RealGM

Seeing the Browns and 49ers sit with the worst records and a lot of money under the cap can be depressing for fans of either team. How do you change this along with other changes that would give every team an equal chance at winning?
No more free agency:free agency favors some teams and not others. The rookie contracts are fine. After that they should be paid for three years based on past production. Keep a cap, and any team over the cap must do a trade to go under. Going far under the cap should not be tolerated. The league can figure out salaries.
Two people should be allowed to watch over the officials and can change any calls. All plays should be eligible to be changed. The Browns lost two games because of controversy, and I know Raiders fans constantly whine about officiating.

The NFL is more "fair for every team" than any league in professional sports. With free agency, the salary cap, the draft and the schedule, it's essentially rigged for every team to go 8-8. The only thing that it can't account for is the organization at the top and coaching. Bad management will attract and keep good coaching, so really, over a sample size of a few seasons, your record is largely a reflection of your front office. The Browns are a clown show and the 49ers were dumb enough to run Harbaugh out of town. Some owners are more worried about the bottom line than wins. Some just want to win. If you made a list with every teams record over the last 20 years, it would be almost a mirror's reflection of a list where you rated the ownership of each franchise. So, it's not the system in place that is unfair. It's that some owners are dumb or don't care which all the rules in the world can't fix.

No more free agency

I hate Free Agency. I don't apologize for that. The 90's Cowboys and Niners were essentially the first victims of it. Teams and players we came to root for took off at the first opportunity for big paychecks and the guys who replaced them were just not as good.

But... that ship has sailed. And the reality is free agency is fair to the players. The league makes a lot of money. A LOT... Let's not kid ourselves - the owners are not a benevolent bunch. If the market wasn't set up to afford the players a chance to make a bunch of money, many owners simply would stay at that low cap number and not budge. And not just Haslam or York. Anyone familiar with Mike Brown and Mike Bidwell's daddy knows better.

Keep a cap, and any team over the cap must do a trade to go under.

They already have that. And teams must deal with it. Here's an example. The Cowboys are currently $10.955M over the cap... for 2017. That's 47 players at $160M currently under contract in 2017. There are a few that can be cut which would help reduce that $160M number but not nearly enough to get them under the current cap number. So you will see a number of contracts redone which will help the Cowboys get under. One additional note - the Cowboys are on the hook for Romo's contract hit ($19.5M) whether he is traded or released. They can redo it somewhat to help mitigate the hit if he is traded. But - not if he is released.

Going far under the cap should not be tolerated. The league can figure out salaries.

The current CBA defines that low end of the cap. But if that owner wants to stay at that number, he has the right. Certainly isn't right for the paying customer anymore than a front office with no clue is. Which gets to my final point...


Hire good people to run your team.

Otis Driftwood wrote:No more free agency

I hate Free Agency. I don't apologize for that. The 90's Cowboys and Niners were essentially the first victims of it. Teams and players we came to root for took off at the first opportunity for big paychecks and the guys who replaced them were just not as good.

But... that ship has sailed. And the reality is free agency is fair to the players. The league makes a lot of money. A LOT... Let's not kid ourselves - the owners are not a benevolent bunch. If the market wasn't set up to afford the players a chance to make a bunch of money, many owners simply would stay at that low cap number and not budge. And not just Haslam or York. Anyone familiar with Mike Brown and Mike Bidwell's daddy knows better.

Keep a cap, and any team over the cap must do a trade to go under.

They already have that. And teams must deal with it. Here's an example. The Cowboys are currently $10.955M over the cap... for 2017. That's 47 players at $160M currently under contract in 2017. There are a few that can be cut which would help reduce that $160M number but not nearly enough to get them under the current cap number. So you will see a number of contracts redone which will help the Cowboys get under. One additional note - the Cowboys are on the hook for Romo's contract hit ($19.5M) whether he is traded or released. They can redo it somewhat to help mitigate the hit if he is traded. But - not if he is released.

Going far under the cap should not be tolerated. The league can figure out salaries.

The current CBA defines that low end of the cap. But if that owner wants to stay at that number, he has the right. Certainly isn't right for the paying customer anymore than a front office with no clue is. Which gets to my final point...


Hire good people to run your team.

I'd love it if the league didn't have a salary cap. We'd actually have a decent oline if that were the case. Along with keeping the core from our SB team. I guess the downside is that owners like Dan Snyder & Jerry Jones would spend, spend, spend non stop. But, it would reward good teams instead of punishing them. I would advise the league to do away with a hard cap. Come up with a rule that allows & encourages teams to resign their own players. While limiting how much teams can spend on outside free agents. This would reward those who draft & develop their own players. And keep teams from just throwing money around at free agents.

Celtsfan1980 wrote:Seeing the Browns and 49ers sit with the worst records and a lot of money under the cap can be depressing for fans of either team. How do you change this along with other changes that would give every team an equal chance at winning?
No more free agency:free agency favors some teams and not others. The rookie contracts are fine. After that they should be paid for three years based on past production. Keep a cap, and any team over the cap must do a trade to go under. Going far under the cap should not be tolerated. The league can figure out salaries.
Two people should be allowed to watch over the officials and can change any calls. All plays should be eligible to be changed. The Browns lost two games because of controversy, and I know Raiders fans constantly whine about officiating.

So.. I'm just going to call a spade a spade and say from top to bottom, this is wrong.

The 9ers and Browns sit among the worst teams with cap space because of their poor decisions. Nothing else. The Raiders were there 4 years ago thanks to Al Davis. Now we're not. Because we stopped making poor decisions.

Free agency does not favor some teams. Using my team as an example, we were once the least desireable FA destination. The past 3 years we have signed 5 pro bowlers/alternates in free agency: Michael Crabtree, Donald Penn, Rodney Hudson, Kelechi Osemele, Reggie Nelson. So free agency is totally fine, and it rewards teams that are making good decisions. It punishes teams that don't. As it should be.

The game is long enough as it is, changing calls for any random play disrupts the game flow and would drive down fan interest. Human error is part of every sport. The Browns lost every game because they are a poor team, and - while I appreciate the shout-out - all fans of all teams constantly whine about officiating. Since I have a lot of Bostonian friends, I'd argue that they whine a ton more about officiating than Raider fans, who seem to complain about the players more than the zebras.

The NFL is the best league when it comes to parity, by far. Of all the things to complain about re: NFL, its parity and fairness is at the extreme bottom.

Cactus Jack wrote:

Otis Driftwood wrote:No more free agency

I hate Free Agency. I don't apologize for that. The 90's Cowboys and Niners were essentially the first victims of it. Teams and players we came to root for took off at the first opportunity for big paychecks and the guys who replaced them were just not as good.

But... that ship has sailed. And the reality is free agency is fair to the players. The league makes a lot of money. A LOT... Let's not kid ourselves - the owners are not a benevolent bunch. If the market wasn't set up to afford the players a chance to make a bunch of money, many owners simply would stay at that low cap number and not budge. And not just Haslam or York. Anyone familiar with Mike Brown and Mike Bidwell's daddy knows better.

Keep a cap, and any team over the cap must do a trade to go under.

They already have that. And teams must deal with it. Here's an example. The Cowboys are currently $10.955M over the cap... for 2017. That's 47 players at $160M currently under contract in 2017. There are a few that can be cut which would help reduce that $160M number but not nearly enough to get them under the current cap number. So you will see a number of contracts redone which will help the Cowboys get under. One additional note - the Cowboys are on the hook for Romo's contract hit ($19.5M) whether he is traded or released. They can redo it somewhat to help mitigate the hit if he is traded. But - not if he is released.

Going far under the cap should not be tolerated. The league can figure out salaries.

The current CBA defines that low end of the cap. But if that owner wants to stay at that number, he has the right. Certainly isn't right for the paying customer anymore than a front office with no clue is. Which gets to my final point...


Hire good people to run your team.

I'd love it if the league didn't have a salary cap. We'd actually have a decent oline if that were the case. Along with keeping the core from our SB team. I guess the downside is that owners like Dan Snyder & Jerry Jones would spend, spend, spend non stop. But, it would reward good teams instead of punishing them. I would advise the league to do away with a hard cap. Come up with a rule that allows & encourages teams to resign their own players. While limiting how much teams can spend on outside free agents. This would reward those who draft & develop their own players. And keep teams from just throwing money around at free agents.

With all the outside income Jerry has with sponsors, it's a no-brainer he would outspend everyone to keep those he wanted and to go get the ones he wanted. And Snyder is the poster child for making stupid free agent signings. Redskins fans can quote chapter and verse all of those dumb signings.

Otis Driftwood wrote:

Cactus Jack wrote:

Otis Driftwood wrote:No more free agency

I hate Free Agency. I don't apologize for that. The 90's Cowboys and Niners were essentially the first victims of it. Teams and players we came to root for took off at the first opportunity for big paychecks and the guys who replaced them were just not as good.

But... that ship has sailed. And the reality is free agency is fair to the players. The league makes a lot of money. A LOT... Let's not kid ourselves - the owners are not a benevolent bunch. If the market wasn't set up to afford the players a chance to make a bunch of money, many owners simply would stay at that low cap number and not budge. And not just Haslam or York. Anyone familiar with Mike Brown and Mike Bidwell's daddy knows better.

Keep a cap, and any team over the cap must do a trade to go under.

They already have that. And teams must deal with it. Here's an example. The Cowboys are currently $10.955M over the cap... for 2017. That's 47 players at $160M currently under contract in 2017. There are a few that can be cut which would help reduce that $160M number but not nearly enough to get them under the current cap number. So you will see a number of contracts redone which will help the Cowboys get under. One additional note - the Cowboys are on the hook for Romo's contract hit ($19.5M) whether he is traded or released. They can redo it somewhat to help mitigate the hit if he is traded. But - not if he is released.

Going far under the cap should not be tolerated. The league can figure out salaries.

The current CBA defines that low end of the cap. But if that owner wants to stay at that number, he has the right. Certainly isn't right for the paying customer anymore than a front office with no clue is. Which gets to my final point...


Hire good people to run your team.

I'd love it if the league didn't have a salary cap. We'd actually have a decent oline if that were the case. Along with keeping the core from our SB team. I guess the downside is that owners like Dan Snyder & Jerry Jones would spend, spend, spend non stop. But, it would reward good teams instead of punishing them. I would advise the league to do away with a hard cap. Come up with a rule that allows & encourages teams to resign their own players. While limiting how much teams can spend on outside free agents. This would reward those who draft & develop their own players. And keep teams from just throwing money around at free agents.

With all the outside income Jerry has with sponsors, it's a no-brainer he would outspend everyone to keep those he wanted and to go get the ones he wanted. And Snyder is the poster child for making stupid free agent signings. Redskins fans can quote chapter and verse all of those dumb signings.

Which is why I purposed a system that benefits teams that draft & develop their own players well versus what you hit on. There needs to be a cap in place. But, it should be more of a soft cap (similar to how the NBA works). A team should be able to go over the cap when trying to re-sign players (No limit). Maybe you then allocate a reasonable amount for outside free agents that every team must abide by. Say a max of 15-20 million/yr for each team. That way you wouldn't have owners like Jerry just throwing huge dollars around. Fair game.

Even though the Browns finally won a game(some would say with help from the officials) I'm sticking to my original opinion. Free agency hasn't been bad for some of the teams I root for(the Celtics and New York Giants) but a big disaster for the Browns. I would also like to see the league step in with lopsided trades.

FNQ wrote:

Celtsfan1980 wrote:The NFL is the best league when it comes to parity, by far. Of all the things to complain about re: NFL, its parity and fairness is at the extreme bottom.

I see many of the same teams remain bad, many remain good, and others like Buffalo going nowhere year after year. Baseball's losers have been much more successful than football's. The results sure don't show great parity.

Celtsfan1980 wrote:Even though the Browns finally won a game(some would say with help from the officials) I'm sticking to my original opinion. Free agency hasn't been bad for some of the teams I root for(the Celtics and New York Giants) but a big disaster for the Browns. I would also like to see the league step in with lopsided trades.

FNQ wrote:

Celtsfan1980 wrote:The NFL is the best league when it comes to parity, by far. Of all the things to complain about re: NFL, its parity and fairness is at the extreme bottom.

I see many of the same teams remain bad, many remain good, and others like Buffalo going nowhere year after year. Baseball's losers have been much more successful than football's. The results sure don't show great parity.

You're picking apart the results, and those really don't matter. Its the system you want to change, and you arent showing any flaws in the system. If the Browns drafted well, they would win more games. Instead, since 2011, here are their 1st rounders: Phil Taylor, Trent Richardson, Brandon Weeden, Barkevious Mingo, Justin Gilbert, Johnny Manziel, Danny Shelton, Cameron Erving, Corey Coleman. Only 2 of them aren't considered busts - yet - (Shelton, Coleman) and only 4 of them are still on the team.

Going further, since 2011 (excluding 2016 since its hard to tell), here are all the "good" players they've drafted that are still on the team: Joel Bitonio (G), Danny Shelton (NT). That's it. They also drafted Mitchell Schwartz (left), Travis Benjamin (left), Buster Skrine (left), and Jabaal Sheard (left). Couple that with terrible FA signings, constantly changing coaches out, and continuously whiffing on QBs... and you have a team that has consistently sucked.

There's FAR less parity in the MLB because there is no salary cap. The A's will likely never get to the WS until they either get a new stadium or move. The Yankees can spend 400m a season and still turn a profit. The Rays and A's will never get that opportunity - they have to strategically plan their 'good' seasons and sell off assets quickly to ensure they are bottomed out in a few years when the players look for their payday.

Also.. what lopsided trades? When has that happened? There's no trades that stick out to me as abusing a bad franchise, unless of course you're talking about the Raiders and Al Davis' ill-fated trades (Randy Moss, Richard Seymour, Carson Palmer)

The bad teams stay bad, because they keep making poor decisions (Cleveland & Al Davis' Raiders are the poster child). Poor management. It's that simple.

How do you convince owners that are just interested in making money to spend more just to win year after year? Even though I hate Jerry, I know that guys would spend just about every cent he has just to be in the super bowl every year. Thanks to the salary cap, he can't.