» Debate: Salary Cap.

TheMagicThree · Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 8:24 pm Post subject: Debate: Salary Cap.

Should the NFL teriminate it?

Chris Luva Luva · --- Joined: 28 Jul 2003 Posts: 17794 Location: AJT

Yes because I'm tired of the turnover. Im going start calling the NFL, UPS.

No because I dont want it to end up like baseball and really have no hope for your team if they aren't the Yankees or someone like that.

So I guess....leave it the way it is.

Irn-Bru · Posted: Wed Oct 06, 2004 9:17 pm Post subject:

The ironic thing is that we would be the Yankees, CLL, with how profitable the franchise is and how willing Snyder is to spend.

But I agree, dynasties would definitely come with such a high price. It would be nice if there was more retention in the NFL, but it certainly wouldn't be worth the price of having to stick by a team that would have no hopes of improving for the next 30 years. . .

DEHog · Diesel Joined: 15 Dec 2003 Posts: 5809 Location: Dover DE

The NFL needs the cap...I would like to see them adopt something along the lines of the NBA, where the players current team has the inside track to keeping the player, by being able to offer the most money. I do know the player need a better deal than they currently have. They play the most popular, profitable and toughest sport around but aren't paid as well as the other sports.

JansenFan · Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:02 am Post subject:

DE, you about summed up my thoughts. There has to be something that allows teams to retain the key players without limiting their ability to pursue other avenues. I think the NBA has that part right. I don't agree with the soft cap/luxary tax nonsense (granted if the NBA had it, we would certainly be a team that would take advantage of it.

patrickg68 · piggie Joined: 13 Mar 2004 Posts: 161 Location: Tampa, FL

The NFL is a joke. I take that back. Its not a joke, its pure evil. EVERYTHING is the same. The salary cap and free agency have made it so that there are no great teams anymore. I know you guys are redskins fans, but do any of you honestly think that talent wise, the current "dynasty", the Patriots, are comparable talent wise to the Cowboys of the early 90's? All of the teams are more or less siimlar talent wise. Its good to have great teams, because then you have people watch to root against them. As it is right now, every year its a battle to see who is the best of the mediocre bunch.

All of the systems are the same. There are subtle differences between the systems, but is there anything close to the diversity that you would find in college football? There is no option football, no run and shoot, no spread offenses. Hell most of the teams boring as hell horizontal west coast offense.

All of the stadiums are the same. Sure there used to be some good stadiums, like RFK and Mile High, but now they are all so damn corporate and sterile.

And now, onto the real problem. The media. What a bunch of parasites. They are the biggest bunch of scumbags involved with sports. They don't know a damn thing about football, but they essentially run the entire league. The league's largest fan base is the casual fan. And since they don't know anything about football, they just follow along with whatever the media says just like they sheep that they are. Why is the lifespan of a coach so short now? Because the media calls for the coaches head as soon as a team loses a few games, and the fans follow right along. Why will the option never be run in the NFL? Because it won't work? No, because the media has decided that its boring, and the fans have followed right along, unable to think for themselves.

JansenFan · Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:33 am Post subject:

I agree that before the salary cap came to be, the good teams were better than the good teams now. The difference is that the mediocre teams and the bad teams are better than they were before. The Patriots are a great team, but the 80's skins and 49ers, the 90's Cowboys, the 60s Packers and 70's Steelers would wipe the floor with the 00's Patriots.

With the salary cap, every team has the ability to go from Chumps to Champs. That means smaller markets can compete with larger markets and the competition is better. If you were a fan of a team that stunk before the salary cap, you might have a different view of it.

TheMagicThree · Posted: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:25 pm Post subject:

I'd like to see it gone. I live for the dynasties.

doroshjt · Hog Joined: 12 Jan 2004 Posts: 447 Location: Moscow, ID

I wonder if there would be a way to restructure the "franchise" tag on players and essentially allow like 10 players on every team to not count towards the cap. But they have to have a minimum number of years say 3 years and make them mandatory payments 100% garenteed. This would allow for the core nucleaus of every team to stay together. The Teams would get a set of players that they know they could keep long term and build around. And the players would be for it since its garenteed money. Some one smarter then me could work out the details, but having a long term core group would be nice. And have the parity that makes it more exciting every year.

TheMagicThree · Posted: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:33 pm Post subject:

I say after the next lockout (if and whenever that happens) start with the old system and give every team the same amount of money to begin with, and start from there.

patrickg68 · piggie Joined: 13 Mar 2004 Posts: 161 Location: Tampa, FL

They should continue to share the revenue from the tv contracts but they should eliminate the salary cap.

Smithian · Posted: Sat Oct 23, 2004 12:58 am Post subject:

I'm starting to think college football is better than NFL for this thing called the No Fun / Not For Long League.

You all who don't remember what College Football is, it is that free farm system for the NFL.

SkinsLaVar · Hog Joined: 13 Sep 2004 Posts: 1189 Location: L.A.

Why can't Snyder just pay them off with his pocket money? He could just give the NFL some bling to shut up. I don't understand it, but they keep saying "Ohh, the Redskins are gonna have a huge sallary cap in '06." They said that for every year, it doesn't seem to happen(knock on wood). But I think they should just shut up about it and take the money.

Deadskins · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 9:43 am Post subject:

Why everyone thinks we will be in cap hell in 2006 is beyond me. As long as you keep moving out the date with renegotiations, the salary cap always increases enough to cover current salaries and dead money. Danny knows this, and that's why he spends so freely.

BossHog · Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:16 am Post subject:

... because we CAN be in cap hell in 2006. We have almost 50 million tied up in just 6 players!

Arrington - 12.414M
Samuels - 10.898M
Portis - 5.476M
Springs - 5.558M
Jansen - 5.238M
Coles - 6.857M

That's a total of $46M just for those players, and while you may be thinking 'well just cut them then'... you can't... because you will STILL have to pay their signing bonuses if you cut them and have it eat into the cap in the form of DEAD money.

That's without including players who can be cut with LESSER cap ramifications than the above... Brunell (5.5M), Wynn (5M), Griffin (5M)

I'm not saying any more than that. Snyder is banking on the cap going up a lot more than the 5 mil it went up this year though, I can tell you that. We'll need at least 100M in 2006.