Some NFL thoughts

[Saintsfan]

Number one overall NFL draft picks who have started at QB and won a superbowl- Terry Bradshaw, Jim Plunkett, John Elway, Troy Aikman, Peyton Manning, Eli Manning,

Of this list only Bradshaw, Aikman and Peyton Manning won the Superbowl with the team that drafted them. (By my calculation that is 13 of the 42 Superbowl winners that have been QB'd by a number 1 overall pick). (Not that other positions have much success either!) I don't know what conclusions to draw, but there have been 11 other QBs picked number one in the Superbowl era. (With varying success)

I am not sure that being an NFL head coach right now is an especially safe job. Even guys who have had some success in the NFL, like John Fox at Carolina could come under some pressure with the like of Shanahan, Cowher or Gruden around.

Its strange that in the NFL that a strong identity tends to go along with a succesful franchise.

[TFoA]

From what I've heard, John Fox is already on the hotseat in Carolina since they've expected a Super Bowl every year since Super Bowl XXXVIII. If they don't produce this year, look out for Fox going the same way as Shanahan: Fired in the middle of the night.

[tBBP]

From what I've heard, John Fox is already on the hotseat in Carolina since they've expected a Super Bowl every year since Super Bowl XXXVIII. If they don't produce this year, look out for Fox going the same way as Shanahan: Fired in the middle of the night.

Fox has been on the hot seat for the last three years...it's actually quite surprising that he's still got his job. Of course, like the ATLien above just said, if Carolina don't produce this year, Fox is going buh-bye.

Back to the original query, though. As the NFL has become more of a league of parity, it has also become a league of ever-shrinking patience--or at least that's what I make of it. Ever since the Rams completed their Cinderella turnaround in '99 (that gave pretty much every other sad-sack team in the league some ray of hope), I've noticed that the decision makers of various teams have had a much shorter fuse. Not only that, but so has the fanbase. This is in part why I think we see so many coaches hold onto their job for about three years at best these days--that is, if the team either don't make the big stage or even the playoffs. People just can't wait around like they used to to watch a team build and grow and develop. Those that have been able to do that have reaped the rewards (the best example being the Pittsburgh Steelers--at least that I can think of).

As for the QB thing, I think people make WAY too much more out of that position than what's really there. Granted, a QB needs to be able to make quick decisions on his feet when the ball's in his hands while dodging angry defenders who would love nothing more than to plant his back or his teefes into the turf, but still...its' a team game, and the QB is just a PIECE of the puzzle. You also need decent skill-position players, but even more than that, some good lines in the trenches (I truly believe THAT is where games are won or lost--in the trenches). Oh--and you also need good playmakers on special teams--that makes a big-time difference.

But...this is just my little two rusted Lincolns here.

[BBTV]

From what I've heard, John Fox is already on the hotseat in Carolina since they've expected a Super Bowl every year since Super Bowl XXXVIII. If they don't produce this year, look out for Fox going the same way as Shanahan: Fired in the middle of the night.

Fox has been on the hot seat for the last three years...it's actually quite surprising that he's still got his job. Of course, like the ATLien above just said, if Carolina don't produce this year, Fox is going buh-bye.

Back to the original query, though. As the NFL has become more of a league of parity, it has also become a league of ever-shrinking patience--or at least that's what I make of it. Ever since the Rams completed their Cinderella turnaround in '99 (that gave pretty much every other sad-sack team in the league some ray of hope), I've noticed that the decision makers of various teams have had a much shorter fuse. Not only that, but so has the fanbase. This is in part why I think we see so many coaches hold onto their job for about three years at best these days--that is, if the team either don't make the big stage or even the playoffs. People just can't wait around like they used to to watch a team build and grow and develop. Those that have been able to do that have reaped the rewards (the best example being the Pittsburgh Steelers--at least that I can think of).

As for the QB thing, I think people make WAY too much more out of that position than what's really there. Granted, a QB needs to be able to make quick decisions on his feet when the ball's in his hands while dodging angry defenders who would love nothing more than to plant his back or his teefes into the turf, but still...its' a team game, and the QB is just a PIECE of the puzzle. You also need decent skill-position players, but even more than that, some good lines in the trenches (I truly believe THAT is where games are won or lost--in the trenches). Oh--and you also need good playmakers on special teams--that makes a big-time difference.

But...this is just my little two rusted Lincolns here.

Especially when you consider that Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and Eli Manning have Super Bowl rings.

[infrared41]

From what I've heard, John Fox is already on the hotseat in Carolina since they've expected a Super Bowl every year since Super Bowl XXXVIII. If they don't produce this year, look out for Fox going the same way as Shanahan: Fired in the middle of the night.

Fox has been on the hot seat for the last three years...it's actually quite surprising that he's still got his job. Of course, like the ATLien above just said, if Carolina don't produce this year, Fox is going buh-bye.

Back to the original query, though. As the NFL has become more of a league of parity, it has also become a league of ever-shrinking patience--or at least that's what I make of it. Ever since the Rams completed their Cinderella turnaround in '99 (that gave pretty much every other sad-sack team in the league some ray of hope), I've noticed that the decision makers of various teams have had a much shorter fuse. Not only that, but so has the fanbase. This is in part why I think we see so many coaches hold onto their job for about three years at best these days--that is, if the team either don't make the big stage or even the playoffs. People just can't wait around like they used to to watch a team build and grow and develop. Those that have been able to do that have reaped the rewards (the best example being the Pittsburgh Steelers--at least that I can think of).

As for the QB thing, I think people make WAY too much more out of that position than what's really there. Granted, a QB needs to be able to make quick decisions on his feet when the ball's in his hands while dodging angry defenders who would love nothing more than to plant his back or his teefes into the turf, but still...its' a team game, and the QB is just a PIECE of the puzzle. You also need decent skill-position players, but even more than that, some good lines in the trenches (I truly believe THAT is where games are won or lost--in the trenches). Oh--and you also need good playmakers on special teams--that makes a big-time difference.

But...this is just my little two rusted Lincolns here.

Especially when you consider that Trent Dilfer, Brad Johnson, and Eli Manning have Super Bowl rings.

Exactly. Which is why it always cracks me up when they say guys like Fouts or Marino were "overrated" because they never won a ring. Or how Peyton Manning would never be considered truly great until he won a Super Bowl. Jeff Hostetler has more Super Bowl rings than Dan Marino. Who was the better QB?

[Saintsfan]

I think you can make a case that drafting a QB is the quickest way to improve your team. Some good QBs have been drafted in the 1 spot overall and had great NFL careers and just not won a Superbowl. But I think there are other ways to win the big one. I think that putting together a great defense may take more patience but is sometimes more durable as a way to a Superbowl (the Patriots have always built there Superbowl teams around decent defense for instance.) I think that in the salary cap era its probably true to say that the number 1 pick is just tooo expensive to use to build a succesful team, it will be interesting to see what happens when the cap goes and if that makes the draft an easier way to build a superbowl team?

[rams80]

I think you can make a case that drafting a QB is the quickest way to improve your team. Some good QBs have been drafted in the 1 spot overall and had great NFL careers and just not won a Superbowl. But I think there are other ways to win the big one. I think that putting together a great defense may take more patience but is sometimes more durable as a way to a Superbowl (the Patriots have always built there Superbowl teams around decent defense for instance.) I think that in the salary cap era its probably true to say that the number 1 pick is just tooo expensive to use to build a succesful team, it will be interesting to see what happens when the cap goes and if that makes the draft an easier way to build a superbowl team?

The cost-prohibitive salaries of top picks are not a function of the salary cap, but a function of agents and players having substantial negotiation leverage in regards to holdouts. Ending the salary cap would not end the problem, rather a rookie price structure a la the NBA is the only way to address the problem...and is something you will likely see in the next CBA.

If the NFL cap goes, it will be like the premiership, where you only have 4-6 consistently good teams dominating the rest of the league. This is great if you're a fan of those teams and bad if you aren't. As someone in the latter category, I plan on getting rip-roaring drunk if the cap is indeed lost.

[Saintsfan]

I think you can make a case that drafting a QB is the quickest way to improve your team. Some good QBs have been drafted in the 1 spot overall and had great NFL careers and just not won a Superbowl. But I think there are other ways to win the big one. I think that putting together a great defense may take more patience but is sometimes more durable as a way to a Superbowl (the Patriots have always built there Superbowl teams around decent defense for instance.) I think that in the salary cap era its probably true to say that the number 1 pick is just tooo expensive to use to build a succesful team, it will be interesting to see what happens when the cap goes and if that makes the draft an easier way to build a superbowl team?

The cost-prohibitive salaries of top picks are not a function of the salary cap, but a function of agents and players having substantial negotiation leverage in regards to holdouts. Ending the salary cap would not end the problem, rather a rookie price structure a la the NBA is the only way to address the problem...and is something you will likely see in the next CBA.

If the NFL cap goes, it will be like the premiership, where you only have 4-6 consistently good teams dominating the rest of the league. This is great if you're a fan of those teams and bad if you aren't. As someone in the latter category, I plan on getting rip-roaring drunk if the cap is indeed lost.

Am I wrong in saying that there won't be a salary cap in the NFL come 2010?

Incidentally I don't think ending the cap necesarily ends competitveness in the NFL. Firstly look at the Washington Redskins. Tons of money, little success. In terms of building a team I would argue that the salary cap and high salaries for top 3 or so picks does make it hard to build a franchise using early picks. Early picks being so expensive means you are inevitably spending huge money, and having to leave cap room to allow for the pick (therefore not spending good money on proven free agents).

[rams80]

I think you can make a case that drafting a QB is the quickest way to improve your team. Some good QBs have been drafted in the 1 spot overall and had great NFL careers and just not won a Superbowl. But I think there are other ways to win the big one. I think that putting together a great defense may take more patience but is sometimes more durable as a way to a Superbowl (the Patriots have always built there Superbowl teams around decent defense for instance.) I think that in the salary cap era its probably true to say that the number 1 pick is just tooo expensive to use to build a succesful team, it will be interesting to see what happens when the cap goes and if that makes the draft an easier way to build a superbowl team?

The cost-prohibitive salaries of top picks are not a function of the salary cap, but a function of agents and players having substantial negotiation leverage in regards to holdouts. Ending the salary cap would not end the problem, rather a rookie price structure a la the NBA is the only way to address the problem...and is something you will likely see in the next CBA.

If the NFL cap goes, it will be like the premiership, where you only have 4-6 consistently good teams dominating the rest of the league. This is great if you're a fan of those teams and bad if you aren't. As someone in the latter category, I plan on getting rip-roaring drunk if the cap is indeed lost.

Am I wrong in saying that there won't be a salary cap in the NFL come 2010?

Incidentally I don't think ending the cap necesarily ends competitveness in the NFL. Firstly look at the Washington Redskins. Tons of money, little success. In terms of building a team I would argue that the salary cap and high salaries for top 3 or so picks does make it hard to build a franchise using early picks. Early picks being so expensive means you are inevitably spending huge money, and having to leave cap room to allow for the pick (therefore not spending good money on proven free agents).

I believe the NFL party line is that they want a cap beyond 2010. That said, Former Rams President and current Rosenbloom family advisor John Shaw the Incompetent, may piranhas nibble on his toes, is one of their primary negotiators. I'm planning on the cap (unfortunately) dying.

Again-a rookie salary structure eliminates the current flaw in the system, by fixing the contracts at a relatively minimal amount while keeping the cap. Most, if not all of the teams spend up to the cap now, but that doesn't mean they have the spending room to go far beyond the cap. Washington, Dallas, New York, New England etc. could win any bidding war for free agents in a capless NFL, so that is where the problem lies. Teams might be briefly good for a year or two, but the youthful talent would inevitably be lost in free agency. That is undesirable.

[cappital92]

Again-a rookie salary structure eliminates the current flaw in the system, by fixing the contracts at a relatively minimal amount while keeping the cap. Most, if not all of the teams spend up to the cap now, but that doesn't mean they have the spending room to go far beyond the cap. Washington, Dallas, New York, New England etc. could win any bidding war for free agents in a capless NFL, so that is where the problem lies. Teams might be briefly good for a year or two, but the youthful talent would inevitably be lost in free agency. That is undesirable.

I think you're overestimating the Redskins. Just because they can (and basically do) buy up tons of free agents doesn't guarantee them success.

[rams80]

Again-a rookie salary structure eliminates the current flaw in the system, by fixing the contracts at a relatively minimal amount while keeping the cap. Most, if not all of the teams spend up to the cap now, but that doesn't mean they have the spending room to go far beyond the cap. Washington, Dallas, New York, New England etc. could win any bidding war for free agents in a capless NFL, so that is where the problem lies. Teams might be briefly good for a year or two, but the youthful talent would inevitably be lost in free agency. That is undesirable.

I think you're overestimating the Redskins. Just because they can (and basically do) buy up tons of free agents doesn't guarantee them success.

My point is the that the Redskins have the free agents, and the small markets don't.

[Saintsfan]

My point is that without a cap, it makes the possibility of a good draft pick and a couple of decent free agent signings. And who is to say that the Lions or the Rams say couldn't find a bit of money if it came to it. The cap hasn't exactly helped the teams with number 1 overall picks recently. (Or more correctly it hasn't helped them win the Superbowl, thogh teams have made improvements.)

An interesting thing would be to see what happens if the cap is gone for 1 year. Do teams plan for it to come back and reign there own spending in, or do they flash the cash for 1 year?

[cmm]

If there is no cap in 2010, there will be other rules put in that will make it harder for players to move. Players will need 6 years service time instead of 4 to be unrestricted free agents. Teams will be able to tag an additional player. And the top 8 teams will only be able to sign the same number of free agents that they lose. So it may be hard for a big-market team to go crazy signing players--especially if they are successful in 2009.

[Jigga]

Those were all "poison pills" put in the CBA to ensure that both sides would be willing to negotiate in 2009-2010. Neither side truly wants these things to happen.

[rams80]

My point is that without a cap, it makes the possibility of a good draft pick and a couple of decent free agent signings. And who is to say that the Lions or the Rams say couldn't find a bit of money if it came to it. The cap hasn't exactly helped the teams with number 1 overall picks recently. (Or more correctly it hasn't helped them win the Superbowl, thogh teams have made improvements.)

An interesting thing would be to see what happens if the cap is gone for 1 year. Do teams plan for it to come back and reign there own spending in, or do they flash the cash for 1 year?

I am under the distinct impression from those more "in the know" about the Rams that their current ownership cannot afford to go much over the cap.

The Lions are owned by the automotive industry; spending like crazy is a bit impolitic at the moment.

I've seen many quotes on both side to the effect of "if the cap goes, it will never come back."