion. overall most teams are able to succeed in any given year -- that is the parity the system creates, not a guarantee that all teams will win championships. the dominance of certain organizations has to do with the quality of those organizations ability to run their operations (scout, draft, hire talented coaches, create a strong team philosophy and image players want to play for, etc) and outperform those other teams on the same level playing field. the playing field is even in the NFL market, that is the parity that the NFL has, which just means equality. whether the individual teams are able to take advantage of that parity is up to them, but it exists.

 

that completely negates the point of a salary cap. Houston had a chance to keep Mario Williams, they simply made the decision that he wasn't worth the amount that he would have cost at the expense of the other players they would have had to jettison to keep him. they aren't victims and no new rule is needed.

 

I was under the impression they didn't intend to bring Mario back not only because of the cap, but because they still had a really good D without him. They were ready to move on without him.

 

The NFL has the best and most fair free agency system of any sport. Why mess with a good thing?

I am not sure there are many teams that have benefited as much from free agency as we have.

 

If the cap worked like this, draft picks would be pure gold.

Drafting a Franchise QB and saving 80-100million + on the cap over the years is ridic.

it would make teams who draft a great QB faaaaaar better, than they already are.

Not to mention the Texans were good without Williams all year, they'll be fine now that they have a QB back

 

The salary cap as it is helps. The reason some teams cant seem to improve is because of ownership which trickles down into every facet of the organization. If an owner is unwilling to spend, they are in trouble. If the owner spends like a mad man they are in trouble. The franchises that seem to always be there come playoff time are organizations with great owners. Period. Thats why things dont seem to change because owners dont change every other year like coaches do.

 

Parity is opportunity, not results. There is absolutely no competitive barrier to any team whatsoever. It is unlike Baseball where teams need to work within their budgets and simply accept that some teams can afford more than others.

Results is a product of people and their decision making. The fact that certain teams have done so well is a testament to their owners and leadership.

 

But you look at the Cowboys, 49ers and Skins the 3 teams that dominated the 80's and 90's and all 3 have struggled mightily since the advent of the salary cap. That's because of poor management not because of a disadvantage.

The NFL gives plenty of small markets a competitive oppurtunity, let's think about this for a minute. Mario Williams went to Buffalo, now imagine if Mario Williams played in the NBA or MLB, could you imagine Williams signing with Toronto or Kansas City two comprable franchises to the Bills in their respective sport? Of course not, he'd be with the Lakers, Knicks or Yankees. Baseball season is a few weeks away and I can name you probably 20-25 teams that have no shot at winning the WS but when the NFL season starts can you really say that more then 5-10 teams have no shot when the season kicks off?

 

Some teams just know how to get it done in the playoffs. The Giants are a great example, the last 3 Super Bowls they werent favorites to win anything yet they did it.

 

I'm trying to figure out what that has to do with anything that is being discussed in this thread. it isn't relevant to whether the NFL needs a new cap rule to help keep drafted players. it doesn't have anything to do with parity. what?

 

Because someone brought up how 24 of the super bowls have been won amongst 5 teams.