jbooma Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 A flat tax is a good idea, JB. I know the lefty among us thinks those who make more should not only pay more, but pay a higher percentage TOO, but, in reality, simply paying the same percentage is fair enough, as it allows better business to be better business.More importantly, you're missing the key fact that makes this the fault of the small-market teams. They want to share the revenue of the higher market teams, meaning, they get a check from them. Then, they don't want to spend that money at the same rate. They essentially want welfare. You can't believe that's right. No I don't, and they need some type of rule stating they have to spend ANY of the shared money on players, have two levels of a cap max and minimum etc... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 There's a great deal of merit to the fact the current system is destroying the game. The inability for teams to build consistency due to contract structures designed to one-up an earlier guy forces rookies who aren't ready onto the field too soon. Teams are in flux all the time, leading to a decline in play. While it can be exciting to know each year you can have 6 new division winners who were last place the year before, it is not enough benefit to offset a declining league with an unsustainable, flawed system.A number of solutions are possible, but, in the end, simply letting teams do business in a way that suits the owner running the organization works well enough for a fan of our team . I agree, there's no doubt that the on field product was better before the salary cap. While the cap going away might hurt the NFL overall, WHO THE HELL CARES!!! I'm only concerned about what's best for the Washington Redskins and with our fan base (the NFL overall may lose some popularity/money but we won't ), our coaches and our owner this is almost a best case scenario. So hello to REAL teams once again and say goodbye to roster turnover. I'm all for being able to grow and keep a team together for a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Problem is, what about fans of less fortunate teams?I don't argue that certain aspects of the system is flawed (The Franchise Tag has never worked as designed.), but I don't think the whole system needs to be blown up to fix it. The last thing I want is the NFL to become baseball. Jason I, for one, don't give a flying **** about those teams. The league can shrink, the competitive balance can go to hell, whatever, who cares. All I know is the Redskins will make as much money as ever and will be at a huge competitive advantage because of our owner/coach situation. That's all that matters to me. Just think back a few years and remember what Joe Gibbs was able to do when he could build the team as he saw fit without salary cap constraints. That's all that needs to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimster Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I was for a CBA extension just to avoid chaos this year, but since they can't get it done I hope there is never a cap again. - If you're a good player you'll be paid accordingly and kept around, and if you're lucky won't have to play for eight different teams in your career. I just don't understand all these money-for-nothing teams who want more and more for doing nothing. - If its such a hardship to own your team - sell it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I agree, there's no doubt that the on field product was better before the salary cap. Well, the best teams were better, but the worst teams were worse, so I don't know if it was "better". Better if you lived in Washington or SF, maybe. While the cap going away might hurt the NFL overall, WHO THE HELL CARES!!! I'm sure Tags cares. I'm sure those fans in the smaller markets care. Problem is, we speak from the position of the "haves". Personally, I like that there are a lot of competive games out there to watch every week, that the Tampa Bay and Green Bay matchup isn't called the "Bay Of Pigs" game anymore (even tho they aren't in the same division anymore.) I still think those four expansion teams which have been added since FA started has had more to do with the decline in play rather than the current FA system. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Personally I think the 'grandeur' of the Skins/Cowboys rivalry came from the fact that the same players were on each team year after year. I remember as a kid truly hating the Cowboy players. Now, I hate them because of the color of the helmet they are wearing, not because of who they are and the history of their play. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: So true. I'm really looking forward tothe idea that our team will be recognizable year after year once again. It's about time we got back to players being defined largely by the team they play for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
putartmonkinthehall Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 A team like ours will be among those able to really take advantage of a non-capped league. As a fan of the Redskins, you should be happy about that prospect. I agree! While the cuts to get under the cap this year might hurt the skins depth at some positions this year, in the long run, not having a cap is extremely beneficial to a money making goliath like the Washington Redskins franchise. Now Snyder is free to become the George Stienbrenner of the NFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJ_Skins Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I think even aside from the potential benefits to the Redskins, it could be good for the game to scrap the present system. It's been great for the players who have gotten filthy rich off of it, but it has wrecked team continuity, and lowered the overall quality of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmortalDragon Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I'm not sure what the point of a player cap would be. We certainly don't want to copy the NBA's plan which essentially has a cap system that locks you in for several years of being VERY bad if your moves don't work out, with no flexibility at all. You are a young fan who may view the cap as a key ingredient to the success of the league.The cap was brought in to create a parity impossible without it. It accomplished that parity, but, the downside is it also has created a system that hurts the overall level of the game and fundamentally alters the element of TEAM that makes a sport successful. While having a cap wouldn't be the end of the world, the fact that not having one will actually improve core teams and create great stories with longer running dynasty type teams, rebuilding rivalaries and the like, is good, though it will take somewhat away from parity. A team like ours will be among those able to really take advantage of a non-capped league. As a fan of the Redskins, you should be happy about that prospect. I'm not saying guarenteed contracts but if there is no salary cap, I do not like the idea of teams just throwing money around to "buy" a championship, ala the Yankees (even if they can't be successful). Whether there is or isn't a cap in the future, I don't want teams to throw out money to buy a bunch of star players. I do realize with Gibbs, he isn't going to go after star players at every position but only when he sees a good character guy that fits in his system. But other teams may take advantage of the uncapped years and go after every star player and it'll become a league of a few teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shadowplay Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Not the players, not the owners, but us, the fans. If a CBA is not reached we are the ones that will be hurt the most, and in different ways.The first is if we do go to an uncapped year, then most likely that will be the end of the salary cap. It will be very hard for the players to want to be in a deal that hurts their ability to make $$. If teams then do start spending like crazy then the fans will feel the wrath. Prices at games will go up, food, drinks, tickets. etc... we will be the ones paying the most in the long run. I am shocked the NFL owners would let such a good thing end, without an extension then all will change. No one knows what to expect, it is easy to say it will be like the 80's and 90's but we just do not know right now. Ok, this is like the argument about doing it for the kids......Go sell crazy to someone else. The NFL as does every other professional league puts their members interests in front of everything else, that includes us fans. We are already getting screwed in most areas (been to a game lately?). I'm not going to care one iota if there is labor unrest. First of all it's about time, you CANNOT point to one league that has had labor strife and then came out of it better than before. The fans aren't going to suffer any more than they already have. They are already used to seeing guys come and go. This whole idea of a salary cap is complete baloney. I would love to go out and buy a jersey and KNOW that the guy is going to be with the team for the next ten years. Every year we see guys get cut or players go to other teams because we can't sign them. I don't see why Dan or any other owner should have to go out and give out more money to other owners that don't have the ingenuity or resources to get new revenue streams. As long as there is a collective TV contract I don't think any owner should complain. The players shouldn't either. It translates into better marketing opportunities for them, better faciliities and probably a better lifestyle. I don't see players giving money to owners when they sign a shoe contract. With all this so called parity that the cap brings, the Patriots have won three Super Bowls in the past five years. The Steelers, Colts, Panthers and Eagles are good just about every year. Meanwhile everyone complains about the "have's and have nots" in baseball. How many times have the Yankees won the World Series since 2000? Where were the White Sox on everyone's preseason prediction list? Give me baseball's idea of revenue sharing any day. Next, this whole thing is going to work out for the Redskins. I totally believe that. If I'm a fan, I'll take the pain now because I think Joe and Danny are going to turn this thing into a great opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimpy007 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Problem is, what about fans of less fortunate teams Not our problem :nana: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimpy007 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Honestly guys I must admit that I am excited to see the league go back to the old days. I miss watching my favorite players play together for 5 - 10 years if not longer. I miss watching young players develop into great players. And most of all, I miss the rivalries between teams. Remember the good ol' days when the Redskins and Cowgirls were ready to kill each other? The rivalry in a capped NFL is between the fans and not the players. It will be nice to watch MNF and see a pre-game promo about the rivalry that actually means something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant15fromNJ Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 This is messed up they are going at it this game is all about the fans and should be some players might think about it just as a job and not really caring about winning or losing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illone Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Honestly guys I must admit that I am excited to see the league go back to the old days. I miss watching my favorite players play together for 5 - 10 years if not longer. I miss watching young players develop into great players. And most of all, I miss the rivalries between teams. Remember the good ol' days when the Redskins and Cowgirls were ready to kill each other? The rivalry in a capped NFL is between the fans and not the players. It will be nice to watch MNF and see a pre-game promo about the rivalry that actually means something. :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 Honestly guys I must admit that I am excited to see the league go back to the old days. I miss watching my favorite players play together for 5 - 10 years if not longer. I miss watching young players develop into great players. And most of all, I miss the rivalries between teams. Remember the good ol' days when the Redskins and Cowgirls were ready to kill each other? The rivalry in a capped NFL is between the fans and not the players. It will be nice to watch MNF and see a pre-game promo about the rivalry that actually means something. This also means we have to get better in the draft and will not be able to think free agency can fix it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Honestly guys I must admit that I am excited to see the league go back to the old days. I miss watching my favorite players play together for 5 - 10 years if not longer. I miss watching young players develop into great players. And most of all, I miss the rivalries between teams. Remember the good ol' days when the Redskins and Cowgirls were ready to kill each other? The rivalry in a capped NFL is between the fans and not the players. It will be nice to watch MNF and see a pre-game promo about the rivalry that actually means something. For you and I that is great, Think about how the average football fan in San Diego will feel. How about the football fan in Idaho, if there allegiance is to the sport and not so much one team they will start to fade. Less Jerseys will be sold, tv ratings will drop, gross revenue across all teams will slide. Only the players on the big 9 will make real big money. The NFLPA will still be around. They will start to *****. Football will go on strike because there will be a common bond between the "have not" teams and the "have not" players. Ultimately the NFL will go on strike again. This new wave of doing things the old way will only work temporarily. My point is that the product today is better than the product will be if we go uncapped and eventually slide into a labor lockout. Sometimes you have to see the whole picture and the whole picture shows that an uncapped NFL in this day and age of monetary inflation and greed will not be as successful as an NFL with a cap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Honestly guys I must admit that I am excited to see the league go back to the old days. Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are not going back to the old days. Free agency is here to stay, and players will change teams on a regular basis still. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish50 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I don't care about other teams, citys or thier fans. All I care about are the Washington Redskins. Without a CBA extension, the Redskins will come out of this smelling sweet in the long run. So if you really are a Redskin fan, do you want the CBA extended? Not me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingfish50 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 For you and I that is great, Think about how the average football fan in San Diego will feel. How about the football fan in Idaho, if there allegiance is to the sport and not so much one team they will start to fade. Less Jerseys will be sold, tv ratings will drop, gross revenue across all teams will slide. Only the players on the big 9 will make real big money. The NFLPA will still be around. They will start to *****. Football will go on strike because there will be a common bond between the "have not" teams and the "have not" players. Ultimately the NFL will go on strike again. This new wave of doing things the old way will only work temporarily. My point is that the product today is better than the product will be if we go uncapped and eventually slide into a labor lockout. Sometimes you have to see the whole picture and the whole picture shows that an uncapped NFL in this day and age of monetary inflation and greed will not be as successful as an NFL with a cap. Your completely wrong. First, I could give two cents about how some guy in Idaho feels. Sales of team jerseys will actually go up because a player will probably stay for a few years. And what about the average football fan in San Diego? Do you really believe the owners of these teams can't afford to spend some money for good talent? This whole CBA deal only benefits the teams that do not want invest in thier team (only themselves). The whole cap system is nothing but WELFARE. That's it. Plain and simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gimpy007 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Sorry to burst your bubble, but we are not going back to the old days. Free agency is here to stay, and players will change teams on a regular basis still.Jason But you must remember that players will not be consider free agents until their 6th year. Also with no cap it will be much easier to match another offer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theposse Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Wow - I can't believe how many people are actually excited about this. Regarding the notion that somehow guys are going to start staying with the same team for 10-12 years again routinely - that makes no sense. There would be bidding wars for the best guys and there would be possibly even less reason for a guy to feel loyal to one team. With every team facing the cap, nobody can afford to just go completely overboard in what they offer any one guy. Without the cap - that's no longer holding back the owners like Snyder from going after the best guys only, and then after getting a few great years from them - moving on to the new best thing out there. Everyone seems to be making the free market/welfare comparison - but yet in the free-market system you somehow think there's going to be more team loyalty? No - it's going to be even more about business than it already is. And you're thinking guys will want to stay with the Redskins because Snyder will offer so much money? But why would Snyder stay with them when there's a new guy who's 5 years younger and a little bit faster/stronger, and Jerry Jones just got 5 new expensive FAs to replace his older guys and Snyder's obviously got to keep up with the Joneses (or ahead of them). Secondly - the notion that the Redskins are going to be one of the best teams now all the time because Snyder will pay as much or more than anyone. While this is better than having an owner who will put us at a great disadvantage, I don't want a built-in-advantage for my team. After years of struggle we are finally coming around and getting it right in the existing system, and now we're ready to give that up? I compare this to a high-school team deciding that they'd rather play Junior HS teams - and therefore winning all the time. Where's the challenge in that? Probably few people here follow British Premiere League Soccer - but this year's season was over about 1/3 of the way in because it is clear that Chelsea is just far superior to everyone else because they spend a ton more than anyone else. It's even worse than major league baseball in that league. I honestly can not see that it's that thrilling to be a Chelsea fan right now - because even though the last 2 years are unprecedented for them - it's basically like they brought in an all-star team to compete against regular teams. Sure it's fun to see your team winning, but it's got to be kind of a hollow victory, and it is certainly not the same guys you had on the team for years and consistently rooted for. I'm sure the NFL system could be improved, but it is working very well now. The Patriots won 3 of 4 Super Bowls, and there is no reason they won't continue to contend in the years to come. You can be a consistent winner in this league - it's just harder than it used to be. But hard is good! It's much more satisfying to win in a challenging league with 31 teams you're competing with. Not one where there's only about 10 who have a real chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinstzar Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Wow - I can't believe how many people are actually excited about this.Regarding the notion that somehow guys are going to start staying with the same team for 10-12 years again routinely - that makes no sense. There would be bidding wars for the best guys and there would be possibly even less reason for a guy to feel loyal to one team. With every team facing the cap, nobody can afford to just go completely overboard in what they offer any one guy. Without the cap - that's no longer holding back the owners like Snyder from going after the best guys only, and then after getting a few great years from them - moving on to the new best thing out there. Everyone seems to be making the free market/welfare comparison - but yet in the free-market system you somehow think there's going to be more team loyalty? No - it's going to be even more about business than it already is. And you're thinking guys will want to stay with the Redskins because Snyder will offer so much money? But why would Snyder stay with them when there's a new guy who's 5 years younger and a little bit faster/stronger, and Jerry Jones just got 5 new expensive FAs to replace his older guys and Snyder's obviously got to keep up with the Joneses (or ahead of them). Secondly - the notion that the Redskins are going to be one of the best teams now all the time because Snyder will pay as much or more than anyone. While this is better than having an owner who will put us at a great disadvantage, I don't want a built-in-advantage for my team. After years of struggle we are finally coming around and getting it right in the existing system, and now we're ready to give that up? I compare this to a high-school team deciding that they'd rather play Junior HS teams - and therefore winning all the time. Where's the challenge in that? Probably few people here follow British Premiere League Soccer - but this year's season was over about 1/3 of the way in because it is clear that Chelsea is just far superior to everyone else because they spend a ton more than anyone else. It's even worse than major league baseball in that league. I honestly can not see that it's that thrilling to be a Chelsea fan right now - because even though the last 2 years are unprecedented for them - it's basically like they brought in an all-star team to compete against regular teams. Sure it's fun to see your team winning, but it's got to be kind of a hollow victory, and it is certainly not the same guys you had on the team for years and consistently rooted for. I'm sure the NFL system could be improved, but it is working very well now. The Patriots won 3 of 4 Super Bowls, and there is no reason they won't continue to contend in the years to come. You can be a consistent winner in this league - it's just harder than it used to be. But hard is good! It's much more satisfying to win in a challenging league with 31 teams you're competing with. Not one where there's only about 10 who have a real chance. I agree with you. Joe Gibbs has shown this organization how to win in the salary cap era, which is good for the game and the league as a whole. Why do we want to go to a system where the competition will be weak? I don't want to see any 10 year 284 million dollar contracts in the NFL. I go to the games as a paying customer. I want to keep the beers at 7 bucks a pop. I'm finally starting to get my cake and be able to eat it. As I say this, I do see the point that is being made by Art and others. So I am still just as confused as I was this morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD Riggo Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Personally I think the 'grandeur' of the Skins/Cowboys rivalry came from the fact that the same players were on each team year after year. I remember as a kid truly hating the Cowboy players. Now, I hate them because of the color of the helmet they are wearing, not because of who they are and the history of their play. Agreed. I remember hating, year after year, the name "Staubach." Now, ol' Rog was a great guy personally, but he was the damned enemy, and thus I despised him. Same with Ed "Too Tall" Jones, Tony Dorsett, etc. In those days, you knew the entire roster of those despised Crackgirlz, because other than retirement, they were the same team for years. Today, about the only Girl *I* know is Santana's beeyotch, Roy Williams! I couldn't name more than three "current" Crackgirlz! I say: Salary cap .. don't let the door hit ya! Let's go back to the heated rivalries that once was Redskins football! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 But you must remember that players will not be consider free agents until their 6th year. Also with no cap it will be much easier to match another offer. Just for 2007. You have no idea what things are going to be like after that. Don't think that it is going to stay like that in 2008. Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCsportsfan53 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Wow - I can't believe how many people are actually excited about this.Regarding the notion that somehow guys are going to start staying with the same team for 10-12 years again routinely - that makes no sense. There would be bidding wars for the best guys and there would be possibly even less reason for a guy to feel loyal to one team. With every team facing the cap, nobody can afford to just go completely overboard in what they offer any one guy. Without the cap - that's no longer holding back the owners like Snyder from going after the best guys only, and then after getting a few great years from them - moving on to the new best thing out there. Everyone seems to be making the free market/welfare comparison - but yet in the free-market system you somehow think there's going to be more team loyalty? No - it's going to be even more about business than it already is. And you're thinking guys will want to stay with the Redskins because Snyder will offer so much money? But why would Snyder stay with them when there's a new guy who's 5 years younger and a little bit faster/stronger, and Jerry Jones just got 5 new expensive FAs to replace his older guys and Snyder's obviously got to keep up with the Joneses (or ahead of them). QUOTE] You're missing part of the equation. First of all, the extra 2 years before a player is allowed to be a free agent would shrink the pool of players in FA. Furthermore, we would no longer see teams letting an older veteran go because of his escalating cap figure (think last year, if there was no cap, AP and Smoot would still be here and the same would be true for lots of players) which further shrinks the FA pool. Another example, you don't think that Marcus Washington, Mike Peterson and all the other good defensive players would still be on the Colts if they didn't have to worry about the cap? That's what I'm talking about, you won't see teams releasing good players or letting them hit free agency if there aren't cap ramifications. Also, I'm not saying Synder will go out and buy 06's Pro Bowl roster but, without a cap, Gibbs can have Synder get any player he desires. I would think that would mean our team would have very few holes and excellent depth at all positions (just like Gibbs' first tenure, it was character and depth that won, not a gluttony of star players). It's just that we've all seen what Gibbs can do when he has the ability to pick and choose his players with no regard for a salary cap and I'd argue that with Synder, he's even more likely to get everyone he wants than with Cooke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.